23 Mar
2006
23 Mar
'06
9:59 a.m.
--- tim hall <tech(a)glastonburymusic.org.uk> wrote:
sell
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...
What are your ideas and solutions?
Nothing makes sense to me. Yet!
I think you're
R Parker wrote:
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
Hi,
I haven't got enough time to properly revue your
ideas
and proposals but will attempt to respond in
part.
--- Carlo Capocasa <capocasa(a)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. >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, and distribute my property.
This is probably the same as what Carlo is
suggesting, except you
already have a workable version? This is very
empowering to
writer,
people since it
encourages them to create additional sources of
income for themselves
except their jobs.
What percentage of the revenue do I the song producer and Copyright owner recieve upon the
sale
of
my property? As I see it you have operating
expenses
and the right to compensation for your efforts
and
anyone acting as a sales person also deserves a
cut.
Relicensing my property so that anyone can sell it
is
a bit of a can-o-worms. Are you responsible for
collecting and redistributing funds derived from
the
sales of relicensed property? BMI can collect
broadcast royalties but not mechanical sales. And
BMI
exists for very good reasons.
OK, there are some important points here. Or am I
misinterpreting and the objective is for
the
writer, producer and Copyright owner to give the
rights for usage and sale of their property to
your
organization and any other people that might want
to
sell the property. IOW, the Copyright owner gets
nothing upon the disbursement (broadcast) and sale
of
their property.
I actually don't understand the basic premise upon
which you are designing this business and I need
to be
enlightened. Once I understand the design it will
be
easier to conduct a high octane flame war. :)
Until
then I'm in the dark and creating useless
noise
within
your thread.
Now I'm confused. Carlo's last posting made sense to
me. reading a lot more into his proposal than I was.
If that's true then I'll chase the sun set in some
other thread.
ron
However, I'm all in
favour of reality checks.
cheers,
tim hall
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com