Should 'Singles' be free?

PaulBrewer · 30-11-2008 05:53PM #1

As an extension of the 'CD Sales Dive' thread -

Should a new bands single releases be free to the public?

Is there any point in a new band trying to charge for it?

Is it of more value to the band to have it out there free and being listened to than being 'not bought' except for a couple of hundred to their fan base?

PaulBrewer · 30-11-2008 06:53PM

I see iTunes bebo pages Free Single Saturday is Bloc Party.

30-11-2008 11:05PM

I think you should charge for a bands first single,with the effort and cost that goes into making a first single I think band should get something in return.....
Sure these days most people will get to hear you music for free anyway with myspace and all.

seannash · 30-11-2008 11:15PM

if people want to get it for free they can,so no harm in charging for it.
if people dont want to pay they dont have to

PaulBrewer · 30-11-2008 11:50PM

But if your Indie Competition is giving it away free , a la Bloc Party, shouldn't you ? .... at least until you've risen up the ranks?

with the effort and cost that goes into making a first single I think band should get something in return

I think it's fair to say that No One can rightly expect to get a financial return from your first release. In fact the vast majority of bands go through their entire recording career without getting out of the red.

The most useful 'something in return' a new band can get, in my opinion, is fans - surely that's the first goal?

tweeky · 01-12-2008 12:21AM

The competition (Bloc Party's) tracks are paid by a Record Company and all relevant studio/producers/engineers connected with the track have been paid, that surely makes it easier for Bloc Party as the upfront costs are covered and will be a bit of cheap promotion for their (out of)tuneless non melodic wares.
If all young bands give their tracks away free the market will be saturated and folks will lose interest having to trawl through the muck to get the good stuff. If the music is given away free by all unsigned bands who will pay the project studio gearslutz and the commercial studios now the credit union are tightening their reigns?
Every week there is a free CD/Film on the cover of the Sunday papers plus Q/Hot Press etc. It has been proven that only a small percentage watch/listen to these but their success is with the rise in sales an established artist's back catalogue gets with all the TV advertising.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 12:25AM

Tweeky, you'll probably know this.

What percentage of the 99c iTunes charges for a track can an artist expect to receive?

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 12:27AM

tweeky wrote: »

If all young bands give their tracks away free the market will be saturated and folks will lose interest having to trawl through the muck to get the good stuff. If the music is given away free who will pay the project studio gearslutz and the commercial studios?

But , as a rule, and you surely know this well, most tracks generate nothing anyway not EVEN costs?

tweeky · 01-12-2008 12:32AM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Tweeky, you'll probably know this.

What percentage of the 99c iTunes charges for a track can an artist expect to receive?

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 01:15AM

tweeky wrote: »

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

That's probably not too bad, in relation to owning the track yourself.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 01:16AM

tweeky wrote: »

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

That would include 21.5% Vat too?

jtsuited · 01-12-2008 01:21AM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

That's probably not too bad, in relation to owning the track yourself.

it's bloody extraordinary considering what a band would make on each album with a typical deal with one of the majors.

Welease · 01-12-2008 01:25AM

I believe (as per Metallica's case against Napster) it's up to the individual bands to decide who and how their material is distributed. For some bands, it might be advantageous to give it away for free, for other's maybe not.
Most bands seem to make it accessible via MySpace etc.. and if you like the track you can pay/download via a legal method, which seems to be the best of both worlds.

Crap answer

, but it don't think a single business model would ever suit all bands.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 01:30AM

It's the MySpace Music Model the best of both worlds?

I believe the US's Myspace music store is now operational so I guess it won't be long before it's over here.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 01:31AM

Welease wrote: »

I

Crap answer , but it don't think a single business model would ever suit all bands.

Good answer actually!

01-12-2008 01:49AM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

But if your Indie Competition is giving it away free , a la Bloc Party, shouldn't you ? .... at least until you've risen up the ranks?

I think it's fair to say that No One can rightly expect to get a financial return from your first release. In fact the vast majority of bands go through their entire recording career without getting out of the red.

The most useful 'something in return' a new band can get, in my opinion, is fans - surely that's the first goal?

yeah, definitely one of the main goals is to attract new fans, but after spending quite a lot of money on making a single, a little money coming back from it helps a bit..
and in fairness selling them from 99cent is practically giving them away!
Would you give free hours away in your studio to attract new customers?

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 02:00AM

Cuddleworthy wrote: »

yeah, definitely one of the main goals is to attract new fans, but after spending quite a lot of money on making a single, a little money coming back from it helps a bit..
and in fairness selling them from 99cent is practically giving them away!

I'm not arguing one way or the other - I've not made up my mind.

I agree 99c is cheap. However it's not FREE. Is a track more or less desirable to a punter if it's free?
If it is more desirable to the public because it's free, is that not the way to go?

Would you give free hours away in your studio to attract new customers?

Yes! and have!

tweeky · 01-12-2008 02:02AM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

That's probably not too bad, in relation to owning the track yourself.

Best return is too sell an album at a gig for €15 into your hand/account as opposed to iTunes return of €5 after reductions. But it's amazing how many bands don't do it especially as the captive audience has been wooed with drink and tunes.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 02:03AM

tweeky wrote: »

Best return is too sell an album at a gig for €15 into your hand/account as opposed to iTunes return of €5 after reductions. But it's amazing how many bands don't do it especially as the captive audience has been wooed with drink and tunes.

'Hey Man we're the band, we ain't no steenkin' business men - Now where's the wimmins at?'

Even 3 or 4 sales would probably cover the fuel AND the chips ...

01-12-2008 02:11AM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Yes! and have!

Any chance of a few hours then? :pac:

while I understand that giving them out free will get you out to wider audience, it just seems a shame not to get anything back for such an expensive out-lay...
I'd prefer to put on a free show or something...
Also when something is free, the interest in it never seems to be as genuine.
I can see a lot of free CDs ending up as coffee coasters.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 02:14AM

Cuddleworthy wrote: »

while I understand that giving them out free will get you out to wider audience, it just seems a shame not to get anything back for such an expensive out-lay...

You've just contradicted yourself there ...

jtsuited · 01-12-2008 02:25AM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Is a track more or less desirable to a punter if it's free?
!

ya see this is the thing. if only there was a situation where someone gave away their album for whatever amount anyone was willing to pay (including free).

then we'd know a huge amount about the 'average' punter. even if they are Radiohead and the album is In Rainbows, I'm sure you'd still get an accurate picture of how much the consumer reckons music is worth.

I really don't think the answer is free.

Neurojazz · 01-12-2008 09:13AM

Great idea that giving away a single for free, but this creates a dilemma...

If a record company wanted to sign the act based on that single (to lead the promotion of a possible album) then they may pass as the band has released the source free on the internet - it's very hard to charge for something given away free previously. If a band was after fanbase/freebies then maybe a slightly lower quality release of a live set would be less damaging to a bands *product*.

I can appreciate the frustrations of musicians trying to get on the ladder, a complete nightmare - there are very few creative solutions out there for making income in the music biz.

Free is pretty damaging and devalues what you do.

seannash · 01-12-2008 09:36AM

there was a similar thread on another forum and someone made the good point of saying that if you dont put a value on your music others wont,meaning stuff that is given away for free,especially by an unknown band,will be view as having less value as something which they have bought and paid for.
if you pay for something your less likely to get rid of it.

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 12:41PM

seannash wrote: »

if you pay for something your less likely to get rid of it.

I agree with that, but just because you haven't doesn't necessarily mean you don't value it - but if an established artist gives it away are you not disadvantaging your works likelihood of succeeding by charging?

Is it just another horrible bitter pill an artist must swallow to get attention?

How many of you who do advocate charging have downloaded P2P copyrighted material I wonder?

PaulBrewer · 01-12-2008 12:44PM

The Poll is spilt 50/50 on this but the 'Freesayers' aren't as vociferous as the 'Paysayers' .....

I wonder why that is?:cool:

01-12-2008 01:11PM

PaulBrewer wrote: »

You've just contradicted yourself there ...

Seems I did, meant getting nothing back in monetary terms!

Good Point Neurojazz, I agree that giving away your music certainly devalues it.

PaulBrewer · 02-12-2008 07:14PM

Any words from the 'Freesayers' ?

seannash · 02-12-2008 07:21PM

in all fairness most forms of popular music can be got for free these days.
if a band gets any success it immediately gets hit harder with music piracy.

fitz · 02-12-2008 07:30PM

Saying you should charge cause it cost you money to produce is nonsense really. If you're only planning based on how to re-coup, you're unlikely to be any way inventive with how you go about promoting your music.
These days, if people want to, they'll get any music they want for free.
Giving something away doesn't mean you have to give everything away. You can't put a value on the goodwill you can generate by making people feel like they've got something for nothing. Exceeding people's expectations is the only way you'll stand out.

If you're in it for the money, the real revenue is in publishing and touring/merchandising. You're not gonna get someone paying you to use your song in a film/ad/tv program without your stuff being heard by the right person. Anything you can do to get your music heard by as many people as possible is worth exploring. You never know who the next listener or casual downloader could be. As for devaluing your work, how much do you think an album is worth? It's totally subjective. The financial value of art is dictated by the demand for it.

PaulBrewer · 02-12-2008 07:48PM

fitz wrote: »

Saying you should charge cause it cost you money to produce is nonsense really. If you're only planning based on how to re-coup, you're unlikely to be any way inventive with how you go about promoting your music.
These days, if people want to, they'll get any music they want for free.
Giving something away doesn't mean you have to give everything away. You can't put a value on the goodwill you can generate by making people feel like they've got something for nothing. Exceeding people's expectations is the only way you'll stand out.

If you're in it for the money, the real revenue is in publishing and touring/merchandising. You're not gonna get someone paying you to use your song in a film/ad/tv program without your stuff being heard by the right person. Anything you can do to get your music heard by as many people as possible is worth exploring. You never know who the next listener or casual downloader could be. As for devaluing your work, how much do you think an album is worth? It's totally subjective. The financial value of art is dictated by the demand for it.

The Fitz doesn't speak with a forked tongue ...You'd never charge for a Demo would you? Isn't your first single a Demo by another name?

I think I'm leaning towards the Free camp ...

Should 'Singles' be free?

Should a new bands single be free? 21 votes

Comments