I'll Say It Again: Digital Download Please

[Grimjack]

I hear you, and I don't disagree, but realistically our music isn't really geared to "younger fans" (who I doubt would buy anything anyway), and I don't think the people who have interest in our music would find much friction making a purchase. I feel like I've done the analysis of who our audience is and where they are most likely to buy, and the answer still comes up physical media through the well-known Prog vendors, and to a lesser extent our own website. We haven't even done any promotion of the reissue and I've almost recouped the costs of the physical CD run, so I think for what we are trying to accomplish, that model still works and we know what we're doing.

The Tunescore thing is nice, but our album has five songs, so if they get the album song by song we get $3.50 versus $7.00 for the whole album, and presumably the consumer of the album is also paying more. Talk about a disservice. It's this kind of stuff I just don't have the bandwidth to deal with, particularly given the volume a small band like ours is working with. I'm only charging $6 for the whole album digitally on my site, and all the money goes to me and the consumer gets a pretty good deal too, imo. I strongly doubt I'm foregoing many sales by not being on Tunescore or iTunes, and if I am, so be it. If I was getting a bunch of inquiries about other digital download options, maybe I'd consider it, but as it is it just doesn't seem worth it at the level I'm working.

And I suspect this is true for a lot of the Prog bands we discuss on this site, which is why they just don't bother.

Bill

Bill,
Thanks for a well-considered reply. A few thoughts:
1. While your music may not be "geared" to younger fans, I have a 14 year old Rush fanatic and a 10 year old Yes fanatic who might surprise you. Don't dismiss younger fans…you're doing yourself disservice, even if that isn't your core/target audience. If they like you, don't make it hard for them to become to acquire your music legally. If its easier for them to get it illegally, its bad for everyone. Also, you'd be surprised at how many younger music fans feel compelled to pay for music. Better to give them a chance to do so, right?
2. If you've done your homework on what format works best for your audience, you're several steps ahead of a lot of artists. That doesn't mean there aren't some who might want either lossless or higher res than CD quality if indeed they are older. You may be right that iTunes isn't a good solution for you as far as sales, but Bandcamp might be worth considering. It certainly can't hurt. Then again, you've done the homework so you would know better than I. More importantly, if you're offering the album digitally directly from your site, you've got that base covered.
3. If the songs are longer than 7 minutes, they can't be "unbundled" from the album. And for the shorter songs, if someone is only interested in one song and wants to pay a buck for it but doesn't want to buy the whole album, why not let them give you their money? If they become a fan, they become a potential future source of revenue. Looking at it solely from revenue from one song from a single transaction is a short view.
4. They key point you are raising is the lack of time and resources. The life of a working player (to use a Frippism) is difficult enough from a music standpoint…add the burden of being a digital marketing strategist to the equation and there just aren't enough hours in the day. That's the kind of work my company does, albeit on a larger scale.
5. The iTunes conundrum is interesting…I've had several clients make the decision to put their music on iTunes but not because they think they'll make money. They believe that a few sales on iTunes helps with getting them into the stream of "customers who bought _____ also bought _____" which helps with search results and recommendations, affiliating with artists that they believe help with their branding. Their ultimate desire to engage fans enough to get them to sign up to mailing lists, Twitter, FB etc to ultimately get them to put money into a webcast, live download, merch or ticket. I know the "music as loss leader" approach is like waving a red flag in front of a bull to some around here but IT CAN BE effective for an artist who tours regularly. I'm not advocating for or against this because each artist has their own situation.
6. I disagree with your final point about what is or isn't true about a "a lot of the Prog bands we discuss". There is such a wide spectrum of artist needs and approaches to the marketplace that I think it's dangerous to generalize…your strategy may work well for you and if so, I think its great to share that knowledge so others can benefit from it. But an artist who is making similar music but has a different approach to touring may benefit from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT strategy when it comes to their digital music offerings. Or an artist who releases music more frequently may have yet another strategic approach where a subscription type setup makes sense.
But I think this is a fantastic conversation.

[Grimjack]

Well, first off, the vast majority of prog collectors are pretty militant in their support of physical media, be it cd or vinyl. It's pretty hard to sell an album (like I do) that isn't available on cd (which mine isn't because farnkly, I don't have the time to f**k with it).

But, conversely, making things available for those that do want to live in the modern age isn't rocket science. It takes about an afternoon with a site like CDBaby to have your stuff ready to stream/sell on multiple sites. Why bands wouldn't do that is beyond me- it's almost free revenue. It's getting money for a mouse click. I have to assume that it has to do with the notion that people have a path to steal the music if you make it available in digital form (news flash- if anyone is interested in your music it was on a bit-torrent site the day of release), or some notion that it spoils the integrity of the experience by not forcing people to have the booklet and whatever. Who knows.

The support for physical media isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact with a solid strategy, it can help with margin recovery a great deal. But support of physical media doesn't necessarily mean one has to dismiss digital media. Both have their place in the world. To the argument about pathways to steal music if its in digital form…silliness. Its in digital form on CD already and easily converted to Internet spreadable form in one mouse click. So the notion of keeping music off digital services to avoid piracy is a head scratcher…those who want it digitally will get it digitally one way or another. Why send them away from a legit service where you get paid to an illegal site where you don't? For most consumers, one click downloads from iTunes or Amazon are actually a good deal easier than BitTorrent.

[Sputnik]

Bill,
Thanks for a well-considered reply. A few thoughts:
1. While your music may not be "geared" to younger fans, I have a 14 year old Rush fanatic and a 10 year old Yes fanatic who might surprise you. Don't dismiss younger fans…you're doing yourself disservice, even if that isn't your core/target audience. If they like you, don't make it hard for them to become to acquire your music legally. If its easier for them to get it illegally, its bad for everyone. Also, you'd be surprised at how many younger music fans feel compelled to pay for music. Better to give them a chance to do so, right?

I guess the question for me is, how would a 14 year old hear my music? Chances are they dad (or granddad) is playing it! You can say it's a chicken and egg thing and that if I post to Tunescore or whatever that that presence will generate some awareness, and that is probably true. But even within the Prog niche, we are a super-duper sub-niche. So I'm a little skeptical of the "fans of this band also liked... " linking as applicable to Eccentric Orbit. If it doesn't work that well within the "Prog world," why would it work in the digital world with a more general audience?

2. If you've done your homework on what format works best for your audience, you're several steps ahead of a lot of artists. That doesn't mean there aren't some who might want either lossless or higher res than CD quality if indeed they are older. You may be right that iTunes isn't a good solution for you as far as sales, but Bandcamp might be worth considering. It certainly can't hurt. Then again, you've done the homework so you would know better than I. More importantly, if you're offering the album digitally directly from your site, you've got that base covered.

Well, lossless I have covered, but hi-res is out. We don't have the capacity for that. I suppose I could look at Bandcamp. I can't believe there would be much of an upside, but that may be one worth testing as I assume the costs are minimal to nothing.

3. If the songs are longer than 7 minutes, they can't be "unbundled" from the album. And for the shorter songs, if someone is only interested in one song and wants to pay a buck for it but doesn't want to buy the whole album, why not let them give you their money? If they become a fan, they become a potential future source of revenue. Looking at it solely from revenue from one song from a single transaction is a short view.

They can get it on our website.

4. They key point you are raising is the lack of time and resources. The life of a working player (to use a Frippism) is difficult enough from a music standpoint…add the burden of being a digital marketing strategist to the equation and there just aren't enough hours in the day. That's the kind of work my company does, albeit on a larger scale.

This really does have a lot to do with it. Though again if I really thought there was a big upside to doing it, I probably would. I'm just skeptical the effort would amount to much.

5. The iTunes conundrum is interesting…I've had several clients make the decision to put their music on iTunes but not because they think they'll make money. They believe that a few sales on iTunes helps with getting them into the stream of "customers who bought _____ also bought _____" which helps with search results and recommendations, affiliating with artists that they believe help with their branding. Their ultimate desire to engage fans enough to get them to sign up to mailing lists, Twitter, FB etc to ultimately get them to put money into a webcast, live download, merch or ticket. I know the "music as loss leader" approach is like waving a red flag in front of a bull to some around here but IT CAN BE effective for an artist who tours regularly. I'm not advocating for or against this because each artist has their own situation.
6. I disagree with your final point about what is or isn't true about a "a lot of the Prog bands we discuss". There is such a wide spectrum of artist needs and approaches to the marketplace that I think it's dangerous to generalize…your strategy may work well for you and if so, I think its great to share that knowledge so others can benefit from it. But an artist who is making similar music but has a different approach to touring may benefit from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT strategy when it comes to their digital music offerings. Or an artist who releases music more frequently may have yet another strategic approach where a subscription type setup makes sense.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I totally agree with this. There are perfectly good reasons for bands to do the iTunes thing, use music as a loss leader, etc. etc. None of those reasons apply to my band, and I believe none of those reasons apply to a many of the bands that get mentioned here for similar reasons. But there may be just as many bands for whom it does make sense. I was simply responding to the original question as to why a lot of bands have no digital download options, and I think the lack of incentive does explain it for a lot of bands in the Prog niche. But by no means all, so everything you say may apply to a band that tours, or that has potential crossover appeal outside of a narrow muso marketplace.

But I think this is a fantastic conversation.

Agreed, most interesting.

Bill

[Steve F.]

Its in digital form on CD already and easily converted to Internet spreadable form in one mouse click...those who want it digitally will get it digitally one way or another.

I agree with you 100% that not releasing it digitally does not deter digital theft.

[trurl]

The support for physical media isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact with a solid strategy, it can help with margin recovery a great deal. But support of physical media doesn't necessarily mean one has to dismiss digital media. Both have their place in the world. To the argument about pathways to steal music if its in digital form…silliness. Its in digital form on CD already and easily converted to Internet spreadable form in one mouse click. So the notion of keeping music off digital services to avoid piracy is a head scratcher…those who want it digitally will get it digitally one way or another. Why send them away from a legit service where you get paid to an illegal site where you don't? For most consumers, one click downloads from iTunes or Amazon are actually a good deal easier than BitTorrent.

You probably paraphrased what I was trying to say lot better than I did And I understand Bill's point about making the numbers add up, although I can't see how you couldn't break even on $50 bucks in the long haul. Afaik if you're willing to do the legwork you can skip the convenience fee that a service like Tunecore will charge and get your music on iTunes and Amazon and most other services yourself. iTunes is a real pain in the ass though.

[Sputnik]

I understand Bill's point about making the numbers add up, although I can't see how you couldn't break even on $50 bucks in the long haul.

As I said, I'd have every expectation of breaking even, but I'd be surprised if it would go much beyond that. With such a low expectation of profit, why bother? That's my point. Maybe when the second CD comes out I'll reconsider some of these avenues. We'll have more product to move that will help defray the initial cost and that might better justify doing it.

Does anyone know what you get from an iTunes or Amazon download that was seeded by the CD Baby account? Do you still get what you'd have gotten from CD Baby, or are you now just getting the iTunes rate? Also, how much control do you have through CD baby what is charged per track, if you have some 10 - 20 minute tracks versus shorter ones? Can you still either "un-bundle" or alter the price per each track? If the digital version goes to iTunes through CD Baby and you can't control some of these things, and you're only getting a few pennies per download, then I'd actually prefer it not to be on there. I don't need a loss leader, I'd rather just take what I can get through our site.

Bill

[Jerjo]

Speaking of digital availability, I wish that artists and labels would always post a link to their webpage, bandcamp site, or whatever in their signature. Like what Trurl and Steve F do above.

[Mr. Logical]

>why is it that bands refuse to offer me a damned downloadable version of their albums?

Some may feel that making the album available as an unprotected digital file will lead to unwanted file-sharing.

[IncogNeato]

Honestly, I get the physical medium thing. I'm 43, I still purchase physical media (just returned from lunch w/ 3 used Genesis records). I get why older and/or collector fans want it and cherish it.

That said, I don't know why any band/artist would not utilize downloads as a means of distribution. Make & sell your CDs (or vinyl, if you can afford it), but there's no reason to not utilize a site like Bandcamp in addition to that...if for no other reason than, if you sell out of physical copies, your music is still available.

A buddy of mine owns a record label, and he has his entire label discography on Bandcamp. The OOP stuff still sells occasionally...

[Grimjack]

>why is it that bands refuse to offer me a damned downloadable version of their albums?

Some may feel that making the album available as an unprotected digital file will lead to unwanted file-sharing.

A bunch feel that way but it's faulty logic that's ultimately hurting them. It's already unprotected on CD…making it sharable on the Internet is one click and about 2 minutes away. By offering no legal, legitimate alternative, they're only passively facilitating the problem they're trying to avoid in the first place.

[battema]

A bunch feel that way but it's faulty logic that's ultimately hurting them. It's already unprotected on CD…making it sharable on the Internet is one click and about 2 minutes away. By offering no legal, legitimate alternative, they're only passively facilitating the problem they're trying to avoid in the first place.

At least in the instances I am aware of (Ms. Hausswolff for example), I don't think it is an effort to squelch piracy. I think it is a personal/artistic choice to only make the music available on a specific medium. In her case, vinyl (with a swanky locked groove). The balance of her work is available on CD as well as the various digital formats (not sure about Bandcamp tho).

There are artists whom I know that have released certain works only on cassette, believe it or not.

[Splicer]

I do have hope that a year from now I may be singing a different tune and that more and more artists will adopt the download model for sales.

[zombywoof]

I rather stop buying music, than start buying downloads.

Same here. How could you possibly own a digital download? You don't. It sits on your hard drive and you forget about it (I do). It's hard not to feel ripped off when paying for air ...

[Mikhael]

So, you can download a lossless FLAC which is the "same quality as a CD". Hmph. Every bloody musician worth a crap has the ability at their fingertips any more to produce BETTER than CD quality! Why have we stopped at 16/44? 24/96 is well within everyone's capabilities today, and the difference to a discerning listener is noticable! Why the @#$% are we not improving the audio quality of our releases? Sold on media, it wouldn't cost hardly any more. We now download movies, so why not a more perfect version of the music we love? The download would be no greater than that. Technology improves, video improves, why not audio? Why are we settling for "good enough" when "better" is so easily available to us?

That's what *I* want to know.

[Grimjack]

Same here. How could you possibly own a digital download? You don't. It sits on your hard drive and you forget about it (I do). It's hard not to feel ripped off when paying for air ...

It's all a matter of perspective. Technically, you're paying for the same thing--a license to the music. The format is irrelevant. The music is never "owned" by anyone but the copyright holder(s). Whether you buy vinyl, CD, digital download or 8-track, you are buying a license to the music embodied in that medium. You're not "paying for air"…you're paying for the license to the 1.s and 0.s that are decoded back into listenable music. Whether those 1.s and 0.s are stored on plastic or a hard drive is immaterial OTHER than your preference as a consumer. Certainly, smart artists should take those preferences into account, but again there's no reason that physical and digital shouldn't be a part of the product mix for all artists at this point.
At the end of the day, downloads just don't fly with some people for various reasons…sometimes for no good reason other than they don't like them. Great. I hope for those fans and the artists making music for those fans that there's enough financial incentive on both sides for physical goods to exist for a long time to come.

[tom unbound]

Downloads are to the music industry as drive-thrus are to the restaurant biz. Seen any closed drive-thrus lately ?
Physical media will become the collectable end of the market.
45's and cassettes were the disposable media of old, replaced by digital today.
Bands can double (or more ?) their download sales by having live shows available. Work the system people, before it changes again !

[Grimjack]

So, you can download a lossless FLAC which is the "same quality as a CD". Hmph. Every bloody musician worth a crap has the ability at their fingertips any more to produce BETTER than CD quality! Why have we stopped at 16/44? 24/96 is well within everyone's capabilities today, and the difference to a discerning listener is noticable! Why the @#$% are we not improving the audio quality of our releases? Sold on media, it wouldn't cost hardly any more. We now download movies, so why not a more perfect version of the music we love? The download would be no greater than that. Technology improves, video improves, why not audio? Why are we settling for "good enough" when "better" is so easily available to us?

That's what *I* want to know.

Time, resources and a lack of significant market of discerning listeners is the short answer. Even the current 16/44 lossless standard is considered a niche market.
Your point about the ongoing improvement in video is a good one…I'm always astonished at how GREAT video has become in the last 15 years while audio has continually been dumbed down from both hardware and software perspectives. And style over quality--Beats headphones for instance--is an affront to most serious music listeners.
Note that you've got music listeners here saying they'd rather stop buying music than buy a download, and they seem to outnumber the folks posting wanting higher quality downloads.
FWIW, I personally also wish more were available in higher resolution. But at the end of the day, I've seen the sales numbers on high res for several of my clients that offer them. "Niche market" is generous.

[IncogNeato]

Prog fans and audiophiles aside, "most people" can't discern some of the things we are talking about here. The general human ear will only discern so much as it is.

Technically, you're paying for the same thing--a license to the music. The format is irrelevant. The music is never "owned" by anyone but the copyright holder(s). Whether you buy vinyl, CD, digital download or 8-track, you are buying a license to the music embodied in that medium. You're not "paying for air"…you're paying for the license to the 1.s and 0.s that are decoded back into listenable music. Whether those 1.s and 0.s are stored on plastic or a hard drive is immaterial OTHER than your preference as a consumer.

This is true. I think some people just prefer to have a collection they can look at as well as listen to.

[Poisoned Youth]

Same here. How could you possibly own a digital download? You don't. It sits on your hard drive and you forget about it (I do). It's hard not to feel ripped off when paying for air ...

You're still young, Ian.

Even though I still enjoy buying CDs, I could have re-worded your sentence to say this:

"How could you possibly justify buying a CD? You can't. It sits on your shelf and you forget about it (I do). It's hard not to feel ripped off when you could have downloaded the music for cheaper."

I feel with either CD or digital file, you're still getting the aural experience. Ownership is something that is starting to go by the Wayside (no pun intended). People embrace that they don't own what they watch on cable. Streaming services like Netflix are becoming the standard.

I feel that after I made the conversion of all my CDs, I got a more fulfilling experience from just the convenience of being to dial up whatever I want on a whim. I was finding I was listening to music I'd owned on CD for 20 years I hadn't played in 10 because I'd just forgotten about it or was buying the next thing in the queue.

[IncogNeato]

I was finding I was listening to music I'd owned on CD for 20 years I hadn't played in 10 because I'd just forgotten about it or was buying the next thing in the queue.

That's my favorite thing about "Shuffle" on my iPod...stuff will come up that I have not heard in I could not tell you how long...it's like a radio that plays only songs by bands I like.

[Gerhard]

FWIW, I personally also wish more were available in higher resolution. But at the end of the day, I've seen the sales numbers on high res for several of my clients that offer them. "Niche market" is generous.

The results of Neil Young's Pono kickstarter seem to imply that there's some demand out there for higher quality digital delivery and playback capability. Even having read a little about Pono, I'm not sure I understand how it's "revolutionary". Is his Pono the only portable player that can/will play higher resolution digital files, or could I play them on my iphone today?

In any case, regardless of the player, don't you have to have better speakers or headphones to really notice the difference? Also, how much more space do hi res files take up relative to mp3 (or even FLAC or wav)? I'm skeptical that Neil's vision will be more than a fad, because I think when people who start dabbling in it figure out how much less music they can fit on their player they'll go back to mp3.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/tech/m...o-kickstarter/

[trurl]

I think Todd Rundgren is right. The day is coming when the notion of somehow selling specific units of music will seem odd and incomprehensible. When an artist makes music it will just go "out there". The format won't matter. The revenue will come from royalties generated by provider services, subscription fees, maybe taxes on hardware and the like.

[Esoteric]

Can I just say on the release we can we always offer both, We don't have this option on some of our catalogue titles as the major labels retain digital rights but on direct deals we do and all new albums. Artists do well on legal downloads as they have in our case 50/50 deals , in fact they sometimes do better on digital than physical in terms of royalty rate per unit. Not having it up digitally will make not a jot of difference to whether it's up on illegal sites , I've yet to meet an artist who has an opposition to it and if any artist wants it just on vinyl etc, then to be honest it's usually someone a bit unrealistic or up their own backside and they can release it themselves and take the risk

[luvyesmusic]

Sadly I hardly ever buy anything anymore unless it's at a show/concert or at ROSfest upstairs. The easy availability of c.d.s I might be interested are gone for the most part and I refuse to order stuff on-line for the most part and absolutely refuse to do any sort of digital downs. No ipod, no high tech cellphone except for a crap one I carry for emergencies on the road ( 1,000 minutes for a year for $100 bucks that I never come close to using. I actually work when I'm at work, have a direct line at work and my homephone, anything else is just wasted money. Went to see Leigh Nash last night and as usual, a bunch of old folks there fcuking around with their cellphones/e-mail while they should have been enjoying a wonderful singer and show. Just call me an old-fashioned guy but I do miss the days of buying albums and c.ds but then again, I really have less time and money to waste on myself between my job and my daughter.

[Grimjack]

The results of Neil Young's Pono kickstarter seem to imply that there's some demand out there for higher quality digital delivery and playback capability. Even having read a little about Pono, I'm not sure I understand how it's "revolutionary". Is his Pono the only portable player that can/will play higher resolution digital files, or could I play them on my iphone today?
In any case, regardless of the player, don't you have to have better speakers or headphones to really notice the difference? Also, how much more space do hi res files take up relative to mp3 (or even FLAC or wav)?

He had just over 18,000 backers. That's not a huge addressable market in the context of the music business. And no…the Pono isn't the only game in town. There are others (Cowan for example) and there are apps you can put on your iPhone that will play high res FLACs. But discerning listeners will care more about some of the hardware involved (the iPhone DAC isn't audiophile quality, that's for sure) and if you're listening to crappy iPhone earbuds, why bother with high res or even full res. So yes…some demand but when thinking about it from a pure business perspective its very much a niche market. And a pretty small niche. And a super fussy one to make happy. Not exactly a welcoming point of entry for anyone looking to get into the market, eh?
High res files are significantly larger. That said, hard drives are so cheap at this point it hardly matters unless you have a HUGE high res collection. And if you can afford that, you can afford enough storage for it. It makes some difference if you're talking about a portable device but one of the Pono's advantages is expandability with SD cards. You can get a 128gig SD card for under $60 that would hold 100 high res albums easily, plus another 50 on the Pono itself. And SD card prices continue to drop.