Well written! Very much on point.

Posted by craig at August 5, 2008 4:13 PM

Amen.

Posted by ... at August 5, 2008 6:53 PM

Yes, yes, yes. These are certainly things that Derek should acknowledge and really, truly internalize. I wish I had stuck up for myself and my coworkers more when I worked there.

Posted by ****** at August 5, 2008 7:45 PM

Today I found out why Derek's blog is only filled with comments telling him how wonderful he is. It's because he's the moderator. I actually feel kind of stupid for not thinking of that sooner.

I left a comment there wishing him luck and tempering it with advice and criticism in the form of a link to this post.

Perhaps not surprisingly, he declined to approve my post on his site.

Posted by martin at August 5, 2008 9:43 PM

Visionary entrepreneurs are often subject to praise, as well as criticism. Frequently, both are deserved.

Derek never set out to be a business tycoon. He was never happier than when it was him and 5 guys scrapping to ship CDs out the door by day's end. He just had a great idea, and got in the way of something big that couldn't be stopped. And he had a knack for offering what the independent artist desperately needed, offering him a huge, loyal following.

He could have sold the business for a lot more than he ended up getting, to a corporate behemoth that would have crushed the spirit of CD Baby. He sold to Disc Makers because he was concerned about the wellbeing of the company, the artist, and - though he wouldn't express it publicly - the team.

He's had a rocky relationship with some of the staff at times, but you can't take away the accomplishments of CD Baby.

If people are hurt, or angry, or envious, or disappointed, that is normal. It's part of the grieving process, in a way. But very soon - very VERY soon - it'll be time to look forward, not back. You can't get back what happened, you can only learn from it.

Let's get to work. We have a great company to build.

Tony van Veen

Posted by TvV at August 5, 2008 11:34 PM

Brave and right on. I too used to work (closely) for Derek and he is NOTHING like he portrays himself to be.

Posted by Bob at August 6, 2008 12:11 AM

Tony,

I agree with you and tried hard to write my criticism in a way that recognized the accomplishment that is CD Baby. Derek's idea and what organically became of it, both at his own hand and by virtue of its just being something that was destined to explode on its own, is a company that I'm glad to be part of.

I've never even met him personally. He's never so much as sent an email to me personally. But I have heard of the rocky times between him and the staff that predate my employment, and I have seen how he deals with the company in the recent past. I honestly think that my criticism and advice, while admittedly harsh, is really something that could serve him well in the future if he chooses to think about it. I think many of the rocky times could have been avoided if he weren't so quick to continue to take all the credit for something that he started but that has become the work of a lot of very talented people combined.

I said I wasn't angry, and that was the truth. This letter really is all I had to say on the subject.

I've got a long list of ideas to put on the table for CD Baby moving forward. I also wasn't lying when I said I was optimistic and excited about the potential for building CD Baby into something even better than it already is. So, I'll see you tomorrow and we can start laying the groundwork with the team.

Posted by martin at August 6, 2008 12:18 AM

COMMON GUYS it is well understood buy those of us who do business that others are involved . When Derek writes he writes for all of you in Cd. IIt is only a BIG fool WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OTHER WORKERS ARE INVOLVED.

I fault Derek for not informing we who are his all and all brothers and sisters Customers and even the workers. IT IS WRONG TO EXIT LIKE HE DID WITH FEW NOTIFICATION AS IF HE DID SOMETHING WRONG.

He has a right to sell his business but he has no right to abandon his right hand people without clear notification.

Derek you owe us apology on such impromtu exit. We are your customers and workers in the field even the IT man here who critized your act you owe him that apology. You can not wake up and just leave without notification.

While we love you enough not to consider LEGAL ACTION apologize to us for such rough ending BREACH OF CONTRACT.

I know Derek if he sees this he will apologize becuase we love. Aplogize to those IT people. PLEASE COPY THIS AND FORWARD TO HIM
Chief

Posted by Sam at August 6, 2008 7:55 AM

I believe that transparency is a huge issue on the 'net and especially on web sites like CD Baby's.

I have never been comfortable with Derek's statements such as the one's in the vein of "CD Baby has paid artists $xxx millions of dollars" - it certainly looks good in print but when there is not a way to look at CD Baby's financials because they are a private company then interested parties, not to mention indpendent artists who use the service, will never really know what a statement like that means.

As a user/artist on CD Baby I would hope that DiscMakers will be more open and transparent about what those numbers actually mean. A lot of money has clearly been changing hands and CD Baby is not a non-profit company. Just saying....

Posted by Dave Allen at August 6, 2008 10:30 AM

I'll just say that I've dealt with Derek on and off for years and have known dozens of bands who use CD Baby and have always found him to be smart, artist centered and a pleasure to deal with. None of us his perfect but he imagined and created a company that has been very good to indie music.

Posted by Bruce Houghton at August 6, 2008 1:57 PM

This is better than "One Life To Live".

CD Baby needs its own reality TV show!

Posted by Colie Brice at August 7, 2008 2:16 PM

"I have never been comfortable with Derek's statements such as the one's in the vein of "CD Baby has paid artists $xxx millions of dollars" - it certainly looks good in print but when there is not a way to look at CD Baby's financials because they are a private company then interested parties, not to mention indpendent artists who use the service, will never really know what a statement like that means."

I can tell you exactly what it means, lets look at today's numbers - 244,574 artists sell their music at CD Baby, $84,085,098 paid directly to the artists.

This means the average artist has gotten paid $343. For ten years work. Gross (before any of the expenses of recording, duplicating, promotion, postage, fees, etc.)

In fact, the $35 artist setup is a 10% giveback right off the top.

Simple averages like this are not representative of any individual's antecdotal successes selling discs, but it helps put that whopping big, highly touted number into some kind of perspective. It would be a lot more revealing to know how many of the 244,574 artists have never sold enough product to cover their setup fee, wouldn't it?

Posted by CD Dude at August 17, 2008 7:14 AM

CD Dude's question is interesting, but not necessarily fair. As everyone at CD Baby can attest, there's a lot of work that goes into signing up a client at CD Baby: digitizing tracks, assigning ISRC codes, scanning cover art, typing (or proofing) the artist's credits, and reviewing and writing a brief artist/album description. $35 is a reasonable fee to collect for all that work.

Faulting CD Baby for some of its artists not selling enough CDs to cover their sign-up fee (and there certainly are a few of those clients) is not fair or appropriate. Any distributor or record store will tell you that they merely function as a channel to fill the demand that the artist generates. If the artist on CD Baby performs regularly, has a mailing list they can market to, is able to (somehow) get airplay, and is a savvy marketer, they will likely sell product. If the artist doesn't promote their product or perform live, then there is very little CD Baby can do to drive demand for that title.

And of course (a topic that has been taboo, but everyone knows exists) some product is just better than other. Better songwriting, better recording quality. Good music will not ensure that your product will sell (you still have to work it), but it will make it easier to sell.

That said, who are we to decide what constitutes good music and what doesn't? That's why CD Baby's business model of not applying any filters to the customers it accepts is such a successful model. Stuff one person hates is loved by another.

Posted by TvV at August 18, 2008 2:30 PM

$35 is a reasonable fee, as the fact that 200,000+ care to pay it, then it must reasonably be reasonable. It is nonetheless a shade more than 10% of what is paid out to the 'average' artist, who also, reasonably, doesn't exist.

An answer to the open, and rhetorical question, "how many of the 244,574 artists have never sold enough product to cover their setup fee" would not be faulting anyone or any company, merely a statistic that any budding young artist would like to know and probably should know. If I mention to my son that only 1 in 800,000 Little Leaguers ever ends up in the major leagues, I don't think I am either snubbing the LL, nor discouraging him from buying a mitt and a ball.

We all adults here, and we know what kind of emotions a statement like "$84,085,098 paid directly to the artists" is supposed to elicit - something like, "Heck, there's gold in them thar hills!! Let's burn a few CD-R!!" Selling a dream, right? OK, so what are the odds? That's the basis for the question, and really just a conversation starter at that, if you could even get the odds.

Posted by CD Dude at August 18, 2008 6:03 PM

The phrase, "That's why CD Baby's business model of not applying any filters to the customers it accepts is such a successful model," is kind of funny since Mr. Sivers recommends on his own web site AGAINST this sort of thing.

I quote Derek from his article written in August, 2007 called "Go where the filters are", he states, "With the internet, there are more media outlets than anyone can digest. People in the music biz get piles of CDs in the mail everyday from amateurs. Many of them are crap. You need to go through filters. Places that reject many, only letting the best of the best pass through. As long as you're good (really good) - what you want are MORE filters! More obstacles... More hurdles... Because these things weed out the 'bad' music. Or the music that isn't ready. Or the people that weren't dedicated."

And it goes on from there.

Posted by Greg Howell at August 19, 2008 2:13 PM

The fact that Derek says one thing and does another isn't "kind of funny." It's his entire career and seems to be his personality.

What is truly ironic about that article from which you quote is the fact that he doesn't appear to have the ability to filter anything he says to even give the appearance of consistency. The reason is that he's not able to "consider" anything in the way he presents himself. He can't "ponder" something aloud or in writing. All he knows how to do is declare things.

Typically it seems he reads something, it hits a nerve that gets him motivated or excited and he immediately preaches it to everyone or (if it's a thing that is actionable) implements it.

He's a classic example of someone who has a pearl only because he opens everything that looks remotely like an oyster. And there is nothing wrong with that... Though it's not the only way to success, it's not somehow less ethical than others. So don't think that's what I'm saying.

What is less ethical about the way he works is when one of his wildly unplanned ventures or shifts in focus yields fruit. Because that's the point at which he begins to lie in earnest. That's the point at which history begins to be rewritten and he says things in his blog implying that he "designed" CD Baby to function without him.

Everybody knows he didn't "design" CD Baby in any way that could have been that forward thinking. That was part of the charm of the whole thing in the first place. It was a guy who wanted to sell his music coming up with a novel idea and doing it. In his garage or his bedroom or whatever.

And even that characterization isn't exactly correct. Derek was never a struggling artist. He was never a struggling anything. But again, he has no qualms simultaneously playing up the "I'm so smart I designed this all to be exactly what it is today" and the "I'm so motivated I just one day said I'm gonna do this and now I'm successful."

They simply cannot both be true. And honestly, the latter is more likely. What's funny to me is that if he only played up the latter, he'd be better liked. The latter gives him credit for being motivated and a risk taker, both of which are true. The former gives him credit for other people's work, which is despicable.

What bothered me enough to write my original letter has absolutely nothing to do with CD Baby's business model or whether or not it's successful. It was the fact that Derek is, to put it mildly, a dishonest person who appears to be dishonest for no other reason than that he can't be honest.

If I were tasked with putting it less mildly, I actually wouldn't feel uncomfortable throwing the word "sociopath" around. It's not far off the mark from what I have seen and heard. He's so comfortable lying to people and to himself that I get the impression he doesn't even know what it means to be honest. Not even abstractly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to let this discussion go wherever it wants to go. My comments about my original intention are not here to discourage discussion of financials or business models or anything else for that matter.

Carry on...

Posted by martin at August 19, 2008 7:05 PM

When one is talking to an individual artist, suggesting ways to cut through the muck, seeking out more and stronger filters might be appropriate.

When discussing new business models, I think the opposite is true: if by filtering nothing you can make a nice business out of it, why apply the filters?

In other words, instead of beating yourself over the head trying to find the one superstar who can sell 4 million records over the course of a 10 year career, why not acknowledge the fact that even the worst musician in the world can talk, cajole, bribe, plead with or downright beg 16 people to buy their music. Without filters the CD Baby model has shown that almost a quarter million artists of every stripe will show up over a 10 year span and there's your multiple. 4 million sold.

It should be applicable to many other disciplines and fields of endeavor.

Posted by CD Dude at August 20, 2008 5:12 AM

When I first found this blog, I kind of skimmed over the open letter since it struck me at first as having a gossipy tone (I imagined two housewives from the late '40s talking over the backyard fence). I preferred to comment on the off-topic business angles brought in by another poster.

When I read and then re-read the open letter and addendums, I was struck more by its harshness and sanctimony. It seems to me the whole thing could have been summed up by one suggestion, "Derek, please give it a second thought every time you use the word 'I' in a sentence." All this about being a sociopath, being dishonest, despicable behavior, not ethical, serial liar, etc, is more about Derek not being able to meet the standards that Martin has laid out for him, a person he has not met. Why should he feel he needs to live up to the high standards you have set for him, and wouldn't your time be better spent getting your own house in order? Becoming a better person yourself instead of trying to judge others and 'fix' others? Re-read what you've posted; you're judging the personality of someone you never met - almost a contradiction in terms - and relying primarily on hearsay to do so.

Becoming non-judgemental is one of the hardest areas of self-improvement, but there's a benefit to it, namely, that your inner turbulence is quieted. Some of the tenants I use to try to improve myself (pardon the spelling) are, "Resolve to be egoless, as much as it is humanly possible to do so; remember, it's not about you." "Resolve to try to end each day as a better person than when the day began." "Resolve to be non-judgemental, since no one is inheirantly morally superior to anyone else; we are all in various stages of moral development."

Posted by cd dude at August 21, 2008 7:13 AM

I understand your point, cd dude, and to be fair I don't care if Derek lives up to the standards anyone has set for him. I know my advice to him is easily summed up in a single sentence. It's the fourth paragraph of my original post. :)

I linked to his blog in a couple places to give examples of the "case" I was making. In other words, I made an attempt, as best one can in the context of a personal blog, to be relatively objective. I feel very strongly about my opinion of the situation and of him, so let me stress the word relatively again.

How is judging someone you've never met "almost a contradiction in terms?" You judged me in your previous comment when you recommended I get "[my] own house in order." I'm not offended by that, and it is good advice to me and to many people. I'm just saying: There's no contradiction involved simply by virtue of the fact that one is judging someone they have not met. You judged me before that when you interpreted my writing as "gossipy." That was a less informed judgment, given that, by your own admission, you'd only skimmed it at that point, but again, it's not contradictory in any way for you to do it.

What is contradictory, even ironic, is you implying that what I need to do is become "non-judgmental." For all you know, I might live by the same tenets you espouse. I might have fallen off of my Wagon of Egolessness for a day out of anger at Derek or any other number of personal reasons partly or wholly unrelated to the situation of my former employer. (In fact, that is sort of how I feel every time I write more about this situation, but it's very difficult not to at times.)

There are many people who might call me egoless and many who might call me an egotist. The degree to which any of them know me is not necessarily the most important factor in their opinion of me, is it?

What's also ironic is this:

My comments judging Derek were not accepted by him. I left a comment on his blog on August 4th with best wishes in his further endeavors and a link to my post as perhaps harsh but not ill-intentioned advice. (My best wishes to him, for the record, are sincere. I hope that he improves his ability to interact with and relate to others because I think he'll have a more rewarding experience in life that way. But I wish him well regardless. I don't hate the man.) According to my server logs, someone did visit the page from the admin section of the blog at sivers.org, but the comment was not approved.

Yet, I've approved every comment to come through this blog except for spam. That includes any criticizing me, regardless of tone or interpretation. I could be doing it for the same pseudo-political reasons that magazines publish negative letters to the editor along with positives, but even if I am doing it with an ulterior motive, I'm not cultivating the appearance of having no detractors or always being right and revolutionary, and Derek is doing that, constantly.

That cultivation of an alternate reality built around the ego is a trait I find despicable, and though you are correct that my time would be better spent elsewhere, for me to call someone "despicable" does not equate to my thinking the person needs to live up to anything. It simply means I think they are despicable. I am probably making an error in judgment when I waste time thinking about such things, but there's a fine line between saying what you believe while risking misinterpretation and being a complete pussy with some kind of moral justification that it's wrong to judge others.

Yeah, I know. "Mr. Pot, there's a phone call for you on line one... It's a Mr. Kettle." I get it. I'm just not convinced that judgment is such a bad thing. It can be, but I don't believe it is de facto wrong.

And yes, I do realize that my pointing out that I embrace criticism from others in the comments section of my blog is akin to going out of one's way to define one's public persona as "I don't have a public persona." I hope we'll stay out of that recursive minefield because, though it might be partly true when psychoanalyzing me, it's overcomplicating things in the context of what I'm saying.

Again, I'm not trying to sound harsh, and I really am not angry at you or anything like that. I'm not taking your comments in a negative way nor is this a knee-jerk reaction to you calling bullshit on my attitude in the matter.

I do think you're wrong about my intention regarding a need to "fix" Derek personally or have him live up to some standard I've set, but that misconception isn't necessarily something I would blame solely on you. It has as much if not more to do with my ability to communicate as a writer, so having someone say that I sounded sanctimonious ultimately has the silver lining of helping me improve my writing the next time I want to say something important and am concerned about my tone.

Which, ironically, is all I hoped Derek would get out of my criticism. Namely, something to think about that might be useful to him down the road even if it was kind of harsh today.

I did read what I wrote several times over. I edited it carefully because I did not want it to come out sounding like a basket of bile-filled sour grapes. I tried to explain that I rarely felt personally offended by Derek in any way, and that's true. I'm more angry at him because of the things he's done to my coworkers, many of whom I have grown to like quite a bit in the time I've been here. Yes, it's hearsay when they tell me things he did that made their lives temporarily miserable or which they thought were unfair. However, I've heard so many tales along those lines, unsolicited and from many different coworkers, that it'd be silly not to assume they were mostly true.

Derek lives a very public life. Certainly that makes it easier to observe him in contexts like interviews and his writing, and that in turn makes it easier to verify whether the way he appears to be jives with the way he is presented in the aforementioned hearsay. That's really all I've done, admittedly, but I hardly think it's something I need to put a thousand caveats in front of to be understood.

I've also based my opinions on some things that aren't hearsay at all, for what it's worth. I have seen email Derek wrote to others in which he blatantly misses the concerns and feelings of his employees (or worse, recognizes them but indicates explicitly that he does not care). I've seen things he has written outside the context of his blog which are downright nasty and would reflect poorly on anyone who wrote them.

Consider that the people who shared those email messages with me are people Derek must have thought were "on his side." Do you think Derek simply has untrustworthy friends? Or is it more likely that he doesn't have many real friends because he is untrustworthy? I know they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's something to think about.

Posted by martin at August 21, 2008 8:34 AM

I see we've headed down the "you're judging me by saying I'm judgemental" path and the "you're taking the moral high ground by telling me I'm taking the moral high ground" route. I'll stick to business and stay out the elementary school sandbox.

Posted by cd dude at August 21, 2008 3:19 PM

I fear I'm coming off as more belligerent than I really am. I was laughing to myself when I made a lot of those observations. Perhaps I should use more emoticons. ;)

I wasn't trying to pick any kind of sandbox fight. You are judging me. I didn't say that was negative. I said it was ironic.

I said there was nothing contradictory about judging someone you don't know. That was me disagreeing with a statement you made. I didn't mean it as a challenge or fight. I mean it could have started a debate, but that's fine with me. I like debating, even when someone logically wipes the floor with my ass. (Yes, that happens often enough.)

I also said I disagreed with you regarding whether or not being judgmental was unilaterally wrong. I don't think it is. To be fair, I'm not sure you think it is, so maybe I shouldn't have said I disagreed.

I thought said an awful lot to indicate that I don't have a problem with you judging me even if you're doing so negatively. I even said I agreed with you about getting "[my] own house in order." I do. Seriously.

I just thought it was funny that you suggested I not judge Derek on the grounds that I've never met him because I presume you've never met me.

Unless of course you have met me. In which case I would wonder why you've chosen to remain anonymous in these conversations. (And no, that would not be judgment of your anonymity. It would be what I just said: me wondering why you chose to do so. Nothing more.)

Posted by martin at August 22, 2008 2:38 AM

Look, Martin, with all due respect, you probably would agree that there are likely two sides to every story. All the coworkers you spoke to apparently expressed their side (one side, with their biases or spin) of whatever grievance they had. And without any background on knowing whether they had an axe to grind, were expressing sour grapes, were simply jealous, or were just having a bad week, your assessment of the situation was set.

So the analogy is like a judge in court. The prosecution presented their case, fine. Full of inadmissable hearsay, but let's go ahead and let that slide. But then you banged the gavel and cyberstated, "I've heard enough, I'm ready to rule."

If that seems fair to you, our definition of fairness varies greatly.

Posted by CD Dude at August 22, 2008 3:01 AM

When did I say I was "ready to rule" on anything? The whole original post is directed at Derek and says what I think about the situation.

Let me say that again: It's what I think of the situation and what I think of Derek. It's my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it.

You say I had no background regarding my coworkers' reasons for saying whatever things they said. I would argue that that's not completely true. Remember I worked with and talked to these people for months. I'm not basing my opinion on one conversation with them. There was enough of a sampling to likely weed out fluctuations in mood and get to the core of their real feelings.

And don't forget, I have read things Derek wrote to these people. I was an employee when Derek lied to us about the sale of the company, and I was still an employee the day we found out it had been a lie. I never said I was an omniscient narrator here, but there's ample evidence that I'm also not a completely objective one, and I'm not pretending to be that either.

Regardless, you have no background on my reasoning. You are in no position to tell me when or how my "assessment of the situation was set" any more than I am to tell my coworkers why they feel the way they do.

Many of my coworkers have thanked me for writing what I did. That doesn't make me proud or happy or anything really. (To be honest it's kind of weird and unexpected.) But it does give me an indication that I must have voiced how many of them felt at least somewhat accurately.

Hearsay isn't admissible as evidence in court, but there's nothing about your analogy that bears extending that aspect into this context. I'm not gathering facts and ruling on a case. My "ruling" on this blog doesn't mean shit to anybody unless they want it to. Derek's not gonna be punished because I had harsh words for him on mushrush.com. So why are you so conflicted about it? If this is the elementary school sandbox you mockingly made it out to be, why haven't you taken your own advice and just walked away from it?

I'm reporting an opinion on a personal website. My opinion is influenced by my own observations and the reported observations and experiences of others. Where is there a rule that says I can't say what I think here on my own site? How is that any less fair than Derek not accepting my comments on his own site? And how is that any more fair than you writing here in criticism of me?

I'll give you a hint: None of the forums I mentioned is fair. If you want moderated fairness, go be in court. This is not court, and to make that analogy and expect all of those rules to apply here is asinine.

Honestly, I have no idea what your agenda is here other than to tell me I've been unfair to Derek because I don't know his side of the story. You've told me that, and frankly I don't care if I've been fair to Derek because I feel he was unfair to me and to many other people. If Derek feels I was unfair to him then let him tell me that.

If you so strongly feel that I was unfair to Derek then make an actual case for why he deserves different treatment. I don't mean make a case for why Martin Mushrush shouldn't judge people in general. I mean why Derek Sivers deserves to be reconsidered when judged harshly. Come out to CD Baby and talk to my coworkers. Come talk to me in person. Gather your own evidence and rule on the case. But really rule on the case at hand. Stop telling me I'm not fair for writing my thoughts in a blog. That's like telling the author of an editorial that their piece is too opinionated.

And if you do decide to rule on the case at hand, why don't you reveal who you are so we can find out what, if any axes you might have to grind and what if any allegiances you might have outside of the simple "there are two sides to every story" cop out you're tossing at me.

The internet's a stupid place where people throw their opinions around and play tough and righteous plenty. Put your real name on the table before you say "with all due respect," because that's all the respect I feel is due to most people in this arena. It also levels the playing field quite a bit in my opinion.

Posted by martin at August 22, 2008 5:11 AM

My name is Jeff Moskow, I'm consulting in the Southeast right now, but I'm based in LA. I can't wait to see what you do with that information.

Posted by CD Dude at August 22, 2008 1:43 PM

I didn't (and don't) intend to do anything with it. I'm just leery of people who seem to have an agenda but are acting anonymously, leaving no definitive trace of their own bias if it exists.

I did get a little more ruffled than I should have when I posted that last comment. I just felt like my whole point about judgment was missed, and that's kind of the crux of my argument. At 5:00 am that makes me testy. Everything else I've said has not been intended to sound as ranty as I think it has come across, but oh well...

Anyway, my two main points have been and continue to be:

- I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with judging someone you don't know in the context in which I have done it. If that were true, countless people would be considered overly judgmental for not liking the President's policies.

- I know Derek's side of the story must be different than mine or anyone else's. However, I don't agree that that makes my stating my opinion publicly somehow "unfair" to him or anyone else, especially if they don't present an actual alternate side of the story in lieu of simply declaring that there is one.

There are other things online, written by other employees and former employees of this company, which are far more angry-sounding than my original post. If anything, I have published the least gossip-filled commentary on the situation of any I've seen. Perhaps it's interpreted to be more smarmy than intended. I'm not saying I intended it to be completely friendly (even though the well wishes really are sincere), but I certainly did not intend for it to sound like I was condemning him to the fiery pit. I was just offering some advice for dealing with people which I think would benefit him.

Really not so different from you telling me the three things you try to do each day to be a better, less judgmental person. Those three things, as I said way back up the page in response to you, are good advice for me and many other people, but as I think you know, they are harder to do than to say or tell someone else to do.

Posted by martin at August 22, 2008 3:49 PM

I've put a number of CDs up on CD Baby since 2005. During my time there, I always felt a bit leery about Derek's cheese-ball 'feel good' crap on the website and his e-mails. I found most of his tips to be sophomoric and borderline nauseating, at best.

I've been on CD Baby long enough to come to the (possibly erroneous) conclusion that part of it was a Friends Club for Derek and his 'pet bands' and the rest of us were left out to dry.

All that garbage about featuring CDs on the front page and then telling people 'don't ask to be featured' and 'being put on the front page won't give you more CD sales' was bunch of bullshit.

He also mentioned that the featured band space was reserved for 'certain very important' people in the industry who had to remain anonymous. It's either a bunch of crap or they were into the 'payola' scheme.

Seemed funny how the editor's pick seemed to perpetually linger on the same page. I can't imagine there being so much crap being sent in that they can't find something to replace the picks more frequently.

Not to mention the fact he kept promising marketing opportunities that never seemed to develop.

And HostBaby? Tried it. What a steaming pile of over-priced crap!

I hope the new owners turn this crusty turd of a ship around and start sailing for nicer ports.

Posted by Fei De Long at September 11, 2008 4:48 AM

And by way-

Am I a bitter CD Baby customer? You bet!

Am I glad Derek's gone? Mostly definitely!

Do I wish this buyout had happened years ago? Without a doubt!

Posted by Fei De Long at September 11, 2008 5:39 AM

I don't know any of you, and I know we are all allowed to have opinions. People get laid off every day. I came to work one day thinking that all was well and got called up to the office and told that they were short on cash and needed to excuse me. Found out that 20 other people heard the same short story before being walked to the door scratching our heads... Guess what Derek did was no different than what happens to millions of common workers accross the company. Now some of the higher up as well as common workers for CD Baby have felt the sting of this econmical disaster. I served in the Army, and we as soldiers have always been overlooked and disregarded... They called us expendable, which is fancy for "easily replaced". So I have been a part of this kind of thing forever. It made me stronger, skin tougher, and we did not get to write blogs and comments about it. We lived. Some of you guys sound like pouty little babies... Especially if you did not even know dude and you are going off of hear-say! Please. Get over it like the rest of America has to everyday. Besides, nobody really cares how you feel, especially Derek. He has made his bank deposit, and by now has already started his next "Baby". Sorry you felt like you were a major part of the success of this company and got overlooked, but you and some of the responders to this blog said it best.... ya'll were cowards, and did not speak up when it counted, so shut up now... Why rant now when it won't do any good? Do you really think Derek got as far as he did by giving a damn? No company CEO does, unless his company is just starting out, then they are so humble but money and success affords you the right to say, in the words of the ARMY "hey little man, I can replace you, so ship up or ship out, this boat will run with or without you". Thank you. Right or wrong, it was done... You did nothing when you had the chance so do nothing now except look towards the next opportunity... If I'm not mistaken, none of you worked for free! You got paid too... Maybe that money made you shut up... Hmmmmm

Posted by Miami Hurricane at September 11, 2008 6:11 AM

Poor Tony Van Veen - you have to take all the blame for CDBaby being sold and Derek Sivers trash and having to defend every negative comment.

I hate CDBaby and I hate Derek Sivers. They make me sick to my stomach. Derek Sivers - you may have $20 million dollars and laughing but Karma will get you. Be afraid, be very afraid. It will hit you 10,000 worse that what you hit others. Derek, you are such a trickster!

I had 5 CDs shipped to CDbaby and another 5 CDs shipped to Amazon a few years ago. Guess which one sold faster? My Cds at Amazon sold within 3 months while CDbaby took over 18 months to sell. CDbaby is crappy and simply old school. Their website was so lousy looking until Diskmakers took over. This Derek Sivers thinks he is Jesus or Barack Obama and will take any given moment to speak at a music conference so it will boast himself and his company. He is so selfish and boastful. Good riddance of Cdbaby - we should all boycott Cdbaby and now sell our CDs on Amazon.com

Also, you guys think $20 million to Derek is huge? Wait till you see the sale of Sonicbids, it will be $250 million or more! Bye Bye Derek!

Posted by Yuriko at September 11, 2008 5:31 PM

I just want to point out or clarify a couple things in the interest of fairness...

1.) Yuriko, CD Baby's website hasn't changed since Disk Makers took over. I'm sure it will change, but the most recent changes you're seeing (the new home page, logo and header, specifically) were made before the sale took place. I'm sure under Disk Makers the site will continue to change and likely improve, but the recent changes are solely the work of people who were at CD Baby before the sale.

2.) Miami Hurricane, I wasn't laid off. I still work at CD Baby. In fact, nobody was let go when the sale took place. I'm not sure what you're saying about getting over "the sting of this economical disaster" or where you got the idea that I or anybody else was complaining about losing a job. I'm still working, and I'm still getting paid.

Posted by martin at September 11, 2008 7:11 PM

For the record, I thought the letter was well put and rather fair. I don't see anything wrong with exercising the faculty of discrimination when it comes to the words and actions of others.

As a business owner (Major-distributed, though independent, record label & recording studio), I am constantly under the gun to deliver on what I promise to the artists who have put their career in my hands. I am also likewise responsible to my investors. If I cannot deliver on something, I either do not speak of it, or I temper my communications with a caveat.

I also aim to use the word "we" frequently.

I strongly take issue with the sentiments of the poster who declared "Do you really think Derek got as far as he did by giving a damn? No company CEO does..." Excuse me? What a sad commentary on our expectations of those in positions of authority. (Yes, you can take that statement and apply it to the current political climate here in the USA.)

"...unless his company is just starting out, then they are so humble but money and success affords you the right to say, in the words of the ARMY 'hey little man, I can replace you, so ship up or ship out, this boat will run with or without you'."

Well, my company is not just starting out. My money and success I attribute to the hard work of myself *and many others* and the trust and faith of others in *our* endeavors. Money and success DOES NOT afford me the right to think of those under my employ as "little man"; indeed, my success absolutely depends on OUR ability to work as a TEAM -- an attitude the ARMY ought to have instilled in the author of my quote above.

It is when people do not deliver on their work that I make staff changes. Sadly, it seems 199,999 independent musicians probably should have done the same long ago with CD Baby.

That said, the poster does make a point about the importance of communication -- that issues should be raised with employers -- though much of the willingness and encouragement to raise those issues will naturally depend on the "corporate culture" embraced and nurtured through the ranks. This, it appears, was found wanting at CD Baby.

Wishing much success to the independent musicians out there, and those who support them in whatever capacity... rock on.

-C

Posted by Chris at September 13, 2008 3:35 PM

Hi,
I am sad to read some of these postings....I don't understand, if you genuinely wanted to give Derek advice, why didn't you just send him an email? Why the public forum?

Also, I like Derek and have had a positive experience with him and CD Baby.

All the best,
Kat Parsons

Posted by kp at September 13, 2008 4:33 PM

Kat, I chose the public forum for two reasons:

1) In my brief experience with Derek he never once directly addressed any of the "lower ranks" I worked with. He did, however, write things visible to multiple employees which harshly criticized specific people or groups of people.

My point was not to "stoop to his level." It was to write under the assumption that he finds this sort of forum appropriate. I don't find it inappropriate myself, and I didn't feel I was being inappropriate to prove a point even though I know I was making an arguably harsh criticism.

2) Though I may be wrong about it, I believed then (and still do) that the chances of Derek actually reading my comments and thinking about them before dismissal were -higher- if he knew there were other people who could see them too.

Like a lot of people who've responded in these comments, I think Derek is very egotistical. I think confronting a person like that in a public forum is far more effective than doing so privately.

If I'm wrong about the extent to which he is concerned about what others think, then why should anyone care about what I've said here? Certainly he wouldn't.

However, if I'm right about how much he bases his own worth on the opinions of others, then starting a discussion like this is useful in my mind even if I come out looking like "the bad guy" to a lot of people.

Posted by martin at September 13, 2008 5:07 PM

Post a comment

(Highlighted fields are required.)