What does NOT work (well)

• Not going all the way. Fans love free music and so do people that are not familiar with an artist's work, but if you're going to give something away then really give it away. If you don't, you won't get the attention you were hoping for and might even disappoint some fans instead of connecting with them.

Creating unnecessary mediums instead of utilizing existing ones. While the Bacardi B-Live Share application looked cool (now offline), it was completely unnecessary. Instead of creating a digital dashboard with meaningless graphics, it could have been executed in a much simpler fashion by utilizing existing social networks or filesharing websites. IF you're going to set up such a thing, then at least make it interactive, social (in terms of enabling users to interact with each other) and add value (with videos or a game for instance). You could even use it to sell other products of the band or artist.

Expecting people to pay for what they can get for free. People might pay, but most will pick whatever way is most convenient. Usually, this is by remaining seated at your computer and by avoiding complicated online payment procedures. Sure, people should use legal ways to buy music, but the reality is that people go for convenience.

What does work (well)

• Giving fans a reason to buy. Instead of expecting people to pay for something which they can, perhaps more easily, get for free, create added value. This is what Nine Inch Nails, Mos Def and Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse all did very well. Instead of expecting people to pay for the music, they all created something besides the music which people would be more willing to pay for.
• Freemium. By offering something for free, one connects with fans and they will spread the word about you (as long as what you're offering has value). Once attention has been garnered, and perhaps sympathy has been won, you can offer a premium product. This is how Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have been successful with aforementioned albums. First you give something for free, then you market your premium; freemium.
• Understanding that the package IS the product. This goes for all of the cases, except for Groove Armada. In the case of Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse as well as Mos Def, the package was actually the reason to buy the product. In the case of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, they marketed the package as premiums, perhaps understanding that it's hard to make money if you have to compete with free, meaning music downloads.
• Buzz. By generating buzz, you can turn people just turned on to your product into fans. These fans can then later be marketed to when trying to sell premium packages (or subscriptions for example). Even if they don't buy, having them talking about your brand or product increases the buzz. This works best if they can give others free samples (free music) to see for themselves how great the brand or product is.
• Co-branding. By co-branding, the two brands can both benefit of each others' resources and skills. In the case of Groove Armada and Bacardi, the latter benefits mostly from Groove Armada's image and the ability to promote themselves on all Groove Armada-related products, this includes live performances. Groove Armada on the other hand, benefits from the resources Bacardi has, for instance to set up the website and network for the distribution of the music, as well as their marketing capacities. Both are connected to different audiences and by working together, they can promote each other to their respective audiences, perhaps new ones.

"There's a process of natural selection going on right now. The music business was waiting to die in its current form about twenty years ago. But then, hallelujah, the CD turned up and kept it going for a bit. But basically, it was dead."

"We believe file-sharing by peer-to-peer should be legalised. The sharing of music where it is not for profit is a great thing for culture and music."

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS... INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

AND QUITE HONESTLY

AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT

IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST

I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!

I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUTTHERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?

"You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense. If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan...."

"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."

But the strangest thing about Rosenblatt's article is the pejorative use of the term "race to the bottom" to describe competition in the music industry. When Apple cuts the price on the iPod, we would be really surprised to see a columnist complaining about how Apple had started a "race to the bottom" that will undermine profits among consumer electronics companies. We understand that, as painful as competition can be for producers, consumers and the economy as a whole benefit from such aggressive price-cutting. Talking about a "race to the bottom" is the language of cartels, which try to hold prices above the competitive level. Music is like any other product As the marginal costs of production and distribution fall, it's natural that the price of music will fall as well. Smart musicians and companies will find ways to adapt and prosper in the new, more competitive marketplace. As we've said before, saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete at all. The sooner musicians and record labels realize that, the more prepared they'll be when the price of music drops out from under them.

"I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that's what's such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they're grateful for the person that uploaded it -- they're the hero. They're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band. I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want."