When we compiled our bingo board of potential mergers and acquisitions for 2022*, we can’t say we anticipated that Fortnite-maker and Apple antagonist Epic Games would purchase Bandcamp, a music marketplace where any musician can sell their music and keep 82% of the profits.
After the acquisition, Bandcamp says it will continue to operate as an independent entity. Founder and CEO Ethan Diamond will remain in charge, and according to his blog post, Bandcamp Fridays – a day when fees are waived for artists – will continue as normal, with editorial arm Bandcamp Daily remaining intact as well.
“Over the years we’ve heard from other companies who wanted us to join them, we’ve always felt that doing so would only be exciting if they strongly believed in our mission, were aligned with our values, and not only wanted to see Bandcamp continue, but also wanted to provide the resources to bring a lot more benefit to the artists, labels, and fans who use the site. Epic ticks all those boxes,” Diamond wrote.
Here are three views on what this move could possibly mean for both indie musicians and the future of a rising gaming company. Amanda, Devin and Alex weighed in on the news, working to unspool what it means and who it might benefit.
*This bingo board doesn’t exist, but honestly, we should make one – tweet us your ideas.
- Amanda Silberling: Big money + Big Tech = skeptical artists
- Devin Coldewey: Epic wants to be the organic, free-range alternative
- Alex Wilhelm: Let’s see what Bandcamp can do with money, reach and power
Amanda Silberling: Big money + Big Tech = skeptical artists
When artists see that a platform they use to make a living is being acquired, their usual reaction isn’t, “Oh, cool, they will have more funds to produce better features to help me monetize my creative work!” They think, “Oh shit, not again.”
It happened when Google bought YouTube, and when Spotify bought Anchor. Artists recognize that when a platform changes ownership, even the smallest tweaks can impact their livelihoods. Why would artists trust Big Tech companies when Spotify payouts are dismal, OnlyFans temporarily made career-endangering decisions for sex workers, and Patreon flirts with the idea of crypto payments, a move many of its creators are strongly against?
Yes, of all companies that could’ve bought the artist-first music marketplace, Epic is relatively anti-establishment – it’s been in court calling out Apple for snatching up to 30% of in-app purchase fees for months. And from Bandcamp’s announcement of the acquisition, honestly, it seemed like it could be good.
There’s room for collaborations between game designers and musicians (think Japanese Breakfast’s soundtrack for the game Sable), expansion of less-than-satisfactory backend tools, additional music discovery features and – this is the journalist in me – maybe a bigger budget for Bandcamp Daily.
Other artists, musicians and journalists expressed concern when at least two editors of the small-staffed Bandcamp Daily made their Twitter accounts private and deleted all of their tweets. Both editors later clarified that they did this for personal safety amid the big news of the acquisition, with editorial director J. Edward Keyes tweeting that nothing is changing about the Daily.
But fears of these worst-case scenario reactions aren’t unfounded. Artists are understandably skeptical whenever big money and Big Tech swoop into their territory because historically, it hasn’t gone too well.
Bandcamp felt like one of the final platforms for musicians that was benign in its intent – it was simply a platform for DIY musicians to make some money in an era when performers are hurting most. After two years of very limited ability to go on tour – how most musicians earn the bulk of their income – any major change to Bandcamp feels like a threat.
It’s possible that these additional resources could be good for Bandcamp, but the acquisition will only be a success if the company continues its commitment to putting artists first.
Devin Coldewey: Epic wants to be the organic, free-range alternative
For a long time, Epic has been a sideline player, an enabler with the Unreal engine and a publisher of ordinary renown. Fortnite was lightning in a bottle that managed to earn an enormous amount of income and goodwill. You can’t spend goodwill, but now Epic is using that money to challenge Apple and Valve’s hegemony in the mobile and PC gaming space.
What’s Bandcamp got to do with that? Well, Epic wants to be “the good guy” in markets where people haven’t thought too much about what that means. Other developers groused about the Apple Tax, but Epic orchestrated a lawsuit designed to drag Cupertino’s shiny anodized surface into the mud. And while no one was particularly dissatisfied with Steam, the lack of competition has been a bugbear in the minds of many — how long until it turns to the dark side?
No one is the “good guy” in music distribution – except maybe Neil Young and Bandcamp. With this acquisition, Epic is setting itself up as the “artist-friendly” alternative, though it will take a lot of investment to make the platform competitive with the likes of Spotify and Apple Music. But to me, this seems like just another step along Epic’s planned track of playing the well-funded underdog. The “funderdog,” if you will.
What’s the endgame for Epic? Well, with its lucrative position in the gaming development world and growing importance to digital cinema, Epic is on track to brand itself as essential infrastructure that enables rather than extorts. If it can build a presence across media as trustworthy, straightforward and not greedy — because it subsidizes these services via its other verticals — it can exert steady pressure on the powerful incumbents across the board.
Alex Wilhelm: Let’s see what Bandcamp can do with money, reach and power
I listen to a lot of music from genres that aren’t very popular. This isn’t an affectation, I hope, but more the fact that the more extreme forms of heavy metal I appreciate are lovely, if not for everyone. So I own a lot of vinyl I don’t listen to because I believe artists like Fit for an Autopsy and similar bands deserve to earn a living from their music.
All that sums to why Bandcamp matters: It provides a way for less famous bands to retain most of the revenue from their music, providing a direct way to monetize that isn’t just streaming. That more niche genres haven’t benefited from the streaming boom as major acts have is well-known, so I won’t belabor the point.
I am deciding to be an optimist about the Bandcamp-Epic deal because I want to see what can happen at the smaller music company if it is suddenly given far more resources and reach. Can Epic give Bandcamp enough financial firepower – and, critically, freedom – to move the needle on the realities of music distribution and monetization?
If not, why the fuck did it buy the company, right? So I suppose Epic has really arrogated to itself a huge amount of responsibility for music-industry stewardship. Bandcamp matters, and now it has a huge corporate parent. Let’s see how well it can incubate and accelerate the smaller company.
Not all signs are good. Amanda, who wrote above, saw my tentative headline for this section and expressed concern at the reaction of workers at the Bandcamp Daily taking their social accounts private in the wake of the day’s news. Epic must respect their independence, and not suffocate that which makes Bandcamp unique and valuable.
We could presume that Epic knows what it is doing. It’s taking on Apple and Google, let alone walled ecosystems more generally, so it should have an ethos already in hand that matches what Bandcamp has been trying to accomplish. But big companies are big companies, and they can accidentally squash smaller concerns if they are not careful.
Let’s see if Epic can make more niche music more profitable. That would be a material contribution.
Comment