and like i said you think it a lottery because your to stupid to know how it works

It really not that hard

calculate your money per view on youtube/filelockers

buy views that are cheaper than that level

worst case senerio you break even (earn as much as you spend)

best case a tiny portion will like the content you given them for free and will pay you full price /part price for your shit.

Even the worst case your pocketing money Equal to what you got from the kickstarter campaign

best case your pocketing a shit load more.

Fine-looking Ilocana/Hawaiian nice:thumbsup

Like I said. . . it is a lottery ticket.

Assuming she has the worst case scenario as you present it (which likely is not as easy as you portray it) and she makes $77K off this record. After she pays her taxes she will have around $50K left. That is a nice chunk of cash. She lives in New York (according to her Kickstarter profile) so that $50K likely won't last her long. Even if she stretches it out over a year it is still just one year and now she has to worry about doing it again.

Assume she gets lucky and she makes 5 times that much. Great so she makes $350K. After taxes she will have around $225K. That is assuming she isn't paying an accountant, a lawyer or anything else. That is very good money. That puts her in the top 1% of earners in this country. Be honest. . .what are the odds of that happening? Even if it does happen what are the odds of it happening more than once because that $225K isn't going to last forever.

The overwhelming odds are that 5 years from now Julia will be doing something else for a living. That isn't a terrible tragedy. If she has some success (which in a way she already has) she has done more than most people will ever do in the music business. She can look back on the good memories and enjoy them. But the odds of her taking that $77K and turning it into something that can launch a career that can last for a very long time are very VERY low. Like I said, I hope she does it, but I am a realist. I worked for a record label for 3 years. 99% of bands/musicians fail in the long term. it is just how it works.

your artbitrage theory is so simplistic and leaves out so many variables that it shows that there is no way you have tested this irl.

this is kiddy internet marketing shit people come up with the first week the realize they can make money online.

i told you what to do for free

I get paid to tell you How to do it


That the fucking point of the model, give the non scarce away for free

sell the scarce at a huge premium.

or she could just repeat the process with again next year with a new album

of course that assuming as your doing that she sit on her ass for the remaining 11 months, instead of leveraging the new/existing fan base to make money from touring.

http://i.imgur.com/PTkVT.jpg





except that the signed recording artist needs to sell 7,000,000 dollars of albums to make that level given the current contracts.

and it no where close to the biggest it just happens to be one that fits the model i talked about

btw the short career issue is not as much of a problem for these "internet artist" because they don't have to sell so much shit to make the money they do.

I totally agree with what you're saying here...but I was wondering how it applies to you. You don't really make anything do you? But you're just saying that other people, who actually make things can try this stuff. I get it.

As I said above it all depends on what your definition of success is. If making enough money to survive and pay your bills is success then she has a shot at it. If success means making millions and having a long lasting career then the odds are against her.

According to your chart she will need to spend about 50% of her time doing live shows. That means traveling and being away from home for long periods of time. How much money would you personally need to make in order to justify being on the road away from your friends and family for 6 months out of the year? Hell, depending on the size of the crowd she might have to be on the road 10 months out of the year to make decent money. It is a life that gets old fast. Most bands I saw break up did so because the grind of going out to play live and promote themselves broke them down.

As I said before she seems to be in a position to make some money, but unless she gets lucky and is one of the few who strikes it big she will have to repeat this model over and over again and again year in and year out. How many good albums does she have in her? how long can she keep on the road 6 months out of the year before she finally says fuck it and gets a different job? How long does she grind it out without big success before she throws in the towel and moves on?

I'm not making this an argument of record label VS internet artist. I am just pointing out that the odds are very much against her and it seems that you refuse to admit that.

He claims that he teaches people how to do this for a fee. . . feel free to ask him for proof that he has ever thought anyone how to do this or that he has ever made a dime doing this. I'm sure he will be happy to show proof. Gideon is very good at backing up his claims with proof. :upsidedow

how the fuck did you get from a chart that documenting INCOME

maybe you should learn how to read data before your talking out of your ass.

That the percentage of income they make not the time they spend.


zoe keating has repeatedly talked about how family friendly her touring schedule is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%AB_Keating



the odds are against every single musician out there

the signed musician earns less then 7k per year

most have to get second jobs in the food industry to survive.

Your problem is that you discredit every success on this side of the equation as not being good enough.

a signed artist would have to sell $1,760,000 of music to match the success level of this girl. and all the artist who failed to do that will be forced to work for no money on their next 5 albums until they pay it back.

At long last you finally agree with the point I have been trying to make all along which is that making it in the music business is very difficult. That means having one project funded on kickstarter does not mean she is going to go on to fame and fortune. Maybe she will, but the odds are better that she will win the lottery. Hence, as I said before, her kickstart deal is basically her lotter ticket just like a record contract for another band might be theirs.

I am not discounting kickstarter success, I am simply saying it is does not mean that someone is going to be a huge success.

So again you bald face lie



i said
That a clear declaration of how hard it is to succeed

produce crap and you will die faster then ever.

you replied with


your claiming that the equation has flipped that it now harder to get noticed (at least get noticed to the point where you actually make some money and have success)"

And that statement is bullshit

It way easier for a movie to get made now because the gatekeepers no longer dictate who has a right to show up in the film festivals

When clerks aired at sun dance it was the only non studio film that got airing time.

This year 10% of all the movies were kickstarter funded.

One crowd sourcing company is responsible for 37 times the number of independent movies getting shown at sundance.

The increased difficulty of getting noticed has not grown in the same speed as the reduction of cost of production.

So over all it way easier to succeed as a independent content producer

now if your a studio who was used to being able to block all those independent self funded films from getting an airing. Your fucked and it is a lot harder

but if your independent film maker who used to be completely denied access to the film festivals and now 10% of all the films are independents like your it gotten easier.

0 to fucking 37 is an increase.

and your bullshit argument against that fact is what i was objecting too

You need to relax a little bit. I know you hate me and so as soon as you see my name you turn yourself inside out to prove whatever I am saying wrong, but you are letting that hatred get in the way of what I am actually saying.

My original post in this thread was that Kevin Smith had said these days it is easier to make a film than it was when he made Clerks, but harder to get noticed because of the larger number of films being made. I paraphrased some, but the gist of the argument is there. Kevin is correct in his statement and I was just agreeing with him.

In 2000 the Sundance Film Festival received about 2,500 submissions for consideration by the festival.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ...x.history.html

In 2011 they received 10,279 submissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Su..._Film_Festival

That is a pretty big increase in competition.

The conversation is over. You and I are saying the same thing just in different words.

sword swallower

you know how stupid that sounds? it doesn't even make sense you idiot.

it's easier to make a film now because gatekeepers no longer control who gets into sundance? ha fuck you are screwed in the head man.

you mean you ball face lied about what he said

and your doing it again ignoring the increase in the number of accepted "winner" to make it appear that it harder to get in

since 2000 sundance had every hotel turn every conference room into mini theaters

turn the public library into theaters

add 5 new smaller theaters

and doubled the hours of movie showings.

http://www.sundance.org/festival/film-events/theatres/

over all there are more then 10 times as many movies shown at sun dance then there were 10 years ago.


and there are more categories that you can "win" at.


so you have 4 times as many people competing for 10 times the spots.

That the exact opposite of harder to get in.

the odds of getting in to sundance have gone up not down.

show proof that getting into sundance is easier today than it was in 2000. Don't give me shit about the number of theaters they have or the number of people that attend the festival. Give me hard and true numbers that show proof.

Here are a few numbers taken right from the sundance website.

in 2000 the festival had 16 people, 7 panels, 200 projects, 18 awards
in 2011 the festival had 28 people, 29 panels, 218 projects, 36 awards

So the number of submissions quadrupled, but they only took on 18 more projects.

Another number. in 2011 Sundance had 10,279 submissions. Of those 3,812 were feature length movies. Of those 118 were accepted. That means if you make a feature length movie you have about a 3% chance of actually getting into Sundance.

Using your math this would mean that now there are 10 times as many spots which means that there were only around 12 feature film spots in 2000. Show me proof of that.

seriously are you every going to stop with the bullshit misrepresentations


so when you want to pretend you competition has increase you add in all the categories that didn't exist in 2000, like shorts, animations, foreign films .... when counting the submissions (10,279 - 3,812)

but when i point out all the extra screens that come about as a result of all those extra catagories and the non competition screenings that sundance added to the schedule


sun dance has always been more then just the top picks (your own articles prove that )

and those non-competiting broadcasts have only expanded

pick a side are you talking about the competition (which doubled the number of awards)
and expanded from a national showcase

to an international one

or are we talking about the entire festival with all the dusk till dawn screening, the new frontier screenings etc.

Okay, this will be my last post in this thread. It has, as most Gideon threads, devolved into a useless sludge pile. The bottom line is that you, Gideon, are wrong. Your ego won't let you admit it and I'm not going to continue to spend time trying to convince you. It doesn't matter what I say, you will just change the criteria and speak a bunch of babbling bullshit to try to prove you are correct.

Here are the numbers.

In 2000 there were a total of 963 feature films submitted. Of those 254 of them were international movies. There were a total of 1,928 short films submitted.

In 2011 there were 3,812 total features submitted of which 1,869 were international movies. There were 6,467 short films submitted.

In 2000 the festival accepted 112 features and 65 shorts.
In 2011 the festival accepted 118 features and 81 shorts.

As you can clearly see that between 2000 to 2011 the number of features submitted nearly tripled yet they only have 6 more films accepted. The number of shorts also more than tripled and they only have 16 additional shorts accepted.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the competition has increased.

since you bald face lied about what kevin smith said

let see your proof.

I just told a lie. I am posting one more time in this thread.

I never lied about what he said, I paraphrased and my words were not an exact quote but the gist of what I said is the same thing as what he said.

Nevermind that. Here is the proof you want.

This is where the 2011 data came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Su..._Film_Festival

This is where the 2000 data came from.
http://www.filmfestivals.com/int/in-depth/sundance1.htm

Don't spin shit Gideon. I am only talking about feature films and short films in my post. Sundance may have added other categories in recent years, but that doesn't change the fact that the odds of getting your feature film or short film accepted are now significantly harder.

The bottom line is this. In 2000 if you submitted a feature film you had about an 11% chance of it getting into the festival. In 2011 if you submitted a feature film you had about a 3% chance of it getting accepted. That is the reality.

Also, I know you are going to reply, because you are incapable of being wrong. Just know that this is FOR REAL my last post in this thread. Hockey is coming on that is more entertaining than correcting you.

Who the hell wants to be Kevin Smith??