RSS
Which Would You Rather Have: 100,000 Unauthorized Downloads Of Your Music... Or None?
from the just-asking dept
As a bit of a follow up to our discussion of the Canadian band (who will remain nameless) that complained vociferously that its debut album had been shared on torrent sites over 100,000 times, despite no torrents of the band being findable through any of the normal means, an interesting point has been raised:
If you're a band, would you rather your album was shared 100,000 times via unauthorized means... or is widely ignored and not shared at all?
Which do you think is a better sign of a band in trouble?
If you're a band, would you rather your album was shared 100,000 times via unauthorized means... or is widely ignored and not shared at all?
Which do you think is a better sign of a band in trouble?
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Re:
You wouldn't have 100,000 paid downloads. Most people who download for free, wouldn't or (more likely, in this economy) couldn't pay for it. Many who are willing to pay if they can't get it for free, are also willing to pay if they can.
Let's every single one of those downloads was blocked. Even if you assume the same demand for the music, you're looking at 10,000 additional paid downloads at an absolute maximum.
And that's assuming that being shared by fans does not increase the demand for the music, which is ridiculous. "Word of mouth" promotion is the most valuable kind of promotion, no matter what product you're talking about.
So, the choice Mike presents is really very accurate.
Add Your Comment