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

From: R Parker <rtp405@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Thu Mar 23 2006 - 15:59:18 EET

--- tim hall <tech@email-addr-hidden> 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@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>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...

> > This is very empowering to
> >
> >>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
> writer,
> > 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
> > exists for very good reasons.
> OK, there are some important points here.

What are your ideas and solutions?

> > 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.

Nothing makes sense to me. Yet!

 I think you're
> 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.


> 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
Received on Thu Mar 23 16:15:05 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 23 2006 - 16:15:05 EET