[linux-audio-user] Internet Music Business Models + Logos

[tim hall]

R Parker wrote:
> 
> --- tim hall <tech at glastonburymusic.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>R Parker wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I haven't got enough time to properly revue your
>>
>>ideas
>>
>>>and proposals but will attempt to respond in part.
>>>
>>>--- Carlo Capocasa <capocasa at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MARKETING TACTICS
>>>>
>>>>We all need marketing. In its best sense, it
>>
>>simply
>>
>>>>means that there are
>>>>no obstacles people need to get around to get to
>>>>your music.
> 
> 
> Understanding product, buyers and the means for
> reaching buyers is my marketing objective. One of
> every 1000 views of a banner results in a sale. A 30
> day campaign for $100.00 will be seen by 40,000 people
> and result in 40 sales. Production cost per unit is
> $5.00 leaving a $300.00 profit.
> 
> This community seems determined to associate a value
> with its music that's derived from the tools used to
> produce the music or the philosiphy that governs the
> development of those tools. I share som of that
> romantic sentiment. However, I am practicle and
> believe it is the song that sells.
> 
> If it's the song that sells and I want to make
> $2,000.00 a month on my music then I need to invest
> about $700.00 a month into banner adds.
> 
>  Clean up
> 
>>>>the dog poo in front of your store. Sure it's
>>>>flattering to see to what
>>>>lengths people will go to get your product, but
>>>>maybe that length could
>>>>be reduced to one: How much will they pay?
>>>>
>>>>1. For the first business model I was thinking of
>>>>selling music on an
>>>>'All Rights Reserved' basis, but with FULL RESALE
>>>>RIGHTS. In other
>>>>words, people are allowed to distribute your work
>>>>for free if they want
>>>>to, but there is a little incentive not to,
>>
>>because
>>
>>>>they can also sell
>>>>it to their friends.
>>>
>>>
>>>>From the Copyright owner perspective, I issue a
>>>license that describes how you can legally use,
>>
>>sell
>>
>>>and distribute my property.
>>
>>This is probably the same as what Carlo is
>>suggesting, except you 
>>already have a workable version?
> 
> 
> That is the only reasonable model I'm aware of and I'd
> like to know what Carlo believes. Or if you care to
> share it then what you believe.
> 
> Is this proposed record label going to invest $700.00
> a month into advertising my music so I can have the
> measly $2,000.00 a month requirement? Is it going to
> do the same for you and how many other people? Does
> this business proposal have an operating budget?
> 
> I'm not trying to discredit the idea that there's a
> group of artists whom share a "for the good of all
> mankind" philosophy and that fans can derive vicarious
> fulfillment and alleviation through listening to our
> music. After they buy it.
> 
> I want to know the plan. How does the record label pay
> for its overhead which includes operational and wage
> expenses. Are we gonna put our songs on a website and
> hope people stumble across it, pay $1.00 per download
> and then the artist recieves exactly $1.00 in their
> paypal account?
> 
> Alot can be done with very little money. Let's say
> five of us agree to invest $20.00 a month into banner
> adds or google AdText to promote site Y where a list
> of artist websites exist...

OK, I understand what you're saying now. This is exactly the kind of 
hard headed reality I have trouble wrapping my head around and 
subsequently why I'm not earning 2 grand a month from music.

Do you honestly think that banner ads are the most effective means of 
advertising or was that just as an example?

I agree that it is the songs which will sell, the technology used to 
produce them is largely irrelevant to the end consumer - it may provide 
added value in some cases.

The trouble is, if you run on a donations basis, it's easy to believe 
that you can only afford free advertising. It is hard to make any kind 
of business plan when you have no guaranteed income. I don't suppose 
that's news to anyone here.

cheers,

tim hall