 | | Yea but I see what their saying, but I have a feeling less would be donated if it didnt stand out like a sore thumb (for being free)
If that made any sense... it makes sense in my head at least. | |
|
 |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: Yea but I'd rather send an artist $5 over paypal for downloading their Album than have 5 cents go to them through the RIAA for buying their CD.
If you think about it, a single internet purchase has the potential to make the artist more money than tens or hundreds of CD sales. | |
|
| | | The download and pay if you like idea might work for well-known bands but not movies. Gee, the stupidity of these people.  
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | | | Re: Yea but Maybe if the movie sucks, but if it's a good movie, people would donate to show that they liked it. | |
|
 woodwardXMission BroadbandVIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Another persective Tent Reznor has just posted some interesting comments on »nin.com about his recent experience with online digital sales for an unsigned artist. Quite relevant to this discussion. | |
|
|  McSummationMmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX
kudos:2 | Re: Another persective I found Trent's discussion quite revealing. I wonder how the artist's income from the 2 albums compared. | |
|
|  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | That's a great read, but I think an 18% "take rate" is excellent if not stellar. I don't really understand Trent's expectations. | |
|
| |  FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: Another persective Hell yea...I think the take rate is similar to points you got for an album. Your living the "life" if you manage to get 10 points, let alone 18. | |
|
robertflPremium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | What format? If I were to purchase something online, give me the .wav not a compressed mp3 This is a good idea but it's not near cd quality.
-Rob | |
|
| |
| | | Re: What format? A .wav file would be like a 50mb for a 5 minute song. | |
|
| |
| DoubleKDoublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI Reviews:
 ·Charter
| said by robertfl:If I were to purchase something online, give me the .wav not a compressed mp3 This is a good idea but it's not near cd quality. -Rob As has been pointed out in many audiophile forums, over 90% of people cannot tell the difference between a well ripped mp3 and a wav file. The problem lies in the "rippers" lack of technical experience in doing so.
Now days it is even easier
GOOGLE: exact audio copy and lame | |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | The thing is... ...even if they get less money, selling direct they're cutting out a lot of the middlemen who eat up the margin. | |
|
| | pennies can add up... People will gladly pay $600+ a share for Google stock. If google can earn $ Millions $ pennies at a time.. why can't content industries? Probably because their eyes are the the hundreds of $ Billions $ .... greed prevails, but then again, so does piracy. | |
|
| Emiya
join:2006-03-30
Southington, OH | Re: pennies can add up... Because there is no possibility that a mp3 will be worth 50000x what you paid for it in a year. | |
|
| DoubleKDoublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI Reviews:
·Charter
| Excellent point! I have maintained all along that if they released a 128 bit mp3 or better (ogg, flac) for .10 to .25 cents a song they would certainly not make the money they did when the sole outlet was the overpriced mall store but they would make a hell of a lot more than trying to tell their kids they cannot go to prom with who they want.
The problem in our country isn't limited to Hollywood and the Music Industry, how much money is enough? How can you sleep at night knowing that you have enough to feed a small starving country for a week or in Saint Bill(Gates) case the entire starving world for a year. Empire Building, plain and simple. | |
|
| | It's simple If the donations don't cover the cost of making the movie, and the movie doesn't turn a profit...it doesn't matter ONE BIT how generous the various donations are.
This same kind of thinking led to that crazy thing called the dotcom bust. | |
|
| | | Re: It's simple Movies fail to make a profit all the time. The real money makers tend to be the low budget ones. | |
|
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Re: It's simple said by Corehhi:Movies fail to make a profit all the time. The real money makers tend to be the low budget ones. Because of the creative book keeping the IRS lets Hollywood use no movie has ever made a profit.
However the IRS still get it's share from the income taxes paid by all of the people who make their living from the production and marketing of these movies.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's simple The IRS does not let Hollywood use creative bookkeeping. Instead, they keep two sets of books -- one with accounting principles the IRS accepts, for tax paying purposes. And one with the Hollywood accounting scheme, designed to screw anyone who gets a percentage of the net. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: It's simple Actually that's how every business is run. There's you tax books, and your GAAP books. With GAAP offering lots of creative ways (called assumptions) to decide what you want your numbers to look like depending on what you've promised to whom. | |
|
| | | | You are absolutely incorrect.
Read the profit and loss statement from any studio, movies and the studios make money all the time.
Either in actual ticket sales, DVD sales, merchandising, rebroadcast profits, whatever.
For example (in fairly round numbers)
The budget for Titanic $200MM
The World Wide Gross (all sales) $1,835MM
Profit $718MM
That profit is a booked profit, a reported studio profit, now show my a low budget film that has an IRS booked profit of $718MM. Also explain to me how booking $718MM is not making a profit at all.
Now if you are saying that there is a higher profit to budget ratio with low budget films, you would actually have to prove it with real numbers. I would say that there certainly are some, but the exception doesn't prove the rule. | |
|
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: It's simple No you apparently don't understand, yes the do make money but it is their accounting that always shows they just break even.
When I said they don't make money I meant they don't make what the IRS calls a profit.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
| | | | | | Re: It's simple If they report a profit then they obviously didn't just break even. It would be hard pressed for a movie production company to continually show no profit on projects year after year. Especially when revenue starts coming in that generate little to zero overhead (DVD sales, syndication, etc). | |
|
| | | | | | No YOU don't understand if they BOOK a profit, that is an IRS REPORTED profit on the movie in question. They also DO make a profit and report said profit to the IRS, have you never read a prospectus or earnings report from a media company? | |
|
| | | | | The only people that know the true profit are Movie Studio execs and Producers. Even then it is murky. | |
|
| ominae
join:2003-05-11
Columbus, OH | True, but we're talking about economies of scale. How much you need to make to turn a profit is directly related to how much it costs to produce your product. I think this idea works a lot better for music than it does movies. The musician and moviemaker both have a vision in their heads (which, by the way, costs nothing), but with technology it takes far less investment to translate that vision to reality for a musician than a moviemaker. Imagine a band that produces and records an album for $5k in a garage or local studio. The next step is to get it to an audience. It would be far easier with a record company's promotional contacts, but it's still possible. By doing it independently you cut a lot of people out of the process of making an album (or any other product) meaning fewer people to pay, lower prices for consumers and more profit for yourself. Of course, it would help if the music didn't suck. And for $5k, most people could cover the cost by holding a day job. | |
|
| | FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: It's simple lol...lots more overhead then a 5k studio session man!
And I mean lotttttttts more. You gotta pay to play. Its the same thing for the artist thats just starting out if you compare a huge blockbuster to him...Both are gonna have to make big sacrifices. Same thing with the label; marketing, production of the cd.
I hear what your saying, but you don't go from cutting the ablum to automatically selling it to the audience...thats if you cut out the mastering time and re-mixes of re-mixes, new material that can be added in, promo products...lots more. | |
|
| | | |
| | But... Many of these artists are already well known thanks to their labels giving them a start years ago.
To truly compare how much an artist would make comparing this "donation" system to the current label method, the artist would have to be an unknown. They would have to create enough buzz on their own to solicit thousands of donations without the help from a record label...like without radio airplay, concert tours, and other promotions. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 JehuPremium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2 | Radiohead = Pricks Arrogant pricks to be precise.
They are the most popular band in the world, and could literally create a record of white noise and people would gobble it up.
What they have proved is that when you are the most popular band in the world and you have no need for money, publicity, etc., you can do whatever the fuck you want.
I hope this was not a startling revelation to most people: having lots of money means being able to comfortably do whatever the fuck you want. | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
