Comments on Fingertips: New Fingertips Commentary: Farewell to the Casual ...

I am a casual fan and I sift through flotsam to pu...

2009-12-02T21:14:58.484-05:00

I am a casual fan and I sift through flotsam to purchase the odd tune here, and listen to the song there, and if they come to play here, I might like to go.
But I think I am only capable of being a casual fan because they are out there with their websites and tunes and offers and whatnotblahblah.

I just posted my own blog post that incorporates a...

2009-11-17T15:36:37.289-05:00

I just posted my own blog post that incorporates a thought from this one.

http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/11/thoughts-on-groupies.html

My first impression was about the summit you atten...

2009-11-16T02:02:14.764-05:00

My first impression was about the summit you attended because it seemed like the people leading the discussions were further away from fans/public/audience than the people attending.

Music is not about making money. It's about music - that you love. Remember the phrase that predicts "everyone will have 15 minutes of fame"? Well look at reality shows to You Tube to TPain's iPhone app 'You Too Can Sing'.

Just like the way of the dinosaur, Atari and cassettes, it's all doom and gloom once someone has noticed the future has passed you by. Squabbling over the price of music has already lost an entire generation to gaming.

I can't think of any other time in my (too long) life that there has been so many choices in music - VERY good choices - that I have no hope of ever staying current enough to have heard even half of them. I love it. To my ears, the music industry has never been healthier.

You know, when I was in college, there wasn't a chance in ____ that I'd own a $300 music player filled with >$5k worth of songs. What was typical was owning a handful of albums that were traded for at the local used store. So while some have lost ground (the 'super-fan'?) has been made up with hearing more than ever and expecting it to be accessible; the whole cd or just that one song.

That almost reminds me of the way music used to be before pay to play on the radio. It seemed as if every garage had a band in the 60's. In a perfect world, the 'cream' made it to the top. But as I re-listen to some of the one hit wonders, that probably wasn't true.

The ones who did make "it" did so because they were satisfying their soul and they got exposure. Just exposure. Not working or manipulating some site, paying for bot hits, or whatever. Fans aren't play dough. Do what you like and if no one else likes it, well - did you enjoy yourself and isn't that the point?

Music is a personal experience. There is no amount of marketing that's going to create a "fan" based on advertising, tshirts, no matter how many versions of the same song is recorded.

Can you imagine waiting anticipating the next album for 7 years and when it arrives, even though the songs are different, they all sound the same? Oh wait. That happened recently. It was a huge let down. That's what happens when music is created for someone else - like fans.

The position the traditional music industry has taken towards fans has made mainstream music go underground, fractured and out of awareness. Any new technology (usually created by a fan) is met with a lawsuit. Can you imagine if the Rolling Stones hadn't been able to develop using southern blues?

Back in the 60's we had pirate radio to listen to Dylan for political reasons.

And marketing people will never understand that people are buying the music, not the campaign.

Okay, the second half is online now. In retrospect...

2009-11-11T07:53:33.141-05:00

Okay, the second half is online now. In retrospect I'm sorry to have broken it in two, if only because of the comments being divided. Thanks for your patience in dealing with that. Also, I'm getting a bit of email that may ultimately end up in a feedback section on the main site as well. Yikes. But I'm glad to see the discussion.

One note for now: we have perhaps some unavoidable issues of semantics at play here, especially as I think about Ben's comments, and thehuxcapacitor's follow-up. I have been using the phrase "casual fans" simply to describe anyone who does not feel compelled to be engaged ("over-engaged"?) at the so-called "super-fan" level. Amongst that category of casual fan are likely to be people who are indeed quite engaged with the music but still have no interest in interaction. As noted I think in a footnote to the essay on the main site, I consider myself a casual fan, in this way, of just about every musician I listen to.

Not sure if this clarifies or confuses. Onward...

Really interested by Ben Denison's thoughts: "On ...

2009-11-11T06:28:46.746-05:00

Really interested by Ben Denison's thoughts:

"On the contrary, it is my concern that over "engagement" by a band will drive away the super fan. Do you already tire of going to a band site and being asked to engage in some sort of merry fan/band dance, when all you want to do is listen to the music?"

How do we appeal to casual and devoted fans (are these the same people who used to be "early adopters"?) at the same time?

It feels to me that we'd need to adopt a mix of:
Front page listen/buyability as well as a host of "Connect with me" options.

Perhaps this is why twitter can work so well for artists (Amanda Palmer, Imogen Heap, Steve Lawson for example, and in my own personal experience) in that it's a conversational (and geek/fan/tech friendly) environment already, so lends itself well to those already pre-disposed to get more personally involved with an artist.

To concur with Refe too; The pursuit of dedicated fans can't diminish the value of casual fans to an artist, if it's already financially zero. I personally won't be alienating casual fans as you know what, they might have my record on and their friend hears it and they become a dedicated fan. Unintentional, accidental or passive sharing if you like.

Non-Warning: passive sharing can't damage your wealth [wink]

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I fea...

2009-11-10T17:01:32.205-05:00

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I fear my sensitivity over having a post that was "too long" has potentially weakened the overall argument. Thanks for your patience; the second part will arrive tomorrow. The entire thing, as noted, is available already on the main Fingertips site for those who are okay leaving the 'feed' environment.

I've been working on this blog post for awhile, bu...

2009-11-10T16:50:01.962-05:00

I've been working on this blog post for awhile, but just published it about a two hours ago. Since it relates to the above topic, I'll toss it out.

Involving Music Fans at Many Levels

Thanks for a well structured and thought provoking...

2009-11-10T04:38:32.214-05:00

Thanks for a well structured and thought provoking read.

I agree totally that a swing too far towards the "engagement" approach could potentially alienate a proportion of an artists fan base, however I dont see any evidence in your argument as to why it would be the "casual fan" who would be driven away although you say it "inherently" would be. Maybe you will expand further in part 2. I personally would be very surprised if the "casual fan" would even be aware of the contemporary engagement activities being applied at the moment.

On the contrary, it is my concern that over "engagement" by a band will drive away the super fan. Do you already tire of going to a band site and being asked to engage in some sort of merry fan/band dance, when all you want to do is listen to the music?

The important thing for bands to remember is that any engagement strategies/activities need to be appropriate and cater for both casual and super fans, and themselves.

As far as I can see there is already evidence that over engagement has already generated a niche as super fans are seeking bands such as Islet that dont even have a website/myspace/bandcamp for the exclusivity and mystique factor.

Interesting read. Thanks.

I agree with refe that creating a niche in terms o...

2009-11-10T00:21:47.456-05:00

I agree with refe that creating a niche in terms of customers is not always a bad thing.

One thing is for sure, that stardom with champagne, private planes and all that, won't be part of being a "star" anymore.

The profession is simply scaling down, as many other professions have had in the past.

While you do make some good points (and I like to ...

2009-11-09T22:08:59.722-05:00

While you do make some good points (and I like to support any commentary that questions the popular ideas of the moment) I think your method of analysis is a bit off.

Basically what you've done is to take these ideas and their consequences to the extreme and work backwards. You say that if an artist puts too much focus on cultivating 'super-fans' they may alienate casual fans and drive them out of rock and roll (and into jazz? Polka?), therefore the 1,000 true fans concept will have a negative impact on music and culture.

I don't disagree that some of the consequences you laid out in this post are possible, but I do disagree that this somehow means that the pursuit of die-hard fans is bad or wrong.

Artists have always tried to cultivate die-hard fans. Kevin Kelly just gave it a name and made it a somewhat measurable goal. Some bands, particularly underground acts, have even deliberately alienated casual listeners in order to strengthen their core fan base. This didn't shrink the pool of music listeners - it just caused some of those casual fans to migrate to other artists.

Also, I disagree that the pursuit of true fans will somehow drive casual fans out of rock and roll. Casual fans don’t stop listening to music - they just stop paying for it. And they’ve already stopped paying for it. The recent focus on fan-engagement is not causing this - it’s responding to it.

Besides, when a mature band sets out to engage their ‘true’ fans, I don’t believe that the alienation of casual fans is inevitable. A skilled artist can learn navigate both relationships.