Slashdot Mirror


Evaluating a System for Selling and Delivering MP3s?

Dredd2Kad asks: "I'd really like Slashdot's opinion on this. I recently secured an MP3 distribution deal with an indie record label, and negotiations with other indie labels and artists are in the works. The music will be distributed through my internet radio station's website. As you know, if you can sell music in a format such as MP3 you eliminate the costs of packaging, shipping, handling. You do have to contend with bandwidth charges though. Most indie labels and artists seem happy to pass along the savings to customers and stimulate sales. What I have built is simple and functional. We are trying to add value to the MP3 albums we sell by including quality artwork that can be printed onto CD labels and jewel case inserts (so you aren't just getting a 'bunch of files'). What would make you want to buy music in this way? What types things would turn you away? What are the positives and negatives of selling music in this manner? Do you think this is a viable alternative to someone who doesn't want to pay $10 or $15 for a physical CD? Does the format the music is in or on have an impact on how serious you take it?"

49 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. Price Point by felonious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The main problem dogging the Recording industry is price. Price is what the main issue is for most of us. 99 cents or under is a good place to start.

    --
    You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
  2. The only thing I would like by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Might be the option to have cd quality files (different format maybe?), maybe for a slightly higher price.

    Especially if it's something like ambient music, where hearing everything is important.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:The only thing I would like by jdvuyk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quality is important!!

      I think the key is to give people choice. I know if I was presented with downloading ONLY 128k MP3's I would probably flag it, no matter how inexpensive. I want to be able to choice my own format (OGG, MP3, whatever) and ALSO at the bitrate I want.

      For me vari-bitrate is where its at. Its a decent compromise on most factors. I cant understand why more people dont use this.

    2. Re:The only thing I would like by angry+old+man · · Score: 5, Funny
      I may be just an angry old man, but I have an idea that could revolutionize the digital music industry (patent-pending).

      The label could take the highest quality digital version of the music and create analog presses that have near the same quality as the file. In each press, hot vinyl would be pressed to form a high quality analog reproduction of the music (patent-pending). Now, these vinyl *discs* could be packaged in a carboard envelope with printing, lyrics, and etc. Then they are sold. Certain *disc* players would read the music off of these *discs* by dragging a needle across the surface (patent pending) and reading the resulting vibrations.

      High fidelity buffs would be impressed with the quality, yet it's still analog which would prevent some piracy since people would prefer the *best* analog reproduction to some digital copy of that analog reproduction. Packaging would turn on people who want something a little extra with their music. Finally, and this is the ingenious part, since this *disc* is read by dragging a needle across the surface, the quality would degrade over time, preventing resale value from gnawing at new *disc* profits (patent-pending).

      The ultimate effect of my new music distribution model, is that piracy would come to an end, since the best copy is analog. At most, piracy would be used to sample the music of a particular *disc* prior to purchase. I could revolutionize a piracy filled industry. Recording Labels would grow since they longer have to worry about piracy and digital CDs being reproduced. They could tightly control the distribution of these vinyl *discs* thus controlling their profit.

      Music might become thought of as a tangible piece of property with a physical existance rather than some digital idea that is freely copied and shared. (patent-pending)

      --
      -vax computer, vi, lynx. 'nuf said
    3. Re:The only thing I would like by LordBodak · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Although this was obviously meant to be funny, there is also a very insightful point in here.

      In the days of vinyl, a record came with all sorts of stuff-- large, often beautiful cover art; liner notes; lyrics; etc.

      Nowadays you get a few pictures in a booklet that are barely large enough to see, and only occasionally do you even get lyrics.

      The value-added content helped sell LPs; there is no question the lack of it is at least partially responsible for poor CD sales.

      --
      LordBodak's journal.
  3. Quality by robbieduncan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The format itself does not really matter (to me). I would prefer AAC, but MP3 is fine. What really matters is that the encoding is at a high enough bit rate and was done well. Correct id3 tags and artwork help too. If format is so important to people you might think about offering multiple formats in the downloads (I'm sure a lot of people around here want ogg).

  4. I pay attention to the music by kevinatilusa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless of whether I can print fancy jewel case covers/inserts out, I wouldn't really see your music as "just getting a bunch of files" any more than I would see a CD as "just getting a bunch of 0's and 1's". Ideally, I would like to focus on just two things, the quality of the music you play and the quality of the transfer of the music into the file. I would be willing to pay much more for those things than I would for the extras you mention.

  5. Adding value by dew-genen-ny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd love to see as much thought that goes into a cd album being put into this :

    Specifically, I'd definately pay for a package that contained:

    High quality vbr mp3s.
    Multiple peices of album artwork, not just a scan of cd-album front cover.
    Lyric files to all the MP3s.
    Where available guitar chords as well.

    I think that copy protection would be a big turn off. For indie bands, I reckon that the majority of people would be happy to buy, even if they could get it for free, just as a matter of support.

    Perhaps an introduction to the album by the artists concerned.

    And of course, some decent music ;)

    --
    tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
    1. Re:Adding value by Naikrovek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      High quality vbr mp3s

      Let me emphasize this: HIGH QUALITY!! This is BY FAR the most important issue for me. I swear if I hear another 128k MP3 labelled "CD-Quality" I'm going to scream and kick and kill my all of my fish.

      When talking MP3, 128kbps is NOT CD quality, no matter what encoder you use. Downloads in Ogg format would also be very nice. A lossless codec would be even better. Anything not lossless that calls itself "CD-Quality" is flat-out bogus.

      So, put HIGH QUALITY files up, open formats like Ogg, and FLAC, as well as mp3, lossless files if you have the bandwidth/disk capacity, and as others have mentioned, LOTS of pictures, videos, and things like that. Extra stuff. People that like a band enough to buy a CD are usually VERY interested in just about everything and everyone surrounding the band. I am, anyway. Foo Fighters had it right when they included the bonus DVD with their "All For One" release. Take that idea and triple it.

      Also, let people re-download their music freely if they've paid. Put that info in their account details so if their computer crashes they don't have to email you and cause everyone a big headache to get their music back. oversights like this can ruin the legitimate online music download market, so DON'T skip it.

  6. Turn offs... by duffhuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What types things would turn you away?

    Juit quickly:

    1. Low quality and / or fixed format files. MP3 has a large market penetration and LAME is a great codec for 99% of the material, but I'd like to be able to download FLAC, WAV, OGG, or something else. Preferably a clean open lossless standard i.e. FLAC. If the track costs more for the high-quality version then the regular MP3 version I'm okay with that.

    2. Forced to purchase a full album over single tracks. This is a big turn off for me, as I find only a few tracks are really worth it.

    3. No preview of tracks. I'm not entirly sure if this is bad or not, but some way of previewing, either by a short clip, or a really low quality version of the song, is definately nice.

    4. No support for countries outside of the US.
    Obviously the US would be the biggest market to start out with, but support for Canada is a cruicial second IMO. Apple's iTunes Music Store doesn't (to my knowledge) support Canada yet, so I can't yet take advantage of it. Ideally, the system would be able to easily support all countries, perhaps with credit cards this is possible, but I see some possible legal implications here.

  7. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We are trying to add value to the MP3 albums we sell by including quality artwork that can be printed onto CD labels and jewel case inserts (so you aren't just getting a 'bunch of files').

    So now instead of buying an album which includes artwork, booklet, blah blah blah... You have to download the damn things, print them yourself, etc. I'm sorry, but that's too much damn work for me. Plus, the result would look so unprofessional which makes it feel cheap, and I hate cheap.

    This is so not the way to go. CD is a fine format. I like having the physical CD, I like having the physical artwork, I like CDs. I don't like the idea of paying money for bits and bytes that represent music.

    They should find a way of distributing physical media at lower prices. This is just like books vs "electronic books". You can't beat holding the thing in your hands, placing it in your shelf, looking at your massive collection... But whatever, I guess.

    1. Re:ugh by lennart78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to agree here. I have quite a large CD collection, and I take pride in that. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it's a sentiment that you will find among a lot of other people.

      Plus, there is the case of the 'limited edition'-CD of course, which will become extinct once distribution is fully digitized.

      Buying MP3's off the Net is an option for me if I want an individual track, but not the entire CD. But if I want the full album, I'd prefer a physical disk, with a nice booklet etc...

    2. Re:ugh by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

      "This is so not the way to go."

      Don't listen to this guy!! Or rather, do listen to him, and others as well :-)

      What I mean to say is that the market for music is rather diverse, and you will probably end up catering to a subset. Yes, some people like physical CDs. If you can manage to let such people select tracks, burn the CD for them, stick in a nicely printed sleeve and ship the physical thing to him for $15, you could capture this part of the market.

      But... there are plenty of people (like me) who do not care one bit for the physical product. I have lots of CD's, which I only play in my car stereo that I plan to replace with an MP3 or MiniDisc player anyway. I buy the CD, then rip the songs off it. I play my music from the computer at home. In the car or on the walkman I like to compose my own albums rather than play the prepackaged ones, so I use custom-burned CDs or MiniDiscs.

      My point: do a proper market study to find out who your customers actually are, and what they want. I seriously doubt that you will find one "way to go" or that "this is so not the way to go.".

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. What I'd care about by kiowa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Easy payment by VISA, no paypal.
    2. Allow for some freebies so you can check out the band before you buy.
    3. High quality files (more than 128kbit mp3), and allow the option of selecting either ogg or mp3. Although you might be eligble for paying royalities if you go with mp3.
    4. Fast downloads.

    --
    =-kiOwA-> EOF
  9. Albums by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I have built is simple and functional. We are trying to add value to the MP3 albums we sell by including quality artwork that can be printed onto CD labels and jewel case inserts (so you aren't just getting a 'bunch of files'). What would make you want to buy music in this way?

    Firstly, I would like to say that this isn't intended as a slur on your musicians.

    You must understand where the album came from, why it exists. It is an example of technology leading art. When the technology existed to fit n minutes of music onto a record, musicians started to produce works that were n minutes long. This is why first there were singles, then albums. This has meant that much of what is on an album is filler. I'm looking at my rack of CDs now, and most of them I bought for a few (3-5) great tracks out of a total of roughly 10. The MP3s I have online to listen to aren't complete albums, just the good somgs from each album. There are plenty of albums I can put on as background music, but few that I'd actually want to listen to. Some vendors (like Apple) are starting to understand that the album is an artificial construct... what people really want are individual songs, delivered efficiently. You can't do that so easily on CD, because there isn't so much of a price differential for a retailer to stock a CD album as a CD single (i.e. transportation costs, staff costs, etc are all the same). But now you can, with the network and the MP3 format.

    So, the thing that would make me buy online is being able to construct my own "greatest hits" album from a musicians entire catalogue, and get it sent to me on SACD or DVD/A. I'm not even worried about buying compilations of different artists - I can do those myself on my HD after all.

    This model is bad for some "artists" because it means they can't make money from filler, but it's good for real artists and their fans, because the percentage of an album that's worth listening to (and hence buying) is so much higher. And it's bad for record labels either way...

    1. Re:Albums by Tet · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are plenty of albums I can put on as background music, but few that I'd actually want to listen to.

      Then I can only say that your listening habits are significantly different to mine and most of the people I associate with. It's rare for me to buy an album with more than a couple of poor tracks. The artists I like fairly consistently produce a solid collection of tracks with very little filler. There are a few exceptions, the odd one hit wonder that really doesn't have the songwriting ability to make a full album of music. But that's the exception, not the rule. Perhaps that's a consequence of listening to a genre of music (heavy metal) that's so under represented in the mainstream media that the concept of a single is almost unheard of. Most of my favourite bands only make albums -- there's no point in making a single, because it's never going to get played anywhere anyway. Or perhaps it's some other reason entirely...

      P.S. Today's music recomendation: Masterplan's eponymous debut album. Feel the soulburn...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  10. Amazon It! by plasticmillion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I agree with all the previous comments: price, speed, choice of quality, etc. are all important. I would add in this context that having an online account would be a big plus, so that I can pay in a certain amount (say $10-20) and then buy tracks out of that account, rather than having to bill my credit card every time for $.79 or $.99 or whatever.

    Most importantly, the user experience needs to be attractive since this is a very competitive space (and a lot of your competition has a compelling price point: free). Take a long, hard look at Amazon.com, which is the best e-commerce website I know. Notice how they have striven to make the purchasing process fun and informative. Notice also how the information-rich experience they provide helps to cross- and upsell customers ("People who bought X also bought Y"). If you can include ratings, recommendations, user comments, etc. in your site in a way that is slick and easy to use, that will definitely help to attract and retain customers.

  11. Re:Options by JamesP · · Score: 4, Informative

    I guess I am picky sometimes but here goes... 1 - the ability to manage downloads: if the guy loses his connection/ computer hangs/etc when (s)he is downloading and is not able to resume it they will be very p... off Besides, if (s)he has a dial up connection, (s)he will want to download the songs little by little... 2 - Encoding quality. Depending on the kind of music, higher encoding rates (160/192 for MP3)are a must. Example: heavy metal, music with lots of left/right channel division,etc. You may experiment having lower quality samples (32/64 for MP3) for free You may also want to experiment with other formats AAC and OGG are very good even at 128 (almost CD quality) WMA is good but has two problems (IMHO). Closed source (but there are linux players) and quality shifts a lot depending on the kind of music... Another option is to have "golden ears" flac files (more expensive, of course...) Offering the jewel cases is a good idea. I don't think you should charge too much for these (or maybe somthing like: buy the whole CD and you get the picture...)

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  12. Personal opinion by Compact+Dick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, I don't give a shit about printable stuff as of now. Could change in the future.

    However - one thing about MP3. When you're converting concerts [or anything else where the tracks are seamless] MP3 does not cut it*. Why? Because the MP3 specification does not allow gapless playback.

    Stick to Ogg Vorbis or MPC instead, which are natively gapless [not to mention of higher quality.] The former is patent-free, royalty-free and more flexible than MP3. Plus Winamp has native support.

    * There is a proposal that aims to calculate gaps from MP3/AAC/MP4 and remove them, but this isn't implemented in any player/decoder yet.

  13. People also want quality features. by HanzoSan · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The problem is people think selling mp3s is a good idea, you have to sell services and INCLUDE mp3s.

    Selling mp3s is like selling webpages, people will not pay on a per site basis, EVER.

    However, people will pay for quality and service, people do subscribe to gaming sites, if you offer it at a cheap $1 a month, or $12 a year, people will subscribe. You also must offer alot of things in the members sections, not just mp3s, but video clips, tourdates, blogs, forums, pictures,interviews, etc. You have to make it into almost an online magazine, you need to build a community, then you charge people to access that community

    You charge the fans to access a SCENE, because to the fan, its all about the scene, just like to the musician its all about the art. Treat it like what it is, art! Do not treat it like product, when you treat it like product and worry about how many sales of mp3s you'll get, you wont sell any.

    I suggest you let a person subscribe to your site, your fans will subscribe, you may only have a few thousand fans, but thats enough. 5000 people paying $12 a year, is decent money, more money than you'd make trying to sell mp3s.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:People also want quality features. by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      >5000 people paying $12 a year, is decent money

      That's enough to pay for hosting and bandwidth plus two salaries, if they like eating Ramin noodles 3 meals a day. That's Web Guy, who'll we'll charitably assume does the recording and editing, plus a drummer. You'd better hope that you can find 5000 people that like drum solos.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:People also want quality features. by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would have to say otherwise. What you really want to do, is sell to the people with the lowest IQ's. The fact that Ron Popeil(the infomercial guy) is still on TV on a regular basis, as well as countless other stupid infomercials, shows that there's definitely money to be made in selling to the people with a high money to brains ratio. This can be done by either your method, of selling to people with lots of money, or by the other method of selling to those without brains.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:People also want quality features. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >It was just an example

      It was indeed a perfect example of how vague handwaving and "oh, but of course" economics fall flat on their face when you're not living in your parents' basement.

      >If you are hiring a webguy and doing all this stuff, you better be a damn good band.

      But if you can't afford a webguy, how do you let people know how good you are. Hmm, that reminds me of something:

      Bill: Ted, while I agree that in time our band will be most triumphant, the truth is Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
      Ted: Yes Bill, but I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
      Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
      Ted: Well how can we have decent instruments when we really don't even know how to play.
      Bill: That is why we need Eddie Van Halen.
      Ted: And that is why we need a triumphant video.
      (Pause)
      Both: Excellent. (Air Guitar.)

      You see the problem? Sure, tell yourself that you can set up a fan site for peanuts, but the first time it falls over with an "Out of Cheese" error, you have lost your revenue stream. Better hope your cupboard is full of those noodles.

      >I was being very conservative when I came up with the 5000 number, any good musician should be able to do 15-20,000 easy

      Which end of you did that number get pulled from? I'd like to know before I touch it. Can you provide examples of several non-RIAA bands that have managed to set up fan sites that have 20,000 subscribers at $12 a year? Note "several", because "any good musician". If it's that easy, let's see the examples.

      If, as I suspect, you're pulling all this out of your quivering pick ass, and you're living in the aforementioned basement (or otherwise living off of handouts) and have no idea what the phrase "working musician" actually implies, at least have the good grace to acknowledge it.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:People also want quality features. by sleeper0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i worked in the digital music industry for a number of years, including what ended up becoming rhapsody. Here are a few of the things i picked up:

      * people will buy mp3's, but not very many people will. Use this knowledge when planning, consider not spending much or any money on putting it together, at least at first, to gauge interest.

      * The band's hardest core fans will end up being the ones most likely to buy something from you. However they already own the albums. They may very well be convinced to buy the albums again if you include enough extras. Great extras being unreleased material, live tracks, stuff that didn't make the album, rough tracks from the upcomming album, remixes, instrumental tracks etc.

      * This is important: People are (rightly) afraid of losing the mp3's they buy and being SOL. Make sure people who bought the album are allowed to download it again whenever they need it. Some folks may end up overusing this feature in your mind but the good will will go a long way into making people comfortable buying the medium.

      * When you buy a cd you get the chance to rip at various bitrates. Make sure you provide a high enough bitrate for high fidelity listening (160k or 192k) but also consider providing a 96kbit or 128kbit set for portable players or other uses. Let them download either or both for one price. (and come back later to get the other one when they need it for free like the last point)

      * Provide at least one sample mp3 encoded at the high fidelity bitrate so that people considering a purchase will know exactly what the quality of the encoding is (many bands only provide lower bitrate samples and people may assume the purchased music will sound the same)

      * Consider watermarking if you want to be able to tell if the purchased mp3's are being made available on newsgroups/p2p etc or if it is people ripping the album themselves. This can be helpful if a band discovers their music on kazaa and is upset and makes a logical leap to blame the online mp3 sales... Likely they will have ripped it themselves and you'd be able to prove that rather than just speculating.

      * (point #1 again) Remember, not many people buy mp3's online. Don't plan to order new computers, bandwidth, software services, spend a ton of time programming, doing art, adding extrasm or marketing until you get a chance to get your feet wet and gauge people's interest.

    5. Re:People also want quality features. by black+mariah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously you know nothing about how quickly people get tired of their musican friends and relatives parasiting off of them when they actually start bringing in money.

      Actually, I do, but the exact opposite. I was the one making money, and also the musician. You're forgetting the distinction between WORKING musician and LAZY BASTARD musician. ;)

      See above. I'd do a fan site for nothing. Once it's asking for money, I want a cut.

      Agreed. For example, I'm a guitar tech by day. All my friends and bandmates get their shit worked on for free, under the stipulation that if they ever need a touring tech that I'm the guy. ;)

      What's a band that's gigging regularly going to put on their fan site that'll attract people who weren't at their gigs? If you're gigging, you're not working on new material. If you're not putting new material on your site, who's going to subscribe?

      Ah, the $50,000 question. Frankly, I have no clue what you could offer. But you're thinking we gig 24/7 and don't have time to write. It doesn't work like that. No, you're not working on new material during the gig. Directly before and after going on and coming off stage you do have time to work on new material. Hell, if you're in a jazz band or something like that your whole gig may be made up on the spot.

      I take the point that for small bands, this might - might - provide some extra income, but I suspect that it will be beer and guitar strings money, not apartment rent or healthcare money. Heck, go ahead and prove me wrong.

      And with this statement, you hit the nail on the head. Any income from a website would be supplemental, an addition to whatever I make at my day job. It would in fact be string money but you have to remember that strings, heads, sticks, cables, and other things that wear out aren't exactly cheap. Every little bit helps when you're trying to hold down a job and have you band fund itself.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:People also want quality features. by MrDingusMcGee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which end of you did that number get pulled from? I'd like to know before I touch it. Can you provide examples of several non-RIAA bands that have managed to set up fan sites that have 20,000 subscribers at $12 a year? Note "several", because "any good musician". If it's that easy, let's see the examples.

      Every band starts unsigned, and many end up hitting it big before being signed and have rather large fanbases (in the tens of thousands) before signing with a major label.

      Examples:

      • John Mayer (do some research, i won't spoon feed his history to you, but im sure you've heard of him now...he got popular through word of mouth and allowing people to tape and trade his concerts freely)

      • Howie Day howieday.com (went from playing cafe's to being feaured on mtv, and opening for bands like Guster and Dave Matthews Band in front of 20,000+ people a night...without signing to a label during that time, again: word of mouth and the spreading of live music)

      Both have since signed record contracts worth in the millions of dollars...but only because they spent years touring out of a van (or an suv with a guitar and a road manager) and playing concerts for $5 in cafes and bars getting their name out the old fashioned way


      You see, many good musicians/bands have to get popular via their own means, grow a fanbase, provide a website that informs new fans about tour dates, provides an email list/group, and offers songs to download. Only then do these bands/artists get offers to sign record contracts...its not the other way around unless you are a cookie cutter manufactured pop band created to provide 2-3 years of sales and nothing more.
      --
      My Sig is Sauer.
    7. Re:People also want quality features. by Eccles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just to extend this a bit, the unreleased material, live tracks, stuff that didn't make the album, rough tracks from the upcomming album, remixes, instrumental tracks etc. could be considered as the focus of web sales. A minor remix of a song isn't worth publishing as a CD, but the lower overhead of website publishing means you can make less-polished, less mass-market stuff available for your most devoted fans, and it should have no effect on normal CD sales.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    8. Re:People also want quality features. by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny

      >Instead of worrying about the number, focus on the model. People who want to use numbers to discredit models, are wasting time. The model works.

      My god, you've been frozen in a block of ice since 1998! Wake up man, it's 2003! The .com boom is over! You actually have to have revenue to make profit these days.

      Once again, show us five examples of this model working. That's five non-RIAA bands that make living money off of electronic fan clubs. Show us five.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    9. Re:People also want quality features. by I8TheWorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      My $.02...
      As a "retired" professional musician I can say that band sites work as marketing tools, and that's about it. Set up some audio streams, list tour dates, show bios, etc... All of that works great. Selling tunes on the site has been a large waste of time. Selling CD's online isn't easy either. Mainstream bands have the world of oversized record labels behind them, and their sites are a more trusted venue to send your credit card info to. The majority of bands out there, however, are middle tier and even though have labels, aren't getting radio play on ClearChannel. They're selling music one show at a time. The shows are where the bulk of CD/merchandise are sold. Websites probably generate 20% of revenue, at best.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  14. Couldn't care less about the jewel case by goldenfield · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've burned all my music, and carry it around with me on my iBook/iPod. Then, I threw away all the cases, put all the CDs in binders, and put the binder in a box in my basement.

    The point is, I want the music for the music...I'm not really interested in whatever packaging it comes in. Thats just something else I have to carry around while I'm travelling.

    What I do care about is:
    * Fast Downloads
    * Price

  15. Factors by falsemover · · Score: 3, Interesting
    my wallet is tighter than a clam's butt, unless:
    1. the web site page response is zippy
    2. the catalog was well designed
    3. it enabled me to match my preferences with new artists
    4. the site had good editorial control so I don't have to wade through a lot of junk to get to a reasonable file
    5. downloads are slick
    6. information about the artist was provided; eg discography
    7. there was peer review of files (eg. star rating system)
    --
    consider coffee a lubricant that helps one penetrate the coding zone
  16. Ogg Vorbis by SmilingBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    A big plus would be if you offered the files both in MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.

    Ogg Vorbis would also save you some bandwidth cost as files with the same quality are smaller than MP3 files.

    Ideally, you would want to encode at quality setting 5, which results in pretty-close-to-CD-quality. This is about 160kbps at the moment and the quality is, IMHO, a tick better than a 192kbps MP3.

  17. One thing... by MartinG · · Score: 4, Funny

    One thing you really need is some publicity.

    A good trick is to cleverly craft and advert for your site and then cunningly present it as an "ask slashdot" question, thereby getting free advertising to huge numbers of people.

    I would do something like that if I were you.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  18. It should be better than what we have. by HanzoSan · · Score: 5, Insightful



    Theres two options. One option is to sell the product, I dont really think this would work very well but it would make some money. .50 per mp3 is sometihng people would be willing to pay if you are good, if you arent all that good, .25 per mp3.

    Micropayments are an option.

    The other option is subscription option, and this is the option I think will ultimately work. If we treat music like we treat TV, and we create channels for certain labels, you can charge someone to subscribe to a channel.

    So on your site if you are a channel, you list the price of all your musicians, and combine it up, then offer a subscribe button which a user clicks and makes payment to subscribe.

    Once they subscribe for maybe $1-5 a month, the user now can access all the music from that label as long as they pay their fee, or you can charge them for the whole year, charge them around the price of a CD, maybe $15-20, and they can access the music all year.

    There should be more than music, this means the whole community, the blogs, the forums, the pictures, video clips, everything you offer and you should offer as much as possible.

    Look at AOL, they are king not because they offer the net, we all can get the net, they are king because they offer the features people are willing to pay for, they improve the net experience.

    Its your job as a music company to improve the listeners music experience. INNOVATE, dont treat the listener as a sale, treat them as a member.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  19. Re:Use your MP3s for marketing. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Sell your services, dont sell your mp3s, people want to pay for services not for music. Do what AOL does, dont sell the websites, sell the service, set it up so we have to pay to access the blog, the mp3s, the pictures, and anything else a fan may like, make them pay to access the forum, and use MP3s are just part of the whole package."

    Hell no. Stick to your core business: music. Yes, do the rest as well, the blogs, pictures, and so on (I like the ability to obtain CD cover art), perhaps as a premium service for subscribers. But your core business is music: sell that! When I visit the site, I will do so to download music, and I'd be willing to pay for that. If I'd find enough music to interest me, I would take a subscription if it was offered. I might be interested in cover art, artist blogs and video clips, but if I had to pay to access these, I would simply do without them. My advice: offer these additional services for free to hook your customers to your site, and hope that it'll make them buy more music from you.

    That said, it's a good idea to set up subscription-type plans, where a user pays a monthly fee for limited or unlimited downloads, ie. charge $0.99 a song, and $15/month for 50 songs each month. Perhaps offer subscribers a few extra services.

    Also think about selling download bundles / gift certificates! Ie. an (electronic) gift certificate for 50 songs that you can order and mail to someone else for their birthday. If your current customers like your service, they'll want gift certificates and with those they will do your marketing for you, in a way.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  20. Partying Like It's 1999, eh? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Albums?" "Bunch of files?" Ye Gods, man, why? It's been years since music packaged as an "album" was meaningful. Unless your boys are the next King Krimson or Moody Blues, they -- and you -- should be focusing on distributing their work on a song-by-song basis.

    "Artwork?" See above. Lyrics, sure. Give us a link from your Website. Band photo? Okay, fine, whatever. But artwork? Cute, but not a whole lot of value added, IMO. The odds of your band's tracks living on their own CD in my collection are tres slim.

    Price? Competitive with iTunes. Less than a buck per song. Per Song Want the ability to preview each track I buy.

    Format? I'm a 256kb/s Ogg man myself, but it's tough to argue for that against the vastly more popular MP3. You are aware that the second your avaerage customer downlaods a track from your site it will begin to swirl about the planet freely on P2P networks across which you will receive no compensation? I trust the bands have another surce of revenue (touring, day jobs) and aren't planning on getting rich from MP3 sales...? If your sales just about cover your prep and distribution costs, and you categorize the whole venture under "PR" or "Promotion," I'd say you would have a winner.

  21. Recommended Songs by jadavis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here are two ideas I would like, and would certainly pay for:
    (1) A radio like service where I can listen at any time and choose preferences about music type. Then, when I heard something I like, I can save it at high bitrate (higher than the streaming radio, or perhaps even CD quality) for a fixed price with a "one-click" kind of interface. Maybe it could cost a fixed price per month ($5-$10) and then maybe $0.50 - $1.00 per song that I keep. This is obviously the more complicated system, but I think it's just about ideal.

    (2) A website where I can sample songs (maybe a part at low bitrate) and get intelligent recommendations. Then I just buy what I want. I would prefer to not have a monthly cost, since sometimes I tire of a service and I don't like to have to go through a cancellation. But, I would be willing to pay up-front (like 5 or 10 songs) and then choose the ones I want later (I know that saves on transaction costs for the merchant).

    --
    Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
  22. Problem by Amomynos+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's one big problem in buying music from the net: reselling. After I get bored with my cd, I just sell it away. With mp3s, I'm not able to do that. Printable covers make this problem even worse: I probably shouldn't be able to sell a self-burned cd? There will be tons more of illegal cds in second hand. Don't get me wrong: I don't work for RIAA, but there's real problems in distributing music in electronic format.

  23. 99Cent, no DRM, CD-like Quality (192kbit) by w4rl5ck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    in short. It should be a simple, open format (even ogg if you like ;), should be about 1$/song (or less, if you like), and it should be possible to copy the file as often as one would want to - for personal use, of course.

  24. I've seriously considered buying by MoThugz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...a few albums off your site, the price is acceptable to me. But when I clicked on the Shopping FAQ, it seems that you only accept payments via PayPal.

    Give me an alternative to purchase via a merchant with a properly implemented online payment scheme which doesn't require me to:
    a) Live in the US/Canada/EU countries (or some other form of geographical bias).
    b) Pass to them my current/savings account info.
    c) Fax paperwork to them.

    And there are lots of them out there on the net... Try to resist the "easiest way out" method by using (only) PayPal.

  25. Re:So 100,000 rich mac users like Itunes,this prov by cubicledrone · · Score: 3, Funny

    100,000 people download a few million files and suddenly Itunes is a success?

    Yep. Pretty easy wasn't it? Fucking genius. Pure and simple right fucking genius. Wow! How could we all have missed it? Maybe we were too busy worrying about Johnny Warez and his flimsy-ass 14.4 kpbs house-o-uploads?

    Billions of files are traded over P2P file sharing networks by hundreds of millions of people.

    And NOBODY FUCKING CARES!!! They're STILL MAKING MONEY BY THE FUCKLOAD!!! It's absolute GENIUS!!

    Itunes is about as much of a success as some of the micropayment sites are

    Yeah? Where's the $5 million micropayment site since April?

    Its MAC USERS!

    Now multiply by 35 and you get the revenues when this thing makes it to Windows. It's FUCKING GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  26. Re:So 100,000 rich mac users like Itunes,this prov by clifyt · · Score: 3, Funny

    "that strange section of the computer using world where people pay for stuff that they value"

    What a strange fucking concept! Actually paying for that which you value.

    Unlike the Windows Camp where it is expected that 90% of your hard drive is pirated crap and is entirely covered with way too much copy protection and user tracking (where as on the Mac, a copy of M$ Office is just a drag to the hard drive to your iPod away from a CompUSA Kiosk). Or unlike the Linux Camp where its expected that you are be treated as a fucking sleeze if you don't give away the entirety of your work where others with better marketting skills are free to take what you've done and sell your work as if it were their own (its all about the service, BUT if you are an inept geek with no social skills, do you REALLY think you are going to know how to service your users -- or are you just good enough to write a damn good program that a million other geeks find useful).

    Yeah, the Mac side of things is very strange. Last I heard, 80% of its users were the creative kinds. Unlike most of these napster babies, we know what it costs to produce items that have no physical value, but more aestetic or personal value. Crazy I tells you. We don't measure our worth by how many hamburgers we can flip in a single day, but I think thats mainly because the last Gartner report claimed 97.5% of all Mac users are Vegitarians upon learning Steve Gods...Err...Jobs is one. Ok, we don't base our value on how many Boca Burgers we flip in a day either.

    I just bought 3 songs off of iTunes last night because there were worth it. New Annie Lennox tune, Dido's White Flag, and a Rob Dugan instrumental. A lot of artists will probably ping Apple for the singles, BUT I look at this as a way to evaluate the album before I walk into the store to pick up the real deal. And quite a few things I've picked up were exclusives that I've looked at as additions to the album I've already purchased.

    Yeah, we are wierd...

  27. Right, but... by PhinMak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The thing you are forgetting is that once these guys have this web distribution up and running, there is little extra time needed besides the occasional site update or links to new songs. The rest of the time they can spend on advertising/tours/new material/second job. Think of this system as a supplementary income whereas the system is making them money while they are free to do other moneymaking things.

  28. My take by metamatic · · Score: 3, Informative

    First off, let me say that I'm someone who has purchased music from the iTunes music store, and I bought ten CDs this month. I'm not some w4r3z addict pontificating about what might hypothetically make me pay for content.

    OK, that said...

    I need to be able to preview tracks. Especially if (as seems likely) they're from bands I've never heard of.

    I need the site to work with any browser.

    I need the files to be burnable on a normal audio CD. I would like them to be regular audio files unencumbered by DRM.

    Ideally I'd like LAME encoded MP3s, using --alt-preset standard or --r3mix depending on how much bandwidth you think you can spare.

    I'd like downloadable artwork, yes. I'd print that out or add it to the MP3s for iTunes.

    If you're gonna sell whole albums only, I need the price to be lower than the iTunes music store. I wouldn't buy an album from the iTMS because it's no cheaper than CD if you shop around; all my purchases have been single tracks from albums I would never buy the rest of. I reckon about 50 cents per track or $5 per album would work.

    I absolutely will not pay for RealAudio or Windows Media content at any price, because they're proprietary write-only formats.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  29. mp3's by dimonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As an older (40+) music lover, I would pay for recordings that are "out of print", or otherwise unavailable. Anyone who could distribute that kind of material could have my $5 per CD worth anyday.

  30. MP3 is obsolete by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As you know, if you can sell music in a format such as MP3 you eliminate the costs of packaging, shipping, handling.
    And if you sell it in a format such as Vorbis, then you also eliminate the cost of patent licensing.

    And there's the issue of quality. Buying lossy-encoded music makes me feel uneasy. Even though all my music is played back from Vorbis files, in the back of my mind I know that I still have the source CDs, so if someday I were ever to upgrade my hardware to a level of quality where artifacts were perceptable (however unlikely), I can always re-encode with a higher bitrate.

    I don't think I want to buy 128kbps files, even though stuff encoded at that bitrate sounds fine on the equipment that I use today. Make 'em very high bitrate Vorbis files or Flac or something. But not MP3.

    Beyond that.. frankly, I can't think of any value I want added to the music. Just give me the files and assurance that the musicians got paid, and I'll be a happy customer.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  31. I don't want physical extras by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have quite the opposite viewpoint, and I dare say I'm a more your target audience since I've bought quite a bit from the Apple Music store.

    I don't want to be encumbered by cd booklet, jacket art, or a physical CD. I spent quite a bit of time converting everything in my CD collection to MP3s for portability in file form. I also don't want to be tied to the album format; part of the point of Mp3s is to mix and match songs by artist. Therefore, the liner notes of a CD is uneeded for the song order. The song titles are in the file. The lyrics? If I cared that much, I'd look 'em up online. Art? I'm certainly not looking at the art when I'm listening to this stuff on an iPod...

    I'd say in terms of extras you could focus on higher quality audio for people who like the tunes. And, put the lyrics online for those who want them. Lastly, I'd suggest music videos streaming on your website. Other than that, I don't think many people who are into buying Mp3s are going to be overly concerned with all these "extras". The people who are into extras are probably going to be wanting a CD anyway.

  32. Get your feet wet Phishy style by RafeDawg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Take a look at Phish's online music site. They offer everything in both 128 kbps mp3 and, for an increased price, a lossless FLAC compression format. Thus, they offer a product that is indistinguishable in quality from a regular CD, but those who can't hear the difference/don't care can get their music cheaper and easier.

    --
    ------- Was it just a coincidence I got moderator points the first time I logged on to /. from linux?
  33. Features needed for paying mp3 site by stuartkahler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cheap: $1 for a song, maybe $2 for several mixes of the same song. Buy the whole album at once for 50 cents/song; $5-8 total. Offer to also ship a pressed CD with liner notes and lyrics for $3 more.

    Convienence: Filesharing with MP3s is popular because you can burn a CD, transfer it between all of your MP3 playing devices, and listen to it as often as you like. Music isn't like a toilet (RIAA not withstanding). Two people should be able to use it at the same time. There should be no restrictions on my music listening when I pay for it.

    High download speeds: Filesharing has a serious weakness that you are typically downloading at 1-5 KB/sec. Make sure your servers can sustain 100+ KB/sec. My time is worth money. I'll gladly pay money so I don't have to spend time rummaging through strangers' hard drives.

    Previews: Offer either 64kbs streams/downloads for free to preview every song, or at least a minute of excerpts from the song so that you can get a good feel for the sound. The RIAA is already flooding Kazaa with preview files, but they upload slowly, aren't labeled clearly and are just as badly organized as the rest of the music (*sarcasm*).
    I can download two minute trailers for upcoming movies. Music frequently just has art on the cover by someone other than the musician. Useful for porn, not useful for music.

    Cross-reference music by popularity. Show other artists and songs that were also popular with people that liked the song I'm looking at. Clear Channel is killing music diversity in this country. I want to find and buy new music, not the crap that gets played on 4 different radio stations 10 times a day. I'd like to find artists from other countries. E-mail me when my favorite artist releases something new. Send me weekly links with music that is similar to other stuff I have bought before.

    Add extras: Give free lyrics and pictures with the download. Especially with a full album. People like to be able to put a face to the artist.

    Diverse selection: Indie labels are screwed in this regard. The RIAA labels should have set up their own pay-to-download site a few years ago. They should have at least set up listening stations in every store with more than 1000 CDs. Walmart has them, but they carry very few CDs, and you can only preview a limited selection. 250 gig hard drives are pretty inexpensive now. There is no excuse for not having a secure music server with 5000 albums in every Best Buy (and other major music retailer) in the nation.

    Most importantly, remember that listening to music needs to be fun, easy and a good value. There are tons of entertainment forms. Music is just one of them.