weeklyindie.com ... anyone try this?

[MrKnobs]

I apologize if there's a thread on this. I searched but I know search isn't fully functional yet.

 

Anyone try weeklyindie.com? Supposedly their deal if they like your song they'll pay you $500 flat and guarantee 20,000 downloads to their $7/month subscribers. I guess that means you a max of 2.5 cents per download.

 

Anyone try this? If so, did anything good come of it? If you google them, you'll see they're all over the world.

 

Thanks!

 

Terry D.

[grace_slick]

I'm gonna look at it, but I don't know...I'd LOVE to be paid $500! lol

[davejh]

I apologize if there's a thread on this. I searched but I know search isn't fully functional yet. Anyone try weeklyindie.com? Supposedly their deal if they like your song they'll pay you $500 flat and guarantee 20,000 downloads to their $7/month subscribers. I guess that means you a max of 2.5 cents per download. Anyone try this? If so, did anything good come of it? If you google them, you'll see they're all over the world. Thanks! Terry D.

 

I'd be wary of it. I can't imagine that many "regular" folks signing up for a subscription based service that specializes in non label, purely independent unsigned bands. I noticed that by submitting a song, you give them a 7 day of "rights of distribution".

I've seen stuff like this before. I can't put my finger on what it is, or it could be that I am half asleep but just seems something isn't quite right...

Keep us updated if you end up checking it out, I run a record label, and it only accepts unsigned artist's, otherwise I would be a guinea pig and try it out..

I'd be curious to see how it works. Sorry if I seem skeptical, sometimes I can be too skeptical for my own good:facepalm:

 

Good to meet you by the way. I signed up here about a month ago, and haven't posted as much as I would like, but do thoroughly enjoy the forums here. Hopefully I'll be hanging out here a bit more

[Poker99]

Smells fishy. Too good to be true.

[MrKnobs]

Smells fishy. Too good to be true.

 

I must admit I didn't expect this response from most of you.

 

The "smells fishy" part, sure. But how is letting someone sell your tracks for a couple of cents each "too good to be true?" They're giving you just $500 and no per track royalties even if they sell 20,000+ copies.

 

Terry D.

[Poker99]

Oh, didn't see that part. lol

[daddymack]

well, let's see..$500/track...which would certainly help recoup production costs...is there an exclusivity clause in there anywhere?

What happens after the 20k DL limit?

[playlikedanko]

I'd be really interested to see someone try this and report back. For right now I think we're all in the "too good to be true" camp... and lord knows that we all have our guard up. But if it's legit, it seems like a win-win. I think the two main issues would be:

 

1. As daddymack said, if there is an exclusivity clause.

2. It's hard to imagine that there are 20,000 downloads to be had. For users paying $7/month? I went to the website but refused to enter my payment info. But the gist of it is that for $7 a month subscription you get ten "indie" songs of their choosing. Cynically, you get 10 slightly discounted iTunes tracks a month, that you do not choose. The website chooses for you. When you can sample almost any track from anyone either on youtube or myspace or somewhere else on the internet.

 

Why would anyone sign up for this? Granted, I'm not 100% against the platform -- $500 is surely more than most indie bands would receive in sales for a track. Even considering how minimal the per-track payments are, they are actually comparable to the rates received on spotify and other streaming services (**from what I have heard, if I'm wrong please correct me**).

 

I guess what mystifies me is how this company is planning on making any money. I see two options:

 

Non-cynical bastard mode: these guys are legit and have financing. They expect that eventually users will trust their tastes. A modern "Nuggets" situation, perhaps. These guys weed through the milieu of unsigned indie bands for you, and in return you give them $7/month. If this is how the website works, I wish them good luck with a smirk on my face. I INSANELY hope this is how they intend for it to work. It's risky, it goes against the prevailing wisdom of current music industry sages, and yet oddly I see how it could be cool. It sort of serves the gatekeeper role that major labels used to serve, but flips it in such a way that the only premium being paid by the user is for the gatekeeping -- ostensibly, the indie bands retain the rights to sell their records and reap all profits from them. Under my naive assumption, this website only serves as marketing for the band. And not just free marketing, PAID marketing. It's as if you were personally paying a music critic to recommend music to you. It's a COOL idea, and yet...

 

Cyncical bastard mode: ... there is no way that's how it works. Or, if that is how it works, the website's proprietor is either the most optimistic non-musician to dare enter the music business, or is just independently wealthy to an insane degree and thinks this could be fun. Let's examine the numbers:

 

Weeklyindie.com features ten songs per week, and pays $500 per song = a $5,000 weekly expense. Per month (there are 4.3 weeks per month) = $21,500 monthly expense.

 

At $7 per monthly subscription, weeklyindie.com needs roughly 3,072 monthly subscribers to break even (not including maintenance costs, opportunity costs [essentially wages, if any exist], etc). Weeklyindie.com currently has 2,768 "likes" on Facebook; surely a small fraction of that actually pays for the service.

 

$21,500/month is a substantial cost. If subscriptions don't cover this within a few months, the proprietor will likely close up shop ASAP because the fixed cost of the enterprise is relatively low -- merely the cost of hosting the website for the specified period.

 

Despite how impractical it is, I like the aesthetics of this model (granted, this assumes that the aesthetics I infer from indieweekly.com are genuine or even intended on their part. They very likely are not). If there was a well-respected music critic behind it, it could be a cool thing. Well-respected Critic's Music Club, perhaps. That being said, there's not really a way to monetize this, as each critic's taste would inevitably become a public good and thus pretty much have to be free.

 

To take this on another tangent: it is depressing that with any apparent internet opportunity for musicians, the discriminating musician generally either (A) is wary that the company is out to exploit the musician; or (B) is dismissive of the company's business sense, because it is not exploiting musicians enough to adequately turn a profit.

[Poker99]

 

It's hard to imagine that there are 20,000 downloads to be had. For users paying $7/month? I went to the website but refused to enter my payment info. But the gist of it is that for $7 a month subscription you get ten "indie" songs of their choosing. Cynically, you get 10 slightly discounted iTunes tracks a month, that you do not choose. The website chooses for you. When you can sample almost any track from anyone either on youtube or myspace or somewhere else on the internet. Why would anyone sign up for this?

 

 

Exactly...?