Thread by @future_of_music

Are you freaked out about Bandcamp being sold by Epic to Songtradr? Sharing what we know and what we don't know in this THREAD 🧵

First a disclaimer: there's a LOT we don't know, so we're going to be as cautious as we can in getting details right. But things are developing. If we get anything wrong, we'll add corrections to this thread.

Mergers and acquisitions can be cause for concern, especially when it's a service that artists and music fans both have come to rely on. But there's also reasons not to panic about the future of Bandcamp.

Remember, we all had similar concerns when Epic purchased Bandcamp. And while there were some hiccups, there were not major changes to the product design or service offering that degraded the artist or user experience.

Bandcamp has been profitable for years, as far as we know, it still is. Corporations can behave stupidly, but there's a clear incentive not to mess with what's working. The good reputation the service has in the artist community is part of what makes it valuable.

Songtradr CEO Paul Wiltshire doesn't seem to be an 3l0n Mu5k type, someone who's going to throw away the core of what makes the service popular. He has actually worked in music as a writer/producer, not just in tech. That's unusual for CEOs.

Many musicians are unfamiliar with Songtradr. As far as we can tell, there are 2 basic lines of business. One is B2B licensing. The other is music distribution, facilitating the addition of music to services like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal etc.

The fact that these are paid services that charge artists isn't necessarily cause for concern that Bandcamp is going to start charging artists to upload music. Sync placement and digital distribution services typically do cost money.

Songtradr's digital distribution business appears to offer similar services to Tunecore, CD Baby, & Distrokid. They all have different pricing and service specifics, but its the same basic function.

The music licensing marketplace part of the business connects musicians who upload music to users, including podcasts, advertising etc. We have seen some criticism of this part of the business for charging low rates, undercutting the synch license marketplace.

The argument is that if businesses can license stock/library music for cheap, other musicians, especially those doing original compositions can't get paid as much.

It's also true that stock/library music has a long history in the music business, and while some stock companies have been super shady--eg denying artists royalties and instead paying only a one time fee--that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Songtradr's statement indicates that artists on Bandcamp should ultimately expect to be offered additional options. That could include either/both of Songtradr's existing lines of business.

Of course, many artists already have both synch representation and digital distribution, through publishers, labels, or through other companies and services. Songtradr obviously knows this.

It wouldn't be in the company's interest to force any artist or label on Bandcamp to use either the B2B licensing or the digital distribution offerings, because many artists and labels would have to leave the platform.

If that happened, Bandcamp/Songtradr would lose the income from those labels/artists download and merch sales, which is the core of Bandcamp's business.

Bandcamp's business has been built differently than most music tech companies. That's a huge part of why people are concerned; it's a major outlier. futureofmusic.org/news/bandcampf…

The best case scenario is, perhaps, that Bandcamp is fundamentally left alone, and the helpful work the company has been doing (including the excellent journalism from Bandcamp Daily) can continue.

If indeed, the goal is to offer Bandcamp-hosted artists an optional pipeline into Songtradr's digital distro and licensing businesses, that could happen without messing with what's working now, without adding fees or decreasing artist payouts.

That makes ethical sense and it makes business sense. Among the most important lessons of Bandcamp's success:
In a competitive music marketplace, companies can distinguish themselves by competing to be as artist-friendly and fan-friendly as possible.

Companies can and should also compete to be as worker-friendly as possible (shoutout to @bandcampunited! )

During and after the Epic acquisition, Bandcamp was admirably transparent about any changes to the Terms of Service, with changelog indicating when even the most minor adjustments were made. @songtradr leadership should know that musicians expect this to continue.

.@songtradr should also understand that musicians are wildly supportive of @bandcampunited and Bandcamp Daily. Don't mess with them!

Finally .@songtradr leaders need to understand that their best bet for charting this new path is continuing to do what Bandcamp's fine employees have done for years--seeking constant artist/label feedback at every iteration. Don't screw it up!

Worth flagging as well (h/t @kvnweb) that we don't know much about the financial health of Songtradr's business, given the private equity/VC backing. As we've talked about in the past with Bandcamp, most tech investment models tend to anticipate an exit.

That potential exit tends to incentivize choices that maximize a company's valuation over its sustainability. There are some policy proposals that have been put forward to address these problems structurally like @SenWarren's Stop Wall St Looting Act. ourfinancialsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…

Moreover, in the context of other acquistitions by Soundtradr, concerns emerge about roll-up strategies, which @FTC is starting to look at as potentially anticompetitive. And while this sale might not meet the threshholds, it is happening in a context of limited options.

Bandcamp grew slowly, prioritizing sustainable growth over massive user bases and exponential returns. That's part of how it stayed artist-friendly. But as we've argued before, it'd be ideal to have lots of services like Bandcamp, offering an array of models and options.

It's not great to feel dependent on any platform which can fundamentally change at the whims of investors, especially when alternatives feel insufficient. So it's important to think about the public policy and business choices that could help sustainable alternatives blossom.

That can involve co-op and nonprofit models, and the emerging field of technology in the public interest. But it also has to involve serious engagement with the bigger problems of ownership consolidation.

That's part of why we just filed comments with the DOJ & FTC calling for the strongest possible merger guidelines, which could protect against harms to musicians, harms to fans, and harms to cultural diversity that occur when anticompetitive mergers are allowed.

We need those agencies to protect us against the nightmare scenario, where Bandcamp could be purchased by a major tech firm, media company or streaming service and lose everything that makes it special. (To be clear, we have no reason to believe that is imminent. Don't panic.)