Comments on: What's the real cost of free music?

Do services like Pandora and YouTube cut into music sales, or are the music industry's expectations unrealistic?

[sunnytaz]

I have been boycotting WMG since they shut down some of my favorite videos on Youtube. Greedy buggers don't stop to think that when I surf Youtube I am discovering new songs to purchase. New purchases equals revenue into their coffers. So I won't purchase any WMG artist music either until they restore the videos. I can wait forever hope WMG can too.

[Deejay1001]

If only the stupid, yes stupid, execs would read these posts. The people who care and who buy music are the ones that hope the RIAA and the companies that are members RIP. I used to DJ. I bought albums originally, then cassettes, then singles, then CD's of the same songs. I gave them plenty of my cash.

I couldn't agree more with several of these posts. The industry has always been dictated. As a DJ, you had to belong to a record pool and were distributed specific titles. You then had to report on your record play. The only good things were that you got to listen to several different versions of one song and you got to find artists that you never heard of. Today, I listen to ElectricFM out of NYC. They play great club music that I would have no idea existed.

Mainstream radio works, but for the connieseurs (sp?) this doesn't fly. Also, you loose options - no more Jazz in the Philadelphia region. That totally blows.

As I read through these posts, no one approached the pay issue of execs. Are they paid as well, if not better, than the Wall Street execs? Noticed that the west coast has been very quiet with all of this public backlash over salaries for senior execs.

Unfortunately, we have to wait a little while longer until the industry goes completely bankrupt. Then music will be in our control: to listen whenever, wherever and to whatever our desire.

[paulimusmaximus]

I listen to www.slacker.com, and I never look at the ads. Why would I? I turn the radio on, then do other things. At least slacker is smart enough to play some ads audibly, and you can't skip them. I don't mind it though, because they only play 1 ad every 4-5 songs, so it doesn't bother me at all. I hope they're making money, because it's convenient, and free. Way better than regular radio, where you have no control over what plays, tons of commercials, and annoying dj's. Oh well, if internet radio doesn't work, I'll just go back to paying for satellite radio.

[workshopmusic]

The part we don't hear much about is that <i>music is essentially a creative act.</i> It's something musicians do... it's a moment, not a commodity or a recording.

The emphasis has been on how to wrap up this creative force in some kind of business model. This hasn't worked out for several reasons.

First: there are too many people, starting at the top, down to the listener, who don't want to pay. They will try nearly anything to avoid giving the musician any value for it.

This is a wider problem with the relationship with money. It's what led to the current economic troubles and the diversions of money like the Madoff situation that led to them.

But that's a big problem. What to do about it? <i>Pay your own tab!</i> Failing to pay up front means paying later, continually. Money leaks away, things don't work as planned, endless annoyances and headaches in the execution of things. Simpler to whip out the asked-for sum and pay on the spot.

The second thing more local to the music business is this. The principals have devalued music by wrapping it up in one business model after another, by releasing a lot of "product" that never had its creative moment, and by creating a culture of the celebrity-du-jour: flash-in-the-pan personalities instead of deeper and more interesting and long-lasting talents.

The abundance of temporary celebrities and forgettable hits may explain why the listeners are not eager to pay anything. It's all too impermanent. They don't plan to keep any of it.

If anyone really wants to fix the problem, they should ask <i>what can we do to encourage the creative moment</i>, how can we make it reasonably worthwhile for musicians to get together and try to make this elusive magic. Another round of searching for a business model, monetizing this or that, is not going to do it. The thing is to acknowledge what is essential about music: the creativity, and make it your business model to make that happen in as many ways on as many occasions as possible. For this, people will pay.

It's totally free

[drbyte]

All it takes is to get a buddy who has a 40gb mp3 player and after you get a copy of it on your hard drive (which is real easy to do if it's not a ipod), you have a music collection that would have taken you your whole lifetime to get in 30 minutes. That's enough to kill growth in any business.

Music has no value today. It's something you pass around like gum.

The real cost of free music?

[gjl229]

Who's paying attention ???

"But what's important to music executives is that the data indicated that the more free music sources a person had, the fewer the number of purchases he or she made. "

That data indicated squat.

We have two and only two data points: listeners with three sources and those with four. Few music execs would take one study with two data points and think that the data indicated anything at all. They're a whole lot smarter than that. And apparently a lot smarter than Greg. And many of those who post here.

It's always easier to simply cheer for free stuff than actually think about how to get there without compromising the quality and artistry of the providers.

If two data points indicate anything in particular to you, I have some games of chance I'd like to show you. Bring your money.

[screamapillar]

And are you suggesting that the current mass produced crud that the music industry currently provides is high in quality? There is an arguement that 'preview' capacity alone increases the quality of a product as it places the onus on the maker to raise its quality... no wonder many labels also wanted to stop even this feature in Amazon...

[gjl229]

@ screamapillar: I'm not sure what drives any particular artist. But I'm not sure why a group would take a month or two out of profitable touring (or parking cars) to spend a pile of money and break their backs developing, rehearsing, recording, editing, etc. a new/improved work when they're not getting paid for it because music ought to be free.

The recording artists I know still have bills to pay. Perhaps you're paying their way in another fashion? Please let me know how often in the last year you've sent five bucks off to some artist in support of their work. And please note, guys, it really is work.

[willdryden]

I still like the library. It is the best source for free music I have ever seen. Mine even has some DVDs you can check out.

[AaronCT123]

Chances are, if you -only- obtain music from a particular band through their free promotions, you wouldn't have bought something by them anyway, so they aren't losing money on those customers. However if they give out a few free songs, such as Keane giving out their single "Spiraling" from their latest album for free, you can at least get the word out and perhaps entice a few people to buy your album. Up until that point I hadn't even been aware that Keane's album was so close. I bought Perfect Symmetry the day it came out. Were I not that into Keane and I'd only decided to download the free single and not buy the album, then they wouldn't have gotten that album sale anyway.

[myCNETusernameISthis]

um...the geeks and nerds (and PHd's) created computing, protocols, the internet and those file sharing programs that record company business executives hate. The technology age now allos the free flow of information. So to all those business people who never contributed to this technical advance and sue other human beings for using this technology....I say this..."GET OUT" ...."NO BODY WANTS YOU ON THE INTERNET ANYWAY....you never created it...you never created ANY of the software that makes our lives easier"....its the scientists and geeks that have transformed the world.....not record label executives...

The RIAA hasnt done anything except use this media to advance the record industry and use other people to make them more money(or to at least prevent them from becoming extinct anytime soon). I hope that they keep wasting their time sueing people and going about finding ways to threaten people who are simply using this 'new' medium in new ways...

I still buy CD's of artists I love. The artists are facing up to the reality of being an artist....its a tough life...and sometimes you become successful. Its time that people stop bending over for the RIAA and the music industry. In 10 years time the downloading will become worse...and worse...and UNSTOPABLE. I hope the RIAA dies a slow painfull death.......

[Nancy_8805]

Have these people even used Pandora? You can adjust what types of music are played, but you can't choose which song. Pandora doesn't have ads, or maybe I've just never noticed them. Other sites that I've used that have ads the ads are just ridiculous. They're usually crappy ads for weight loss or credit scores. If they would choose ads that people might actually click on, they might gain some revenue from the ads.

The source of music I use the MOST is my television. I have satellite and I use the music channels. No ads, a variety of choices, and it's included with my TV. Now I just need one of those recorders so I can escape the barrage of advertisements in my TV shows.

[MrBoomshadow]

@oldguytoo:

I realize you're pro-record store. I like my local used record store, because sometimes they find old out-of-print stuff I can't find in the national Top-40-heavy chains, which don't carry anything older than six months except for classical, and only three or four of that.

If you don't know who Jonathan Coulton is, there's the correct spelling of his name. Educate yourself. It's worth it. He doesn't need a big label, because with a big label, all he would wind up doing is getting ripped off by the "company store" mentality, where he has to sign his master recordings and production rights away to get an advance on his marketing and engineering costs.

Most albums lose money for major labels, but nearly all major label albums lose money for artists. The labels make the costs impossible to pay off for all but a fortunate few artists, and even most of them can't then afford to buy their own copyrights back from the labels.

I would rather sell a few thousand discs and a few hundred thousand mp3s and pocket the money, as Jonathan Coulton does, than sell millions of each and not make anything off them.

For the record stores to have a future, all they need to do is ignore the major labels and educate themselves as to what people actually do want. Sure, the labels will survive in a much leaner form (or die bloated and starving), but they will have to start sharing both real and virtual shelf space.