Members richardmac Posted July 17, 2009 Members Share Posted July 17, 2009 I think it's good to experiment with different ideas, and so most recently I decided to allow free 128k mp3 downloads of all my songs, with the idea of selling physical CD's and higher bit rate files for those who want to upscale. This post is about how the experiment failed. The subject is a misnomer - free downloads of a few songs, not a bad idea. Free downloads of all of your songs, bad idea. According to my "research." At least, bad idea for me. I've spent the last few days talking to as many people as possible about the idea of free 128k mp3 downloads. And the results of those conversations were interesting. It's always better to ASK people than to guess. Some key points: • Younger people do not have a problem with going to a web site and listening to music streamed. Older people like it less. • Some people actually prefer streamed music to downloads. One reason is they can listen to it from any computer. This did not make sense to me. If you download the song, you can put it anywhere. Doesn't have to make sense to me - it's how some people felt. • The majority of people 35 and older that I talked to (who weren't musicians) had no real understanding of higher quality file formats and what that means. To them, they thought I had just decided to give my music away, period. Eek. • A few people actually got annoyed with me because they bought my CD and were wondering why I didn't tell them my music was free. Eek again. • Streaming music caused repeat visits, which is a good thing because it means people are thinking about you and coming back. My biggest mistake was making assumptions instead of doing research - even limited research of talking to actual real people. A whole lot of people, young and old, have no clue that a 128k crappy sounding mp3 file is actually that much crappier than a CD. So it seems to me that streaming music is much more likely to cause an eventual sale than offering free downloads of low quality format. I'm off to redo my bandcamp settings. I just thought I'd share the results of this, so people can avoid this mistake, or at least laugh at how stupid I was to try it. There's some comic value in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry_L Posted July 17, 2009 Members Share Posted July 17, 2009 Thanks for sharing that. My gut feeling was that streaming is the best alternative. At least some people will be motivated to purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted July 17, 2009 Members Share Posted July 17, 2009 Any freetard who wants your music can still record it of the windows sound buss if you stream whole songs ............; Provided they want it .Established pop Icons are settling for lower sales at lower margins these days .I think that most bands are selling the lions share of the CD's they sell at there live shows . I would'nt even trust Uber busy folks to remember how to spell the bands name and wade through google hits just to get to your CD either .... Pimp it at a live show. I think that we still need gatekeepers and that at this point the blogesphere needs to have some folks whos opinion's can be trusted doing reviews by genre and such .. ( there are a few) Think about how Busy Folks have Annoited Ophrah the kingmaker for authors of books. How many older adults are going to learn all about audio formats and mp3, mp4 , wav , aiff , ogg , Flac ???????? very , very little I should think . Thanks for sharing with us , You quest is leading you down a long and winding road , no ??? Perhaps you should try the duck suit !!!!! you never know !!! Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted July 17, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 17, 2009 LOL. I agree with a lot of what you said. CD's sell way better at live gigs than online (for me.) People who want to rip streams certainly can do it, but the average person doesn't know how. And very, very few adults want to give a crap about audio file formats. Regarding the long and winding road, I think this stuff is fun. My sense of self-worth is not attached to my music. It's a fun hobby. I like writing songs, performing them, recording them, talking about the music biz, talking about guitar pickups, recording strategies, the whole deal. I've learned a lot here in the forums. Regarding the filter thing, I agree with that too. It would be very cool if there were some really good reviewers out there. There might even be, actually - I've never really looked. But any reviewer who gets wicked popular is going to be subjected to payola, IMHO. So I'm not sure how far that can go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted July 17, 2009 Members Share Posted July 17, 2009 Good news , I've appointed myself the Gatekeeper and will be deciding which mp3' are duds and which are the shizzle .........; Of course the bands who's members perform in duck suits will recieve an automatic endorsment !!!! P.S. I know I've mined the E.J. in a duck suit vein out , and , will discontinue it's use ..... FOR NOW !!!!!!!!! :lol: Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elsongs Posted July 18, 2009 Members Share Posted July 18, 2009 I think it's good to experiment with different ideas, and so most recently I decided to allow free 128k mp3 downloads of all my songs, with the idea of selling physical CD's and higher bit rate files for those who want to upscale. This post is about how the experiment failed. I think 128K is still too high a quality for people to consider "low quality." In fact, the vast majority of free MP3s of commercially-available songs found in file sharing sites are 128k. A lot of people are satisfied listening to a YouTube "video" of text or a still image of an artist as they listen to the gawdawful audio quality of the song. Maybe release them at 64k, and make them mono. That way people can dig THE SONG and if they want a better listening experience, they will buy the CD (or the paid downloadable files). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cheesy Posted July 18, 2009 Members Share Posted July 18, 2009 ^i agree with that, if they like your music at a low quality, but want to hear it at a better quality, they would have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Thanks for the insight. This is good working knowledge for me to process. I guess it really depends where one stands in the heirarchy of success: Im still under the assumption that the best thing for someone just starting out, with zilch fanbase, to do is give away a lot of music....get it on as many iPods as possible and, as the 'name' grows, the freebies go away exponentially....but I would still try to rely on merchandise as the Cash Cow regardless of where I stand How one measures 'success' also must be taken in accord. If someone is an established local artist and wants to remain at that status then, yes, that person shouldnt have to give away anything....at the same time, not complain if people anywhere else around the internet globe, with no connection to this virtual unknown artist, show little interest It is the New Business Model we all have to deal with, after all......which decrees "Music is FREE, whether you like it or not" Your observation has substantiated a theory I have had: Target Audience is important. Ive been under the impression that middle-aged people are more likely to pay for a quality product than the younger generation(s)...... still, it doesnt guarantee that they all are willing to do it and that there are plenty of torrent-minded people in their 40s and above By the way, Im not arguing or downplaying, Im just bouncing devil's advocate's ideas off you a bit, but thanks again for the very informative and useful information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bostonwal Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 I would agree that you don't necessarily want to give away all the songs for free. But you might want to make one song available for download and possibly change that song each week. The rest can be 1 minute snippets streamed. But anyway, getting at least one song on people's ipods is the main goal. You're trying to build a fanbase and ipod listening is the key to that, which leads to word of mouth. Other things that lead to word of mouth are reviews in online magazines, local radio play, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted July 23, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 One thing is becoming fairly obvious to me - there are lots of opinions on how to build a fan base, but your own personal experiences are more valuable. I hear a lot of people talking about touring and selling merch, but for most of us it's rhetorical. Very few people here in HC are actually touring and selling merch. From what I've seen, HC is composed of teens with their big dreams, 20-something guys who are trying to live out those dreams and struggling, older guys who tried to do music for a living and found more money elsewhere, and different variations. It looks good in a PDF file that you download from Bob Baker that says you should sell out venues in your own city, then branch out to nearby cities, then plan a small tour, and sell your merch, but... But touring and merch don't happen unless you've got a loyal fanbase, and that's extremely hard to do. That's why so many struggle and mostly fail. You have to have fantastic music, and then you have to have a fantastic show. It's really hard to do both. I think the big pie in the face about the Internet and music is that while it's easy to put your music up for sale for anyone in the world, people don't want to buy it. I think a good analogy would be that you move into this town, and Saturday morning you wake up and everyone on your street is having a garage sale. And you're like, "Cool!" And you go and look around, maybe you find something, maybe not. But the next morning it's the same thing - garage sales everywhere. You get in your car and drive to the store and every house on the way has a garage sale. The concept of garage sale gets to the point where it is offensive to you. I've just described MySpace. Anyway. The thing I've learned is that you need to try stuff, see how it works, make changes. And most of all, you need to become a better live act. I know when I'm having a good night. Because I'll sell CD's, and the tip jar overflows. The better show I do, the more money I make, basically. And I figure out why a show went well and I try to make sure I'm doing those things. And the more you play, the better you (should) get. Music is great but people want to be entertained. It's supposed to be a show, even if it's one guy sitting with an acoustic. People watch the performer. The faces you make when you sing, the eye contact with the audience, the stage banter, it all matters. I think free downloads vs paid downloads probably don't matter that much in the end. I think it's about playing live in your local area. A thousand fringe Internet fans MAY generate one sale. Maybe. Put on a good show for 25 people and you'll do better. Again... I'm still learning. God knows I don't have the answers. I just like talking about this stuff because I find it really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Synonym Music Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 Hmm... Why not lower quality? There's certainly a difference between 128k mp3s and CD-quality sound, but it's not humongous. I was being very serious. I'd also get a little PO'ed if I paid for a CD and it was offered free by the artist elsewhere. How is that fair to me? Yes, you DO put a price on your music. I do too.. Then maybe we meet somewhere in the middle and I buy. Or... Maybe not, and I don't buy. The rare exception is when you price your music much lower than I think it's worth - but then, free is lower than anything. Of all the CDs I've bought, I could name three that are worth considerably more than they cost, and they all cost me at least $20 a pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members satannica Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think the biggest problem is the band themselves! I've been killing myself trying to find band members worth slightly more than {censored} on the street! It's stupidly difficult! I've had drummers come in who either couldn't hold a beat to save their lives, or if they were good demanded hourly payment and travel costs which obviously I couldn't do! Don't even get me started on the so-called "guitarists" I've come accross. I've had my album ready for 6 months amounting to about 18 months of work. A few months ago I bit the bullet and sent press packs to some labels. I had two responses near immediately. Both said that they loved it and were interested and I'm still talking with both, but it seems the snag point is not having a full band! I know from experience even getting an acknowledgement from a good label means you're onto something. Getting two completely seperate responses from seperate labels who are well known in the industry for what they do means you're doing {censored}ing well. It's infuriating at times. {censored}ing infuriating. My story aside, I think most people find it hard chasing the "dream" because of stuff like this. There are tonnes of egos out there and unfortunately not the talent or dedication to come close to matching! On top of that in the recession and given that the UK works the longest hours of any european country, on top of the smoking ban effectively ransacking the gigging opportunities out there (I closed a successful club myself for this reason!) there's way too much killing live music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bostonwal Posted August 12, 2009 Members Share Posted August 12, 2009 You have to have fantastic music, and then you have to have a fantastic show. It's really hard to do both. Well, if you have to choose one, choose "fantastic music." I can point to a bunch of local bands that put on great shows but will never go anywhere because, frankly, away from the energy of the live show, I'm not too into their music and I'm not sure how many others are either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members magickseeker Posted August 17, 2009 Members Share Posted August 17, 2009 The subject is a misnomer - free downloads of a few songs, not a bad idea. Free downloads of all of your songs, bad idea. According to my "research." At least, bad idea for me. Yes, it is. Did you consider instead a simple partial song? Kinda like Amazon does with books? I know if I listen to a song and I really like it and it get cut off (being a sample) - I feel an urge to get it. True, some might torrent it, but not all. If you have a paypal link for like $.95 cents or $1.95 and you can download the song right now that might work for generating sales. Of course, the key here would be getting enough traffic to your site, which is the stumbling block of all internet marketing - period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted August 17, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 17, 2009 Well, if you have to choose one, choose "fantastic music." I can point to a bunch of local bands that put on great shows but will never go anywhere because, frankly, away from the energy of the live show, I'm not too into their music and I'm not sure how many others are either. Yup, I agree. I have seen tons of bands that rock live and are boring and mundane on a stereo. A great PA system, great engineer, and great sounding gear is 75% of the battle. When you're actually listening to the melody and lyrics and you don't have the kick drum vibrating your testicles, the song has to actually be interesting and good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Synonym Music Posted August 20, 2009 Members Share Posted August 20, 2009 LOL! I belong to this people actually...The majority of people 35 and older that I talked to (who weren't musicians) had no real understanding of higher quality file formats and what that means. To them, they thought I had just decided to give my music away, period. Eek. Yeah.. Old crotchety sumbitches. But they're right in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1bigvoice Posted September 15, 2009 Members Share Posted September 15, 2009 Maybe release them at 64k, and make them mono. That way people can dig THE SONG and if they want a better listening experience, they will buy the CD (or the paid downloadable files). I like the idea of releasing lower quality songs as an incentive for listeners to purchase the higher quality, but do you think that this could cause some to write your tunes off as badly recorded, instead of just lower quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mitmadspa Posted September 16, 2009 Members Share Posted September 16, 2009 I like the idea of releasing lower quality songs as an incentive for listeners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted September 17, 2009 Members Share Posted September 17, 2009 I like the idea of releasing lower quality songs as an incentive for listeners But you prefer spam, don't you? Anyway, most people don't care about bitrate. When they want a song and its free, they will take it... They are used to low quality music. Most of them don'T ever hear the difference between a 128k mp3 on myspace and a wav file. Just visit youtube and check classical music comments and plays. People listen to classical music on youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members birtryimp Posted September 18, 2009 Members Share Posted September 18, 2009 But you prefer spam, don't you? Anyway, most people don't care about bitrate. When they want a song and its free, they will take it... They are used to low quality music. Most of them don'T ever hear the difference between a 128k mp3 on myspace and a wav file. Just visit youtube and check classical music comments and plays. People listen to classical music on youtube. I am glad to find your site - now I know what a good one looks like. Very good topic to share with us. Great info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted September 18, 2009 Members Share Posted September 18, 2009 I am glad to find your site - now I know what a good one looks like. Very good topic to share with us. Great info. :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MetalJon Posted September 18, 2009 Members Share Posted September 18, 2009 This is probably off topic, but I thought I'd sound off for the few of us in the minority who release intellectual property (IP) into the public domain on principle, rather than retaining copyright and releasing songs as a business model. I am against IP in every conceivable manifestation. I think patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. should all be struck from the books. I think the constitutional provisions for IP should be amended out of the Constitution, as the originally stated purpose (the promote the arts) is no longer a requisite consideration for IP in this day and age. The IP industry has become a bastion of greed and corruption (RIAA anyone?). We've gone well past governmental promotion of science and arts well into economic protectionism for corporate giants who only care about squeezing every last cent out of their IP assets. Radical liberal? Nope. I'm a hardcore economic libertarian. In other words, I don't think you can "own" the musical or lyrical content of a song. You can own the physical medium on which it resides. Your copy of an album is absolutely yours and belongs to you, but if you produced an album's worth of music you have no right to deny someone the ability to reproduce it. It's not stealing to reproduce the music. It is stealing to take the physical medium on which it is stored, though. That being the case, I will only ever release my music in the public domain. I'm still new to home recording, so I haven't got much to share at this point anyway, but I'll never charge anyone for it, either (not that I'd make any money this way to begin with, as you could get it free). I might consider pressing some CDs if there was enough of a demand. In fact, I'd still buy CDs even if my favorite artists released their music for free because I like to collect CDs. I like having the jewel case, lyric book, and any additional filler material bands offer. But I realize I'm in the extreme minority on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted September 18, 2009 Author Members Share Posted September 18, 2009 You're in the extreme minority, that's true. If you were to list your 20 favorite CD's of all time, how many of those would have been recorded if the artists had no money? Used to be artists could make money touring. How many bands and artists make a living via live performances? Attendance is down, places that feature live music are paying what they paid in 1982. Take music sales away from music, and you take a good chunk of money away. Take away royalties, there goes most of the rest. So then music isn't a career for anyone. They're all making music as a hobby. Sorry, can't put real drums on the CD... I can't afford to record in a studio. Rush 2112? Never happens. The guys in Dream Theater? They can't make a living so they choose alternate careers. A band like The Beatles never happens. Sgt. Peppers? Are you kidding? With no money? Just because any moron can record themselves with GarageBand and a Squire Strat doesn't mean everyone should have to. A future where no one makes any money and people write music part time because they've got to have a full time job to pay for food. Really? This makes any kind of sense? I am not insulting you. I am not name calling. I am saying that I don't see any logical rational reason why this would be a good thing for music fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cazual Posted September 27, 2009 Members Share Posted September 27, 2009 Yes, it is. Did you consider instead a simple partial song? Kinda like Amazon does with books? +1 I don't think that offering 'low quality' stuff is a good solution. Many people can't seem to tell the difference anyway. Plus if it's going to be stuck on some crummy little player and put through an earbud speaker the size of your little fingernail, then what's the quality going to be like anyway? The sites I've visited that offer samples of songs always seem slightly stingy with the length, but that could be just their idea of balancing the cost of uploading stuff against the likelihood of a sale. My personal preference would be to be able to hear around half the song, which should be plenty to get a feel for whether I might like to buy it or not. I do like to have music either on my hard drive and/or on CD eventually, but then I'm massively ancient, so this is to be expected. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted September 27, 2009 Members Share Posted September 27, 2009 +1 I don't think that offering 'low quality' stuff is a good solution. Many people can't seem to tell the difference anyway. Plus if it's going to be stuck on some crummy little player and put through an earbud speaker the size of your little fingernail, then what's the quality going to be like anyway? The sites I've visited that offer samples of songs always seem slightly stingy with the length, but that could be just their idea of balancing the cost of uploading stuff against the likelihood of a sale. My personal preference would be to be able to hear around half the song, which should be plenty to get a feel for whether I might like to buy it or not. I do like to have music either on my hard drive and/or on CD eventually, but then I'm massively ancient, so this is to be expected. Chris +10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.