Please pardon my PE positivity, but damned if this doesn’t sound like a business model that’s built for the future; i.e., love it!!! However, as a potential $25 investor, would it be too much for me to ask Chuck D and Flav if they plan on following Pearl Jam’s MO in the era of Obama or if I should expect more dead-horse beatings in the vein of “Son of a Bush”? I mean, I’d really hate it if the un-cannibal rhyme animal took cues from the current administration and kept pointing the finger backwards on my dime.
Public Enemy are asking fans to raise $250,000 to help them record their new album (this is a new business model, with fans who invest $25 in the album receiving a share in the revenue as well as a numbered copy of it).
Sort of related, but I’m not big on “crowd-sourcing,” or rather, how it’s pushed. It’s typically signed on to by uber-geeks and nerds who are (1) anti-capitalist, (2) hyper-egalitarian, (3) reflexively non-conformist, and (4) anti-authoritarian. In short, they push it based on apparent compatibility with ideology, not results.
There are cases where “crowd-sourcing” is a perfectly good method (and one that ironically demonstrates the “spontaneous order” of capitalism), but it’s not the panacea they think; because of the underlying constraints and need for expertise, ownership, leadership, responsibility, and structure, it can’t replace traditional organization. But it’s pushed as if it can, as if it can create this classless mass of humanity, like particles in a cloud. Much like the push for “all information to be free” or the promotion of open-source over closed-source software development, there’s the whiff of Marxism to the whole thing. That they are practicing forms of market economic might their heads explode.
I have just read on Michelle Malkin’s site that Senator Lindsay Graham has signed on to the Cap and Tax Bill. Would that qualify him as a “Public Enemy”? That, and his vote to seat Sotomayor? Graham, and McCain, and Lugar, remind me of that Senator in ‘The Godfather’ who got his picture taken ‘in flagrante’ with a murdered prostitute.
It’s hard to believe that they aren’t owned my some nefarious interest. They, and Obama, are why the 17th Amendment must be repealed.
Interesting! The band retains ownership of the album and decides how to split the proceeds with investors. This is more like an indy approach rather than a major label. It’s been done before, but maybe not with this big of an artist.
@ David – the ownership and expertise is there from their many years of experience in the music industry. They are veterans and leaders in the industry. The attempt at a new business model is in response to the collapse of the old model. They already have an established fan base, and those people would plunk down cash for the album anyway. Why wouldn’t a fan pay a little more up front, if they could actually see some return on their money or break even. I absolutely see your point on it not being the panacea they think, but I think it’s a little different than the example of the “open-source” in software, because you’re not getting something for free. Seeking investors to raise capital, then paying the investors a portion of the profits (as well as giving them a copy of the product) sounds much more like capitalism than Marxism to me. The only difference in this model is they look for a larger number of smaller investors instead of a few big investors. Is that what strikes you as Marxist – the wider distribution of wealth? They aren’t called Public Enemy for nothing.
Upon further thinking, Franken, Boxer, and the late Ted Kennedy are three more good reason to repeal the 17th Amendment.
And Pelosi and the gay pimp Barney Frank are two good reason for increasing the number in the House of Representatives sevenfold. A sevenfold increase in the HoR
would make it more difficult and expensive for lobbyists to own it; and it would make for better representation of the people.
At first glance I thought this post was going to be about Tom DeLay having to leave Dancing With the Stars.
Whew, that was close.
Anyone know anything about Distributism? Also called Distributivism? Would this qualify, d’you think?
Sorry, my previous comments were a bit off topic. I guess the topic is the band ‘Public Enemy’ and its business model. The business model is called a ‘Limited General Partnership’, wherein the band PE is the “General” and the investor is the “Limited”. I’d rather invest my money at the horse track.
Cool photo.
The only difference in this model is they look for a larger number of smaller investors instead of a few big investors. Is that what strikes you as Marxist – the wider distribution of wealth? They aren’t called Public Enemy for nothing.
Barry, Public Enemy’s business model was not the target of my comments (it’s actually a very good idea; more power to them). It just reminded me of “crowd-sourcing” and how it’s pushed. There’s nothing wrong with open-source, crowd-sourcing, or anything similar; they are examples of creativity possible in a market economy. It’s how they’ve been fetishized by the geek contingent of the Left that irks me.
I think it’s a great idea. I assume investors receive a 100% refund of the $250k is not raised, or if it is but the band fails to deliver the album. Didn’t David Bowie do something like this? Sold shares of himself?
I thought Bowie just sold the world. Was I misinformed?