Should singles be free?

PaulBrewer

If so, why?

We've got a poll over on Music Prod asking that question that running at roughly 50/50 at the moment.

What are you guys thoughts?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055430536

Xavi6

If they're free then what's the point in having them?

PaulBrewer

Huh? Explain?

Your comment suggests that if something is free, there's no point in having it?

Creamy Goodness

it depends really.

i like supporting lesser known acts as i know they need the money. but then again even the bigger acts need the money too but not as much.

i think something like on all major record labels singles should be free but you pay for the b-sides etc.

it's a tough call tbh.

also perhaps a mod can edit the post to add a poll here as well so we can see.

PaulBrewer

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

it depends really.

i like supporting lesser known acts as i know they need the money. but then again even the bigger acts need the money too but not as much.

i think something like on all major record labels singles should be free but you pay for the b-sides etc.

it's a tough call tbh.

also perhaps a mod can edit the post to add a poll here as well so we can see.

That's why I added the link to our Poll, so we'd get a combined view of Producers and Consumers, though I guess a separate poll may be of more interest.

Xavi6

No I mean I don't see what the established artist gets out of it by making them free. I would presume the whole point of singles is to generate extra revenue.

Also the charts would have to be done away with seeing as everyone could just download every song (though scrapping them might not be a bad thing).

I'm failing to see many reasons to do it other than maybe making it easier for unknown artists to get exposure.

PaulBrewer

Xavi6 wrote: »

No I mean I don't see what the established artist gets out of it by making them free.

Ah yes, the Poll does refer to New Artists and I should have made that clear.

I would presume the whole point of singles is to generate extra revenue.

No, as a rule a single is used as a loss leader. Virtually no one makes ANY money from them.

Also the charts would have to be done away with seeing as everyone could just download every song (though scrapping them might not be a bad thing).

The charts is increasingly irrelevant, you can't cross the street without meeting a band whose single came in at Number 28 these days.

I'm failing to see many reasons to do it other than maybe making it easier for unknown artists to get exposure

That's it, I think. Bloc Party gave away a track on Bebo/Itunes

Xavi6

If it's for new and upcoming artists then yeah it's a great idea.

IanCurtis

I'd pay €5 for an album download from a band's website rather than buy the CD for €10, or download for free.

This is DEFINITELY the direction music sales has to take. This way the band will get most of the revenue and the consumer won't feel like they're stealing.

Nothing should be free ideally.

pinksoir

I can't really see any point in singles aside from a promotional point of view. You are never ever gonna make money out of singles if you're an independent act, fact. Well, not physical ones anyway. It justs costs far too much to manufacture them.

Besides, isn't it only twelve year old girls who buy singles? Give them away, they should be tasters for the album and the live shows.

noby

Saying only 12y/o girls buy singles is one of those lines that's churned out but never backed up. Yes, the charts are pointless, but this being the alt/indie forum I think we're talking about more than the latest Beyonce release.
Some bands take their singles/b-sides seriously. Some singles don't appear on albums.

Every band has the option to do what they want in a marketing sense, but the way the poll is worder I voted that they should charge.

insinkerator

To be honest i cant justify any reason why singles should be free. Assuming that, we are talking about actual physical singles from a shop.

For the upcoming artist, it costs incredible amounts of money to record, package and promot the single, and its only fair that they try and get a little bit of that outlay back. And for established acts, on major labels, i assume giving it away for free would breach their contract, and also, no record company is gonna give anything away for free, especially in this modern society.

However i can see why some bands would want to make a single free. Perhaps as a free extra for those who buy an album(assuming the single has a B-side the album does not or something). Or as an easy way to get exposure, as people are more likely to take the cd if its free.

I think however the whole idea behind singles needs to be changed. In a world where everything can be gotten for free, a packaged single needs to have some sort of appeal to it, to prevent someone downloading it for free. I think an ideal situation would be to release an album, but offer say two singles free with the album, both containing a couple of b-sides written that didnt make the album, aling with maybe a video or two(either professional or homemade). And then perhaps a bigger than normal booklet, that has maybe an interview with the band, some pictures, the lyrics, all exclusive to the album. And then for it to be nicely packaged or something. All giving the consumer the incentive to buy rather than download. If i could get my hands on something like this with every album, i wouldnt dream of downloading ever again, at least not without definietely buying the album a few weeks later.

PaulBrewer

insinkerator wrote: »

Assuming that, we are talking about actual physical singles from a shop.

For the upcoming artist, it costs incredible amounts of money to record, package and promot the single, and its only fair that they try and get a little bit of that outlay back. And for established acts, on major labels, i assume giving it away for free would breach their contract, and also, no record company is gonna give anything away for free, especially in this modern society.

No, shops will obviously have to be charging.

It's interesting how a lot of people's reactions have been with an 'ethical/emotional' bent namely 'well it cost a lot so charge'

That to me is missing the point and shows a misunderstanding of how the business works.

The single is and has been for quite a long time a promo tool - effectively a Demo (remember now we're talking Debut Singles)

So perhaps the way to think is -

My single is my Demo (record company or not)

It's important My Demo is heard.

Building up fans is the goal, monetary return expectations aren't realistic yet, but are the ultimate goal.

Will charging for my track reduce the likelihood of it being acquired?

PaulBrewer

insinkerator wrote: »

I think however the whole idea behind singles needs to be changed. In a world where everything can be gotten for free, a packaged single needs to have some sort of appeal to it, to prevent someone downloading it for free. I think an ideal situation would be to release an album, but offer say two singles free with the album, both containing a couple of b-sides written that didnt make the album, aling with maybe a video or two(either professional or homemade). And then perhaps a bigger than normal booklet, that has maybe an interview with the band, some pictures, the lyrics, all exclusive to the album. And then for it to be nicely packaged or something. All giving the consumer the incentive to buy rather than download. If i could get my hands on something like this with every album, i wouldnt dream of downloading ever again, at least not without definietely buying the album a few weeks later.

Yep, that's the kind of thinking needed I believe.

insinkerator

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No, shops will obviously have to be charging.

It's interesting how a lot of people's reactions have been with an 'ethical/emotional' bent namely 'well it cost a lot so charge'

That to me is missing the point and shows a misunderstanding of how the business works.

The single is and has been for quite a long time a promo tool - effectively a Demo (remember now we're talking Debut Singles)

So perhaps the way to think is -

My single is my Demo (record company or not)

It's important My Demo is heard.

Building up fans is the goal, monetary return expectations aren't realistic yet, but are the ultimate goal.

Will charging for my track reduce the likelihood of it being acquired?

Ah yes, well you see my thinking would change if it were a demo. I would have no qualms about giving away my bands demo. A demo, in my opinion is completely different to a single. A demo, from my thinking, is something that a new band records(be it at home or in a studio) and uses the demo as taster for venues and record companies/concert promoters so they can get more gigs around the place and then give it to fans at the gigs, so as to keep them on the fans mind. A single however, is a cd with a lead track that has gotten a good reception time and time again at gigs, and is used as the first "official"release of a new band with the aim of making a profit.

To paraphrase, i would probably charge for a single, but i wouldnt charge for a demo.

shakespeare

free singles...sounds good...

would radio stations still pay royalties?

insinkerator

In the world of copyright being free for personal use and being free for professional profit making use are two different things, so i suppose they still would have to pay some form of royalty

pinksoir

noby wrote: »

Saying only 12y/o girls buy singles is one of those lines that's churned out but never backed up. Yes, the charts are pointless, but this being the alt/indie forum I think we're talking about more than the latest Beyonce release.
Some bands take their singles/b-sides seriously. Some singles don't appear on albums.

Every band has the option to do what they want in a marketing sense, but the way the poll is worder I voted that they should charge.

Yeah, that's true but it's meant more as a flippant remark to illustrate the futility of releasing singles if you expect any sort of monetary recoup. You lose money on singles. That's just what happens. For the amount of money you would make back selling the singles for 99c (assuming it's a download and not a physical cd, and assuming you sell no more than about 500 copies, which is unlikely anyway) you'd be better off giving it away for free. More people would be inclined to download it that way, hence more people would potentially hear it.

The business of music is one in which you are constantly losing money. If you're in it for money, then you're in it for the wrong reason and you'll be sorely disappointed. It's a constant struggle for most bands, at least at the start.

Hopefully, if you give away your singles for free, people will come to your shows (where the real money is) and buy the album (where you make your money back if you're lucky).

The point about 12 year old girls is that they are who music and singles are marketed to by the record companies who have the money to market acts. In the absence of marketing and promotion, which i'm sure no new, unsigned band can afford, obviously the bulk of singles sales are gonna go to the group that are being marketed to.

PaulBrewer

shakespeare wrote: »

free singles...sounds good...

would radio stations still pay royalties?

Yes

PaulBrewer

insinkerator wrote: »

and is used as the first "official"release of a new band with the aim of making a profit.

That happens so rarely these days it's safe to say it doesn't.
I've certainly never seen it happen in my years.

Would the Pros care to comment?

Bubs101

I don't see why you'd ever release a single for free, especially now. Itunes means you can sell singles really easily to a massive audience, most of whom if they're buying it off itunes either are unaware of or don't want to download illegally, and even if they are mixing and matching they're more likely to have trouble finding an illegal download for a new band or give the money to the new band because they don't see them as rich rockstars. If you give it away for free you're throwing away money.

Secondly, if you're giving away the single for free the record lable are less likely to support you because number 1. you're throwing away a source of revenue and number 2. if you give away you're debut single for free they can't judge how popular you're going to be and how much weight to throw behind an album. Single sales can show whether an album is worth promoting heavily.

PaulBrewer

Bubs101 wrote: »

I don't see why you'd ever release a single for free, especially now. Itunes means you can sell singles really easily to a massive audience, most of whom if they're buying it off itunes either are unaware of or don't want to download illegally, and even if they are mixing and matching they're more likely to have trouble finding an illegal download for a new band or give the money to the new band because they don't see them as rich rockstars. If you give it away for free you're throwing away money.

Secondly, if you're giving away the single for free the record lable are less likely to support you because number 1. you're throwing away a source of revenue and number 2. if you give away you're debut single for free they can't judge how popular you're going to be and how much weight to throw behind an album. Single sales can show whether an album is worth promoting heavily.

You're missing the point.

Bubs101

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Your missing the point.

There is no point to miss

OP wrote:

If so, why?

We've got a poll over on Music Prod asking that question that running at roughly 50/50 at the moment.

What are you guys thoughts?

PaulBrewer

Bubs101 wrote: »

I don't see why you'd ever release a single for free, especially now.

Promotion is the main reason.

Itunes means you can sell singles really easily to a massive audience,

Only if that audience is interested in you. A Free track is a way to attract interest. Here's a very current example.

http://www.bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=5127205117&BlogId=8247285874

I, like probably many others, will download the track and like probably many others, may buy the album if I like it.

most of whom if they're buying it off itunes either are unaware of or don't want to download illegally, and even if they are mixing and matching they're more likely to have trouble finding an illegal download for a new band or give the money to the new band because they don't see them as rich rockstars. If you give it away for free you're throwing away money.

This is fundamentally incorrect I'm afraid as singles, as a rule, don't make a profit. This is especially true for debut singles. In my experience people buy stuff if they like it, the artists 'wealth' doesn't come into it.

Secondly, if you're giving away the single for free the record lable are less likely to support you because number 1. you're throwing away a source of revenue

If a band were working with a Record Company it would be the company that decided if how the record would be marketed, not the band. Also most debut singles (especially in Ireland) are on local labels.

and number 2. if you give away you're debut single for free they can't judge how popular you're going to be and how much weight to throw behind an album. Single sales can show whether an album is worth promoting heavily.

That's plain silly - you just count them! Very easy with Downloads.

Also a single release (provided there's an album to follow, which in the scenario I've suggested isn't necessarily so) is part of the overall Album promotion i.e. the likelihood is that the company is already committed to promotion, poster ads, CD production etc. if it's by a Major.

As I say, you missed the point.

PaulBrewer

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Only if that audience is interested in you. A Free track is a way to attract interest. Here's a very current example.

http://www.bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=5127205117&BlogId=8247285874

I, like probably many others, will download the track and like probably many others, may buy the album if I like it.

Yep, I downloaded that free track, I knew the song from BBC 6Music but not that it was Ladyhawke.

The album's only 6.99 on ITunes so why not?

Democracy and Capitalism in Action!

Fanny Cradock

I would leave the decision to each band releasing a single.

Kold

All music is free as far as I'm concerned. I'll pay for a superior product then.

PaulBrewer

Kold wrote: »

All music is free as far as I'm concerned. I'll pay for a superior product then.

Wha you mean Kold?

Kold

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Wha you mean Kold?

I mean the vast majority of music I've listened to hasn't cost me a penny. I only shell out if I've listened to the product an enjoyed it and found it a good exchange for my hard earned.

PaulBrewer

Kold wrote: »

I mean the vast majority of music I've listened to hasn't cost me a penny. I only shell out if I've listened to the product an enjoyed it and found it a good exchange for my hard earned.

So you've downloaded it for free?

Kold

Yep.

Ekels

Bands are signed to labels, labels want revenue. Singles=revenue. I can't see it occurring. Even for unsigned or lesser known artists and bands struggling to keep their heads above water financially could do with every extra cent they squeeze out of singles. Even if they know that 95% of people are downloading the track illegally, the extra revenue accumulated by that 5% could be invaluable in paying for a better producer etc.

I can't see it happening for a while anyway.