Slashdot Mirror


Musicnet Fails to Impress Customers

mcwop writes "A Wall Street Journal story carried on MSNBC chronicles MusicNet's failure as a service before it even gets started. The story contains some funny quotes such as: 'The first offering was too clunky and too consumer unfriendly to hold much hope for its success, says Richard Parsons, AOL Time Warner's incoming chief executive. So we are going to go back, and we will come out with a 2.0 product which will be more consumer friendly, easy to use. ... This is a business of trial and error.' Any consumer could have informed the music titans that their business plan was flawed. Unfortunately, version 2.0 won't be any better unless the music industry is willing to take some risks. One of the more interesting aspects to the story is how the major music companies could hardly be present in the same room for fear that antitrust laws may be broken." A good business-oriented review of Musicnet's operations. With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.

10 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. "Quarter cent per song" by delta407 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's an article entitled "Courtney Love does the math" that talks about why Napster isn't the problem; rather, the record companies are screwing the artists. (Worth a read.)

    This applies to the above "quarter cent per song" -- which may actually be more than what they get making CDs.

    1. Re:"Quarter cent per song" by Anenga · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. I came here to post something similar, guess you beat me to it :P

      I found this post on Google Groups. And it goes on saying that your base royality for a CD is 12%. So, for a $16.98 CD (sold in US), they get $2.04. However, after reductions such as "container,"
      "free goods," and a "CD adjustment," you'll be left with a mere 97 per CD.

      Unless artists start they're own label, they lose. There was something like this on Dateline (NBC) once - I think it analyzed the Dixie Chicks. They said that they earn pennies from CD's, but what they earn money from is Concerts.

      So if you want to support your favorite artist, go to a Concert. I really believe that most artists don't mind their fans downloading their songs off the Internet. I think most of them want their music to be heard and remembered more than earning billions off of it. (well, not all :P)

      Go ahead and use MusicNet or just download off Gnutella. Maybe after they start paying the artists more, or lower the prices for the consumer... they'll learn. There is a huge flaw in the music market. (It would be nice to download a single song, instead of an entire album for it - or maybe adding something special for online purchases? Like the ability to keep all your songs you bought to be able to download from an online site - so you can load them in your iPod wherever you are just from going to the site? Searching, Buying, and Downloading off your MP3 player? I'd pay for that!) It's not our job to figure out a way how to repair it. Keep hitting the music companies by downloading off Gnutella, maybe they'll find a solution faster.

    2. Re:"Quarter cent per song" by dswensen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see it as a problem, because Vivendi, along with Universal, Sony, BMG, and a bunch of other big labels, essentially sued mp3.com out of existence. Mp3.com owed hundreds of millions of dollars to the big labels after a judge ruled that they were in copyright violation. Their choice was either to be bought up, or cease to exist.

      So Universal gobbled up mp3.com, cut payment to the artists, and turned it into a house organ for Universal's signed artists. Hardly a victory for the little guy.

  2. Re:more than.... by Danse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Prove it. Most people I know actually buy the cds from the artists that they discover on P2P services. They just aren't buying the cds that the record industry is hyping the most. Maybe that's why they have their panties in a wad.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  3. Why are we surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    People are accustomed to free access to music,
    we've been spoiled by Napster and its successors and those of us who don't want to burn our own CDs or download can get free music from the Radio (althought it is somewhat limited in selection).

    The business model used by these guys was wrong and musicnet is part of the establishment that is trying to (i) dictate how we listen to music and (ii) bill us for it. As if they were doing us a favor, yeah right...

  4. Re:MusicNet - Much Ado about nothing by benjymous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Most people I know who listen to a lot of MP3s will download a lot of different songs. And if they like the song, they'll go out and buy the album. The record company doesn't want me to say this, but out of the millions of MP3 files that are out there, if someone chooses to download one of my songs or an album of mine, I'm very flattered."

    -- Moby, Macaddict.com

    --
    Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
  5. Here's what I want in a music service by Basilius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And, most likely, what I'll never see.

    1. Cheap downloads of decent quality (160 or 192) MP3s. Maybe US$0.25-$0.30/song. Give me a printable receipt. These are true MP3s, no time sensitivity or DRM. If you want to encode the receipt number into the MP3, I think I can deal with that. Just let me copy it onto my laptop, MP3 player, etc. and keep it for perpetuity.

    2. Now, since I've paid less for a lesser quality product, I'd like an upgrade path. Let me use that receipt as a discount coupon on the album I've downloaded. Usable anywhere.

    This way, I can legally sample albums for about a buck. If I like it, I'm not out that dollar, It was just a down payment on the stuff I like.

    3. (Since I'm already shooting for the moon, why not...) Let me order custom-mixed CDs of MP3s I've purchased. With or without the aforementioned discount. That part I don't care about. If there's 10 or 12 songs I like where the rest of the album's trash (i.e. just about everything released these days) then let me just buy those songs.

    4. Access to _every_ label's material, not just two or three.

    5. A shopping cart style interface. Something like Amazon will do nicely.

    I can't imagine I'm the only person out there that thinks something like this would work.

    How the royalties get distributed would naturally need some thinking. It's got to be better then a quarter of a cent per song, though.

  6. Re:Courtney's Math by arkanes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Important: They don't actually get money up front, and living expenses aren't covered - it's all a loan, and it's all taken out of their (small)share of the profits. Basically, unless you manage to impress someone at the record companies enough that they will actively promote you (and not just half-assed promote you), you WILL NOT make money by signing with a label. Period. If you DO get heavy promotion, you still have only even odds, because you end up paying for all this promotion. If it weren't for that fact that all the promotion paths are covered by the industry, artists could (theoretically) get bank loans or whatever, on much better terms, and do everything themselves, or with independent managment, but because theres such a tightly held, vertically integrated cartel, there's little or no chance for anyone.

  7. Better example: emusic! by startled · · Score: 4, Interesting

    emusic.com has stayed out of the spotlight this whole time. This may be intentional-- if they actually got popular, their business wouldn't make any sense compared to other offerings out there (not sure how it does now).

    They charge 10 bucks a month. With that, you get unlimited downloads in mp3 format. That's right-- you can download that Haujobb CD 8 times if you want. I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days.

    How the hell does it work? How do they make any money (after they pay half to the labels)? I have no idea. On the label side, they don't get the big names. Their biggest are people like TMBG, but most bands are significantly smaller. And if you're looking for cool small, unsigned bands, you won't find 'em either. So it's not the only service you'll need. But at 10 bucks a month, it's a hell of a start on your collection. And it makes MusicNet look downright stupid (well, like that was hard).

    P.S. On the antitrust note (how they could hardly be in the same room): well, duh. It's a big fat antitrust violation already, and they're just observing the technicalities to avoid a prosecution. Let's see-- they all collaborate to wipe the other online music services off the face of the planet. Then, they get together and start one of their own. They're a music mafia, but they aren't allowed to get all the families in one room together. No big deal, there are plenty of other ways to communicate.

  8. Re:more than.... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I drastically decreased the load on my gnutella node by blocking searches on Christina, Britney, and various and sundry 'trash rap' groups.

    Try it. You'll like it:)

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon