3 ms·
Mmm, sorry but have to correct for the record: CD Baby has never had an annual fee. See http://members.cdbaby.com/cd-baby-cost.aspx http://members.cdbaby.com/c
by sivers 10y ago
Mmm, sorry but have to correct for the record:
CD Baby has never had an annual fee. See http://members.cdbaby.com/cd-baby-cost.aspx http://members.cdbaby.com/cd-baby-cost.aspx It was always just a one-time up-front cost because for every incoming album, I (and later, others) would do about 45 minutes of work: scanning album art, digitizing the CD, spell-checking the bio and song titles, listening to some of the music to include in future recommendations, and finally putting the CD on the physical shelves in preparation for sale. Even with digital distribution, this up-front cost was still needed because a new album arriving meant many gigs of uploading out to 50+ different digital retailers. So, CD Baby's main profit model was a cut per sale. 9% of digital income, or a flat $4 per physical CD sold.
Tunecore's model has always been to take 0% or almost no fee per-sale. Instead that annual fee is their main income. I think you might be thinking about Tunecore, in your comment here.
Funny thing is (and I feel like I'm saying this confidentially, but fuggit, HN comments, here we go), I always thought Tunecore's model was kinda brilliant because it tapped into the ambitious musician psychology better.
At CD Baby, we'd often get emails/calls from musicians thinking of signing up, saying, "Let's say, conservatively, that we sell 100,000 copies. You'd be making $400,000 just off of our one album!"
I'd wince and say yes, that's right. Then I'd tell them that the average artist - https://sivers.org/lines https://sivers.org/lines - sells under 20 copies, not over 100,000. But everyone thinks they're the exception.
So that's the kind of person that would see Tunecore's model and think, "Ha! Only an annual fee and then I get to keep 100% of my 100,000 sales? Hell yeah! I'm going to save $400,000 going with Tunecore over CD Baby."
Ideally, a company could offer both pricing models, and let the client choose their optimistic or pessimistic sales prediction.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoI appreciate you clearing that up - re: up front versus annual. I was mistaken in recollection and did not intend to disparage the platform if I did so. Sometimes I cross wires with who does what and it is not from malice. The market is getting a bit more populated, and that's great! I'm certain there are many happy clients of various platforms and competition is good for both artists and customers. If you're in the biz and would be interested, I highly recommend the Michael Nelson series on Stereogum.com titled "Who's Buying" because he does some real deep dives into the financials and marketing and customer engagement details that aren't surface-level. It's nerding out type of stuff, and while his tone is very casual and occasionally confrontational, I do appreciate the effort to continue to present interesting thoughts for both artists and fans to engage with as they're comfortable. My biggest reservation about "the industry" is that it's easy to be a dreamer, to think about potential, and reality often is a disappointment. That's not good for a customer, though it may be a good business model for a distributor. I do think transparency has been a real issue for many, many years, and companies that work towards moving the needle back toward a positive relationship deserve credit.
- sivers 10y agoCool. Thanks for the Michael Nelson tip. In return, I think the musician I've found that has the most helpful advice for fellow musicians is Ari's Take: http://www.aristake.com/?post=all#sort=newestFirst&filter=AllTopics http://www.aristake.com/?post=all#sort=newestFirst&filter=Al... Keep an eye out for his new book, coming out in a few months. I read the advance copy, and it's the best book for musicians I've seen in many many years.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoExcellent. Very much appreciated, knowing is half the battle 'n all. Best to you.