Comments on: Music industry: five alternative business models

By: JaWar

JaWar — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:35:02 +0000

Thank you for the music business resources.

By: Nick Rambo

Nick Rambo — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:12:37 +0000

Excellent article…I’ve always wondered when the monopoly that the music labels owned would come crumbling down. I can’t wait to see how they start to monetize music videos so I can add the PPP stream to my site at http://www.rocknview.com. It really is an exciting time to be in the online music industry!!!

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:47:20 +0000

Backing up the post fro Gary ,http://www.sellaband.com/ is an already working model

By: David Fishman

David Fishman — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:21:50 +0000

Great article. I just published something similar on my company’s blog, http://www.nextgreatthing.com.
Check it out here: http://www.nextgreatthing.com/.....ue-models/

By: Jeff Coleman

Jeff Coleman — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:02:11 +0000

The basic flaw in all of these schemes (except free) is the fact that income for the artist depends on unit sales. We believe that this is normal and natural, when in fact it’s a phenomenon that’s only about a hundred years old. Artists managed to survive before music became an “object” which could be sold like cheese.

But music isn’t consumed like cheese (even though a lot of music is cheesy). No, it pretty much lasts forever now. It’s given away for free (via advertising) on the radio, and in shops, and between friends. How many times might one recording be “consumed”? Once it’s made, music can go on and on without restriction.

So the industry created these artificial restrictions, and they try to enforce them, but this will never work until the day they manage to have decoder chips implanted in our heads. And still we listeners believe that music must be paid for one unit at a time. It’s unnatural!

So how do I think music should be paid for? Well, if you hear that music for free and it convinces you that you want to hear more from an artist, why not pay the artist just for doing what they do directly? It’s easy for a few thousand people to support one person just by sending them some money every year. It’s almost like a subscription to the artist.

Imagine the “exclusives” such an arrangement could bring- you and a few thousand other sponsors would have the inside scoop on new music, who the artist is listening to, what they had for breakfast…

The music is free, it’s the advertising for the person making the music. Step up to the plate, put your money where your heart is, and pay them for being the wonderful, creative people they are. Hell, listen to my music- and join my sponsors. It’s easy, it’s fun!

somewhereoutwest.com

By: John

John — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:34:18 +0000

The IFPI can’t even control it’s own domain name (see http://www.ifpi.com to see what I’m talking about!), let alone steer a sensible course for the majors, so I think we should dust off our black funeral wear for the record industry. Today’s consumers want music at a fair price, not at $.99/track. That kind of pricing went out the door with the retail middlemen and CD production costs. Charge a fair price like the Russians, and the buyers will come. Meanwhile, watch out for private p2p which is 100% legal, and lets users share entire albums with friends: http://www.gigatribe.com is an example.

By: Maurreen

Maurreen — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:38:23 +0000

The tax idea is the worst. People who download no music should not have to subsidize other people’s entertainment.

By: Vladislav Chernyshov

Vladislav Chernyshov — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:51:12 +0000

If must confess that it’s more likely that music will be free and will serve to promote one’s concerts and other revenue sources. I’d like to.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:45:25 +0000

I used to buy a couple of vinyl albums, then cassettes and then CD’s every pay day, did it for years. I can’t remember the last time I bought a new CD, it has been several years. I buy some music on iTunes, and recently tried Amazon. I will not pay a subscription (wasted money a few years ago on Real Player), and definitely will not ever pay for a streaming service because ‘wideband’ in the US is a joke…there are just way too many places where there is no or very poor connectivity. Since the record companies started suing music lovers, I decided to stop buying their stuff on principle, but finally broke down and started buying from iTunes. As far as I’m concerned, the record companies can all go out of business. Twenty dollars for a CD with pennies of it going to the artist, so that they can afford to market Britney or whoever the latest “mega star” is, well that’s just not something I choose to support with my money.

So, let me purchase the songs I want. I’d prefer no DRM, even though I don’t share files. I’d ideally prefer to purchase the music directly from the artist, although this isn’t very practical, especially when the artist is dead. There has to be some distributor, but the historical model is obsolete.

By: Fritz Kundler

Fritz Kundler — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:15:23 +0000

Good article. I really have doubts that the record companies are going to ’see the light’ and start charging more reasonable prices and I think this is at the heart of the pirating problem; fans have known that they are mainly paying for a bunch of suits that sit around a table ie., the record execs. I think Radiohead is coming closest to the solution. I believe fans will still want to support their favorite artists and keep them in business.

By: Steve O'Hear (editor)

Steve O'Hear (editor) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:08:47 +0000

@George

We Mac users live in a Windows world ;)

No, seriously, sorry about that. It’s another Windows-only DRM affair. Do you see a pattern here?

By: George

George — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:55:12 +0000

You should mention SpiralFrog requires a Windows-only downloader. I was excited until I found out I couldn’t run it.