 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| HOW MUCH WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY TO DOWNLOAD A NEW ALBUM FROM ONE OF YOUR FAVORITE BANDS? |
| $0 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $3 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $5 |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
| $7 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $9 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $10 |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
| $12 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $14 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $15 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $17 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $20 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| $25 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: How Much Is Music Worth? |
 |
|
Just curious. If one of your favorite bands came out online and asked for $5 would to download their new album, would that be too much? What is the highest you would pay to download music from one of your favorite artists if they had their new album exclusively through their web site?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would be willing to pay double what I paid for Saul Williams if Nine Inch Nails or Lou Reed made a new album that was download only.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Five bucks for me. That's the way I feel now. If I had money, I'd feel differently.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | Five bucks for me. That's the way I feel now. If I had money, I'd feel differently. |
I really think $5 is reasonable, actually, for a downloadable (no hard copy) CD, especially if they aren't going through a record label. The profit margin is way bigger. If just as many people bought Saul William's record as did buy Britney Spears, obviously $5 per album would make him a super rich guy!
BTW, since Radiohead refuses to release financials, and the world is left wondering how the numbers turn out for a fairly successful (but not mainstream) artist who works this way, Trent Reznor decided to post about how it went with Saul William's record. He sounds disappointed, but honestly, I think it worked out pretty well considering they did no advertising and had no press releases. Consider that Saul Williams sold 34,000 hard copies of his previous record that came out in 2004 and had record label support, as oppose to three months after "Niggy Tardust" he has already sold 28,000 copies and has a higher profit margin.
| Quote: | t's a strange time to be an artist in the recording business. It's pretty easy to see what NOT to do these days, but less obvious to know what's right. As I find myself free from the bloated bureaucracy of major labels, finally able to do whatever I want... well, what is that? What is the "right" way to release records, treat your music and your audience with respect and attempt to make a living as well? I have a number of musician friends who are either in a similar situation or feel they soon will be, and it's a real source of anxiety and uncertainty.
I'd like to share my experience releasing Saul Williams' "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust" and what I've learned from the process. Perhaps by revealing of all our data - our "dirty laundry" - we can contribute to a better solution.
A quick history: Saul makes a great record that I produce. We can't find the right home at a major label. We decide to release it ourselves, digitally. Saul does not have limitless financial resources so we shop around for a company that can fulfill our needs. We choose Musicane because they are competent and are willing to adapt to what we want. The results are here: niggytardust.com
We offer the entire record free (as in totally free to the visitor - we pay bandwidth costs) as 192 MP3s, or for $5 you can choose higher fidelity versions and feel good about supporting the artist directly. We offer all major CCs and PayPal as payment options.
Here's what I was thinking: Fans are interested in music as soon as it's available (that's a good thing, remember) and usually that's a leak from the label's manufacturing plants. Offering the record digitally as its first appearance in the marketplace eliminates that problem. I thought if you offered the whole record free at reasonable quality - no strings attached - and offered a hassle free way to show support that clearly goes straight to the artists who made it at an unquestionably low price people would "do the right thing". I know, I know...
Well, now I DO know and you will too.
Saul's previous record was released in 2004 and has sold 33,897 copies.
As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.
Of those paying,
3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC
Keep in mind not one cent was spent on marketing this record. The only marketing was Saul and myself talking as loudly as we could to anybody that would listen.
If 33,897 people went out and bought Saul's last record 3 years ago (when more people bought CDs) and over 150K - five times as many - sought out this new record, that's great - right?
I have to assume the people knowing about this project must either be primarily Saul or NIN fans, as there was very little media coverage outside our direct influence. If that assumption is correct - that most of the people that chose to download Saul's record came from his or my own fan-base - is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening.
Add to that: we spent too much (correction, I spent too much) making the record utilizing an A-list team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project.
But...
Saul's music is in more peoples' iPods than ever before and people are interested in him. He'll be touring throughout the year and we will continue to get the word out however we can.
So - if you're an artist looking to utilize this method of distribution, make of these figures what you will and hopefully this info is enlightening.
Best,
TR |
Dig This Story
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think radiohead had millions of downloads. A lot of people listened who normally wouldn't have, and I think they took advantage of a great opportunity.
I hope there at least becomes a standard that people can rely on for buying music online.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | I think radiohead had millions of downloads. A lot of people listened who normally wouldn't have, and I think they took advantage of a great opportunity.
I hope there at least becomes a standard that people can rely on for buying music online. |
Obviously, since they don't post their records, it is hard to tell though.
But also, obviously, they are 10,000 times more popular than Saul Williams. What makes the Saul Williams numbers so interesting is the fact that he ISN'T a widely known artist, and that he HAS HARDLY ANY mainstream exposure.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's very true. I sure never heard of him until that album. I think it's a great way to do things.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
|
