|
Will there ever be a good online download store? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Schadenfreude |
| don't get me wrong here, beatport fleeces the artist...but before they came along it was the record labels doing the fleecing. |
|
|
| KrisA |
| quote: | Originally posted by Schadenfreude
don't get me wrong here, beatport fleeces the artist...but before they came along it was the record labels doing the fleecing. |
Yeah, the artists have always been ripped off but surely spreading the word of your business (in this case a download store) should benefit the artists in the end. |
|
|
| Brick |
Never said that Beatport doesn't (or shouldn't) go after the average consumer, but their primary target audience is still the DJ first and foremost. They're the first ones lining up to pay $2.50 for those exclusive tracks to play out at the clubs, and if you look at the way the site is setup, most of the features are geared towards the way DJs shop (buying individual tracks, browsing by labels, listening to similar tracks, etc..) as opposed to the way the average consumer shops (searching for specific songs, buying more compilations etc..). This is also demonstrated by the things they promote as their key selling points - high sound quality and vast selection which are valued highly by DJs, but not necessarily so by the average consumer where price is more of a concern. I think Trancefxs is correct in the notion that their business model may shift in the future, and I do agree that the current one is not as friendly to the average consumer as it may be towards the DJ.
However - I really don't think they're flagrantly screwing people over since they take the same cut as iTunes and everyone else in the industry. Truthfully speaking, everyone likes to think that songs magically sell themselves - but the reality is that is costs a -ton to market, promote, distribute, and sell music (yes, even in the digital age) which is why stores and labels take a much bigger cut than the artist. Like it or not, the cost of producing music is actually very cheap compared to the costs needed to sell it. Both the stores and the labels have a large staff to pay, overhead, legal fees, in addition to all the branding and advertising necessary for growth. This is a capitalist economy, and as such these are all things that cannot be taken lightly.
For those that think artists should just sell their tracks directly through their own sites let me ask you - what do you think would happen? They would end up having to spend that 80% anyways on advertising, marketing, and promotion to get the word out, or their sales figures would drop below the point that it's worth it. By going through a label and digital distribution network they're simply outsourcing these services to companies that do it more efficiently - and more importantly so they can spend their time focusing on what they do best which is making music. |
|
|
| sebjr |
| quote: | Originally posted by G-Con
Based on a couple of contracts I have first hand experience with, between 16 and 50 cents. |
So the question is - is this a bigger percentage than from vinyl?
Another question I have is if Beatport is not fair to producers, then why do so many producers seem to use it? It's not like Beatport is Microsoft and can block other online music shops from opening up. The internet is as close to a barrier-free market as is possible. |
|
|
| Woonyxoxo |
| quote: | Originally posted by sebjr
So the question is - is this a bigger percentage than from vinyl?
Another question I have is if Beatport is not fair to producers, then why do so many producers seem to use it? It's not like Beatport is Microsoft and can block other online music shops from opening up. The internet is as close to a barrier-free market as is possible. |
The producers don't really decide on which stores the track goes, the label does.
The thing is, many/most producers have the attitude "I won't make money anyways". So they sign the track to a label with a shiny name and don't care about the rest.
The other thing is, the other stores often don't have much better royalty rates and people seem to shy to use new projects like gogoyoko.
| quote: | Originally posted by sebjr
So the question is - is this a bigger percentage than from vinyl? |
You can't make a direct comparison, because with vinyl the label and the stores have actual costs like pressing the vinyl, the artwork, shipping, room in the stores. With a digital track you have next to zero costs. |
|
|
| Brick |
Really not pertinent comparing the percentage to vinyl since this is a whole new economy with a entirely different break-even point - regardless of the production costs as well.
Thought this was a great article to share on that point - talks a lot about the shift in consumer trends over the past 10 years from physical albums to digital singles and the effect its had in the industry.
The State of Internet Music on YouTube, Pandora, iTunes, and Facebook |
|
|
| sebjr |
That's an interesting article. I hate buying albums with a whole lot of crap on them so really like the direction the industry has turned with its focus on singles.
Ideally, producers should be rewarded for making good tunes, and I'm reasonably sure that is more likely under digital than vinyl. If you made a good tune in the early 2000s but signed to a label that didn't market it well, you would probably not reach close to your potential market. Under digital, and with almost all DJs using Beatport - the market a producer has is huge. This should mean if they make good tunes they will make more money than under vinyl!
To make an obvious point, the more money good producers make, the better for DJs as these producers can spend more of their time making their next tune even better :) This might reduce the amount of crap electronic music because much of it might be a result of producers throwing stuff out there without much regard for quality, because they don't think they will make much money anyway. |
|
|
|
|
