As NFT adoption grows in the music industry, I hear & read more and more artists labelling themselves as “web3 artists”. Some, even, declare they won’t release music on streaming platforms anymore and build their careers exclusively in web3.

Today, I’d like to dive deeper into what a web3 artist might be, present some of the insights I’ve gained from talking to large labels & management teams, propose some hard questions, and explore why labelling oneself as a “web3 artists” might not be that much of a great idea.

TL;DR

• Do web3 artists only do web3 things? What are the missed opportunities

• Are NFTs digital merch? If so, the numbers are against us

• Slow adoption and resistance from industry execs are a problematic combination

• Can established artists build communities like grassroots artists do?

I find interesting how many musicians in web3 claim to be exclusively “web3 artists”. The concept might sound innovative and new.

Do web3 artists only do web3 related things?

Let’s say I call myself a web3 artist - does that mean only perform in the metaverse? Or that my music is only available as NFTs? What about merch? Do I just sell digital merch and not physical? And sync - if my songs are only NFTs, how is that perceived by music supervisors?

So many questions and still too many vague answers.

Let’s take music performances as an example. Those who identify themselves as web3 artists and only perform in the metaverse, it seems like shooting oneself on the foot. The most recent data shows Decentraland having just 38 daily “active users”, while competitor The Sandbox had 522 “active users”.

Are web3 artists neglecting potential irl shows in favour of just a couple eyes watching them perform in virtual worlds?

It seems to me that those music makers who decide to forgo the “traditional music industry” in order to gain traction as an NFT artist are missing a major opportunity to access audiences, build a sustainable business, and grow as an artist overall.

This is a question that came up during one of my long discussions on Twitter. If we consider NFTs a digital version of buying a CD, vinyl, or a t-shirt - is it truly worth artists’ time to focus so much on selling digital merch?

Recorded music has proven to generate 10x more than music merchandise. When starting up a business, an entrepreneur should consider: what they’re passionate about + the business opportunity.

If we consider musicians being entrepreneurs who build their music businesses, why would one focus all their attention into the small market of merch instead of finding creative ways to take a market share from a larger opportunity?

Please, understand the above questions are only valid if we consider music NFTs as “digital merch”.

Let’s start with the question: can established artists build communities like grassroots artists do?

It’s funny how small & independent artists are building such strong communities. It seem as if users cared more for those that are building from the ground up than the artists they’ve followed & listened to for years.

One thing looks clear, grassroots artists spend most of their time engaging with their community members. This is a very good thing (in my opinion) as something users seem to like is to belong to a community or group. Not just that, they enjoy the close contact with the community leader (in this case, the music artist).

How realistic is this for well established artists, though?

Regardless of how big an artist is, the resources available in music teams are surprisingly limited. Not just that, established artists have a huge list of commitments from promotion, touring, recording, creative development of content & music, filming videos, collaborations…

Will those artists that are building communities now really be able to sustain their involvement as their responsibilities increase?

Musicians are incredibly valuable and music is a great form of entertainment, identity, investment, and bonding tool.

As someone who loves music, I think the “web3 artist” tag that is being popularised is not a good approach.

It’s also important to question how much artists are able to do. If musicians are only selling collections that generate a couple grand and that small amount ties them to a lifetime commitment of service to their holders, maybe the model is not as thought-through as it should be.

These ideas shouldn’t be taken as definite or advice of any kind. My views are personal and always subject to change if the adequate evidence is presented.

This information is not financial advice and it’s intended for entertainment purposes only.

As NFT adoption grows in the music industry, I hear & read more and more artists labelling themselves as “web3 artists”. Some, even, declare they won’t release music on streaming platforms anymore and build their careers exclusively in web3.

Today, I’d like to dive deeper into what a web3 artist might be, present some of the insights I’ve gained from talking to large labels & management teams, propose some hard questions, and explore why labelling oneself as a “web3 artists” might not be that much of a great idea.

TL;DR

• Do web3 artists only do web3 things? What are the missed opportunities

• Are NFTs digital merch? If so, the numbers are against us

• Slow adoption and resistance from industry execs are a problematic combination

• Can established artists build communities like grassroots artists do?

I find interesting how many musicians in web3 claim to be exclusively “web3 artists”. The concept might sound innovative and new.

Do web3 artists only do web3 related things?

Let’s say I call myself a web3 artist - does that mean only perform in the metaverse? Or that my music is only available as NFTs? What about merch? Do I just sell digital merch and not physical? And sync - if my songs are only NFTs, how is that perceived by music supervisors?

So many questions and still too many vague answers.

Let’s take music performances as an example. Those who identify themselves as web3 artists and only perform in the metaverse, it seems like shooting oneself on the foot. The most recent data shows Decentraland having just 38 daily “active users”, while competitor The Sandbox had 522 “active users”.

Are web3 artists neglecting potential irl shows in favour of just a couple eyes watching them perform in virtual worlds?

It seems to me that those music makers who decide to forgo the “traditional music industry” in order to gain traction as an NFT artist are missing a major opportunity to access audiences, build a sustainable business, and grow as an artist overall.

This is a question that came up during one of my long discussions on Twitter. If we consider NFTs a digital version of buying a CD, vinyl, or a t-shirt - is it truly worth artists’ time to focus so much on selling digital merch?

Recorded music has proven to generate 10x more than music merchandise. When starting up a business, an entrepreneur should consider: what they’re passionate about + the business opportunity.

If we consider musicians being entrepreneurs who build their music businesses, why would one focus all their attention into the small market of merch instead of finding creative ways to take a market share from a larger opportunity?

Please, understand the above questions are only valid if we consider music NFTs as “digital merch”.

Let’s start with the question: can established artists build communities like grassroots artists do?

It’s funny how small & independent artists are building such strong communities. It seem as if users cared more for those that are building from the ground up than the artists they’ve followed & listened to for years.

One thing looks clear, grassroots artists spend most of their time engaging with their community members. This is a very good thing (in my opinion) as something users seem to like is to belong to a community or group. Not just that, they enjoy the close contact with the community leader (in this case, the music artist).

How realistic is this for well established artists, though?

Regardless of how big an artist is, the resources available in music teams are surprisingly limited. Not just that, established artists have a huge list of commitments from promotion, touring, recording, creative development of content & music, filming videos, collaborations…

Will those artists that are building communities now really be able to sustain their involvement as their responsibilities increase?

Musicians are incredibly valuable and music is a great form of entertainment, identity, investment, and bonding tool.

As someone who loves music, I think the “web3 artist” tag that is being popularised is not a good approach.

It’s also important to question how much artists are able to do. If musicians are only selling collections that generate a couple grand and that small amount ties them to a lifetime commitment of service to their holders, maybe the model is not as thought-through as it should be.

These ideas shouldn’t be taken as definite or advice of any kind. My views are personal and always subject to change if the adequate evidence is presented.

This information is not financial advice and it’s intended for entertainment purposes only.