I believe in streaming (free; in full) and limited early free downloads.
To me it's just the same as Radio and TV play were 40 years ago.
Start the buzz for free - then charge when everyone wants it.
As Doug Morris did with Chumbawamba and Danny Goldberg with Who Let The Dogs Out... get radio to start, build a demand so they cannot stop, then delete the single and make people want to buy the album.
Never confuse PROMOTION with SALES - one comes after (and as a result of) the other.

Hi JK,

I agree that there should be a promotion phaze for each release, one version of the single (radio edit) driving the promotion, building the demand and getting everyone interested. I just believe that one should monetize this.

For example if you look at myspace and how it is used for music, surely an artist/label can use the same concept but on a site and page they control and can use to generate some income from advertising. Sort of like using the track in an advert.

The technology is there and with WMA files you can turn off the tap so to speak at any point in time or restrict to 30 sec clips at the end of this phaze, forcing people to buy the track.

One other way to do this would be to keep this version for free at all times, promoting the higher quality PAID for version with flexibility i.e can be transferred to portable devices, burned on CD etc. The free version should be restricted to streaming only or 96k quality or even less.

There are 3 markets for music which have different
rules.

1. FREEBIE/early adopters, these are the ones who spread the word, kind of like the ones who listen to radio, make mixtapes, use Kazaa etc. Get them to like the band and turn them into album buyers or physical product collectors and if they dont like the band that much well at least every download/play should generate some sponsorship dollars. At the very least Put google adsense on the music download page.

2. ITUNES Generation - They are the ones who buy downloads without thinking twice are probably in the region of 0.01% to 3% of the overall internet download generation. Will buy the single download for convenience and also once a momentum has been built.

3. Physical Product buyers - These are your real fans who will buy the album on CD/DVD/Vinyl or any physical format. Obviously they spring from 1 & 2
above. They have a relationship with the band through
buying the hard copy version.

My reasoning JK is simple. Most people will listen to
a track and not buy it. I just believe in ensuring
that in all formats and all phazes, one can make
some money in each scenario. They are distinct worlds
which do not cross each other. In other words the
existence of a free version will not stop people
buying the PAID version. Each has their place.

Problem today with deleting the single once demand
is built is that with the internet, there will always
be a free version floating around. Rather let the
freeloaders get their fix from your wma restricted and ad loaded version than from the renegade mp3
version floating around on kazaa etc.

Wasnt aware its a bank holiday in the UK lol. Let's
hope others contribute to this debate.

or indeed snow patrol with their price rises according to chart position scheme with the final straw, one of the best campaigns of late (and i'm not connected with them or their label, besides they don't need any promotion from the likes of me )

This morning, completely by accident, I discovered two of my works available from a download site that I had never heard of.
When I tried to access them, aol denied me access to the site, as I was not signed up.
Two other worrying things here, one is, all the money from one of the tracks, is supposed to be going to charity.
Second, the other track is not even available yet.
Conclusion? They have been taken from my website, and made available on a download site.
I am a tad confused to say the least.
I also have been informed that we are on another, worldwide site as a free download too.
This kind of thing seems to spiral at one heck of a rate currently. I adore being heard, but it`s a bit odd to have people giving your stuff out, independently, with no contact from them whatsoever.
I do agree at JK`s spreading of the word post above, however, the band of which we are working with this week, I am going to do physicals first, purely to recoup recording costs first, and fuel the large gig following.

Exactly this is a big problem which i cant see going away. Hence bands should get in the habit of perhaps using streams on their website, not that it will stop the crims from hijacking your music but at least encourage fans to go to the 'official' source to get the mpfree. Lol
MArtin got a rough mix of the one minute track for you. Where do i send it ?

Regards
KZ

Robert Fripp's diary is quite illuminating. He had a hell of a time getting his catalogue back under control... I'm not sure he's managed even now. And that was his old label (EMI?) licensing left, right and centre.

This digital distribution lark is a nightmare, and largely incompetence rather than deviousness (or am I being too kind?). My guess is things never really changed... it's just all become more visible.

I think the old freebies then sales approach is a good one... but you might have your work cut out getting your licensing instructions followed.

my website is

www.mkitcher.com

The e-mail link is on the front page.

looking forward to it mate.

Martin

I agree with DJKZ. The way into the future is to make money from all the ways people use music:
Legalise filesharing, and charge some kind of flat rate from the downloaders.

Some details on the King Crimson case:

Robert Fripp / King Crimson own the rights to their songs (after a long fight with EG Records, I think). In 1993 he / they licensed the catalog for 10 years to Virgin. In 2003 Virgin licensed the songs to iTunes and OD2, without permission.

When the contract between Fripp/King Crimson and Virgin was up for renewal, the band demanded 75 per cent of the online money. Virgin refused, the agreement ended. But the songs were still available for download. When Fripp asked Virgin to stop the illegal distribution of KC-Songs he got the following reply: