Jobs says there's no money in online music
Artie Turner
"“Between the license fees and the credit-card charges, there’s no money
in online music,” he says. For Apple, the payoff comes in selling the
iPod players that work hand in hand with the store: more than a million
have been sold, and in the last quarter, Apple moved 336,000 units."
Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
with online music. I had high hopes for iTunes, but it looks like the
music has just become a gimmick to sell iPods and sugar water.
And the competition is Windows Media! Truly sad.
Artie Turner
Nathan West
> Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
> with online music. I had high hopes for iTunes, but it looks like the
> music has just become a gimmick to sell iPods and sugar water.
I don't believe him for a minute. He would of know the deal going into it
before he signed Apple to be a distributor. Maybe he is looking for a write
off and is setting it up now.
--
Cheers and All
Nathan
" Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually turn
against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the
biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
-Professor Frink
Mike Rivers
In article <tuTrb.2337$1n1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> art...@swbell.nyet writes:
> "“Between the license fees and the credit-card charges, there’s no money
> in online music,” he says. For Apple, the payoff comes in selling the
> iPod players that work hand in hand with the store
I can believe that. Almost.
> Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
> with online music.
The record companies can't either. What's so hard to believe about
Apple not making money on music? They're not even in the music
business.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, get your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Artie Turner
> In article <tuTrb.2337$1n1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> art...@swbell.nyet writes:
>
>
>>"“Between the license fees and the credit-card charges, there’s no money
>>in online music,” he says. For Apple, the payoff comes in selling the
>>iPod players that work hand in hand with the store
>
>
> I can believe that. Almost.
>
>
>>Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
>>with online music.
>
>
> The record companies can't either. What's so hard to believe about
> Apple not making money on music? They're not even in the music
> business.
I didn't say it was hard to believe, I said it was sad. Here we have an
ingenious service that allows users to buy that one favorite song
instead of the CD with the filler, and there's still no profit in it for
record companies or these new service providers? At what price point
will online music become a profitable commodity?
Or will online music die and proprietary formats take over? I can't
believe that online music distribution is going to disappear, so that
implies that online music will have to be even cheaper for it to be
profitable.
Remember the "Wild Man Fisher" album that Frank Zappa produced way back
when? Larry Fisher used to stand on the street corners in LA and ask
"Want to hear an original song for a dime?" Seems like we're heading
back in that direction.
AT
Rob Adelman
Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> The record companies can't either. What's so hard to believe about
> Apple not making money on music? They're not even in the music
> business.
Not sure about this, but worth a read:
"Napster, Apple spar over music sales"
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/11/10/digital.music.reut/index.html>
Kurt Albershardt
> Artie Turner wrote:
>
>
>> Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
>> with online music. I had high hopes for iTunes, but it looks like the
>> music has just become a gimmick to sell iPods and sugar water.
>
>
> I don't believe him for a minute. He would of know the deal going into it
> before he signed Apple to be a distributor. Maybe he is looking for a write
> off and is setting it up now.
Maybe he's looking to discourage potential competitors from entering the
market?
Justin Ulysses Morse
profitable for the music industry. It's not profitable for a
distributor who has to pay the music industry out of its 99 cent gross
receipt. It's obviously profitable for the credit card companies, who
get their cut regardless. Likewise, I suspect the labels get their cut
and it simply leaves no profit for Apple, or any other distributor.
The trick to making this thing profitable will have to be cutting out
the middle-men, or at least reducing the cut that goes to the middle
men. If Apple dealt directly with the artists, there'd be no label to
pay. Conversely, if the labels ran the online distribution network
themselves, they wouldn't have to worry about giving Apple a profitable
share. Taken one step further, at some point the artists should be
able to deal directly with the consumer and cut both companies out of
the deal. And if we could come up with a real ether currency we could
eliminate or at least manage the bank fees associated with processing
the transactions.
ulysses
In article <GLVrb.2354$3g2...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, Artie
EggHd
market? >>
Or maybe what's making money for Apple is different than what record companies
make. The record biz has a very small margin.
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Les Cargill
Tolja so :) People think bits are cheaper than they are.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Jobs? When has he ever done that? I just don't think there's any
money in it. Money's in old technology that you can keep exploiting
and cost reducing. Whiz bang is not often all that profitable.
--
Les Cargill
rich rookie
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rockmusic.com> wrote in message
news:101120031840472243%uly...@rockmusic.com...
> Taken one step further, at some point the artists should be
> able to deal directly with the consumer and cut both companies out of
> the deal. And if we could come up with a real ether currency we could
> eliminate or at least manage the bank fees associated with processing
> the transactions.
>
> ulysses
Wouldn't that be nice. But think, realistically, I'm going to compose,
perform and record something (that I thought was original) and distribute it
from my website. Then I get sued for having some recognizable passage
somewhere in the recording.
I wonder which direction things will go in the years to come. Something's
got to change.
Richard
Artie Turner
> share. Taken one step further, at some point the artists should be
> able to deal directly with the consumer and cut both companies out of
> the deal. And if we could come up with a real ether currency we could
> eliminate or at least manage the bank fees associated with processing
> the transactions.
I suspect that this will become increasingly popular. The internet does
tend to eliminate the middle men.
AT
Artie Turner
Huh? I guess I don't take your reference. How much ARE bits worth? Who
decides?
AT
>
>
> --
> Les Cargill
Kurt Albershardt
And there's even a cool word for it--disintermediation.
Andrea
What happened to that pie-chart news article a few months that showed
the percentages everyone got. Didn't apple get 30 or 40% of the pie?
Was it an apple pie in the sky or a big pie lie?
Andrea
Artie Turner
I think this process of disintermediation is what's driving so many
industry old-timers crazy; - so many people had nice comfortable jobs in
marketing, stocking, PR, A&R, etc. and now the artist can do most of
that on his own terms.
When you factor out all these little things that added to the total cost
of music, and then actually remove the medium (vinyl, CD) the "value" or
"cost" of music becomes vanishingly small. That's what I find find
strangely sad, these beautiful 3 minute experiences that we all love are
really only "worth" a few pennies.
Of course I still say you should charge what ever the market will bear.
Some bits are worth more than other bits.
AT
>
>
>
Artie Turner
Didn't see that chart, but I don't think it's a percentage deal. I seem
to recall Steven St. Croix writing in Mix that Apple just paid a lump
sum ($50 Million?) for the rights to distribute x amount of content for
x amount of time. Now Jobs is saying that with those numbers, Apple's
losing money. You'd think all the old-timers would be tickled to see
Jobs losing money to the labels.
AT
DrBoom
> Artie Turner wrote:
>
> > Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
> > with online music. I had high hopes for iTunes, but it looks like the
> > music has just become a gimmick to sell iPods and sugar water.
>
> I don't believe him for a minute. He would of know the deal going into it
> before he signed Apple to be a distributor. Maybe he is looking for a write
> off and is setting it up now.
Nope, 99 cents leaves practically no margin, especially if you're trying to
recoup your investment in time & equipment ... which is a reasonable
thing for a business to do.
There are programmers, customer service people, and a small gang of
attorneys to keep fed. Do the math, and assume the labels want half
your gross. Also assume that you'll have to have about a thousand
other negotiations with people like Apple Music (Beatles), Garth Brooks,
Axl Rose, Bob Seeger, etc. who all own their own publishing rights.
It's a lot harder than it looks, trust me.
-DrBoom
EggHd
tend to eliminate the middle men. >>
If you are good at promotion and marketing you don't need a middle man. If you
have $$$ you can hire them just like the middle men do.
Most big lables out there started by people not wanting to deal with big
labels.
George
> I didn't say it was hard to believe, I said it was sad. Here we have an
> ingenious service that allows users to buy that one favorite song
> instead of the CD with the filler, and there's still no profit in it for
> record companies or these new service providers? At what price point
> will online music become a profitable commodity?
>
more profitable
maybe more affordable but not more profitable
at 99 cents this is well below what the market will support, we just
need to have a product people find value in
when you can still "file share " music what is the point in paying for it
stopping free file sharing should be the highest priority in the music
industry at this time
only once we stop giving away what is not ours to give will people
reluctantly begin paying what it is worth
George
Roger W. Norman
licensing. And with the way the majors want to play the game, large amounts
of cash are the idea. They still don't want to accept that it costs them
nothing to get $.06 so they still think about warehousing, production costs,
inventory and management, etc and want $10. Steve's already taken care of
that and it hasn't cost the majors a single penny. In fact, it's garnered
them many pennies. If Steve says he can't make money off of the
distribution, then he's probably right.
This does not bode well for the majors being a player in the internet market
unless they come to the realization that a single copy of the song,
duplicated for a price equals millions of dollars, over the internet and it
doesn't cost them a penny in distribution costs, 4 color CD covers, CD
duplications or any of those associated costs.
Fuck 'em if they can't learn. If anything more in the way of their
inability to accept the concept of internet distribution comes into play,
then I'll have to join the crowd that is a proponent of music trading. And
I hate to say that because I know that in the music trading arena no
musicians are getting any funds. But I also know that with this deal, only
the majors are making out as if they are selling CDs when they are not. If
you look at a standard contract, the musician/artist pays for the initial
distribution costs by paying the record label back before royalties. How
does this play into a costless distribution scheme?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"EggHd" <eg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031110195259...@mb-m22.aol.com...
HenryShap
$12-15 or so for a CD. The wholesale cost to the store has to be under $10,
more like $8. And that's for a product that has to be made and shipped. What
does it cost to sell files online? Royalties for the song composition itself
are something around 7¢ a song. Credit card fees are what, 3 or 4%. So how
much are the royalties for the recording?
Either:
1. the record companies are making out like bandits
2. Apple is making more than it appears here
3. The money Apple makes on music is not significant in relation to
computer/ipod income.
4. Set-up costs for their music division i.e. website, advertising, etc hasn't
been recouped yet. and they haven't figured out their long term profit
prospects.
Roger W. Norman
news:znr1068504127k@trad...
> The record companies can't either. What's so hard to believe about
> Apple not making money on music? They're not even in the music
> business.
They are now.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
">
> In article <tuTrb.2337$1n1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>
art...@swbell.nyet writes:
>
> > "“Between the license fees and the credit-card charges, there’s no money
> > in online music,” he says. For Apple, the payoff comes in selling the
> > iPod players that work hand in hand with the store
>
> I can believe that. Almost.
>
> > Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a profit
> > with online music.
>
>
>
>
Roger W. Norman
news:101120031840472243%uly...@rockmusic.com...
> the middle-men, or at least reducing the cut that goes to the middle
> men.
So you'd relegate Apple to an Indie label distribution house? You can't cut
out the middleman on Bruce Springsteen or Little Richard unless they've
recouped their rights to the songs, as in the Eagles members thing about
their songs. So if you bypass the majors, you don't have major artists, or
you have catalog that is old and been through the "another format" wars so
much that people no longer want to purchase. Makes no sense to me to even
view the problem that way.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
> I don't think this tells us that online music distribution can't be
> profitable for the music industry. It's not profitable for a
> distributor who has to pay the music industry out of its 99 cent gross
> receipt. It's obviously profitable for the credit card companies, who
> get their cut regardless. Likewise, I suspect the labels get their cut
> and it simply leaves no profit for Apple, or any other distributor.
reddred
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:10685100...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net...
I believe him. Just imagine the overhead. The music is a promo for ipods.
What's wrong with selling ipods?
jb
reddred
"Artie Turner" <art...@swbell.nyet> wrote in message
> I didn't say it was hard to believe, I said it was sad. Here we have an
> ingenious service that allows users to buy that one favorite song
> instead of the CD with the filler, and there's still no profit in it for
> record companies or these new service providers?
He didn't say that record companies don't make money. They are the only ones
making money. He said Apple isn't making money off the service.
jb
reddred
Is that too big to put on the cover of 'Fast Company' or 'Business 2.0'?
jb
EggHd
unless they come to the realization that a single copy of the song,
duplicated for a price equals millions of dollars, over the internet and it
doesn't cost them a penny in distribution costs, 4 color CD covers, CD
duplications or any of those associated costs. >>
I believe it bodes very well. THRY have cut out the traditional retail store.
THEY don't have to do artwork etc. PLUS they are mainly selling catalog which
makes it even more profitable.
EggHd
are something around 7¢ a song. Credit card fees are what, 3 or 4%. So how
much are the royalties for the recording? >>
The artist royalty will be the same % they normally get. 16 to 24% depening on
the deal the artist made (and how much leverage they had when making the deal)
<< Either:
1. the record companies are making out like bandits >>
What is the apple cut and the record company cut? Remember this is just a
another retailer. the record company still has to market the record to the
public, the single most expense in the record biz.
Les Cargill
I just odn't think he had a lot of margin left, after paying for the
Internet infrastructure to support iTunes. Same error as always - people
underestimate the plant costs.
--
Les Cargill
Arny Krueger
news:G6udnZBIHoh...@rockbridge.net
I believe that this analysis agrees with the ones currently being published
in the business trade magazines. Apple is setting up a new line of
business - portable media players. They need a legitiamte source of program
material for their players to play.
Andrea
Here is the link to that pie chart, Apple, according to the pie chart
was supposed to get 40% of the 99cent downloads, the artist only gets
12%.
Who did Apple forfeit thier 40% share of the proceeds to?
http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/001645.html
It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.
Andrea
Mike Rivers
> I don't think this tells us that online music distribution can't be
> profitable for the music industry. It's not profitable for a
> distributor who has to pay the music industry out of its 99 cent gross
> receipt. It's obviously profitable for the credit card companies, who
> get their cut regardless. Likewise, I suspect the labels get their cut
> and it simply leaves no profit for Apple, or any other distributor.
This is kind of like "How to make money on the Internet." You don't
make money on the Internet, you make money selling information about
how to make money on the Internet.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
Mike Rivers
> Something is not adding up here. If you go to a record store you're paying
> $12-15 or so for a CD. The wholesale cost to the store has to be under $10,
> more like $8. And that's for a product that has to be made and shipped. What
> does it cost to sell files online?
It would be interesting to see an accurate analysis, but I'll bet it's
more than most people think, at least if you want to do it well. It
costs about $50/month for an individual user to let others grab music
files from the computer under his desk, through his cable TV Internet
service. It costs a lot more for Apple to set up enough servers so
that there isn't a bottleneck for downloading (I haven't heard such
reports yet, so maybe they're ahead of the game for now), and then
there's the licenses, the lawyers, the advertising, and the
administration - oh, and the profit without which there would be no
iTunes. I wouldn't be surprised if the transit costs are on
the order of 5 to 10 percent of the retail price when everything is
added in.
> 1. the record companies are making out like bandits
Easily, but small time bandits. Everything they get from Apple is
free. It doesn't cost them anything other than potential lost sales
for albums. But they need to figure that out.
> 2. Apple is making more than it appears here
Isn't that always the way it is with a corporation?
> 3. The money Apple makes on music is not significant in relation to
> computer/ipod income.
I'd believe this.
> 4. Set-up costs for their music division i.e. website, advertising, etc hasn't
> been recouped yet. and they haven't figured out their long term profit
> prospects.
Yup. And this may always be a drain against the iPod fund.
Mike Rivers
> > What's so hard to believe about
> > Apple not making money on music? They're not even in the music
> > business.
>
>
> They are now.
No, they're in the business of selling on-line content. If there was
as much demand for books as songs, they could move the whole operation
over to selling books in a heartbeat.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
Neil Henderson
>What's wrong with selling ipods?
Absolutely nothing... and it's f-ing brilliant if that's what their whole point
was. OTOH, both McDonald's & Pepsi have just recently signed on for promotions
that will involve them giving away a billion (yep, billion) I-Tunes downloads
each - I don't think Apple would have cut those deals if there was no money in
it for them; even if they don't make money directly on the downloads, they'll
make it peripherally. How much is a billion giveaway's worth of free promotion
worth when paired with high-visibility brands like Mickey D's & Pepsi?
NeilH
Tom Paul
> the middle-men, or at least reducing the cut that goes to the middle
> pay. Conversely, if the labels ran the online distribution network
> themselves, they wouldn't have to worry about giving Apple a profitable
> share. >
That's what Magnatune.com is trying to do by signing indie artists to
thier online label..like..me. Their problem (sorry, corporate speak
only..challenge) is to build demand for unknown artists. That's a
huge part of the cost the majors incur...payola, etc. I imagine thier
rescources are thin.
On that subject, thier idea is to offer free downloads of MP3's to do
a try before you buy thing. I'm not sure how many will return to
purchase CD's of .wav quality music. At the outset, they seem to be
committed to only signing reasonably good acts. The fact that MP3.com
and thier competitors allow on list everything gives the customer or
downloader a mountain of shit to dig through to find anything worth
hearing.
I really hope magnatune a lot of success in starting a new path to the
market.
Tom Paul
EggHd
12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell. >>
12% of the 99 cents? Just for comparison a label before paying the artist will
get around 12 cents per track for a compilation at retail and then the artist
is paid. So this is a better deal for the artist.
Justin Ulysses Morse
> "Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rockmusic.com> wrote in message
> news:101120031840472243%uly...@rockmusic.com...
> > The trick to making this thing profitable will have to be cutting out
> > the middle-men, or at least reducing the cut that goes to the middle
> > men.
>
> So you'd relegate Apple to an Indie label distribution house? You can't cut
> out the middleman on Bruce Springsteen or Little Richard unless they've
> recouped their rights to the songs, as in the Eagles members thing about
> their songs. So if you bypass the majors, you don't have major artists, or
> you have catalog that is old and been through the "another format" wars so
> much that people no longer want to purchase. Makes no sense to me to even
> view the problem that way.
What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"? And I wasn't
necessarily suggesting that Apple specifically cut the labels out. Why
couldn't the labels cut Apple out? The point is there isn't enough
money to go around when you have this many interested parties. But
there are still a whole lot of interested parties that are essentially
dead weight.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> I just odn't think he had a lot of margin left, after paying for the
> Internet infrastructure to support iTunes. Same error as always - people
> underestimate the plant costs.
I didn't get the impression that Jobs ever underestimated anything. He
said that there's no money in online distribution. He didn't say he
just found this out though. My understanding is he knew going into the
deal that it wasn't a money maker, but that he could sell a giant pile
of iPods if he made content for them widely available. Which is what
he's doing.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> My general experiance is that making things cheaper does not make
> them more profitable maybe more affordable but not more profitable
> at 99 cents this is well below what the market will support, we just
> need to have a product people find value in when you can still "file
> share " music what is the point in paying for it stopping free file
> sharing should be the highest priority in the music industry at this
> time only once we stop giving away what is not ours to give will
> people reluctantly begin paying what it is worth
This is not what's happening at all though. There's no shortage of
people paying for downloads. Jobs wasn't lamenting a lack of business.
He was only saying that he wasn't making a net profit on that business.
> only once we stop giving away what is not ours to give will
> people reluctantly begin paying what it is worth
Wrong, it has proven to be the other way around. Only once they
started charging money for what people want did they stop taking it for
free. It's true there are still people filesharing but that has not
been an obstacle to the success of paid downloads whatsoever.
ulysses
EggHd
label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"? >>
If they have the resources to market their releases. The ITunes store is just
that. A store is not a marketing and promotion company.
The good news is that there is no restriction on shelf space. The bad news is
there is no restriction on shelf space.
Justin Ulysses Morse
> Who did Apple forfeit thier 40% share of the proceeds to?
Oh, they gave it away to a bunch of leaching rogues like the web
designers, copyright lawyers, publicists, network administrators,
programmers, advertising agents, accountants, etc. They probably
handed out a bunch of free money to the manufacturers of large-scale
servers and networking equipment too. I bet they're even giving
hand-outs to a telecommunications company in exchange for some
wicked-fast internet connection too. What a waste.
> http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/001645.html
This isn't the Apple pie, this is the "generic" MP3 pie. I'm sure the
iTunes arrangement is similar, but different.
> It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
> 12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.
> Andrea
I can't believe I'm the one saying you need to take a high school
economics class. Running a business costs money. If artists are
actually getting 12% of retail, that's fantastic. That's very
efficient.
ulysses
reddred
> << This does not bode well for the majors being a player in the internet
market
> unless they come to the realization that a single copy of the song,
> duplicated for a price equals millions of dollars, over the internet and
it
> doesn't cost them a penny in distribution costs, 4 color CD covers, CD
> duplications or any of those associated costs. >>
>
>
> I believe it bodes very well. THRY have cut out the traditional retail
store.
> THEY don't have to do artwork etc. PLUS they are mainly selling catalog
which
> makes it even more profitable.
>
So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
happen.
jb
EggHd
happen. >>
Explain.
Frank Vuotto
wrote:
> How much is a billion giveaway's worth of free promotion
>worth when paired with high-visibility brands like Mickey D's & Pepsi?
>
Tech TV reported that McDonalds and Pepsi are paying full retail for
every download. But then, how many of those giveaways will actually be
redeemed ?
Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/
George Gleason
I ALWAYS look for the freeware or share ware before shelling out for the
full price version it works the same for music
george
EggHd
full price version it works the same for music >>
Right. It's called radio, video, personal appreances and TV appearances by the
artists.
Add to that the listening station at many retailers.
There are many ways to preview music before deciding to buy.
P Stamler
make anything on hamburgers; they're basically a soda stand selling burgers as
loss leaders to make people thirsty.
Peace,
Paul
reddred
> << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> happen. >>
>
> Explain.
>
If the cost of distribution is near zero, and in the case of electronic
distribution that's the case, then artists contracts should reflect that.
I'm under the impression that while a record company may save money on
'e-distribution', the artists are actually seeing less of the proceeds from
it.
jb
reddred
> << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> happen. >>
>
> Explain.
>
Oh, nevermind. 12 percent is pretty good, if the itunes scale is comparable.
But it would be interesting to know if this is being held from artists who
haven't recouped costs - the costs here are lower.
jb
Nathan West
> I believe it bodes very well. THRY have cut out the traditional retail store.
> THEY don't have to do artwork etc.
People are still doing Art, but you have an option to download it or not.
> PLUS they are mainly selling catalog which
> makes it even more profitable.
Everyone sells mostly catolog don't they?
--
Cheers and All
Nathan
" Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually turn
against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting
with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
-Professor Frink
Nathan West
reddred wrote:
> I believe him. Just imagine the overhead. The music is a promo for ipods.
> What's wrong with selling ipods?
Nothing is wrong with it. But the overhead of online music sales is very small
compared to ramping up for a hardware run. It maybe that hardware has a more
obvious revenue/fixed cost flow than music does, which in turn might be a bit
more attractive to Apple.
But I think something else is afoot here, and it smells like a accounting move
to adjust for the stock holders at the quarters close.
EggHd
haven't recouped costs - the costs here are lower. >>
How can a label recoup costs that aren't there?
Mike Rivers
I guess that's why sodas cost more than the hamburgers, and why when I
ask for a cup for water, I get one about the size of a shot glass.
reddred
> << But it would be interesting to know if this is being held from artists
who
> haven't recouped costs - the costs here are lower. >>
>
> How can a label recoup costs that aren't there?
>
My point exactly.
jb
Julian Standen
the industry?
I was thinking of the selling soda analogy above and wondering appart
from Ipods what Apple can sell along with music... and then I thought,
you cant see a picture of Mariah Cary on an Ipod...
Sex sells....
Can you sell sex on an Ipod?
MP3 players with "picures" or videos HAVE to be next.
Cheery thought! People get mugged al the time for cel phones here in
Europe, I wonder if Imuggers will emerge, the white headphone cords
are a dead give-a-way.
Toodles!
Les Cargill
>
> "reddred" <opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:G6udnZBIHoh...@rockbridge.net
> > "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> > news:10685100...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net...
> >> Nathan West wrote:
> >>
> >>> Artie Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a
> >>>> profit with online music. I had high hopes for iTunes, but it
> >>>> looks like the music has just become a gimmick to sell iPods and
> >>>> sugar water.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe him for a minute. He would of know the deal going
> >>> into it before he signed Apple to be a distributor. Maybe he is
> >>> looking for a write off and is setting it up now.
> >>
> >> Maybe he's looking to discourage potential competitors from entering
> >> the market?
> >>
> >
> > I believe him. Just imagine the overhead. The music is a promo for
> > ipods. What's wrong with selling ipods?
>
> in the business trade magazines. Apple is setting up a new line of
> business - portable media players. They need a legitiamte source of program
> material for their players to play.
And King Gillette is rolling in his grave.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>
> Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I just odn't think he had a lot of margin left, after paying for the
> > Internet infrastructure to support iTunes. Same error as always - people
> > underestimate the plant costs.
>
> I didn't get the impression that Jobs ever underestimated anything. He
> said that there's no money in online distribution. He didn't say he
> just found this out though.
Point well taken.
> My understanding is he knew going into the
> deal that it wasn't a money maker, but that he could sell a giant pile
> of iPods if he made content for them widely available. Which is what
> he's doing.
>
So he's giving the blades away, and selling the razors? Ummmm....
> ulysses
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>
> eg...@aol.com (EggHd) wrote in message news:<20031111011544...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> > << Royalties for the song composition itself
> > are something around 7¢ a song. Credit card fees are what, 3 or 4%. So how
> > much are the royalties for the recording? >>
> >
> > The artist royalty will be the same % they normally get. 16 to 24% depening on
> > the deal the artist made (and how much leverage they had when making the deal)
> >
> > << Either:
> > 1. the record companies are making out like bandits >>
> >
> > What is the apple cut and the record company cut? Remember this is just a
> > another retailer. the record company still has to market the record to the
> > public, the single most expense in the record biz.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
> was supposed to get 40% of the 99cent downloads, the artist only gets
> 12%.
>
> Who did Apple forfeit thier 40% share of the proceeds to?
>
>
> It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
> 12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.
> Andrea
12% isn't bad ROI for anybody, even if the artists contributed 100% of
the capital to get it. A good accountant can lay out all the capital as
expenses, which are like promissory notes on other revenue.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>
> "EggHd" <eg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031111123047...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> > happen. >>
> >
> > Explain.
> >
>
> If the cost of distribution is near zero,
... if only...
> and in the case of electronic
> distribution that's the case, then artists contracts should reflect that.
> I'm under the impression that while a record company may save money on
> 'e-distribution', the artists are actually seeing less of the proceeds from
> it.
I think this remains to be seen.
>
> jb
--
Les Cargill
EggHd
the industry? >>
It's a new type of retailer. The industry is already hurting from piracy so
this can only help.
DrBoom
[Magnatune rules]
> I really hope magnatune a lot of success in starting a new path to the
> market.
Well, I've bought a couple of albums from them and plan to buy more.
No bogus DRM, nice choice of formats, fair pricing, good karma -- what's
not to like, aside from wishing for a bigger catalog?
Preview tracks are the key to sales, I think. Baen Books seems to think
freebies are good for book sales too:
They've been doing it for years now, so it must be working for them.
One of the points they make is that there will always be a place for
editors since they perform a valuable service in separating the wheat
from the chaff. Music publishers, if they are truly doing their jobs
instead of just trying to cash in on the next trend, have a place too
for the same reason.
-DrBoom
Charles Thomas
ju...@librarystudio.com (Julian Standen) wrote:
> MP3 players with "picures" or videos HAVE to be next.
Once you get to the point where memory is cheaper and more efficient I
think it is inevitable that you'll have a sitution where you'll be
downloading some new file format that has the audio AND a video of some
kind to go along with it.
I think you're absolutely correct that audio/video iPod-style delivery
is the next logical step.
When I can work out on the stairmaster at my gym while watching "U2 Live
From Boston", that'll be a really cool day.
CT
Charles Thomas
Andrea wrote:
> > It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
> > 12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.
I'm sure egghead will address this better than I could, but 12% is HUGE.
I'd be thrilled to get 12% of the money when Apple has to deal with
marketing (through the iTunes website and advertising in other media)
and distribution.
What comparable music-distribution deal can you point to where an artist
gets more?
CT
Charles Thomas
eg...@aol.com (EggHd) wrote:
> << Do you think this Apple move might have a negative effect long term on
> the industry? >>
>
> It's a new type of retailer. The industry is already hurting from piracy so
> this can only help.
Amen.
Again, I think too many people forget what they're comparing. The
comparison isn't "iTunes or buying the CD in a store". Those days are
gone. The comparison is now "iTunes or download it illegally for free".
Which do you think is better for the music industry?
CT
Artie Turner
I'll admit I'm not familiar with the terms of the iTunes/Big Labels
deal, (I'm not sure the terms were made public) but the way Steven St.
Croix described it in a recent Mix, Apple just paid a big lump sum up
front to use a limited part of the labels' catalogs.
How the labels redistributed that lump sum to the individual copyright
owners/artists is anybody's guess.
AT
>
> CT
EggHd
I'd be thrilled to get 12% of the money when Apple has to deal with
marketing (through the iTunes website and advertising in other media)
and distribution. >>
I'm only going by what I am reading which is not that complete.
Roger W. Norman
comes about that there's more music out there than the majors represent.
Let's face it, in times of old would Britney have sold 23 million albums?
Today would the Beatles have sold 23 million albums? It depends on what's
being hyped, doesn't it? If we start talking about indies going million
sellers then we'd be talking about something. And then there's probably
some money in it, as Mr. Jobs seems to argue against.
Yeah, what's needed is an all ecompassing distribution method and yes, just
as certainly, it doesn't include all the majors anymore. After all, since
they aren't signing up new talent, they don't any longer have the strangle
hold on new talent, and they have a specific amount of time that their
copyrights still hold. The beginning of the end for the majors, and I
daresay, the beginning of music as artists. A true beginning of musicians
as artists. No contracts and no patrons. Everybody gets to say what they
want.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rockmusic.com> wrote in message
news:111120031026079013%uly...@rockmusic.com...
> Roger W. Norman <rno...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > "Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rockmusic.com> wrote in message
> > news:101120031840472243%uly...@rockmusic.com...
> > > The trick to making this thing profitable will have to be cutting out
> > > the middle-men, or at least reducing the cut that goes to the middle
> > > men.
> >
> > So you'd relegate Apple to an Indie label distribution house? You can't
cut
> > out the middleman on Bruce Springsteen or Little Richard unless they've
> > recouped their rights to the songs, as in the Eagles members thing about
> > their songs. So if you bypass the majors, you don't have major artists,
or
> > you have catalog that is old and been through the "another format" wars
so
> > much that people no longer want to purchase. Makes no sense to me to
even
> > view the problem that way.
>
> What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
> label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"? And I wasn't
> necessarily suggesting that Apple specifically cut the labels out. Why
> couldn't the labels cut Apple out? The point is there isn't enough
> money to go around when you have this many interested parties. But
> there are still a whole lot of interested parties that are essentially
> dead weight.
>
> ulysses
Roger W. Norman
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"EggHd" <eg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031111115035...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> << What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
> label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"? >>
>
> If they have the resources to market their releases. The ITunes store is
just
> that. A store is not a marketing and promotion company.
>
> The good news is that there is no restriction on shelf space. The bad
news is
> there is no restriction on shelf space.
BananaHead
>
> Can you sell sex on an Ipod?
That would be killer. I'm for it all. Mobile sin box. Then I can
take my stolen music AND porn everywhere I go.
The iPod possibilities go on and on and on. It's a hard drive, very
compact, tough, with a really slick little interface. It could
eventual act as a music player, address book, pocket recorder, web
browser, video player, camera, video camera, etc.
I believe those profit margins. Apple isn't in the music biz, they're
a computer company. They are selling little hard drives. It's very
simple.
-bh
Justin Ulysses Morse
> If the cost of distribution is near zero, and in the case of electronic
> distribution that's the case
Whoah, hold on there. People talk about the thieving record labels
greedily taking $16 for the sale of a CD and only giving $1 or whatever
to the artist, because they're failing to consider the $8 that goes to
the retail store (which in turm pays employees), the truck drivers and
warehouse workers, the manufacturing and printing and promoters etc. I
think you understand this. You don't seem to realize that the online
distribution scheme costs money too. A lot of money. All those
dot-coms wouldn't have gone belly-up if they didn't have any expenses.
Aside from the obvious things like hardware and administration and
networking, you've got the promotion costs. The cost of promoting a
band and a record and a company haven't gone away, and now they've got
the cost of promoting a brand-new distribution technology on top of
everything else. And what do you think it costs to build and run a
website capable of delivering a million or more secure, paid 3MB
downloads in a week? That's at least 15 terabytes monthly. That's an
insanely large bandwidth. You don't call up Roadrunner for a
connection like that. Remember they're doing the work that a worldwide
P2P network has been doing, not including the payment handling.
ulysses
LeBaron & Alrich
> What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
> label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"?
Only if their "fans" think it makes sense to pay for music, instead of
P2P'ing it because it's supposed to be "free". That mioght turn out to
be a problem.
--
ha
EggHd
promoting a huge brand name DVD 40 Licks DVD.
The Stones are doing this themselves only going thru Best Buy so there really
is no distribution just pack and ship to one chain.
Have you seen what they are spending on advertising?
Full page ads in major market newspapers, radio and TV advertising, they must
be spending 3 million or more.
Even the Stones can't take a new piece of product and put it out somewhere
without letting their fans know it's there.
Think about the rest of us.
Nathan West
> Full page ads in major market newspapers, radio and TV advertising, they must
> be spending 3 million or more.
Brand management is expensive. Toys R Us spends more than that on Take Out during
a marketing session.
> Even the Stones can't take a new piece of product and put it out somewhere
> without letting their fans know it's there.
Neither can Pepsi or Macdonalds.
> Think about the rest of us.
The Stones are competing against Shania and the like....just not most of us. I'm
sure Dave Mathews gives them an itch or two as well. It comes down to knowing
your market, your budget, your supporters, and your banker.
EggHd
It is.
<< The Stones are competing against Shania and the like....just not most of us
>>
That's everyone's competition going into the marketplace.
<< It comes down to knowing
your market, your budget, your supporters, and your banker. >>
Exactly. How many units can you sell and what should you spend marketing to
the audience. It's same for everyone.
reddred
Maybe I wasn't concise. I understand all too well the costs involved, it's
just a question of who is paying those costs. If the media conglomerates
will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't foot
the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
contracts.
jb
EggHd
will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't foot
the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
contracts. >>
But it's not anything compared to the marketing costs. Many indie labels only
spend 12 to 15% on distribution fees.
Justin Ulysses Morse
> Maybe I wasn't concise. I understand all too well the costs involved, it's
> just a question of who is paying those costs. If the media conglomerates
> will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't foot
> the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
> contracts.
You'd like to think, but you have to look at the numbers as they're
adding up so far. It'll certainly be different, but I can't say
exactly how at this point. We'll see how it all shakes out.
ulysses
reddred
We'll have to see what present/future model ends up being most succesful.
Apple can sell iPods, that pretty much enables the whole thing, but that may
not be true of other distributors. The thing that looks cool to me about the
deal with Apple is that distribution has become a revenue source in and of
itself as opposed to an expense.
jb
reddred
"Julian Standen" <ju...@librarystudio.com> wrote in message
news:ec5d4753.03111...@posting.google.com...
> Do you think this Apple move might have a negative effect long term on
> the industry?
>
> I was thinking of the selling soda analogy above and wondering appart
> from Ipods what Apple can sell along with music... and then I thought,
> you cant see a picture of Mariah Cary on an Ipod...
>
> Sex sells....
>
> Can you sell sex on an Ipod?
>
> MP3 players with "picures" or videos HAVE to be next.
>
Cell phones with pictures and mp3 players are here, as are pda's with mp3
players and pictures, as are cell phones with mp3's.... the iPod is a
conservative offer right now in this arena, but it wouldn't be a good
product if there weren't years of future upgrades and slow price reductions.
There is mail, pictures, movies, iDisk access, calendar, it goes on and
on... Apple has been shoveling money into these subscription services (and
servers and bandwidth for them) and it looks like eventually they will all
be accessed from an iPod. Which, most likely, will be the remote for your
television as well.
Music is just the first application that is driving things like media
subscription services and p2p.
jb
EggHd
deal with Apple is that distribution has become a revenue source in and of
itself as opposed to an expense. >>
But the reality is that the artists who are marketed and promoted well will be
the ones that sell.
This is going to be be just another retail chain.
Neil Henderson
>be
>the ones that sell.
>
>This is going to be be just another retail chain.
Even though my tunes are either now or soon to be up on Rhapsody, Emusic,
AOL-MusicNet, MusicMatch, BuyMusic, AudioLunchbox, the new Napster, and iTunes
(all through CDBaby's efforts in this arena); I have a feeling you're right...
in terms of marketing, it's going to take the $$$ that the majors have to break
through all the noise. I've had varied results from web advertising - some
worthless, some not too bad, none outrageously great; but it'll be interesting
to see if there's any way for an "indie" to break through the clutter on the
sites mentioned above.
NeilH
EggHd
They are really a class act.
<< I've had varied results from web advertising - some
worthless, some not too bad, none outrageously great; but it'll be interesting
to see if there's any way for an "indie" to break through the clutter on the
sites mentioned above. >>
Here's the "problem" with national web distribution. In most cases promotion
and marketing is "local" and reactive to heat in the marketplace.
It's very difficult for an indie act to even think nationally or globally let
alone market that way.
The majors go market by market via radio, touring local press and then take it
nationally when markets start to break.
Take your home market and get heat going there through live gigs, local press
around those and even local specialty radio shows. You can then tell the story
to other markets and get more exposure area by area.
TC
been recycling their old catalog for years... adding a 'unique' cut to
the reconstituted compilations in order to try to get the public to
purchase the same music they own, once again.
On 11 Nov 2003 00:52:59 GMT, eg...@aol.com (EggHd) wrote:
><< Maybe he's looking to discourage potential competitors from entering the
>market? >>
>
>Or maybe what's making money for Apple is different than what record companies
>make. The record biz has a very small margin.
LeBaron & Alrich
> The record biz has a very small margin? Oh give me a break. They've
> been recycling their old catalog for years... adding a 'unique' cut to
> the reconstituted compilations in order to try to get the public to
> purchase the same music they own, once again.
That's right. The record business has a very small margin. If you knew
something about it you'd know that already.
--
ha
Jay - atldigi
Thank goodness for catalog or there might be no margin at all for some
labels in the current climate.
--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com
LeBaron & Alrich
> Thank goodness for catalog or there might be no margin at all for some
> labels in the current climate.
You mean where the fans are too old to bother trying to steal it.
--
ha
ryanm
news:znr1068553912k@trad...
>
> It would be interesting to see an accurate analysis, but I'll bet it's
> more than most people think, at least if you want to do it well. It
> costs about $50/month for an individual user to let others grab music
> files from the computer under his desk, through his cable TV Internet
> service. It costs a lot more for Apple to set up enough servers so
> that there isn't a bottleneck for downloading (I haven't heard such
> reports yet, so maybe they're ahead of the game for now), and then
> there's the licenses, the lawyers, the advertising, and the
> administration - oh, and the profit without which there would be no
> iTunes. I wouldn't be surprised if the transit costs are on
> the order of 5 to 10 percent of the retail price when everything is
> added in.
>
You have to consider, though, that Apple already has significant
bandwidth for it's other online services. Probably multiple OC3 or OC12,
which is more than enough bandwidth to distribute all the music they want.
Since they already have the bandwidth, and they are probably in a contract
with their provider to be able to scale it up at a reasonable cost, the
bandwidth issues are almost negligble. For a startup trying to get into the
same business, the initial costs would be substantial, but I don't believe
for a second that Apple had to buy all the hardware and bandwidth new for
this service. Development costs, well, you'd need a project lead/producer
type with the "big picture", a designer, a programmer, and an asset manager,
for about 90 days. Let's say all 4 of those guys are getting paid top
dollar, we're still only talking $100k in development, double that if they
sourced out the programming. To be generous, let's say another $100k in
hardware and bandwidth improvements. The big expense is the payoff they
would've had to make to whichever labels own the catalogs they are selling.
Even still, it cost less to build the thing than it did to advertise it. I
would build it for less than that, if anyone is interested. ; )
I'd attribute Jobs' comments more to politics than anything else. Apple
has stockholders, and if iTunes is suddenly showing a couple hundred
thousand sales per week they're going to want to see it reflected in their
dividends. They also have competition who don't have an iPod to sell, and
saying that there's no money in the music is probably discouraging to people
thinking of getting into that market. There are other reasons as well, but
you get the point. It's a good business move to say that their making the
money on the hardware rather than the content. Most other industries work
the other way around, give the razor away and sell the blades, give the
phone away and sell the service, etc. The problem is, anyone can provide the
service, but Apple owns the whole iPod, and they want to keep the focus on
that.
ryanm
Mike Rivers
> You have to consider, though, that Apple already has significant
> bandwidth for it's other online services. Probably multiple OC3 or OC12,
> which is more than enough bandwidth to distribute all the music they want.
I guess they had to invent something to use up that excess bandwidth
before the bean counters took it away.
> For a startup trying to get into the
> same business, the initial costs would be substantial, but I don't believe
> for a second that Apple had to buy all the hardware and bandwidth new for
> this service.
Obviously they had a leg up, and certainly they did with the software
development since that's their business. On the other hand, they
didn't come into this like a startup in the music distribution
business, they came in like they had years of experience and plenty of
resources (which they did).
> To be generous, let's say another $100k in
> hardware and bandwidth improvements.
That's all? Can I take that to the bank and get startup money for a
porn web site? I'll bet there's still plenty of money in that? And
practically no licensing fees. <g>
> I'd attribute Jobs' comments more to politics than anything else. Apple
> has stockholders, and if iTunes is suddenly showing a couple hundred
> thousand sales per week they're going to want to see it reflected in their
> dividends. They also have competition who don't have an iPod to sell, and
> saying that there's no money in the music is probably discouraging to people
> thinking of getting into that market.
You think that businesses listen to what the competition says? I read
"there's no money in downloaded music" as a message to the
downloaders, that even though they have to pay for what they used to
get for free, the "store" isn't making money. Things haven't changed.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
ryanm
>
> > To be generous, let's say another $100k in
> > hardware and bandwidth improvements.
>
> That's all? Can I take that to the bank and get startup money for a
> porn web site? I'll bet there's still plenty of money in that? And
> practically no licensing fees. <g>
>
startup money I'll build it for you for free, and all I want is 50% of the
profits. ; )
Porn is still the largest internet industry around, turning *billions*
in profit every year.
ryanm
Ryan
> > << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> > happen. >>
I happen to know of a lot of outstanding artists that have never
released a CD and are now seriously consdering never doing so. Why
produce something that gives away just about 100% of what you have to
offer (everything except the live show) just so it can be stolen and
distributed easily? Better to figure out some other method of getting
money for your music. Releasing only a couple of home made music
videos, or just doing shows, and again, never releasing a CD until
this whole mess is sorted out. (The reason for releasing music videos
instead of CD's is that "most" people out there don't know how to get
the audio from a DVD or VHS tape, or are just too lazy to do so.
Although, of course, some do know exactly how to do this and
especially with Digital I/O cards, can do it quite well.)
All this means that the music scene is now seriously retarded and will
be for the foreseeable future. The very things that used to grant
success to an artist are now their biggest hinderence: The better and
catchier a song, the more likly it will be spread around the P2P sites
and the more people will hear it; but now as opposed to just five
years ago, this means that the artist is much more unlikly to ever get
paid for it. What record company would offer a contract to an artist
for an album that everybody has already heard? If on the other hand
someone creates incredibly hard to listen to, radical and esoteric
music, the liklyhood of it showing up on Kazaa are far less, thus
forcing more fans to go out and actually buy the CD. But, catch 23
million, this kind of music will nessicairly have a lot less fans to
begin with.
Go and figure this one out.
Mike Rivers
> I happen to know of a lot of outstanding artists that have never
> released a CD and are now seriously consdering never doing so. Why
> produce something that gives away just about 100% of what you have to
> offer (everything except the live show) just so it can be stolen and
> distributed easily? Better to figure out some other method of getting
> money for your music.
The trick is to not allow all of your music to be given away. That's
what the record companies are trying to avoid right now. In terms of
dollars, there's more to be lost if a well known major label artist's
work gets passed around with no profits going back to the company than
if an individual's work gets passed around, but of course it hurts
both of them.
The trick is to encourage people, based on free samples, to purchase
your music. In reality, although the scale is quite small, this works
better for the individual artist than the major label artist becaue
there's much smaller chance of "finding" free copies of the
individual's work. People tend to be more honest and have less of the
"they're ripping everyone off, so I'll rip them off" attitude with an
individual than with a major label, so that's why you see all the fuss
kicked up by the big boys, while the little guys embrace on-line music
content as cheap or free advertising.
> The better and
> catchier a song, the more likly it will be spread around the P2P sites
> and the more people will hear it;
I don't do P2P sites (nor do I listen to pop radio) so I don't know
what's popular and what's catchy other than by what I read, but I
don't recall that I've ever read about an "undiscovered"
(non-major-label) artist that has made it big through the P2P network.
I think (and admittedly, this is a bigoted opinion) that the P2P
networks mostly deal with trading either material that can be
purchased at any big record store or for trading material that's no
longer in print. And (another bigoted opinion) I'll bet I know which
kind has the most downloads per title.
> If on the other hand
> someone creates incredibly hard to listen to, radical and esoteric
> music, the liklyhood of it showing up on Kazaa are far less, thus
> forcing more fans to go out and actually buy the CD.
Yeah, all five of 'em. The trick is to develop on-line marketplaces
for those less popular genres, and develop them in a way that the
visitors will be inclined to make purchases rather than go in search
of free copies.
> Go and figure this one out.
If I did, I might either be rich or would have a scheme that I could
make money with by selling the concept on the Internet. <g>
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Ricky W. Hunt
>
> The trick is to not allow all of your music to be given away.
I'm thinking that's what's happening with DVDs too like the new Alien
"Quadrilogy". Try to put out so much stuff that even the latest, fastest
lines would have trouble downloading it all, trying to "stay ahead" of the
technology. Do you really need 42 hours worth of extra stuff?
knud
>
>I'm thinking that's what's happening with DVDs too like the new Alien
>"Quadrilogy". Try to put out so much stuff that even the latest, fastest
>lines would have trouble downloading it all, trying to "stay ahead" of the
>technology. Do you really need 42 hours worth of extra stuff?
Whats sad is that people need to resort to trickery to get sales in the
first place.
blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!
Les Cargill
It is a collectors item, as all box sets really are. FWIW, they
sold quite a few of the "Alien" plastic dolls. It's just one
of those movie series that works well in selling merchandise.
--
Les Cargill
Ryan
whatever, I have to say that as a fan of the first three Alien movies,
The fourth one absolutly shamed the series. If someone were to buy
me a copy of this "Qudrilogy," the first thing I'd do is run outside
and burn the fourth Disc. This cartoonish, braindead, wreck of a
movie absolutly does not belong with the the other legendary titles in
the series. And to think, Ms. Weaver actually resited doing a fourth
Aliens movie for so long because she could never find a script she
thought did the series justice! BAH!
reddred
"Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dea39397.03120...@posting.google.com...
Agreed. It was pathetic. There's a 'quadrilogy' set out now on DVD, and it
would be much more attractive if the fourth one weren't in it!
At the time, there was some nonsense about how #4 established Alien as an
ongoing series. A TV series, at least what one could tell from the quality
of #4. It was more like a nail in the coffin.
jb
reddred
"ryanm" <ry...@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote in message
news:vt240aq...@corp.supernews.com...
It's my understanding that the porn producers will pay smaller sites to host
or link to free content, and feed people to the subscription sites and sites
that sell porn products. Some tiny portion (1-2%) of the porn 'consumers'
actually pay for it, and this somehow generates billions. It boggles the
mind.
jb
ryanm
>
> It's my understanding that the porn producers will pay smaller sites to
host
> or link to free content, and feed people to the subscription sites and
sites
> that sell porn products. Some tiny portion (1-2%) of the porn 'consumers'
> actually pay for it, and this somehow generates billions. It boggles the
> mind.
>
at least 1 billion of them actively use porn on a regular basis (disbelieve
if you choose, but the numbers bear it out). If 1%-2% of a billion actually
buy something, that's several hundred million people purchasing porn
products on a regular basis. Now, obviously all of them don't buy something
every day, but if all of them buy something only once a year that's several
hundred million people paying (to pull an assumed average number out of my
ass) $20 for a product or service that adds up to several billion a year.
And some porn users purchase much more often than that, or are paying
monthly fees to have access to web sites instead of just purchasing once a
year. Think about $9.99 a month times 500k users. And you're selling the
same product to all of them, so there's no storage cost, no stocking cost,
no shipping cost, etc., just a server somewhere with some pictures on it.
It has been said for a long time that prostitution is the oldest
profession, and I think it's probably also true that porn is the oldest
commodity.
And to bring this back on topic, porn is a perfect example of an
industry where their "bread and butter" is given away for free on a daily
basis but the industry continues not only to thrive, but to grow
exponentially every year without exception. The key here is that the sites
that make money do so on "value added", since the very same pictures can be
found on alt.binaries newsgroups and pirate porn sites just by using google.
ryanm