The problem I have with these sorts of articles is the "they". I love bandcamp, I'm not happy to see it being cut way down, but who is at fault here? It's not Songtradr. And it's not Epic. It's the original founders who sold the majority shares.
They took it from being a company with a culture that they built, and a community of employees and users and musicians, and said "We are ok with this all going who knows where if we cash out now for enough money." They know damn well anything could happen from then on. Any hiring or firing decisions from that point on are a part of someone's money-making plan that (almost always) ends in another sale (whether private or IPO). Did anyone honestly think Epic was going to be a good custodian?
No one has to do that. Songtrader and other giants and all the PE big funds in the world can't make someone do that. The world is full of companies that never sell 50% of the shares because they care about what they have built more than cash and would prefer to keep a modestly profitable business going that employs their friends and families and continues to embody their values. Some of these even take outside investment from private equity funds - I've done diligences for them - where the deal is very clearly that less than 50% is ever going to be for sale. (These are called "minority" or "growth" investment, less common, but they exist a plenty.)
Ableton famously refuses to take outside investment because the founders care more about the thing they have made and their position in the music and technology culture than they do about being as rich as possible. And they have been an excellent new owner for Cycling 74.
I hope bandcamp makes it, because I still think it's a great alternative to other options. But I'm under no illusion that it's the same thing it was in the beginning. That ship sailed with the first transaction.
It seems odd—Bandcamp was basically a small company that could have chugged along with small but non-zero profits indefinitely.
Epic did nothing with them, and now they are being sold to a company that will almost certainly just destroy their value.
Why? This is dumb. I can see why Bandcamp’s owners would sell, but no rational buyer would buy Bandcamp, it is a company that is only valuable because of the goodwill that it has. Their niche is very-online music enthusiasts who are into the community feeling. We’re going to notice and leave as soon as the cash-in change happens.
Why didn’t Epic and this other company whoever they are just light some little piles of money on fire instead. At least they could have warmed their feet.
Your view of bandcamp seems like a cartoonishly perfect representation of a consultant’s perspective with very little understanding of what the company actually does beyond the balance sheet. It’s the kind of no-skin-in-the-game perspective that ruined Boeing, and it’s why most folks absolutely abhor private equity.
Bandcamp has been successful because of the trust they have within the internet music community. It’s not a very complicated product, but people buy music there because the whole thing feels like it’s a part of the music scene, not the tech or business scene. Given that the Daily is well regarded in that community, I highly doubt those six writers, who were likely paid significantly less than the median staff member, were the problem here. Even if they didn’t have the purely trackable ROI, they were a huge part of the platform’s only moat: its goodwill with the artists and listeners who used it.
I would also add that Bandcamp was pretty publicly profitable prior to their sale to Epic. Given that they didn’t significantly grow the staff after the acquisition, they would have had to make huge blunders in a very short period of time they owned it. So at this point we’re talking about laying folks off purely for better looking numbers, not really for sustainability.
This is interesting! When I saw the Epic news the first worry I had was regarding Bandcamp. Even after I quit trying to get a job there I'd look at their jobs page all the time to get a sense of their health. It's been empty for a few months.
One of the suppositions people had about Epic buying Bandcamp was that maybe it would allow Epic to more easily license music for their games. From the press release[1] it seems like they did that. I have no idea how well that worked but here we are with Songtradr, "a music licensing platform and marketplace company," acquiring them.
On its own Bandcamp is (was?) a profitable enterprise.[2] I wish they'd go back to being on their own. That said, if Songtradr does nothing more but give artists more diverse ways to make money off their music I'm all for it.
That said multiple changes of ownership can play hell with continuity and morale. I'm worried about that.
Tangential question, has anyone actually noticed bandcamp get worse? We know they did big layoffs (along with uh... EVERYONE ELSE) and we know they axed a bunch of paid journalists (again, hardly uncommon), but as a frequent user I have not seen any negative change to me personally. Not saying they won't, lot's of acquisitions kill the golden goose, but so far I haven't noticed anything. Curious if others have.
I also really don't understand all the comments online as if the sale from Epic to Songtrader was a sale from the boy scouts to darth vader. Didn't Epic buy them as a pawn in a legal battle? The sale people should be grumbling about was the one to Epic... and the people they should be complaining about are the founders who sold. :-/
I don't fully understand why Epic bought Bandcamp in the first place. I don't see where they add value, and it doesn't fit smoothly into the rest of their portfolio.
It also could be a purely financial decision. Bandcamp claimed $51m in revenue (I assume gross?) in 2016 [1] and, per reporting, had about $20m in net revenue in 2022 [2]. With the reported 210 employees, that's $95k in net revenue (not profit -- wages / costs are not yet accounted for) per employee. That is very low. You could easily see an acquirer wanting to be more profitable and cutting things like editorial.
See, you're taking the wrong message from the article entirely, and I suspect so was the OP.
The point of the article isn't to make you care about Bandcamp in particular, though it's clear the author does. It's to point out the fact that if there is something you DO care about, how acquisitions and corporate plays can and will destroy it. You could replace Bandcamp with Steam, or HN or any other entity. That's the point. Not the particulars of Bandcamp itself.
People here get so lost in the weeds and don't actually read what the message of the article is.
I can't see it as a good thing at all. They're effectively being thrown about to yet another operating model which will have a disruptive impact on them.
The new company Songtradr focuses on licensing, it's a b2b, while Bandcamp is a b2c. So it can be easy to see how they'd want to make Bandcamp more like themselves. Of course I'm being negative and cynical, apologies. I share the same fondness for Bandcamp.
Honestly, it's all over the map. Depends on the reason for sale and the reason for purchase. They are looking for "synergies" and a very common one "you already have this thing, so you can cut it out of this company after you acquire and use yours". It is very possible that Epic had plans that involved hyper-growth, now realized those are not going anywhere, and is happy to demonstrate that a chopped up Bandcamp is a good deal.
I have literally done diligences where part of our role was to weigh in on how much could be slashed, which is not very pleasant, but like I said, when the growth was dumb in the first place it can be the right call.
I also worry about enshittification of Bandcamp. And I'm an artist with music on the site. I was very nervous about the Epic deal when it happened (figured it was a way to get the founders and the A-round VCs some money in a cash-out after an incredibly long period of time, similar to what happened to Meetup).
But now? Songtradr smells like an investment bank, one that looks at music as "content" or "IP" and wants to license the hell out of it -- and ultimately, own as much of the rights as possible.
They do not strike me as aligned with artist interests, or with the spirit of Bandcamp, which, admittedly, at this late date is mostly a fantasy.
Bandcamp represents the last, best refuge for artists in a world where most companies offer you "exposure," what else would you want, stop whining about being paid, etc. Bandcamp means payment. Which means livelihoods.
Large Companies like Epic don't by smaller companies like Bandcamp because they want the revenue stream that comes in from Bandcamp. They want the technology, engineers (acqi-hiring), data, or to kill possible competition. Keeping Bandcamp operating would take away from their main reasons from buying them. My personal guess is they want the technology + engineers for some new feature set they want. They won't want any bad press + they need time for planning/organizing before actually doing anything.
That's a bit disappointing. As a user I just want Bandcamp to be owned by someone who gets it and leaves it alone. As far as I could tell, Epic barely touched Bandcamp. I'm unfamiliar with Songtradr but they have more incentive to integrate the core product into their services as they're in the industry and a smaller company (more need to make the acquisition work for them.) I hope it goes well.
> The companies that buy up sites like Bandcamp are interested in nothing except ensuring the executives’ pockets get lined appropriately
I like how it presents things as if Bandcamp's original management had no part in selling.
This is not China. They were not forced to sell. They were the ones who had to decide whether to do it or not, but somehow they are not to blame for any consequences.
Another victim of modern tech acquisitions. I hate it. I hate seeing another service potentially dying because it was bought out by a big tech company that actually didn't give a rat's ass about the service. Google has done it to so many great services, some of which that I really loved. The worst thing about Bandcamp is that it's a platform for smaller artists to sell their music, which affects them in a way other tech acquisitions don't.
Also, what?
> “Based on its current financials, Bandcamp requires some adjustments to ensure a sustainable and healthy company that can serve its community of artists and fans long into the future,” says a statement provided by Songtradr chief marketing officer Lindsay Nahmiache. It says the company will be extending job offers to Bandcamp staff over the next few weeks as the sale is finalized.
Since when does Bandcamp have financial issues? Or is it just not profitable enough and now Songtradr wants to squeeze it for all they can?
The only outrage I feel is that Tim Sweeney is using the compensation of starving artists, the main demographic on Bandcamp as I understand it, to try and make himself and EPIC richer or more relatively powerful. I don't give two hoots about "breaking up the App Store Model" and I doubt many/most musicians do either. I personally feel that 30% isn't even outrageous considering the value proposition.
Relatively rich/privileged software developers making their problem (App Stores wanting a 30% cut) the musicians' problem isn't noble, it's evil.
Edit: The way I see it, Tim Sweeney/EPIC is responsible for breaking the status quo that allowed bandcamp’s niche to operate the way they did, which seems a reasonable assumption. That acquisition turned the userbase into a pawn in the App store battle.
Was Bandcamp draining money or something? Were they not profitable?
I hate this. Why does everything need to roll up into other companies. I don't want anything Epic is bringing to the table, and every interaction they've had with open platforms as a business has been negative as far as I can see.
I hate how much consolidation is going on right now.
They took it from being a company with a culture that they built, and a community of employees and users and musicians, and said "We are ok with this all going who knows where if we cash out now for enough money." They know damn well anything could happen from then on. Any hiring or firing decisions from that point on are a part of someone's money-making plan that (almost always) ends in another sale (whether private or IPO). Did anyone honestly think Epic was going to be a good custodian?
No one has to do that. Songtrader and other giants and all the PE big funds in the world can't make someone do that. The world is full of companies that never sell 50% of the shares because they care about what they have built more than cash and would prefer to keep a modestly profitable business going that employs their friends and families and continues to embody their values. Some of these even take outside investment from private equity funds - I've done diligences for them - where the deal is very clearly that less than 50% is ever going to be for sale. (These are called "minority" or "growth" investment, less common, but they exist a plenty.)
Ableton famously refuses to take outside investment because the founders care more about the thing they have made and their position in the music and technology culture than they do about being as rich as possible. And they have been an excellent new owner for Cycling 74.
I hope bandcamp makes it, because I still think it's a great alternative to other options. But I'm under no illusion that it's the same thing it was in the beginning. That ship sailed with the first transaction.
reply