Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Amanda Palmer]

new blog
why i am not afraid to take your money, by amanda fucking palmer
read it at amandapalmer.net (or here on myspace)

(please be sure to share this with your friends, on your Twitter, on your Facebook, etc...you can user the shortened URL http://bit.ly/blog092909 if that'll help)

[SeeAnne]

Gurl, I got cho back.

[Shanneeen]

so i've already posted this on the blog but i just feel like putting it here too..
i said..
AMEN. you're so honest about why you do what you do. this makes you my hero.. you have no shame in telling the truth. thank you. fuck the critics that don't see what you're doing for artists. i love that you stand up for whats right and you don't have your fans follow you blindly. i love you and what you're doing for artists.

[Rob]

Amen girl. 

Get what you got coming to you.

take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the [artist] is worth [her] keep.  Mathew 10:10 (sort of)
 

[Bad Kitty]

amen.. aman..da.

da da da.



cut out the meddling middlemen! we don't need no stinkin middles! (unless we're talking bellies.. in which case, yay middles!)

*throws cash*

[Kovacs]

First off, I completely agree with the asking fans for money. As a music lover, I see it everywhere, and encourage it. I love it. Music is getting more personal, more intimate. The era of the minstril is returning. I fully support everything you do in these matters. That being said, the rest is a devil's advocate position, with the intention of helping you gather information to perfect the new model, if the information is needed.



The auctions bothered me, and it took me a while to figure out why. Eventually I realized I just didn't like the idea of people paying THAT much money for those things. That crosses a line in my book (a line in that I would question their priorities). Yes, that's a judgment, and yes, people can do what they want with their money. They weren't forced. This is a purely personal tastes thing, and once I realized that I forgot about any hangups.

But.

Putting the auctions in terms of the rest of the blog, this isn't asking every fan for money (a 10-dollar-entry webcast would be that, which I highly encourage you to do). These auctions profit off of the fanatic and not the fan.

This is 10-20 people spending a whole lot of money. And they adore you. They will do things for you and probably not necessarily realize the repercussions. This is not your fault or responsibility (debateable for some people, though that's a moral grey area), but it is what is happening.

Amanda, asking the fans for money its something that is true, and everyone will have to get used to it if they continue to sample an artists content for free. I think you have been extremely astute in predicting this.

In these auctions, specifically, you're profiting off of the fanatics, tapping into (what I percieve as) a personal vulnerability in your fan base, their adoration. Credit where credit is due, you deserve this adoration, I've never seen an artist give so much back.

But, it borders exploitation, despite them doing it willingly. You say that Ticketmaster, Roadrunner, etc have been "shamelessly raping both fan and artist for years". Be careful, these auctions are bordering on comparable.



Do you want to pave the way in new ways to ask the fans for money, or profit from the fanatic?

[abruptdogma]

i would rather give you my money than labels. nuff said.

[Haushinka]

Kovacs already put into words what I wanted to say.

[slyvia k]

I partially agree with Kovacs post, but then again, I'm not really keen on the distinction between fan and fanatics. This makes them look like mentally ill people.
I personally wouldn't buy Amanda's used dildo for a shitload of money, but I doubt anyone has gone bankrupt for having bought it. I think they just can afford it, and see it as just another way of supporting Amanda. IMO they're well aware of what they're doing, and not a bunch of sheeps that Amanda might risk 'exploiting'.

[Orlagh]

I do see what you mean Kovacs. However, 'the fanatics', as you call them, who buy these items are the people to whom these items mean the most. While they do on occasion end up spending a lot of money on them, that is their call in securing the item that they want so badly. These things are one-off and will end up with one-off price tags. Everyone who bids is consenting, knows what they are getting and to whom there money is going. I don't think you can really criticize as long as all parties are happy.

In terms of a paid entry webcast. I personally don't have a bank account, and wouldn't necesssarily be able to afford to pay entry at the time of the webcast and I assume the situation would be the same for many fans. While I have saved and bought CDs, tshirts, posters etc. in the past. I don't feel it would be right to only allow those with money to view content like a webcast. Particularly as it is free to create and online, it would be like a fee for following AFP on twitter. That, and the admin for something like that would be a bitch.


In any case, I would alway rather know that all profit is going directly to AFP and those who matter and work hard. Patronage is how music is to survive. As a fan, I feel quite lucky that our Amanda has chosen to be one of very few spearheading this initiative (nakedly with ukulele case in tow)...  

[MeAndMyCharms]

I can see where Kovacs is coming from, sort of, but I don't agree that what Amanda is doing is exploiting anybody. Or even comes close to it. I think more credit needs to be given to the people that have taken part in these auctions and purchased whatever items took their fancy. I personally haven't, but I would probably be slightly offended if I had, and was then lumped as a crazy fanatic.
I think a lot of people will do this, not because they are crazy weirdos, but because this is their way of saying thanks and giving something back, and getting a little piece of their favourite musician in return. I used the webcast to get my WKAP dvd for $25. Not because I really wanted the signature or anything, but because I knew that Amanda would benefit much more from me buying that one rather than the incredibly cheap non-signed version.

Pink recently did a string of 50 billion shows in Australia, and the price of her merchandise was off the charts. I heard to get a hoodie it was about $170, and the cheapest tickets to see her were no less than $100. Nobody accused her of exploiting fans or taking advantage of fanatics. It was just expected.
The only difference I see is Pink wasn't standing behind that merch table, taking the cash personally from everybody.

I guess I just find the criticism really unfair. It's not very often you get to see an amazing artist for only about $30. Plus on top of that, all the free shows and Pirate and/or Ninja gatherings, whatever the hell they are called (you know, those things with the ukes, cakes and signings), that come along in between shows.
Having things like these auctions, where a small select group of people who have the $$ and are willing to part with it for the cause, will continue to help keep future ticket and merch prices down.

I'm all for embracing this kind of shit. I hope the criticism doesn't make Amanda think twice before doing random things like this again.

Fuck that.

[Musings]

First of all, I kind of missed blogs like this.

The blogs of late have been... not soulless, but not particularly challenging or emotionally grabbing, either, like the first blogs were.  Not things I thought about after reading.

I think that's the difference between a webcast that is auction-based and a webcast that is not.  One is more about Amanda and the other is more about Amanda selling things.  I was pretty utterly bored with the other webcast (I fastforwarded and watched bits and pieces, afterwards) until goats came into the picture because that's Amanda.

Which is in some ways an unfair distinction to make, because how often do we get to experience an artist outside of selling things?  Most people sell CDs and have concerts, and that's it.  But that's probably my main issue with the webcasts -- when it starts feeling like a business, I go and watch something else instead.

While I understand Kovacs's stance about fanatics and explotation, what makes a fan who buys x for however much money different than a fan who pays, yes, exorbitant prices for front seat tickets or even travels far to go.  I value certain things, and quite honestly, my pride wouldn't allow me to pay a higher price for something I buy from a store just because a rockstar once owned it or even signed it.  Any rockstar.  Any other person.  I'd rather donate money directly (if I had it), buy art and the experience of art, buy merch -- but the idea that whatever wine bottle is so much more amazing because Amanda once drank out of it -- no way. 

It really depends why people are buying what they are buying.  Are they buying because ZOMG AMANDA HELD IT IN HER HANDS?  That's the basis of all celebrity memoribilia, isn't it, whether it's a signed CD or a signed football?  And while I don't particularly understand it, it's not my place to judge the people who have enough money to do it.  I buy other things that they wouldn't necessarily buy, because I place a higher value on them. 

There's a freedom of choice.  Unless these are all kids with their parents' credit cards or addicted shopaholics, they can do what they want.  We should probably have an informal poll to see how much people regret their purchases a few days after the webcast (but I'm sure it's no more or less than any other impulse/large random buy).

And it's less exploitation than Roadrunner or Ticketmaster because at least you know, ok, I am paying exactly for this item, and all money is going to this person.  Instead of "I am paying for this item + these fees + these fees" and "where is the money going again?"

And if they are buying because, like in the NPR sense, they are donating and they happen to get this cool item that comes along, that's awesome.  And I honestly don't know which of these things are happening, although I pretty much guarantee that anyone who is pressed on it will give you the last answer.

edit: Kovacs, I just reread what you wrote and realized I didn't exactly address what you said at all, in terms of the paying $10 to see the webcast as opposed to the few people paying lots of money.  Let me think a bit.

[stallionbreaker]

I agree with bits and pieces of what each of you has said so far.

I think that when it comes down to TALKING about money and how much was made from whatever, it needs to be done. When Amanda says "I made roughly $10,000 on my last webcast," I think, "Fuck yeah you did. Right on!" I know that before Amanda started talking about it and drawing attention to it, I didn't know how artists got (or didn't get) their money, and I assumed it all shook out in the end. Now I do pay attention to where I'm getting things, and I'm happy to donate what I can to artists I enjoy especially if they ASK for donations. I think the asking is necessary at this point because it might not occur to people attending that they could give money, as someone in the comments on the blog page said, to say "Do it again."

Regarding the webcast auctions, ultimately we don't know who the people are who bid on the items, or the story of why they've chosen to bid on whatever it is for whatever they're willing to pay. That leaves me in no position to judge them just because I might not make the same choices. I'm glad they're willing and able to support Amanda in a way that I don't have the money to do. I really LIKE that there is no set price on the webcast items or the ninja gigs or &c so that people can give as they can. I would gladly throw $10 or more into the virtual wine glass for a webcast, but I also understand that there are people who are not in a position to do so. One of the reasons I don't bid on the items is that I don't really want the items themselves. I'm not big on stuff or on autographs or on having something that was touched/nommed/deep throated by someone I admire. What I'm big on is connection, interaction, and performance. I like feeling like I've spent the evening hanging out with Amanda, Beth, and [several hundred] other people of similar mind.

As an aside, I feel that Amanda's doing her part to look out for us, as she is willing to do things like make a show 16+ instead of 18+, or like keeping ticket prices FAR lower than other artists who have a fanbase(cottage?) the size of hers. She could potentially make more money per ticket (though there's math in there as to how many fewer tickets would sell if you exclude the under 18 set that is too fluid for my brain), but she consciously doesn't do that.

[The Angel Raliel]

any system that is more honestly about giving artists funding is ok by me..... why is it ok for a painter to sell work directly and not a musician or writer? the middle men are rapidly starting to become redundant in this society and it is about time they realised that they can no longer expect artists to give them money for stuff that they no longer really provide!

[Pelle]

While reading all the reactions I was thinking about this; How many times haven't you seen/read/heard about an item of a (once famous now deceased) artist, which is sold for way too much money, because of the emotional value?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Natural-Eleca-Guitar-signed-by-eight-legends-of-rock_W0QQitemZ260482327149QQcmdZViewItemQQptZGuitar?hash=item3ca5f4e26d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m144

Most of the time it's someone who knows quite well that the presented item has a high value for fans of said artist.

Now the artist is doing this.

What's the difference once again?

The middlemen.