Songstuff Stuff

Great article John. Google (YouTube) really sucks and especially if you have a problem. I had a monetization problem with them that took 6 months to fix and it was all because I logged into my Google Adsense account and updated my payment method. 6 months later, I'm finally monetized again. Nothing will ever change as long as artists continue to let their music be streamed and take a fraction of what they used to get selling CDs… which nobody buys anymore… because it's all on streaming services or online for free… but the fear of "would you rather be heard, or make money" tactic keeps anyone from doing anything. It will take a major fight by all music labels to ever put an end to the theft of music that is today's norm. And whenever an artists tries to say anything negative about the internet it rarely works in their favor. But at least some are trying and hopefully more will. There really needs to be an organization for all artists to join that would be the base for fighting for their rights. I'm sure some have sprung up but it's in the artists hands to get together and decide to fight it. I'll bet they won't.

 

While it does suck (kind of, but not really), seeing more online ventures making people pay subscriptions and doing away with the FREE-ness of the internet is in all honesty a good thing. But try telling that to any young person that has lived their whole life getting things for free. It's opened up a can of worms that is setting up generations of kids feeling "entitled" to everything being free. But see, now I just sound like an old curmudgeon that wants to put an end to the internet. Sure, that's not really the case, but try telling anyone 20 and under that… and that's the age group all record labels/producers aim for. There's so many factors and caveats to it all that it's just a complete mess.

 

I like the internet, but I'll probably be long gone before I ever see a good version of it.

Artists make money by selling t-shirts and gigging. Gigging for a signed act is the way that most labels make money off of it's stable of performers. 

 

I've had a few accounts with youtube over the years, received many hits, not recieved a dime in compensation.  Youtube operates on advertising same as broadcast radio and television. Public radio and television have a more equitable return for performers then youtube. If you say... go on a tv show you will be financially compensated by that show. The show is paid for by the producers who in turn make money from advertisements.  Not so for youtube.  Going to a subscription service will not return more money for artists as John points out. It will make things harder for signed acts on indie labels to make money and their take will be less then what it was before.

 

I've always had mixed feelings about youtube from both a viewer and uploader perspective. I'd stop watching youtube today if more content providers would switch to a youtube alternative such as dailymotion.  Unfortunately the eyes go to youtube so the uploads go to youtube.

 

It's not free if advertising exists.  Advertising pays for the operations just like television, radio, print.  The news stand price of a magazine doesn't begin to cover the cost of the ink let alone the paper or the content or the distribution.  The news and magazine subscription service is a service to advertiser so they can show numbers.  The internet does not require a subscription to show circulation numbers as there are more then enough tracking information on who watches what when.  

 

Google is just greedy.  Which is fine for it's competitors.

 

Hulu was formed by american television broadcasters (fox, abc, cbs, nbc, cw)  As a means to combat piracy.  They have a graduated system allowing one to choose subscription vs free.  Because it's structure the pay content is value added. Both Hulu and the producers make money on hulu's free service due to advertising just as it works in american broadcast television.  It's a good deal all the way around for content providers, viewers and advertisers.  Whats more Hulu Plus which is a subscription upgrade offers more Value added for pricing.  They way it should be.  If the value of plus is not up to ones standards one can choose not to use the service.  This is the way it should be, rather then forcing people to pay for what they've already gotten for free without any added value (youtube)

 

Before the advent of high speed internet Cable had no true competition. Generally if you wanted a different provider it meant moving to a different part of the country.  As a prime example.... Locally the only cable provider is comcast. My apt complex had it's own satellite and you had to use the complexes service for cable type viewing. This also meant one couldn't get comcast or any other cable companies broadband.  The village(apts) had crappy cable with poor reception and no broadband. They also did not allow for satellites,  So crappy cable subscription service or no cable subscription service. The only game in town for broadband was ATT.  No true choices and not competitive. As a consumer there are four pizza places in walking distance to me. All of them compete with one another and I the consumer am the winner as each has to really make it worth my while for me to buy someone's pizza.  This type of competition does not exist for me in the cable or broadband internet. I get what the one provider has to offer at the price they have to offer.

 

If both youtube content providers are getting screwed and youtube visitors are getting screwed by google / youtube with no say in the matter I say Leave youtube.

 

The internet doesn't change because someone has a perception of how they want it to be.  There may indeed be a shift but not as intended.  Interest in youtube has begun to diminish overall.  People would rather spend time on facebook then youtube as it is. Vloggers and Vlog content are diminishing on youtube.  Once a subscription system is enforced it may indeed drive the last of us uploaders and viewers to different public video sites such as dailymotion and others.  Before facebook there was friendster then there was myspace while they still exist they have considerable less viewers and therefore advertising revenue.  The same could be the case for Youtube.

 

Here's another story.... I used to belong to a composers forum.  I thought it would present a unique opportunity for me to gain some classical composition insight. Instead it was a bunch of composers who would constantly rag on other composers.  A very bitchy place with some highly accredited classical composers. All quite pompous.  Weekly I'd get emails and pm's suggesting I financially contribute to keep the site open.  That site offered nothing for me. Later they tried to make it a subscription service forum where by members had to pay to be members.  That was past the point of no return for me, so I left.  Within three months of being a pay/subscription only thing, the site closed down.  Good Riddance  My thoughts are the same regarding youtube.  If youtube loses viewership because of going to a subscription based service (which has failed time and time again on the web) then it's fine with me.  I'll simply spend my viewing time elsewhere.  I'm done with being an uploader and getting screwed on financial returns from youtube.  

Great replies, both! Out of interest Mike, the point I was making was not that going to a subscription service would generate more money, I think such services pay musicians very poorly, but they do pay (which is better than not paying at all, if only just - because the rates are so bad), but by adding more subscription services true competition could be to the benefit of musicians if they stop rolling over and letting the services walk all over them. A price war could occur that drives prices down, or an available catalogue war could occur, driving money paid to musicians up, or at least that is one distinct possibility if indie labels and bands only make catalogue available to better paying services. As an aside, on forum funding... Perhaps the owner simply ran out of money and wanted to spread the cost? The fact that the forums sucked is another matter entirely lol. Songstuff is free and has been free for 14 years. No, scratch that. Songstuff is free and has been free to you, the site members, for 14 years because I (me, myself and I) have paid all the site costs out of my own pocket. I am not a rich man, in fact currently I am about as far from that as you can get. I don't know the owner of the forums in question, but could that have been the problem? Desperation, not greed? I know with Songstuff we are looking at multiple ways to raise funds to pay for the site, and yes we have considered adding subscription, though a voluntary subscription to get extra benefits with free accounts still being available as they are today. Thus far we have focused on other methods of raising funds. With Songstuff we are very much focusing on adding value add services and products, all of which are optional. Of course Songstuff is quite a different prospect as a community, and I don't contact members all the time asking for money, but running a forum can be an expensive thing and someone has to pay...... Free hosting does not pay for a community of this size. Software licenses need paid for, so does hosting. Luckily our staff are volunteers, and it have software and design experience, but many forum owners also have to pay for developers, designers, maintainers etc. A place the size of Songstuff ideally could do with a full time staff of upwards of 5 people, and a bunch of part time staff and volunteers, just to help it tick over never mind grow. Being a fantastic forum relies on hard work and goodwill, but it also relies on funds. As a poor, wee, neglected, misunderstood site owner (cue the violins) I wanted to at least present that perspective (when it comes to normal sites). YouTube is of course a different matter again as they are not owned by a poor, wee, neglected, misunderstood site owner!

John,

 

I think the main point of the composers forum going to pay is exclusivity not as a part of financial compensation.  While I can't speak of knowing your experience handling this forum for so well and long.  I am acquainted with the labor of love it takes to build a forum and maintain it.  I'd rather not get into my past experiences or for that matter current endeavors with forum operations in this reply..

 

 

Quite frankly vimeo is better geared for the working videographer / musician and maybe too much so to be of interest to the general public.  DailyMotion has been steadily increasing in content over the last few years with many a youtuber whom has become disillusioned with youtubes previous tactics.  There are more user contributed video sites however the general public is slow to move away from youtube.  I'm guessing / hoping that the subscription based concept will sink youtube.  As both consumers and providers deserve better then youtube.