tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30420753.post8704612698921771459..comments2024-01-08T08:19:14.579-05:00Comments on I Can't Believe I Ate The Whole Thing!: How to Prove the Naysayers RightAstinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04349033187012323688noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30420753.post-54209923644326845912007-11-06T20:54:00.000-05:002007-11-06T20:54:00.000-05:00Interesting post mate. I've been interested in thi...Interesting post mate. I've been interested in this for years, as a die-hard music fan and someone who's worked in commercial radio all my life.<BR/><BR/>I've always felt that there are two types of people who download music or share files. 'Casual music lovers' and 'fans'. Casual music lovers are happy to sample new music for free or aren't passionate enough about a particular artist to justify the expense of purchase. Fans are more likely to acknowledge the artists' right to earn a living off their work and are happy to 'thank' the artist by paying them for the privilege of owning their music.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a cynical person by nature Astin, but the truth is that we humans are less likely to pay for something when we can get it for free. Like you hinted at in your post, if the average price paid is only $2.20 something, it's a sad reflection on us. That 38% of these 'fans' paid nothing is unfathomable, to me at least. Look I'm as guilty as most of us whne it comes to downloading stuff that I'm interested in. But I'm more likey to turn around and buy it if I like it. Soulwax and Datarock are two that come to mind.<BR/><BR/>Strangely, this model will inevitably put more money on the pockets of artists. The only flaw I can see is that the artists themselves will have to wear the costs of publicity, which normally the record company would carry.<BR/><BR/>You do make some great suggestions though. A minimum fee makes sense, as do extra tracks, demos and stuff the more you shell out.Dillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00867579758029183311noreply@blogger.com