Why has nobody solved the direct-to-consumer model for musicians yet? Substack is doing quite well for writers, but the same, broken incentive model exists for musicians and large music label companies as it does for writers and media organizations. There were certainly contenders - SoundCloud, Spotify, Napster. However, they all failed either through signing the wrong contracts, failing to find a profitable business model or failing to comply with the law. The fundamental problem of delivering music to targeted listeners is still a huge problem for any musician today. Music seems like a perfect market to adopt the direct-to-consumer model. For one, there’s tons of genres out there. People like all types of sounds. The next question is whether these niche genres are under-developed due to funding pressures, which is probably true. Eventually, everyone will get rich or die trying if ads revenues driven by mass viewership is the only incentive model out there. Even with Spotify, the subscription model is not sustainable for an artist that wants write music that happens to cater to a few thousand listeners.

Some open questions to truly understand whether music has the same underlying structure as writing for this model adoption to work:

1. Are there audiences that would find large utility gains from being able to consume highly-developed niche genres? For example, Ben Thompson develops niche technology business strategy content that is highly valuable to folks in technology to the point where he has become a meme (a valuable one nonetheless in the same way physics textbooks are). Thompson’s content is inspiration for thought to improve the value of people’s businesses. There is a financial incentive to listen to him. Can there be an equally strong emotional incentive for certain types of music? For instance, I am a huge fan of the era of old Coldplay and John Mayer albums (Room for Squares, Parachute, Heavier Things), and if someone were to bring back that type of music, I’d certainly pay for it. Of course, I’d want them to develop as an artist and be able to play what they desire at that moment, but I’d want them to play whatever they wanted while being able to make a decent living. They should not have to choose between staying true to their craft or having a financially stable life. Plus, the pop music market itself is a niche that is inclined for some types of artists and not others. There is nothing wrong with pursuing pop music in the same way writing for the The Daily Beast doesn’t necessarily mean writing clickbait. However, when an artist is driven by a mass viewership model, it interferes with the authenticity of the craft.
2. Does music have to have the same frequency as writing content? Unlike writing, music is generally more spontaneous and out-of-the-blue. Even if an artist produced 4 songs a month (1 song/ week), is that enough for you to pay $10-$20 a month? Maybe, maybe not but it’s certainly a much higher cost without a guaranteed return than prior models like iTunes or Spotify. The difference in this case, I suppose, is that you’re supporting work driven through an incentive model that supports niche content.