Free All Music and We Won’t Have to Steal It
My generation steals music. We are thieves. Every year we snare seven billion songs without paying for them.
True some of us fork over $1.29 to the online music monopoly known as Apple.
Right now those are our only two alternatives. Steal or buy.
Perhaps it’s time for an alternative.
Enter Free All Music. The premise of this company is similar to the Hulu model. You watch a commercial and you get a song, but different than Pandora in that you can actually keep the song. Download it and listen to it on your iPod.
Not only that, but FaM has built-in social and shareable features to ensure that the site can grow organically. You will be able to sign-in through Facebook Connect and all actions will be broadcast throughout the Facebook network. You are also prompted to email your friends to “free” songs for them.
I’m convinced this company will succeed. Why? Because it was created out of a real deficiency in the marketplace and based on a real consumer need. It absolutely astounds me that in today’s world of free (sometimes ad-supported), portable content that we still resort to stealing songs.
I’m also excited about the Free All Music launch from an advertising perspective. As a young marketer, one of my goals is to bring more utility to advertising. Although ad-supported content is not the extent of my vision, it’s a step away from the 30-second overly produced broadcast commercials where consumer value is limited. Here the consumer is actually getting something that s/he wants from the million dollar ad budgets of most marketers.
The Beta launch for 3,000 randomly selected participants (of the several thousand who already signed up on the site) is in early December with a larger launch in February. Check out freeallmusic.com and let me know what you think. It’s either that or continue to pay… or steal.
Image: RBB
10 Responses
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by STUARTFOSTER: Free All Music and We Won’t Have to Steal It – http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com/2009/12/30/free-music-steal/ #tngg…
…so then the artists and everyone else gets the money from the ads? This is an interesting concept, though I think the biggest issue is that the entire music industry needs one giant re-design before this problem will be totally worked out.
Also — I do buy music sometimes, when I feel I have a little leeway in my budget — but I buy CDs. I like having something tangible to show for it…and I just sort of miss CDs.
I like this for one reason above all else: it provides a solution. Too often I hear our generation talk about “freeing” music, but without coming up with some sort of sensible business plan that would permit that to happen.
Unfortunately, I’m Canadian, so I can’t sign up for the waiting list for the site, but I do have some doubts about the model. Is listening to one ad really the cost of a song? I think it might undervalue the music. Then again, some value is a helluva lot better than getting nothing if you’re an artist.
Overall, I think it’s an interesting idea, and a step in the right direction, but I’m still a little skeptical that the economics work.
Have you ever heard of noisetrade.com?
Similar idea. You can download an entire album (or sometimes a collection of songs) that artists have put up, simply by either a) recommending it to five friends or b) making a donation of any amount you choose. The artist wins because word about their music is spread, and the information provided (like zipcode) will allow them to make more informed decisions about where they can tour. Since artists these days rarely make any money from online song sales with Apple, this is a better deal!
I am very excited to see what this product will do the online music industry. To speak to what Adam mentioned above: I don’t think the question is whether or not listening to an ad is worth the cost for the song. I do not expect music to become undervalued here at all. I’m sure that the premium price for advertisers (probably sold at the impression level) will more than cover the cost of releasing the song to an individual downloading it.
More importantly, if successful this site will provide just an additional level of targeting. This is especially true for targeting demographically and psycho-graphically.
Brenna,
Two reactions to this:
1) Your generation steals music for one reason and one reason only: you don’t think it’s wrong. You should ask yourself why you believe this, because it’s hardly a cool belief.
2) You business idea is fun, and might sound good to other 20-year-olds, but like countless dotcom ideas of yore, it doesn’t seem to make sound business sense. One, the royalty cost of supplying a song will be high, very high. Look up what iTunes has to pay, and you will understand why songs cost .99. Second, Hulu works because of serialized content (you keep coming back for more from the same supplier, ie, the maker of the show), which allows a cost to be rationalized over a longer period of time and with less risk. Music, on the other hand is a song-by-song hit business, which means people will come to your site to get different songs by different performers, which does nothing to rationalize the fixed cost of the song. Third, advertisers pay by impressions, among other things, and you will have to have a crap load of visitors to make your case to a smart advertiser. Finally, always remember that an MBA can ALWAYS make future numbers add up, always, but they almost never do. Go forth and do your best to prosper, but be ready to revamp your business plan more than once.
Then again, maybe I’m dead wrong!
Jeff
One word: Spotify
This seems like an interesting experiment, though there are many other factors that will determine whether it succeeds or fails, and it’s hard to imagine this one site transforming the industry. I was unable to look at it closer as it says ‘for US customers only’ – hopefully this will change, though it will certainly add layers of complexity (legal and otherwise) to bring it to other markets.
I understand your excitement, but I’m kind of with Jeff on this one.
First, all music has already been freed — that’s why you’re able to steal it without hauling away a backpack full of CDs from the Sam Goody. And Jeff’s also right in saying that a lot of people steal music because they don’t think it’s wrong. And, for a lot of people, the notion that artists give away songs as promotional items or for radio play, only furthers their justification. A very dear friend of mine, in fact, justifies her piracy on the basis that she’ll make copies for her friends.
To think that for sitting through a 30-second ad I could download a song sounds great, sure. As a consumer it sounds like a fair trade. But there are a few things to consider, too. What of albums? Yes, the album is a dead format for pop, but not for all music. I’d wager this wouldn’t apply very well to those of us interested in longer, multi-part works. Also, there’s no mention of discovery tools. What we’ve lost in the digital age is browsing and risk-taking in our consumption of art. We go for the song we already know and love, not one we might.
Of course, we’ve generally shown ourselves to be more passive listeners, overall, than generations past, as well.
And none of this, mind you, is inherently right or wrong.
What does make me a little concerned is the idea that the artist is still not the one controlling these transactions. The paltry royalties they’re likely to see form the ad revenues (at least if Free All Music hopes to see a significant profit) are unlikely to replace the already-thinned margins of digital sales.
I see a lot more light at the end of the tunnels dug by platforms like Noisetrade and Bandcamp as far as value for artists. Noisetrade might not be a “sales” platform per se, but anecdotal evidence (and, uh, Radiohead) suggests that voluntary donations add up, and the idea of trading the song for direct or referrals (plus usable data) is a definite value for bands. Bandcamp, likewise, allows bands to price their wares as they see fit (even free) and collect donations, while consumers are given a vertiable buffet of digital options (I, for one, am not a fan of paying for a product of inferior [read: 128mbps] quality).
Also — and this will be my last point, I swear — many artists are uncomfortable affiliating their music with a corporate brand. It might be to their fiscal detriment, and it might hamper their efforts at gaining exposure, but that should be their final choice, not ours, and certainly not the advertiser’s.
As we try to feel out the best solution for the new music industry, I think we need to be very careful about how we shift the value of music. Because if nobody values it, there won’t be any reason left to make it.
Apologies for my long-windedness, but I hope something was added to the conversation.
I like this for one reason above all else: it provides a solution. Too often I hear our generation talk about “freeing” music, but without coming up with some sort of sensible business plan that would permit that to happen.
Unfortunately, I'm Canadian, so I can't sign up for the waiting list for the site, but I do have some doubts about the model. Is listening to one ad really the cost of a song? I think it might undervalue the music. Then again, some value is a helluva lot better than getting nothing if you're an artist.
Overall, I think it's an interesting idea, and a step in the right direction, but I'm still a little skeptical that the economics work.