Why Free? – Economics of Art in the Digital Age

We're often asked: when are you going to start charging for downloads?!

Well, my philosophy is simple. I want more people to hear this work, not to earn a few extra dollars per month.

Combine that attitude with the freeconomics of digital distribution and you start to come to the unusual economic path that is FinalRune.

A few years back I tried the experiment of charging for downloads - $1.99 for an MP3 of Fall of the Hero or Blind Man's Confession, which I thought was pretty reasonable - barely more than a song, and ten times as long!

The phenomenon? We went from several hundred downloads per week to practically none. I had maybe $10 more at the end of the month, but was failing at my bigger mission, which is to further the medium of audio drama and get people interested in my work.

Since then, everything's been free and downloads have really shot up - even before the Wall Street Journal we'd average about 1000 downloads a month, meanwhile, Radio Drama Revival gets upwards of 10,000 downloads a month!

The lesson? It's not hard to give away good content. And making this freely available is at least part of the reason we ended up in The Wall Street Journal to begin with - and how can you put a price on that?

But let's examine the question a bit more deeply.

Making the product freely available, without the foggiest expectation of pay, seems a bit ludicrous on the surface. The productions do, after all, cost money to make!

I've never bothered to track how many hours it takes me to write, cast, record, post-produce and market this work, but even myself aside we have actors, musicians, and a recordist who all show up when we produce this, and lately I've taken to paying these people!

But my underlying motivation is not to earn a buck, it's to create good art.

Free as a Business Model

While in our economy it is an implied assumption that if something is given away for free, it must not have value (or else that value must be picked up by another party, e.g. advertisers), to me, it's very different: I am going to do this anyways, because I love it. Because I'm hard-wired to tell stories.

Ask pretty much any artist, and you'll run into the same attitude, just varying extents of how much they've accepted the economic reality of our society. We can choose to go the way of the record companies, fighting tooth and nail to stop our audience from getting content the way that makes sense and is convenient for them, or we can choose to embrace digital technology and forge a different path.

So, all that being said, am I allergic to money? No. I'm in the process of looking for grants and other sources of funds to finance new productions - not because I'm sick of paying for it out of pocket, but only because my pockets are so small!

It's very possible that out of some of these new funding options we will create content that's not free - paid podcasts, commercially released audiobooks, etc. - FinalRune will always be creating some sort of free product in the interests of attracting, entertaining, and retaining new listeners.

Cash Isn't The Only Way to Get Rich

Let it be said that even when you don't receive cash, you can receive payment that is richer than gold. Here's what some listeners have said to us lately:

"My job is boring - boring - boring. What gets me through is listening to MP3 downloads ... Found your website and.... all I have to say is Thank You. You made my days a little better."

"I love the work you do. To me radio is everything... When I was born back in 1955 I was legally blind. Radio to me was my entire "field of vision" ... I hope this helps get the message out that the 'audio arts' are alive and well and living in our hEARtS"

Last but not least, the pitch: some listeners are so kind that with no request to do so at all, they have sent us some money. To these people, I bow low and offer my sincerest thanks. These generous donations make a tangible difference in our ability to make new shows!

If you believe in what we're doing, and want to help both fund new audio drama, won't you send us whatever you can afford? You can donate safely using Paypal:

But if you can't swing it, don't worry. We're still going to make these shows, and they're still going to be free. Free as in beer.

With itchy impatient hands I finally got my anxiously awaited package from Sweetwater – the Zoom Q3 video recorder…

Yes, this is the one that has bitchin’ sound and video in a really portable and easy to use format.

For an audio drama guy, it seemed a no-brainer; I live and die by my Zoom H2 but have often thought it would be fun to be able to capture a little bit of video, too… everything from behind-the-scenes footage of FinalRune shows to how-tos on various pieces of recording equipment.

I’ve yet to get my teeth into the product but thought I’d share some initial thoughts upon looking at the product, especially compared to the Zoom H2 since I use the H2 extensively. I kind of thought the Q3 was going to be H2 + video but it isn’t, exactly.

A few observations:

• Sound quality seems to be about the same. The H2 has a lot more options. The Q3 has a way bigger screen and is more friendly.
• Video (to me) seems just dandy. Obviously I have a strong bias to good audio. The picture is as good as I’m going to need it and I’m really excited about the possibilities once I start putting this thing to work.
• The Q3 SD card door is flimsy and will eventually break off. They clearly did not design it for people who are going to be hot-swapping SD cards in the field. Um, hello?

The Zoom Q3 doesn’t come with a tripod, but the one from the Zoom H2 works like a charm
• Accessories for the Q3 are really basic. I was kind of hoping for more from a $250 device. You get a wind screen, some RCA cables, and a 2GB SD card. No AC adapter, no tripod, no handhold (I haven’t tested handling noise but it’s terrible on the H2). As you can see, the mic stands from the H2 work fine with the Q3.
• A really disappointing oversight is that you can’t use the Q3 as an audio or video interface. What the heck, Samson? One of the most powerful features of the Zoom H2 is that you can use it as a field recorder OR audio interface depending on your need. I was really hoping to be able to use the Q3 for talking on Skype, but now it seems I will need to jerry-rig something using the RCA cables. I hope they are able to add this feature on with a firmware update. Just foolish

Overall I’m really excited about the recorder and, as I said, can’t wait to put it to work. I wish it was about $50 cheaper and that I could use it for Skype, but having the capability to capture video and decent sound in such an easy format is priority #1 for me.

Here's Some Video Taken with the Zoom Q3:

More on the live video from Halloween 2009 page

Note: I highly recommend Sweetwater for purchasing this and all audio equipment! And no, they don't pay me to say that.

There are a couple of different camps in the audio drama community when it comes to studio vs. location recording, and I fall devoutly in the latter, both of out necessity and artistic aesthetic. By the end of reading this, I hope you'll be on the same page with me, but before we get there, let's get some definitons out of the way.

When it comes to producing audio drama, you have a few fundamentally different approaches to choose from:

1. The Classic

You get your script, you cast your actors, you have everyone who's involved come to a studio and record them in the best manner you see fit (stereo or mono, multiple mics or single mic, etc. -- that's an article of its own).

This is the tried and true way of producing audio drama, heck, the tried and true way of producing practically any work of audio. At the end of the voice recording sessions you have nice-sounding, consistent voice tracks for you to play with in post-production. But it's (generally) expensive and you'll still need to create the environment of your scene in post.

2. The Brave New Way

You cast your actors from all across the globe, have them record their lines at their home studios or other recording location available to them, and then receive those lines via electronic delivery which you put together using post-production software. This way has been pioneered by podcasters and is pretty ingenuitive, allowing you to cast talent wherever they happen to be and allowing your actors to record on a schedule that's convenient to them. However, this method necessitates a lot of post-production work to assemble the voice tracks and almost ensures inconsistency in quality/room timbre. You also lose the special sumthin' sumthin' when actors act in a scene together.

3. The Indie-Film Way

Field recording is essentially filmmaking without the camera -- with all the associated benefits and pitfalls. While a little trickier for sci-fi and fantasy -- it is, after all, a little difficult to find lonely castles and spaceships lying around -- the general idea is to find a spot that resembles the acoustic environment of the scene in your drama and then go and record there. The benefit is a sense of sonic verisimilitude - you get those crooning gulls or chirping crickets in the take naturally - at the risk of having to deal with unwanted noise and, if you don't get adequate permission, angry property owners. But it saves you an enormous amount of time when you get to post-production, the costs of renting out studio space, and maybe, just maybe, adds some magical quality you'll never get in the studio.

What Works Best For You?

The approach best for you will vary on what you're trying to produce, what your budget is, and what you want it to sound like. That's the pleasure of being an independent producer -- it's YOUR story, make it sound like YOU want it to!

My first few stories (Day of the Dead, Tales from Williamsville, Fall of the Hero) were all recorded in the studio of my local community radio station where they gratiously let me record for free, then supplemented with field recordings of ambience and spot FX, and library effects and music. Day of the Dead also had a splash of "The Brave New Way" because two of the actors were actually recorded in New Orleans, and I had to splice their takes with audio I later captured for other characters in the scene:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Knowing what I know now (and having better gear), I would've recorded Day of the Dead completely in New Orleans, as man, you ain't gonna find too many places with a richer sonic backdrop than that fair city. But the background sound that IS there (recorded with a wimpy portable mp3 player) does add quite a lot of "character" to the story.

The follow-up stories were recorded using a series of Shure SM-58 mics fed into a mixer, with an individual mic for every actor as we crammed into a tiny recording booth probably meant for two people (this approach was a crude facsimile of what Tony Palermo suggests).

Were the space not so tight, this approach might have worked well, but I had some other problems, too. First off, the ostensible "studio" wasn't really soundproof, so if someone stomped to or from the on-air recording studio during a take, we'd have to redo it (or live with it, which I'm shamed to say I did on occasion). I also was monitoring, mixing, recording, directing and occasionally acting all at the same time, which was just a couple too many balls in the air.

But graduating from this set-up was a challenge, too. After all, this space was free, and while I did pay for all the equipment I brought in, it worked out to be cheaper than paying for a professional studio. And once I paid for all the equipment, I had even less incentive (and money) to pay a professional studio.

Oh, what is an independent dramatist to do?

Take it Outside

It was about this time that I headed to the National Audio Theater Festivals' (NATF) week long audio drama workshop, and learned about a million things I was doing wrong when it came to mic placement and recording. Concurrently, I was corresponding with Roger Gregg of the Crazy Dog Audio Theatre, who heavily encouraged me to try producing a show entirely in the field (as he just had for Infidel). And while I was a little skeptical at first (what if it rains? what if it snows? what if we get attacked by a rabid moose?), on my next story, "Dark Passenger," I gave it a shot.

"Passenger" was a huge step forward to me, not necessarily in terms of story (though I do find it delightfully gory) but in producing my own soundscape and customizing the recording environment. Just about every sound you hear in the story (apart from the car screeches) was recorded either in the scene or created -- and a special shout-out to David Shinn who both showed me a lot of great tips at NATF and also volunteered his brain for some picking when I was trying to create a few particularly tricking sound effects.

"Passenger" still had some rough points, mostly due to lack of preparation and me single-handing the gear again, but I took everything I learned from that hastily assembled tale and poured it into "Waiting for a Window." Which I'll let you hear and be the judge of when it debuts September 26th.

What You Stand to Lose, and Gain

In a climate like Maine, you do have some challenges when it comes to field recording, weather being foremost among them. Winter is entirely off the shelf (at least for outdoor scenes) though you can't even guarantee it'll not be pissing down rain in the middle of July.

You also have to find places where people will allow you to record, either private businesses or public places. If you're not paying anyone (like, as I said above, I just can't afford to do), you have to deal with the fact that random people will be walking by and possibly nosing their way into your scene. You also have uncontrollable noise factors like motorcycles, oil barges, airplanes, chainsaws, semi-trailers and invasive european starlings (yes, I've had ALL of them ruin a take).

Then you have to GET everyone there, and find a time that the location AND all the people can be available simultaneously. Not always easy.

BUT... When you finally get there, when the ambience has just the elements you want in it, and the characters get in the groove... well, there's something about it you just can't replicate in a sound-proof room.

For Example...

My friend let me use his band's practice space to create a bar for "Waiting for a Window." In this case, finding a somewhat controlled space was MUCH preferrable to using a real bar, as we had enough people to make it sound like a bar without random drunks intruding in the scene.

We had six people off to the side at the "bar," full with appropriate props, including a few, um, "live" bottles, a separate area for the stage where the mysterious woman sings karaoke, and then another area with a table where the characters in the scene have their dialogue. We recorded it in a few takes, finally getting an almost continuous take, and when it came to post-producing it, all I had to do, literally, was cut out the junk and line up the tracks. No supplemental foley, no additional music mixing, no "make this guy sound off mic" effects.

Listen to the results:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

On Gear

So. You can beg, borrow, or squat on a location for free, saving you all the cash required to rent out a professional studio. But you still need equipment to record it, which is expensive, right?

Not necessarily.

As I mentioned earlier, I stole just about everything of my approach from Roger Gregg (ok, it was solicited advice) including my choice of equipment -- a Rode NT4 mic. I paired it with a Marantz PMD-660, a wonderful compact flash recorder I'd been using to record the mix off the mono equipment hereotfore spoken of.

The beauty of the Rode NT4 is that it's a fixed XY stereo pair, which means that if you're a semi-luddite like me, and not a true technical junkie, you can set up your equipment quickly and not worry about arranging two mics to get your proper stereo positioning. Just put up your mic stand, flick on the phantom power, and start recording away.

But at just over $1000 ($530 for the mic and $500 for the Marantz), this is not the rig for everyone. But damn, if there aren't some great alternatives nowadays.

I bought my first round of gear just months before they released an amazing recorder for this kind of work: the Zoom H4, followed soon by the Zoom H2. I grudgingly bought the H2 ($200), rueing the audacity of Zoom for releasing such a tiny recorder only a year after I'd bought a much larger set of equipment, but soon found myself in love with this, well, "handy recorder" (how's that for truth in advertising?)

The Zoom H2 is to the PMD-660/NT-4 as the point-and-shoot camera is to the SLR. I carry my Zoom with me everywhere, capturing random sound effects, spot interviews, all my podcasts and for light-duty voiceover work (as it doubles as an audio interface).

While I put my pennies away for over a year in order to be able to afford the investment in the Rode, if you're just starting out, and maybe aren't even sure if this audio drama thing is for you, the Zoom H2 is a great recorder to start with. Use it to kick off your podcast, to record all the FX, your buddy messing around on guitar, and hey, your whole radio drama too.

What? Record an entire audio drama on a Zoom H2? Hell yeah. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Stereo Vs. Mono

Whether you use the NT4 or the H2, you'll be capturing stereo sound, which greatly compliments the efforts of your field recording. While your audience might not always appreciate the nuances of stereo, it gives you a rich sonic portrait you lose out in in mono.

I'm not a math guy, but here it goes: in mono, you have one axis: loud and soft. Soft voices are far, loud voices are near, and the listener determines the layout of the scene based on their interpretation of that scale. Cool and all, but in stereo you get that "y" axis -- left and right. Suddenly you have a three-dimensional portrait of sound, which, to the listeners who DO get it, is very, very cool.

Get Out There!

If you've got much gumption than green, ate the red pill and maybe slosh down a little bit of that special Kool-Aid for kicks, then field recording may be the way for you to go. It frees your actors from the constraints of working indoors, adding vitality to a scene while capturing a rich sonic portrait you'll spend hours trying to create in post.

Will your listeners notice? Well, that's where the different camps disagree. Some people will say that an exotic waterfall in South America sounds like their shower, and there may be some truth to that. But what you WON'T record in your shower is the experience that being in a remote area of South America contributes to your actor.

Me, I'll go for the trip.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The following post is derived from a lively discussion on the Radio Drama Listserv. If you're an enthusiast of audio theater and aren't on the list, make sure to join up so you can keep up with the discussion!

...I'd like to bring up something I've been pondering for some time -- what is the role of narrator in audio theater? ...And it is staid to use the narrator in modern stories? The question arises on the basis of comments of the narrator's obsolescence as well as an observation that neither of the plays produced for this year's NATF used a narrator.

Now, I'd be the first to agree that the objective, birds-eye, "It was a dark and stormy night" narrator is a little heavy-handed, but I wonder if we're being a little hard on a perfectly good literary device. Having more a literary than a broadcast background, I personally use narration in the same way that an author uses summary prose in lieu of scenes. Sometimes, you just need to speed the narrative along, give the audience some key information, and keep moving without making everything happen moment-by-moment.

For example, "Raymond Chandler's 'Goldfish,'" is an absolutely splendid audio drama piece as well as an excellent example of how a narrator can be used to good effect (another good one is a surprisingly great rendition of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" I heard recently). The imminent, first-person narrator guides us through the story and heaps so much of Marlowe's character upon us that we might not get through just dialogue alone (at least, not with so much nuance). Likewise, the Hunter Thompson dialogue is about the only thread of sense through a completely crazed narrative. Both are enhancements rather than distractions from some pretty compelling stories.

Obviously if you're looking for "audio art" rather than "audio theater," you might prefer stuff that strays further from established traditions, in the same ways that some prefer the avant-garde and experimental fiction. However, I think that since this form already limits us to so few tools, we shouldn't shuck this one out unless there are some rather solid reasons to do so.

Thoughts?

Our stories are the fictional counterpart of the non-fiction documentary, essays, and features you'll hear on National Public Radio. Just like in the publishing world you'll find memoir and biographies as distinct categories from novels and short story writing, audio fiction uses similar conventions but very different subject matter for its exploration of humanity and its issues. The basic litmus test: stories told through the medium of sound.

Why not radio drama? (Especially considering we have links to "radio drama" articles, and use the phrase elsewhere in the site?) Now here's where things good tricky. Radio drama is a historic term with a rich history which we like to represent, but is not entirely emblematic of the modern art form -- after all, 99% of you will hear this over the internet, and not on the radio.

The other alternative phrase, audio theater, is pretty good, but tends to only be used by audio insiders. Furthermore, it continues to perpetuate the perception that the stories are like plays, when they're really more like short stories, novellas, and novels (well, we're working on the latter two). While the stories are dramatized, they aren't really "theater."

While "audio fiction" still might have some weaknesses, the point is our work is more like what you'll read in a literary rag than what you'll hear on the radio. It's the stories that get us out of bed in the morning, not the transmitters.

Is there a way to make radio drama economically successful in the modern day? If so, what form will the messenger take?

By Frederick Greenhalgh

What do Britain, Canada, and Ireland have in common? No, it's not universal health coverage -- it's public radio companies that commission original radio drama for broadcast. They actually think it's valuable to have written stories recorded and played on the radio for people. What's crazier, is that they PAY people to do it! What gives?

America has never had public media anything like that commonly found in other countries -- there are a variety of economic and political reasons for this, but for the moment let's take it at face value that public radio is not and will not ever really have the money or incentive to produce original plays. That leaves us with the private markets, such as the major networks, who were responsible for the whole rise of the radio drama in the first place. The gears were going well back in the 40s and 50s -- everyone got to hear a push for Goodyear Tires or Blue Coal and got to hear plenty of stories. While not every story was a winner (and with some million words being broadcast a day, we can give CBS and NBC a little slack), there was an active economy to support that original drama. In fact, radio drama was one of the better paying writing careers in its day.

Of course, TV ended all of that, though it was more of a planned assassination of radio drama than a lack of people being interested in it (chicken and egg, or...?). Whether it was people who sold TVs with a vested interest in making everyone watch it, or curiosity that turned to addiction, television took over all of the major serial-type programming that had made radio a viable and sustainable medium in its day. The Golden Era ended, and radio drama trudged through its existence to the modern day (minus a few mini-revivals here and there, local troupes who kept producing... there's a lot I'm glossing over here to reach a point).

Today's modern radio drama scene can be characterized as an orphaned medium with a lot of guts but not a lot of polish. There is a hard-core niche audience that keeps producers faithful of a resurgence, and dropping costs of equipment and the interconnectivity of the Internet certainly has allowed for more communication and community-building of this niche than ever before. Podcasting is almost a revolution, and there are blogs aplenty talking about exciting new works being produced all throughout the country. The question is how to get radio drama out of the niche and into the mainstream.

It all comes down to the American consumer. There are days when I'm full of hope and others when a friend of mine says "Who'd want to see a movie without the pictures?" What I think is absolutely necessary for original radio drama to be successful is a keener focus on the stories, and production methods that take advantage of radio drama's unique properties to really smash those stories into the audience's head. While we might not compete with the people who are going to spend 8 bucks to watch a bunch of teenagers get slaughtered at the movie house, we can appeal to those who pay for HBO and Showtime and want series' that push the cutting edge and keep them in wrapt suspense week after week. Radio drama needs to get there to make it in modern America. And somehow we need to get the economic and distribution model to support an industry that good

I think we can note with interest the birthing pains of the online music industry and attempts by Google to digitize the published world and dominate online video. The model proposed by Google and such seems to be a deconstruction of established business models and unprecedented access to material by consumers. The hope is that people will still choose to purchase what they care about, and not that people will turn to rampant levels of piracy. Do we offer our work for free or charge for every download? Is there a subscription or paid advertising method that will work?

At this stage in the game, I think it's more important to get radio drama into the ears of the unsuspecting audience rather than trying to make a profit on it (either that or get it featured on American Idol). Channels like XM's Sonic Theater I think are a start, though it'd be amazing if NPR or Pacifica started distributing syndicated radio drama across the nation (or better yet, member stations started producing it themselves). And maybe commercial radio will go down in flames like I suspect it will and we'll have new broadcasting stations run by robots that love radio drama playing on our commute to work rather than DJs who statistics say people love while everyone you know hates them.

And finally, I think an "all you can eat" subscription based radio drama/audio theater store is apt to be more successful than anything else. Say a dozen or so of us producers opt-in, upload all of our work to a centralized server that distributes the work to all subscribers (or have the ability to offer it to bronze, silver, or gold level memberships). As a subscriber, you can sign up for a variety of levels, which offer tiered levels of programming; say the $10/month subscriber gets 4 of your 30 minute episodes while the $30/month subscriber gets access to your 5-hour epic mini-series. You can offer extras, commentary, and whatnot, and offer some teasers for those with free memberships. Like Audible, you can also order everything on this site ala carte as well. The money gets split up on a democratic, server-controlled manner based on the number of downloads of each respective work. Call it the radio drama co-op store.

These are only ruminations from a kid who's new at the game, but I think sound enough to generate some discussion. With good marketing, good programming, and a bit of luck, I think original radio drama can generate a firestorm these next years.

Read more about the radio drama articles, hear some modern audio fiction stories, or leave some comments on where you think audio drama is going!

What can a seemingly archaic medium say to a modern audience?

Even for those who didn't grow up during radio's golden era, mention radio drama to most Americans and it culls up the image of a family huddled around the radio anxiously on a Saturday night waiting for a program to come on. Most are familiar with the furor over War of the Worlds, and can bring names like "The Shadow" and "The Green Hornet" to the tips of their tongues. These same people are astonished to learn that Orson Welles started (and may have produced his best work!) in radio, and that "The Lone Ranger" existed long before its television debut. With a new generation that has known radio only as a sad jukebox, occasional news source, and constant sales hawker, the legacy of the Golden Age of Radio would seem slipping from obscurity into oblivion. What can audio alone achieve that audio and video cannot?

For the growing number of Old-Time Radio enthusiasts and modern producers, that very question is an absurd one. Audio is accessible, cheap, and provocative. You can be on a Carribbean island or in the middle of Omaha Beach of D-Day with the use of a couple choice effects, and propel the listener through a story even if the actor looks nothing like the character his voice conjures. There is no story too small or large for radio, and if you think the interest in radio drama is just nostalgia for a bygone era, ask BBC4 what they think.

It's true, however, that the "Golden Age of Radio," the period between the 30s to 50s (more or less) that radio was America's premier form of entertainment, is over. The sources of entertainment today are infinitely more varied, sophisticated, and available. The business model of commercial radio, though certainly threatened by things like satellite radio and digital music stores, does not seem likely to return to the paradigm of old any time in the future. Nor does it look likely that ABC, NBC, or CBS will start funding radio dramas again. Yet with the growing availability of low-cost, professional quality equipment and the internet, the world is an oyster for those independent of spirit and mind who aspire to create their own work for a world stage.

While Britain and Canada have radio dramas commissioned by their publicly-funded broadcasting companies, in America the original audio drama produced is by small troupes and production houses scattered across the country (for a list of some of these, visit the Radio Drama Links page). A reflection of the great beauty of America's fragmented spirit, these groups produce programming as original as it is diverse.

What differentiates FinalRune Productions from other audio theatre groups is a commitment to producing works of writers of limited renown and exceptional caliber, with the ambition of spurring interest in radio drama in new audiences. In addition, FinalRune Productions is a for-profit business model with the intention of generating a sustainable revenue through a subscriber base, supplemented by sales through online audiobook stores, brick and mortar stores, and playback on terrestrial and satellite radio stations.

The bet I'm staking this whole vision on is that today's media consumers are looking for "the next big thing," and that thing could be audio. While big-budget, low-substance Hollywood movies are great and all, audio can only succeed with stories pared down to the bones. While sophistication is not always a word associated with American media consumers, I'm banking that there's at least some out there who want a compelling story that says something. That moves them. That terrifies them. That makes them feel like they've just been somewhere extraordinary.

And audio theater can provide this--and so much more.

Read more about the radio drama articles, or hear some modern audio fiction stories.