Bandcamp.com Pricing Preference

[thrsher]

nvm

 

[coreysMonster]

Not really. Bandcamp has long championed helping out the 'little guys' and 'cutting out the middleman,' previously taking 0% on all digital sales. Recently, however, the website has become so out-of-control popular that it can no longer actually be sustained without bandcamp themselves pulling some of the profit in order to pay for the servers.

So they decently agreed upon 15% because that takes a solid half of what pretty much all other services take, such as Apple's iTunes.

This. Pretty much all other digital distributors of anything (Steam, Google Play, App Store, Amazon) take a 30% cut. 15% is more than fair.

In the end, your success as a musician, and in any business venture, doesn't rely on the price of your product, but creating a valuable brand that people will want to buy into.

First off, I want to say I completely agree with this (even though the wording is a little weird, I get what you're saying).

However, I disagree with the idea that having music for free on Bandcamp is what's going to get you exposure, and that putting a pricetag on your releases is going to hinder you. Again: free exposure seems to work so much better with systems with embeddable players like Youtube and Soundcloud. If you're looking to gain a following and share your music, I don't see Bandcamp as the ideal way to do so. Just think, how many people find random music on Bandcamp vs. how many people find random music on Youtube?

I don't have any hard data on this, but from personal experience and the way I see people interact on forums, very rarely does a Bandcamp link ever get shared when talking about bands, unless they have no other online presence. What I think would be interesting to find out is how many people who go to BC with the thought "I am going to get this because I want this music I heard somewhere" are actually scared away by a pricetag.

You say that the strongest form of advertisement is a recommendation from a friend, and I again agree - but how many times do you show a friend a song by actually giving them an mp3, rather than giving them a link to something online?

I guess what my point is is that I totally agree that you need to get people excited about your music and allow them to listen to it for free - because how else are they going to become a fan? - but I disagree that letting people download your music for free is the best way to do this, if your goal is to make some money off of your music.

 

[The Omega Cluster]

What is your opinion on the three platforms that bandcamp.com offers when purchasing an album from a band?

They offer: 1. Name your own price, 2. Flat rate (or you can pay higher), 3. Free Download.

Which one do you believe is the most successful platform for bands? And which one do you prefer personally?

You can also have 2.5. Flat rate (you CAN'T pay higher).

I usually go for 1. Name your own price because I believe music shouldn't be paid for. So that's how I spread my music.

On the bandcamp to my music blog Music | Can This Even Be Called Music?, I put everything for FREE-only download because the objective is only to promote it, not make money off it.

 

[eyeswide]

Bandcamp/itunes/whatever's fees are typically fair, no matter what the rate. 15-30% cut for the ease of use they have is pretty damn good. They have costs, and they want to eat at the end of the day too (some just have more on their plates than others). You can't host a website and platform on hopes and dreams. Nothing is stopping bands from making their own storefronts on their own websites. And if the rate is too high, you could surely do so.


Oh, and I certainly know that people aren't typically discovering us through bandcamp. It'll either be through youtube or from our facebook page. However, I wanted an "official" place for people to get our album, and that's our website which redirects to bandcamp. coreysMonster, I think we can both agree to disagree on this one. When bands are at the independent level, it's pretty trivial the difference between giving away an album and selling it. Like I said, we're still getting sales despite it being free. Would we be making more money if we just sold it? Maybe, maybe not. But the difference at this point is splitting hairs, and I don't want to turn away that one crucial downloader who might dig it and know Nolly and show it to him, but he doesn't really care for it, but he thinks Misha might, so he shows it to him, and Misha really digs it, so he shows it to Ash who absolutely falls in love with it, so Ash decides to pick up the phone and I should be getting that call aaaaaany second now....

 

[yingmin]

I usually go for 1. Name your own price because I believe music shouldn't be paid for. So that's how I spread my music.

If you "believe music shouldn't be paid for", why accept payment for it at all?

 

[xwmucradiox]

It's a load of nonsense that your music has no value? No, it really isn't. You guys going on about how if you set it for free, people will listen to it, then just leave it on a hard drive somewhere are proving the exact point I was making. Value is created not by the fact that there is supply, but by the direct perception the demand (customers) have of the supply.

If I download your music, have a listen, then let it rot on a hard drive, it isn't because I downloaded it for free, it's because your music does nothing for me. If I download your music for free, but I love it, you're damn right I'm going to play the hell out of it, put it on my iPhone, tell my friends, like your Facebook page, check out your merch and go to your live show if you're playing in a close radius. Why? I, as a customer, have deemed the value of your music based on my opinion of it. Hell, I might even go back and spend some money on your music to support you in hopes you'll continue. I actually have a number of CDs on my shelf still in their wrapping that I've bought from bands after I've downloaded their music just so I could support them.

We just put out our album, and despite it being free, people have been buying it. A digital piece of nothingness that could have been obtained for nothing, people have paid money for. Our discs that we sell at shows on the other hand, I refuse to give away for free. We have been selling those at $10 a piece, and sell them we have!

Why? Well, people either like the music, or maybe just want a souvenir. Either way, they are going out of their way to support my band. In the end, value is created somewhere along the way.

Now, if we can get more people to listen to it, perhaps we can find more supporters. The logic of offering it free is that (figures for illustration purposes only) say of every 100 people that listen to our music, 5 of them will like it and share it around, but only 1 person will actually buy it. Now, if I charge something up front, maybe only that 1 person buys it, but the other 4 won't. Because they didn't, they now might not have a copy of it and won't be sharing it with other people, who might be potential listeners and potential buyers (studies also show that a recommendation from a friend is the strongest form of advertisement, hands down).

To me, as a musician, the spreading of my band and music is worth much more to me than a couple of bucks from some digital album sales. If people hear it and like it, they will pay. So my goal is to get as many people to hear it as possible. An interesting quote from Protest the Hero on the state of the music industry and downloading was that they've been able to sell out shows in cities they've never played before and have never sold an album at.

In the end, your success as a musician, and in any business venture, doesn't rely on the price of your product, but creating a valuable brand that people will want to buy into.

People dont have to download your music to share it. My friends post bandcamp links on others' facebook pages all the time. In 2014 that's a way more effective means of sharing than a burned copy on a CD is.

And Protest the Hero had several years of label support and international touring supporting huge artists to build their fanbase. Thats why they can sell out shows. If they had never been put on all those tours people wouldn't know as much about them.

 

[The Omega Cluster]

If you "believe music shouldn't be paid for", why accept payment for it at all?

What I mean is that I don't think that money should constitute a wall in listening and acquiring music. So that even the ones with little or no budget for music can benefit from it. Those who desire to pay for the music or to support the artist - or both - are also out there and it's perfectly understandable. I usually pay 1 dollar per song for an album that's free on bandcamp's pay what you want system when I have a few bucks I can spend, which is fortunately most often. It's really rare I don't pay a thing for what I listen to, but that's me supporting the band/artist. The point is that price should not discriminate people or access.

 

[xwmucradiox]

What I mean is that I don't think that money should constitute a wall in listening and acquiring music. So that even the ones with little or no budget for music can benefit from it. Those who desire to pay for the music or to support the artist - or both - are also out there and it's perfectly understandable. I usually pay 1 dollar per song for an album that's free on bandcamp's pay what you want system when I have a few bucks I can spend, which is fortunately most often. It's really rare I don't pay a thing for what I listen to, but that's me supporting the band/artist. The point is that price should not discriminate people or access.

Nothing stops people from listening to a song an infinite number of times on Bandcamp. You can enjoy a band's music for free on bandcamp absolutely as much as you want. There is no pay wall.

 

[The Omega Cluster]

Nothing stops people from listening to a song an infinite number of times on Bandcamp. You can enjoy a band's music for free on bandcamp absolutely as much as you want. There is no pay wall.

Did I mention in "acquiring" music? You don't own the album if you just need to go there to stream it. Two absolutely different things on a psychological point of view.

 

[xwmucradiox]

Did I mention in "acquiring" music? You don't own the album if you just need to go there to stream it. Two absolutely different things on a psychological point of view.

You said listening and acquiring. There are records on bandcamp that I listen to that the artist doesn't allow you to download. So that's just where I listen to them. I mainly listen to music at my computer so if iTunes and Bandcamp are in superficially different locations on my computer interface then I dont see any difference between them.

The point of this angle is that people seem to think the only way people will share your music with their friends is if they OWN it and download it. I'd wager that its much easier to share music with your friends with a bandcamp link than giving them a CD or thumb drive.

 

[The Omega Cluster]

You said listening and acquiring. There are records on bandcamp that I listen to that the artist doesn't allow you to download. So that's just where I listen to them. I mainly listen to music at my computer so if iTunes and Bandcamp are in superficially different locations on my computer interface then I dont see any difference between them.

I've seen albums I could stream but not download - for various reasons like pre-release streaming or that it's sold on another website - but I wasn't talking about this, and I usually don't use this. In this instance, however, I'll stream them on bandcamp if there is no alternative until I get some money or get bored of going there and wait for it to buffer (although it's quite quick, my internet has its slow times).

The point of this angle is that people seem to think the only way people will share your music with their friends is if they OWN it and download it. I'd wager that its much easier to share music with your friends with a bandcamp link than giving them a CD or thumb drive.

I absolutely agree with you! The way I share music the most is by linking to bandcamp pages, or via bandcamp embeds on my blog. When it's not available, I usually give out a youtube link (when possible), and/or a iTunes or official website link. In every case, I do not need to own the music to share it and that creates potential buyers and potential fans! That's why music streaming for free is awesome!

However, I like to own stuff, and I believe mostly everyone likes to own some stuff too, and even if it's a digital album which is, in the end, only 1s and 0s, I feel that it's my property when I either downloaded it for free (legally) or paid for it. One guy wrote earlier in that thread that he even has albums that are still wrapped because he bought it after downloading the album for free to support the band because he really liked the music! And that's my case too, I've got more than one CDs still wrapped because I did not need to unwrap them to put them on my computer. I don't even need them to carry in my car because I'll burn CDs so that I do not risk the original being damaged.

So here was my point in the first place : If you can't or don't want to give your money to bands and artists that you like, that's fine, but that shouldn't impede you from listening nor acquiring their music.

If you download music for free that you enjoy and could have paid for, you're a greedy shortsighted bastard, but this shouldn't interfere with all those with good intentions that truly cannot afford your music.

 

[Necris]

People dont have to download your music to share it. My friends post bandcamp links on others' facebook pages all the time. In 2014 that's a way more effective means of sharing than a burned copy on a CD is.

I personally don't even feel an obligation to share the link if I've listened, and that takes very little effort. Again, it has to be something I enjoy.

If I find the band to be mediocre, that's it. I'm not going to give them any support.

To be completely honest I don't care that a band has sunk thousands of dollars into recording gear, hours upon hours into writing material and practicing, hours into marketing and getting their name out there, hours riding around in a shitty van making it to shows that they lose money on etc.

Aside from the marketing and playing shows details, since I currently don't do either, so have I.

The bands who scream "support your local scene!" or just "Support the scene!" the loudest, usually in an effort to sell their album or merch, in my experience tend to be the ones with the absolute least to offer. I'm of the opinion that by refusing to support mediocrity I am supporting the scene.

 

[xwmucradiox]

I personally don't even feel an obligation to share the link if I've listened, and that takes very little effort. Again, it has to be something I enjoy.

If I find the band to be mediocre, that's it. I'm not going to give them any support.

To be completely honest I don't care that a band has sunk thousands of dollars into recording gear, hours upon hours into writing material and practicing, hours into marketing and getting their name out there, hours riding around in a shitty van making it to shows that they lose money on etc.

Aside from the marketing and playing shows details, since I currently don't do either, so have I.

I didn't say anything about an obligation to share music just because you listened to it. I said its much more convenient and likely that people will share music via a bandcamp link than by burning music to a CD or thumb drive to hand to a friend.

Im pointing out that the bandcamp website covers all the bases and that users by no means need to download the music to enjoy or share it with others. Its effectively just someone else's ipod that you listen to for a bit.

As far as not caring that people have put hard work and money into making music that others seem to feel entitled to for free, that seems very cynical, depressing, and indicative of a younger generation that has grown up in a world where they NEVER have had to pay for music to hear it. I'll always respect that someone has put hard work and money into creating their music.

 

[eyeswide]

As far as not caring that people have put hard work and money into making music that others seem to feel entitled to for free, that seems very cynical, depressing, and indicative of a younger generation that has grown up in a world where they NEVER have had to pay for music to hear it. I'll always respect that someone has put hard work and money into creating their music.

If you are referencing me, that was not what I was trying to describe. No one is entitled to your music for free; but just because you created something to sell, doesn't mean people have to buy it.

 

[AugmentedFourth]

I didn't say anything about an obligation to share music just because you listened to it. I said its much more convenient and likely that people will share music via a bandcamp link than by burning music to a CD or thumb drive to hand to a friend.

Im pointing out that the bandcamp website covers all the bases and that users by no means need to download the music to enjoy or share it with others. Its effectively just someone else's ipod that you listen to for a bit.

To be fair, I can see where The Omega Cluster is coming from. I personally don't feel like it's better that I "own" the album rather than stream it. If I'm on my PC then I can just as easily stream from bandcamp as I can play stuff on MediaMonkey.

However.

If I can download the album, that means I get

a) Optimal quality in whatever format I want (streaming from bandcamp can be painful esp. for audiophiles who cannot stand the 128kbps mp3 that bandcamp uses)

b) To put it on my iPod. I can't stream anything on my iPod... And I put my iPod to quite a bit of use listening to music, so that makes bandcamp a restriction on when I can actually listen.

 

[xwmucradiox]

To be fair, I can see where The Omega Cluster is coming from. I personally don't feel like it's better that I "own" the album rather than stream it. If I'm on my PC then I can just as easily stream from bandcamp as I can play stuff on MediaMonkey.

However.

If I can download the album, that means I get

a) Optimal quality in whatever format I want (streaming from bandcamp can be painful esp. for audiophiles who cannot stand the 128kbps mp3 that bandcamp uses)

b) To put it on my iPod. I can't stream anything on my iPod... And I put my iPod to quite a bit of use listening to music, so that makes bandcamp a restriction on when I can actually listen.

And if you want to put it on your ipod and own it then you can buy it. What Im saying is that Bandcamp itself is a perfect way to share music with friends so they can hear it. Maybe not so they can hear it in the perfect format while jerking off to higher bitrates but they can hear it.

 

[Necris]

So here was my point in the first place : If you can't or don't want to give your money to bands and artists that you like, that's fine, but that shouldn't impede you from listening nor acquiring their music.

If you download music for free that you enjoy and could have paid for, you're a greedy shortsighted bastard, but this shouldn't interfere with all those with good intentions that truly cannot afford your music.

I feel bands absolutely have the right to set a pay wall. Obviously they do so at their own risk. You could, if you so desired, put 2 or 3 tracks up on bandcamp and have the rest of the album available as "bonus" tracks only accessible to those who pay for your album. But in this scenario no-one who won't buy your album gets to hear it in full (until someone who buys it uploads it to youtube). That is a choice the band can make though.

Speaking of youtube, you could upload your whole album to youtube and try to make money off of ad revenue, but I don't think you would make much. Still, it beats someone else not associated with the band doing the same doesn't it?

I feel that if you, the consumer can't pay, or don't want to pay you are not entitled to the ability to "acquire" the music anyway. If a band has decided they want to sell an album but you don't want to pay, why are your desires more important than the bands? Why do you feel you are more important than the owner of the music?

I don't differentiate between reasons for downloading an album for free. At the end of the day an album given away for free or taken for free is just that, an album given away/taken for free.

Whether that person had "good intentions" (what?) or if they were just downloading the album for free because they didn't feel like paying doesn't change the end result.

 

[pestilentdecay]

Interesting responses here. My personal opinion is that 'name-your-price' is the best for up and coming/unknown bands. If a listener feels that your music is worth something or if they just want to support the artist for whatever reason they have, they'll pay for it, regardless if you have a flat rate or the name-your-price option. In my opinion, it all boils down to the potential customer.

 

[The Omega Cluster]

Whether that person had "good intentions" (what?) or if they were just downloading the album for free because they didn't feel like paying doesn't change the end result.

Just want to clarify the "good intentions". It's not so much a good intention as it is a good excuse for not paying. If you don't have money to spend on luxuries (like music) you wouldn't have bought the album anyway so it's not a lost sale because there were none to make to begin with.

 

[coreysMonster]

Just want to clarify the "good intentions". It's not so much a good intention as it is a good excuse for not paying. If you don't have money to spend on luxuries (like music) you wouldn't have bought the album anyway so it's not a lost sale because there were none to make to begin with.

Expanding on this, here's a really neat post by one of the guys that made Super Meat Boy, and his take on how industries view piracy.

Apathy and refunds are more dangerous than Piracy


This part in particular:

Loss due to piracy is an implied loss because it is not a calculable loss. You cannot, with any accuracy, state that because your game was pirated 300 times you lost 300 sales. You cannot prove even one lost sale because there is no evidence to state that any one person who pirated your game would have bought your game if piracy did not exist. From an accounting perspective it’s speculative and a company cannot accurately determine loss or gain based on speculative accounting.