andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:

>> Because with ebooks, it's easier to self publish than it is for
>> musicians to do so.
>
> It is easier to write a book than to record a demo or album, but the
> publishing is just as easy.

True - I meant the whole process. 

>> Most of the reason we needed publishers was as a means to get our books
>> into stores.
>
> Just as you need the record company to get your record played on a
> radiostation. If it isn't played in general it won't reach the
> shops. Perhaps with the exception of established bands, but there won't
> be a chance to get established.

Yes, but while lots of people buy ebooks after looking at a sample, I'm
not sure many people buy digital music after listening to samples. It's
more a case of hearing it on the radio/TV first. 

>> According to a lot of people, all the marketing they do
>> rarely helps sales.
>
> That might be different indeed for a five minute multiple play and a 2
> days attention span (mostly) single play item.

I meant marketing rarely helps with selling books. I think it helps a
*lot* with music.

> Yes, as it is changing the access to the public for startup bands.

The reason I think music is different is that I don't think many people
buy music they've not heard before - so you still need the leverage to
get on the radio/TV. 

>> The other benefit of publishers is editing, etc.
>
> In short I see hardly a difference. Besides my remark was on the
> financial side. Those that own rights do their best to sell their IP as

I've heard the profit margin with (successful) book publishers is much
lower than in the music business - so I suspect there is a
difference. Don't have actual figures, though.

Post a reply to this message