How About Paying Bands $0.50 For Every Free Dowload?

from the can't-make-money-off-free? dept

Fri, May 22nd 2009 9:48am — Mike Masnick

We were just talking about how there are more and more new startups in the market to help bands do everything they need to do to both make music and make money these days -- and one of the most successful has been ReverbNation, who has created a variety of tools for musicians to help them both distribute music and connect with fans in new and compelling ways. And, now, the company has announced that it not only wants to help bands give away DRM-free mp3 music for free, but it will pay some of them $0.50 per download. Who says free can't pay? Of course, as always, there is a money-making business model involved. In this case, it's that ReverbNation will get to include a small ad in the cover art that appears with the album. Also, it's only open to a 1,000 bands. I'm not convinced this is a sustainable model, as "ad supported" music strikes me as a market where it will be tough to get enough ad revenue to make it worthwhile -- but it's still a neat experiment to watch and see how it evolves. It certainly may help get more indie bands over the fear of putting their music out there for free on purpose -- and hopefully some of those bands will recognize the other benefits of doing so, beyond just the $0.50 per download from ReverbNation.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertising, business models, free downloads, mp3s, music
Companies: reverbnation

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

d husted, 22 May 2009 @ 10:28am

50 cents? for free? DRM idea is already old
While I am all for paying musicians for their work when it creates some kind of transfer of value, there are always questions about scam downloads for the money. Until there is a proven object-oriented recognition network to help avoid the 'family and friends network', I think we'd all ask, does that include the Kennedy Half Dollar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marshall Stokes (profile), 22 May 2009 @ 10:44am

It's not free, it's annoying
I don't think this is a good idea at all. It looks like just another way for a profit-oriented website to shove ads down your throat. Piggybacking advertisements on artistic works is not a positive model, and will do very little (if anything) to add value to any artist's brand or career. Artists do not necessarily need to sell out like this to build successful careers...

As Techdirt mentions quite often, I sincerely believe it is high time to abandon this type of business model, and instead embrace the more realistic concept of using the art itself to attract valuable fans who will buy merchandise and concert tickets. The music is the hook, make it freely available without any catch, and artists will gain trust and respect from their fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2009 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: It's not free, it's annoying
  Shoving ads down your throat? I'm sure they will make an add free version of the download that costs $0.75. If you want it for free then put up with a little ads in the album art. Bandwidth isn't free. I'm all for using the music as promotion of concerts and such but a business model where music is free with ads or a very small fee for tracks without them sounds good. Throw in NIN's donation model to go straight to the band and have a market place for the tangible goods such as shirts, CDs, etc... Bottom line a smart evolving forum to connect fans with the music they like in an easy hassle free way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jonnyq, 22 May 2009 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: It's not free, it's annoying
  Piggybacking advertisements on artistic works is not a positive model, and will do very little (if anything) to add value to any artist's brand or career. Artists do not necessarily need to sell out like this to build successful careers...
  
  That's how radio and television work... I guess Keifer Sutherland sold out as an artist when he decided to do TV.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 22 May 2009 @ 11:00am

RIAA will shut it down
We assume that the 50 cents will go directly to the artist, rather than making a pit stop at the RIAA for distribution/skimming. That is something positive for the bands, and therefore something that the RIAA would be opposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
refe, 22 May 2009 @ 11:18am

Re: It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
refe, 22 May 2009 @ 11:18am

Re: It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
refe, 22 May 2009 @ 11:27am

Re: It's annoying
I agree. Even though the downloaders are conciously choosing the ad sponsored version, I think that it may cheapen the artist's image as an artist. The fan culture these days is much less worried about 'sell-outs' than it was a few years ago, but this is a bit iffy. Besides - I looked at one of the emails they are sending out to the eligible members and if you read it there is clearly a $50 limit for at least most participating members. $50? That hardly seems worth it to risk sullying the artists' brand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tgeigs, 22 May 2009 @ 11:58am

Question
I'd rather pay bands Ludacris for every free download...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Rose, 22 May 2009 @ 2:14pm

It's worth a shot
Anyone who thinks bands can simply give all of their music away for free and earn a living from playing live shows and selling merch has clearly never been in an indie band. This concept is a myth for 99% of the bands on the planet.

Personally I would much rather see a band I like take advantage of sponsorship opportunities than quit music altogether because they can't support themselves. Unfortunately that's a choice too many good artists regularly face.

Is this going to be a successful model? Who knows? If it's a way indie artists can get paid for their music I think it's worth giving this thing a fair shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2009 @ 6:18am

yeah
what's a "dowload"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan, 25 May 2009 @ 5:13pm
  
  Re: yeah
  a 'Dowload' is the amount of money that can be wiped off the value of shares in a single day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lou plaia, 23 May 2009 @ 7:57am

ReverbNation promotion
I think everyone above is missing a very important piece to this campaign. The promotional value the artist will be getting is something 99% of them would never be able to afford on their own. Their music will be exposed by potentially millions of music loving fans on the dime of a the brand.

Yes, I am one of the Co-Founders of ReverbNation but this is not a biased comment. I come from the Label side of the business and know that setting up a myspace page or facebook page is the easy thing and it is free. Getting people to your music is not easy and it is very costly. We are helping with both - driving traffic to the artist's music at no cost - well the cost of one download which you know would wind up on the p2p networks for free anyway.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2009 @ 8:11am

Perhaps they should ask "free" guru Chris Anderson about how the ad market is going these days. Wired is down more than 50% of ad pages, and judging by the last couple of editions, they have gone past mean and lean down to skinny and pissed.

Another system that will run for a while and finally go bust when it can't pay the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 24 May 2009 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps they should ask "free" guru Chris Anderson about how the ad market is going these days. Wired is down more than 50% of ad pages, and judging by the last couple of editions, they have gone past mean and lean down to skinny and pissed.
  
  If you did ask Chris (and I have) you'd know that he's not betting on ads to help Wired, but on other business models that leverage free. You'd also know, of course, that he's the Editor not the publisher, and has only so much input into the business decisions of Conde Nast. But, you know... why let details get in the way of a misleading anonymous comment?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian Fowler, 23 May 2009 @ 2:33pm

GoHoster Free .mp3 URL ...
Take a look at http://www.gohoster.com. We provide free mp3 URLs for music content and optimize the URL for online discovery through our content network. Also we pay the artists on each download.

Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bobby Washington, 26 Jan 2010 @ 8:14am

Reverb Nation don't pay .50 cent per free download I wish!
they may pay 01 cent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]