No Doubt: Buy A Concert Ticket, Download All Our Songs
from the the-music-is-free.... dept
Slowly, but surely, more bands are starting to figure it out: the music is free. Whether they want to believe it or not, the actual music is free, so you might as well get it out there and then focus on selling scarcities. The latest example (which a ton of you have sent in), is the band No Doubt, who is giving away their entire catalog of music as a download, for folks who buy certain concert tickets. Now, obviously, if someone wants, they could go download all that music already, but effectively the band is admitting that the music is free, and the money is in the scarcity of concert tickets: so if you’re going to pay for that scarcity, why not make sure that the fan knows all your music?
Filed Under: business models, concerts, downloads, music, no doubt
Comments on “No Doubt: Buy A Concert Ticket, Download All Our Songs”
The music isn’t free – it’s just hidden in the cost of the ticket in the end.
Re: Re:
Obviously you don’t understand the business model. Free is not their business model. Free (music) is a component of their ticket business model.
No doubt has actually been pretty up to date with most concepts so I’m not surprised that they have picked up on this. I’d absolutely buy a concert ticket to have all the music, even if it’s getting a little long in the tooth.
Re: Re:
“music isn’t free – it’s just hidden in the cost of the INTERNET in the end.”
Fixed that for ya Harold
Here you go, Weird Harold! A perfect example!
Funny how this blog posts just as I described it to your ridiculous notion I’m stealing.
Ha! 🙂
If this band gets it, so should you. Or would you continue giving your $1 per song to the distributor?
There IS NO HIDDEN COST in this model. No Doubt is using the web as their DISTRIBUTION while retaining ALL PROFITS by the fans.
Buy a concert ticket from them if you feel so bad that the rest of us are “stealing” their music.
Re: Here you go, Weird Harold! A perfect example!
Music costs what the copyright holder wants it to. Now charging craploads of money and throwing DRM dose not work and pisses off the masses into just taking the stuff.
If the copyright holder is smart they will use the stuff they cant force people into buying to increase the value of the tangible items that are much easier to sell and protect.
But just because a few bands are wising up dose not prove that you have the right to take whatever you want. It just proves that bands are waking up to the fact that they cant stop you from taking what you want.
I wonder if you can tell the difference.
Re: Re: Here you go, Weird Harold! A perfect example!
Now charging craploads of money and throwing DRM dose not work and pisses off the masses into just taking the stuff.
I’ve yet to see an ARTIST do this to their music. It’s the distributors who place these anti-consumer rules.
It just proves that bands are waking up to the fact that they cant stop you from taking what you want.
I can tell you’ve never created anything, because to sit there and tell me artists don’t want people to listen to their music isn’t an argument you will win. Ever.
You seem to be on the same thought as Weird Harold in thinking bands put value on their music to make money. This isn’t, nor has it ever, been true. A musician makes music because they want to. Any profits generated from this is a side effect of to getting as many people to enjoy the creation as possible.
For me to download a song without paying isn’t going to piss off the artist one bit.
The only ones who get pissed off are the ones who feel having 7 exotic sports cars isn’t enough.
Re: Re: Re: Here you go, Weird Harold! A perfect example!
The ideal is a musician who wants to make music and fans who want to support him so he can. It’s hard to be very prolific creatively when you have a 9-to-5 office job. That someone people don’t contribute to supporting the artist in terms of direct financing shouldn’t be a problem, so long as the artist can make a decent living doing what they (and we) love.
The internet and free music help this become a reality because it helps connect the artist with fans who are willing and able to directly support him. A college kid eating ramen doesn’t have a lot of cash to throw around, but CAN help get the artist exposure, especially when false limitations on digital distribution are removed. Then guys like me with healthier disposable incomes can find out about an artist and get to like their work, and eventually put some of that disposable income toward ensuring said artist continues making said works.
It’s a new way of doing thinks that cuts the old modles to ribbons, but that doesn’t mean either method is morally superior to another. In the old days artists couldn’t get the same kind of exposure or fan connection as they can do day, and they had to rely on lables to get them out there and help finance them — and lables generated that financing through selling CDs. That’s the sum total of everything.
Art shouldn’t have to be about nickles and dimes.
Perhaps too
Linking the concert ticket buyer to the e-catalog is just acknowledging that the ticket buyer is a real fan of the band’s music, and who too is less likely to be simply a pirate interested only in profiting off of the creative works of others.
Re: Perhaps too
I’m pretty sure that 0% of the people the RIAA has sued over the last several years have profitted (or planned to profit) from piracy. So I’m not exactly sure what point you’re trying to make.
Re: Re: Perhaps too
Let’s see. If you download some songs, and inside there is a text file that says “play poker here!” with a link, the seeder was attempting to profit.
if the torrent site you looked the music up on had ads on it, they were attempting to profit from it – more so if they offered a “turbo download” system and charged you for it.
Note: you don’t have to sell or financially profit from something to profit from it. Download 100 albums you otherwise would buy is still profiting from it.
Clicking through pays off: Actually, look at those albums again. Complications, B sides, remixes. There is only actually about 50 songs total. In the end, it is all moot, because the $15 they are getting is still nearly $2 a record, even at that point. Adding in a 2 cent sticker, a 10 cent magnet, and the “right” to purchase special overpriced tickets isn’t exactly a benefit.
Re: Re: Re: Perhaps too
You mean a guaranteed ticket to every concert that comes through isn’t worth something? Don’t they call those “box seats” in the sporting world? Those draw a pretty penny from what I remember, too.
Download 100 albums you otherwise would buy is still profiting from it.
You make the assumption that whoever would still buy the songs if the price was greater than $0. If my choices are heating, food, and iTunes, guess which one gets the axe first?
Re: Re: Re: Perhaps too
Burn another straw man!!
Come on, we weren’t talking about people who put those text files in there because, well, those are incredibly few and far between.
A torrent site having adverts does not in fact mean they were attempting to profit from any particular torrent. It means they have costs and need to recoup them. Bandwidth isn’t free. You can see this model in tons of open source sites, especially if they host torrents.
****
“Note: you don’t have to sell or financially profit from something to profit from it. Download 100 albums you otherwise would buy is still profiting from it.”
****
No, you would benefit from it, not profit. Big difference.
Re: Re: Perhaps too
I’m pretty sure that 0% of the people the RIAA has sued over the last several years have profitted (or planned to profit) from piracy. So I’m not exactly sure what point you’re trying to make.
not making money is the same as losing money. just like standing still is the same thing as moving backwards.
i can prove it. go outside and face south while standing still. before you know it you will move backwards to the north pole.
So Harold, to prove your point, why don’t you show us a comparison of the cost of the ticket prior to the music being made available, and after it was made available. If there is a significant difference, maybe you can shift some of us to your point of view.
Re: Re:
It’s simple – they aren’t giving the music away to all ticket buyers, only buyers taking a certain type of ticket. People buying cheaper tickets don’t get the access to the music for free.
Re: Re: Re:
You’ve proven nothing thus far. Keep going. So far you’ve only stated the criteria of the promotion. More is necessary for you to actually answer the question.
We’re listening..
Re: Re:
Harold can’t prove his point, he can only grace us with his opinion. He rarely, if ever, has facts to support his weak arguments.
Actually, the band gets this: they are going on tour for the first time in many years WITHOUT a new album. Why? I suspect they get the very basic concept: They can make more money touring than they can make writing and producing new music for people to take for nothing.
Don’t think of this as a band “getting” the idea of music “should be free”, but rather a band facing the economic realities of no longer being able to make a living writing and producting music. Opportunity Costs, they only have a certain amount of time and they can (a) write a new record that will be stolen and traded for free, or (b) go on tour, overcharge a bit for tickets, and give away their music.
The worst part? They are making their true fans (the ones that come to the concerts) support all you free loaders who just download the music and never spend a penny. That is the sad reality of the “free” universe, someone always ends up paying for everyone else.
Re: Um, no
The music download is only available on certain types of tickets (ie: the expensive ones).
So if you’re a hardcore No Doubt fan who has all their music, all you need to do is opt for a cheaper ticket.
The casual fans are the ones who would probably go for the full-download tickets.
Makes sense to me.
Re: Re:
I agree that we have no idea whether the band “gets it”? What we do have is the band adding downloaded music to a package to increase its value without increasing its cost to them.
Even if you extract all the swag and the rights to the high end ticket, you cannot buy 8 albums for $15.
If someone buys the fan club package for $15 (the cheapest legal way to get the songs), and then doesn’t buy the ticket, how does the band win? They just undercut the price of music. Obviously, if the person paid $15 for it, they would have paid $100, right? The band just missed out on those sales, and they didn’t even sell a ticket.
PS:
Please note, I do not download music illegally. I’ve simply quit listening to RIAA (and other copyright holders) music unless they give it to me. I hold a monopoly on my money and my attention.
Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, if the person paid $15 for it, they would have paid $100, right?
No, absolutely not, not by any stretch of the imagination, unless $15=$100. Last time I checked, that’s not the case. Do you really think that everyone who’s willing to spend $15 for the entire catalog is also willing to spend $100 for it? If you do, you’re nutty as a fruitcake.
The point you’re missing is that No Doubt probably wouldn’t make $15 even if you bought every one of their CDs at Best Buy. The label cartels would probably pass along a dollar or two, and claim the rest for themselves or for “expenses.” In this case, every cent of the $15 goes to No Doubt, and not to the middlemen.
Re: Harold woe is you...
By your logic- I’m sure this will lead to absolutely no new music. …which of course was not the case before the music industry and IP laws ever existed.
Your logic is pathetic. Increasing new music increases the longevity of interest to the fans and exposes a larger fan base. Opportunity cost assumes there was some opportunity to serve the market to begin with… market forces of supply and demand do not have a direct association with a true “artist” or the audience connection developed over time. What you will see in the future from these actions is more passion in your music and less promotion- which I believe is a good thing.
The fans are attacking the model that a musician is only a musician and not in the end providing services for their fans. Under the new model each individual is responsible for their art and their promotion rather than the big company.
Why are fans the only ones that need to work for a living and live as single entities? The musicians need to start performing and earning their money. The model is broken and the collective fans are calling for a more reasonable system.
I wish I could create a spreadsheet in the office, then every time someone else makes something remotely similar I could sue them for it and continually earn money for 100s of years past my own death. That certainly makes for a fantastic environment of creativity and innovation- doesn’t it? How much work at your office would get done if this would occur? How much collaboration and infighting would exist? Ownership of ideas is always a very dangerous model to support in collaborative environments. Right now we are living in an increasingly collective and connected world.
When it comes down to it there are actually very few truly original ideas. In the end variation from core ideas is No Doubt how most musical artist make their livings.
Re: Re:
They are making their true fans (the ones that come to the concerts) support all you free loaders who just download the music and never spend a penny.
THEY aren’t “making” them do anything. They’re targeting them for this very reason! This is where they generate the profits, not from their $1 per song.
You just don’t get it, do you? You’ve yet to answer how much of that $1 per song the band gets from the record label and with this reply, you don’t intend to.
A long, long time ago, I used to have a website that taught people how to build web pages. What did I charge for this? Absolutely nothing. It cost visitors nothing. Not even a single ad was on the page.
I made my living getting hired by companies wanting me to design their website. I still do, in some cases. My website was the ADVERTISING platform I used to SELL MY SERVICES.
Did everyone who used my site hire me? No, of course not. But you can bet those who did hire me paid to educate thousands. In fact, I’m very proud some people took the information from my website to make their own living at it.
I didn’t get millions from this, but I did make a comfortable living at it before I decided to give it up. Back then, hosting a website was expensive, but it worked out in the end.
You’re reading a website that’s using this exact same model. They’re not charging you to read or post on their site, but you can bet clients who purchase their services are paying for YOUR FREELOADING here.
Shove that bit of information into your head now and see what happens.
Re: Re: Re:
You miss the point entirely – your website gave people a sample of what was possible, and they were upsold to getting your services to get a better website.
You gave away a weak product (the simple free website design) in order to sell something expensive (the custom website design).
When a band gives away it’s music, there is no upsell. The argument is that the music is advertising for the concerts. It would hold water if nobody was attending concerts before. But most of the bands who have the profile to profit from massive music giveaways were already selling out the venues and not having issues.
If you were busy 100% of the time, having a website that gives stuff away for free isn’t helping your bottom line (and is in fact hurting it because it costs to host, and making you no addition income because you can’t take new clients, you are busy).
If the music industry (concerts and music sales) make $X 10 years ago, they will want to as a whole make at least $X again this year. If they can’t make it selling music (because it is being traded and given away for free) then they have to make it up somewhere else. Ticket prices have to go up, merchandise gets more expensive, the band / artist has to do more “pay for play” meet and greets, whatever. If they don’t make the money up somewhere, they will be making less than the X they were making before.
Advertising supported websites aren’t a new trick (you probably don’t remember the first click programs, back in about 1994). The difference is that they are not shooting themselves in the foot. If this site gave away all the products that the potential advertisers sold, there would be no advertisers. This site isn’t any different from TV offering entertainment in return for your eyeballs. A website giving away full DVD downloads for free wouldn’t be a great place to advertise DVDs for sale, now would it?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When a band gives away it’s music, there is no upsell
Uh… there’s an upsell to EVERYTHING else related to the band. Shows, merchandise, fan club, subscriptions. Everything.
But most of the bands who have the profile to profit from massive music giveaways were already selling out the venues and not having issues.
Bull. Most of the bands doing this are small no name bands.
But even for the big bands, deals like this can help them make a ton of money. Reznor gave away his last two albums totally free… and still SOLD physical product worth millions of dollars.
Harold once again displays his near total ignorance.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wasn’t Reznor at the top of Amazon’s list of highest sales last year for Ghosts or The Slip or something? Those were both openly and freely available.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee Harold, how can you be so narrow visioned as to see this from only that one side?
First, you’re entirely mistaken that the only bands with the profile to profit are those who are already selling out. The small and upcoming bands are the bands most likely to profit, because they have the smallest fan bases, the smallest incomes, the least backing and the most room to grow.
Second, Mike keeps repeating these stories about the established bands that give this a try and find that it succeeds for them, increasing their fan base and profits.
Third, the truly huge bands that sold out all the time, weren’t selling out anymore. They were supporting by aging baby boomers and a dying (literally) fan base until the Internet exposed them to a whole new generation of fans. Now, instead of embracing the Internet and fans that brought them back to life, they want to force everyone into the old distribution channels that made them less money (but the record companies more).
Fourth, I can’t imagine how to respond to your 100% busy comment, it’s just so out there. You’re obviously not a businessman. When you’re so busy that you can’t handle the additional customers brought on by promotions it’s not a sign that you need to quit promoting, it’s a sign that you need to expand your business.
Finally, neither the music industry nor any artist, has a right to make the same $X they did ten years ago or even last year. In fact, the only way they can is to grow their fan base, because old fans don’t keep buying the same album over and over, and older fans are less likely to attend concerts. Electronic distribution is THE way to do that today and that’s only going to become more true.
PS – there are web sites that allow you to download DVDs for free but that also sell them. Not everyone has the time, the bandwidth, the urge, the knowledge, to download a DVD size movie. A lot of burn attempts fail too, so sometimes it’s much simpler to downloadthe DVD.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You entirely miss it. It goes right past you.
small and upcoming bands and upcoming for what reason? Because they have a media push behind them from a record label or other similar marketing machinery. The hottest band in your town isn’t the hottest band in my town unless someone makes me aware of them. Putting their music online for free doesn’t make it likely I will hear that band. Radio, videos, TV, etc are all ways I might actually hear the band (and a large number of people would) and thus the band’s fan base potential grows.
There are thousands (maybe even tens of thousands or millions for that matter) of singers, bands, groups, and projects that nobody will ever hear of because they are not likely to be on my radio, on my TV, in the MTV video I am watching (MTV2, because MTV don’t do videos anymore), or as the theme music for a movie I am watching. There is that magic tipping point where a band goes from nobody knows me, to a few people know me, to suddenly I am on Conan O’Brian every night for a week. You seemingly don’t understand that without that magic moment, that tipping point, those thousands of acts are just so much background noise.
Bands make their money because the top40 in New York R&B radio is essentially the same top40 at most of the R&B stations all over the country. A band cannot make a living playing 5,000 seats tonight and playing for beer money at a 40 seat club the next. It doesn’t work. Bands need to have enough exposure in enough markets so they can tour at a comfortable level and play 200+ nights a year, thus making it all make money and raising their profile.
Putting the music randomly for free on the net might net them a few fans, but it won’t give them the critical mass to really make it work out.
Without radio, without nationwide coverage, and without distribution AND marketing at all levels, music would pretty much sink down to being a regional novelty, where fewer and fewer bands actually make enough money to be musicians full time,
As for the download thing on DVDs, please. if someone is getting to a torrent site looking for a movie, they know the drill. pointing to 1% of the people and saying “forget the other 99%” is laughable.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Harold, you are stuck believing that Dick Clarke should pick the winners and losers of music.
News for you…there’s this thing called the “internet”.
The internet gives EVERYONE a voice. The good voices simply percolate to the top, and Dick Clarke’s voice is lessened dramatically.
The internet removes the payola issue. The internet makes the talented voices heard, and the whitewash…well still has its voice.
The good stuff shows up: twitter, youtube, google, irc, email. The crap shows up in spam and “professional” websites…one’s I avoid but newbies tend to flock to.
You might not find new acts if they aren’t on radio/tv/whatever…but if you actually used the new technologies that exist, you’d learn that the old dinos are done w.r.t. setting cultural trends.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, it goes past you. Your whole rediculous argument is based on the idea that bands can’t succeed without the big media companies. That USED to have some truth to it and that’s exactly how you and the record companies want to keep it. You don’t give a crap about the artists. If you did you’d be concerned about those hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of singers and bands that could never be more than background noise in your system. Your system is the very one that makes it hard for more bands to make enough money to be musicians full-time, because yours requires the labels and radio for musicians to succeed.
That’s changing though, because with each passing day media and record companies become less relevent in deciding who becomes hot. The Internet lets all the little small town bands get their music and their videos out where the people can see them and decide. Certainly, every one of them isn’t going to be a superstar, but far more of them are going to make livings, and more of them are going to be “discovered” and make great livings. Instead of some suit deciding who’s going to be the next big star the people will. The truly talented singers and groups will rise to the top, instead of just those that are easy to market.
The interesting thing is, as the cream rises to the top, there’s nothing stopping the record companies from coming in and throwing their support and marketing departments behind them. Nothing but the companies’ ignorance and unwilliness to adapt to a changing landscape.
I see your point though, you’d prefer a few “stars” making big money, and a handful of record companies getting filthy rich, to a much broader selection of talented musicians dividing that money more evenly between them. Well, ok, you don’t actually care about the musicians getting their fair share for their labors, you just want the record companies to keep skimming off the top and getting filthier and richer.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You miss the point entirely – your website gave people a sample of what was possible, and they were upsold to getting your services to get a better website.
The hell it was just a sample. It included all the necessity one needed to create a website! If anything, I gave away the very education to possible competition!
In fact, ANYONE could have built a website with the information I gave them, INCLUDING THE COMPANIES THAT HIRED ME!
That’s the point YOU’RE missing.
You gave away a weak product (the simple free website design) in order to sell something expensive (the custom website design).
I didn’t give away a product. I taught people how to BUILD the product. HUGE difference. There was no “weakness” in what I gave away. See above.
If you were busy 100% of the time, having a website that gives stuff away for free isn’t helping your bottom line (and is in fact hurting it because it costs to host, and making you no addition income because you can’t take new clients, you are busy).
DO YOU READ WHAT I REPLY???
It’s the website that made me “100%” busy. I had NO PROBLEM balancing out my clients and web page updates.
In fact, when I started: ALL COSTS OF THE WEBSITE WERE OUT OF POCKET to get started. A decision on my part that paid off well enough that MAINTAINING the website was covered by the companies that hired me.
A website giving away full DVD downloads for free wouldn’t be a great place to advertise DVDs for sale, now would it?
http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/
Go. Now. You can watch episodes for FREE. Content given away FOR FREE. The TV show given away FOR FREE.
Yet I own every episode released on DVD.
Don’t you dare try to tell me this model doesn’t work. I’m proof of this.
Also, why don’t you view the props of the show they’re selling. Again: FREE stuff to market SCARCE items.
Damn, kid. I feel like I’m replying to a wall. It’s obvious your notions are so ingrained, you’re never going to understand.
If you’ve read any of my replies, you know I hate the word free. I call it 0 cost because I KNOW the offerings I give away are made up elsewhere.
That’s business 101.
Seems to me that this is more of a fan club deal. You still have to buy tickets after you pay the $15 fee. Still, at $15 you get access to 8 albums, a new track, and some other stuff. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me considering that each album probably sold for, what, at least $10 each, maby $20. You get a lot for a little, better than what the labels are selling music for.
The hidden cost is that musicians decide to stop making music and just goes away.
Re: Re:
Most musicians are musicians because they love music, not because they love money. Perhaps if you were a musician, you would stop making music, but really, who would care?
Re: The Day The Music Died?
Yeah, that will *so* happen: One day there will no longer *be* music. All the musicians will have finally realized that there’s no money in it, and because all musicians are motivated by making money, there will be no more music.
What are you smoking? I don’t want any.
Re: Re:
That’s just stupid man – No Doubt can theoretically do this because of the time they were popular, the age of their fans and the fact they have 5-6 albums worth of content already in the bag.
Maybe this isn’t the solution the whole industry will use, maybe this is just one solution for one band – kind of like you solution for one business in the whole realm of it.
How can you people be so stupid about this? Are you this stupid and dense about everything?
Re: Re:
That’s just stupid man – No Doubt can theoretically do this because of the time they were popular, the age of their fans and the fact they have 5-6 albums worth of content already in the bag.
Maybe this isn’t the solution the whole industry will use, maybe this is just one solution for one band – kind of like you solution for one business in the whole realm of it.
How can you people be so stupid about this? Are you this stupid and dense about everything?
no loss
You do realize, don’t you Harold, that this is the same thing that every single business in the world does. Free samples, coupons, kickbacks, rewards, and so on. It’s all hidden in the cost of the purchase. It’s all promotions. As you said yourself, it’s not actually free in this case, it’s rolled into the cost of the ticket.
You have a problem with the free part. You can’t see beyond the word free. You can only see it as a loss, and certainly it can be, but more often it is, or can be made into, just another form of promotion. It makes fans and fans buy music, tickets, and other stuff.
In 2000, I bought a 300 disc CD changer. I didn’t own a single record or CD. I started with performers I recognized from my youth and the radio, and then bought some billboard hits compilations, and I managed to fill it nearly a third full. Then I turned to the Internet and I listened to all sorts of “free” music. When I found a performer or group I liked I bought their CD, or several of their CDs, in some cases all their CDs. In three months I filled that CD changer. I had all that “free” music on my computer, but I still bought it. You know something? I haven’t listened to 2% of that music since I bought it, even the stuff I grew up with. I just don’t listen to music that much, but I don’t regret the purchases. They were impulse buys because I heard, liked, and wanted to own the music. Do you think I would have bought a single one of those last 200 CDs having never heard, or heard of, the artists? No, not on your life.
Free music does NOT equal lost sales.
Re: no loss
What do you consider a sample? Putting the entire album online for free wouldn’t be a sample, it would be free. You are again making the mistake of confusing marketing (here is a small sample of something, buy the rest if you like it) and people who think that all music (and all digital downloads) should be free.
Nobody is against “free” music in proper moderation. The music industry as a whole (including all your favorite bands) are dependent on music actually being purchased. No Doubt didn’t just go on their website and go “hey, here is all our music for free” they are instead charging an amount X for access to those recordings. Note also that really there is only about 4 or 5 albums, the rest are compilations in various forms. The other part is that you have to become a “fan” at $15 to get in. The funny part is the vast majority of people who are fans of the band have likely already purchased or purloined one or more of those albums. A true fan might have 2 or 3 of them, so they might be paying $5 or more per recording to complete their collection.
In essence, they are asking people to pay to get their back catalog, at a rate similar to what the band would make from retail. They aren’t losing any money on the deal, and the music sure ain’t free, sorry Mike.
Re: Re: no loss
Yes Harold, an entire album can be a sample. It’s a sample of the music, the message, the artist, of what you’ll hear at a concert, and so on. Just as a song can serve as a sample to sell an album, an album can serve as a sample to sell the other goods. It can also serve to sell itself though.
I bought 200 CDs at $12-$15 each even though the entire CDs were available online – that’s where I downloaded them, listened to them, and decided that I liked the music enough to pay for the CD. I wanted the physical CD. People like tangible goods, it’s human nature. Hearing is but one of our senses, there’s vision, and touch, and smell and a whole range of emotions and desires that can be filled by a physical purchase.
Yeah, some do lose. You know one group that does? Bands that suck. Bands that sell CDs with 1 good track and 9 so horrible that even their staunchest fans can only listen to them after a few good tokes. For those bands free downloads aren’t as much advertising as they are truth in advertising. The next biggest group of losers is the group that feels they have a right to force the entire world to live in the past just so they can take the easy way when making money.
Re: Re: Re: no loss
Most people who want a tangible product just burn the music to CD and skip the actually paying step. The vast majority of people aren’t doing what you are doing, they are just downloading the music, enjoying it, and not ever paying for it. In fact, you are paying $12 – $15 per CD to buy them in part to support the freeloads that stole their copies.
You want a band’s one good song? Singles have always been a part of the music business, those of us old enough to remember 45s know that for a fact. Itunes is just the digital version of the 45.
Re: Re: Re:2 no loss
If most people did, then CD sales would be down much farther than they are. Actually, if most people did then there probably wouldn’t be enough CD sales to justify pressing them.
No, actually the fact that I was paying $12-$15 per CD had more to do with the major labels colluding to fix the price of CDs. Also, every time a newer, and cheaper, to produce technology comes along they use it as an excuse to RAISE prices citing better quality as their justification.
Interesting
Whoa, very cool. I wonder what the quality of the downloads are? Reasonable bit-rate MP3s? Or something else pooched by DRM?
I wonder how many will just pay the 15 bucks for the albums – 15 bucks for all that stuff plus 8 full albums seems like a pretty good deal.
But I also wonder how much it would cost to get all the albums (or even just the ones I want) via Amazon, used….on there it’s usually about 3 bucks shipped for an older album. I could probably grab original CDs of the albums I want (why do I need a singles album if I have the original albums?), and rip the quality levels I wany myself.
Props to No Doubt though on an awesome idea, and good to see Gwen Stefani finally figure out she sucks as a soloist!
Clicking through pays off
If you bother to click through to the band’s site, you see that the music isn’t the only thing attached to the $15 additional fee. also bundled in are a few of Masnick’s favorite things, those scarce goods. See below, the $15 upcharge gets you:
“GUARANTEED access to purchase up to 4 prime tickets (limited number of memberships per city!)
Tickets printed on custom designed commemorative No Doubt Tour Club ticket stock with club member name printed on each ticket
Exclusive No Doubt Logo Sticker
Exclusive No Doubt Tour Club Magnet
Exclusive No Doubt Tour Club Iron-On
Access to No Doubt Tour Club web page with exclusive photos and tour updates”
While this is a fairly weak pile of add-ons, it is an example of a band giving customers more reasons to buy. If No Doubt was still hot, they could probably sell this tourclub membership without adding in the music.
By the Way, Harold, you get 8+ albums’ worth of music with this. I don’t have a discography handy, but I’m guessing that’s about 100 or so songs, so if nothing else this deal kicks the crap out of an iTard’s purchase plan. They may well have redistributed the cost of the music, but they also slashed that cost and added extras to make fans want to buy.
I think the whole idea is once an artist rises to fame which is much easier these days with the internet their time becomes a scarcity. They get sponsors, appear on commercials, and of course do concerts. Instead of getting paid for CD’s, Which the Labels would take most of the profit from anyways, they are getting paid directly just to show up.
Caveman Art
I wonder if the descendents of the artistic cavemen have been tracked down and paid for their ancestors artifacts, and replications,etc..? Or were they already paid back then? It’s totally obvious they only did it for the money. Duh… I really true artist may not care about money, perhaps not even the recognition. Not like “Ogo”, the rich & famous sun painter.
harold
I wonder if weird harold’s website is getting ranked higher on search engines from all the links to it from all the posts on tech dirt today. … or maybe lower due to the multitude of links to the same site from each page.
Re: harold
Odd how his argument against free is clearly skipped by the very example of linking his website (for free) to us “freeloaders”.
I won’t click it. If this kid can’t understand the free concept, there’s no way I’m heading to any product he distributes.
I want to keep my brain cells.
Kindle 2! (it's relevent, I swear)
The new kindle is a very nice toy. I read a lot and would enjoy being able to carry several books on a SD card or on the internal memory of the Kindle without having to have an extensive library.
I don’t own a new kindle, nor do I own the old kindle.
Why? Because it isn’t worth $300 to me.
If I was able to purchase them for $15 dollars, I would have one for myself and my wife.
So the logic that “if you would buy one at $15 dollars, you would pay 300” doesn’t float.
To be fair, the original assumption that the people who would pay for the membership would also pay for the full “cost” of the records is both true and false. It is true in the aspect that die-hard fans exist who are willing to spend all their free time traveling cross country to follow bands and hear all their live performances. Certainly, they would pay any cost they could acquire the cash to pay. However, the large fault in that statement is the assumption that all “fans” of the music are indeed, “die hard”. I owned a no doubt CD 8 or so years ago because I’d heard the songs on the radio and I liked them. I paid about $14 at the time. I might pay another $15 to get a large quantity of their music today, but to be fair I haven’t bought a CD in years. I’ve never gone to their concerts.
Plus, in my opinion, the other flawed argument thrown around has to do with the cost involved in the music. There is no reason why the entire music process should cost as much as it does. It isn’t based on difficulty or even talent. It is based on popularity. I’m sure someone will say “are you saying that >insert band name here
Kindle 2! (it's relevent, I swear) Continued...
Yes and no. They may have been talented, but to say they deserved the money is a far cry. They don’t provide a critical service. They provide a luxury. A luxury who’s cost has been artificially inflated in an effort to make more money.
When any popular band puts out its first few albums, chances are (and i admit my lack of numbers) if we removed the cost of over payed music execs, their lawyers, and only paid the musicians say… 100k a year salary. There would still be enough money to pay for the use of the sound stage, the writers, the musicians who play with them, and the sound guys by selling the Cd’s for maybe $3-4 a piece.
And thats why I object. Musicians aren’t “worth” millions for any reason other than we give them millions. If we stopped paying them, the world wont end, hunger won’t increase, the rain forests aren’t going to burst into flames, and children won’t suffer from more war.
The other shocker is… Music will still be played by people who play it out of love and enjoyment and not for profit… GASP!
So when will movies be free as well?
Movies in digital form, aside from the file size difference, seem to be in the same boat as music in digital form.
If the future of music is free, with artists only able to truly profit from scarcities they must create as well, then it would seem that movies would have the same fate.
Will the big name movie producers suffer the same fate as the big name record companies?
Is the forced creation of physical items that cannot be duplicated at home basically forcing musicians and filmmakers to produce pretty trinkets and baubles to go along with their digital product?
Love it
Brilliant when the person calling everyone stupid and dense does a double-post. Way to end the thread, pro.
No Doubt
But if they keep jacking up the cost of a live ticket, they may find they can’t give away the music attached to a ticket fans cannot afford