OT: why post commercial releases on YouTube?

[Joelistics]

Someone will upload the music either way. This way the label can ensure that the upload is HQ, correctly links to other material they want it to link to (to an extent), accurately portraits the visual brand of the artist, etc...

[mellow]

Originally Posted by Nonlinear

So why would someone BUY it on iTunes?

1. Support good music you like
2. No interest in messing with "ripping" from youtube
3. Support good music you like

Honestly, I've bought many songs after hearing them on youtube - they weren't uploaded by the label, but....

[ksandvik]

Is the audio quality acceptance level now so low that people don't mind compressed 128kpbs files ripped from YouTube? I hope DJs don't play such ripped music over a big PA, that would be pretty sad.

[Nonlinear]

Originally Posted by ksandvik

Is the audio quality acceptance level now so low that people don't mind compressed 128kpbs files ripped from YouTube?

I don't think most people could tell the difference between 128kbps and a CD the way most music is heard these days (iPods, etc.). Music buyers don't sit down and listen to "records" on stereos in their living rooms anymore.

That's what makes great recordings REALLY great to those of us who appreciate the difference.

[Fifstar]

Um, any somewhat popular tune or album can be downloaded in seconds in 320 quality from a one click hoster. The people that principally purchase music will do no matter if they can get it somewhere for free. More important to present the song in good quality and with a brand identity on YT then to keep downloaders away.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by Nonlinear

This is an "OT" post but I thought you folks close to the big names might know the answer:

Why do so many big name acts post their new releases on YouTube – where anyone can “rip” the audio for free?

Many of these videos sound pretty good (i.e., they’re consumer quality mp3). So why would someone BUY it on iTunes?

It's about exposure. An youtube is the biggest for that. They do not care about someone ripping it. 1 mill views and the checks start coming in also.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Nonlinear

This is an "OT" post but I thought you folks close to the big names might know the answer:

Why do so many big name acts post their new releases on YouTube – where anyone can “rip” the audio for free?

Many of these videos sound pretty good (i.e., they’re consumer quality mp3). So why would someone BUY it on iTunes?

It's not just a question of promotion.

It hasn't been mentioned in this thread that you can become a YouTube partner in the YouTube Partner Program if you post regularly and have views in the millions.

In this case the record label gets a share of the ad revenues. It's now an income stream similar to a combination of public performance monies and neighbouring rights. If an independent artist or small label is succesful in obtaining a partnership deal with YouTube it's more lucrative than Spotify.

Most labels have people employed to report copyright infringing videos to YouTube in order to maximize streams of the original video.

However, both YouTube and Spotify are swindling the artists and songwriters. YouTube is simply refusing to pay unless you've obtained a partnership deal, which is why YouTube and local copyright collectors have been in "negotiations" for years. It's interesting that 80% of YouTube's revenue comes from using other people's copyrighted material.

Spotify swindles in a more sofisticated manner in cohoots with the major labels (Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner) who all received equity stakes in the company. This enables Spotify to buy music at very low prices from the major labels which in return pay very low royalties to the songwriters, artists and producers. At the same time they're building the marketshare and worth of Spotify itself, which is not subject to royalty payouts at a later date. A classic swings and roundabouts scam which benefit only the major labels and the other owners of Spotify.

[Joelistics]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

What haven't been mentioned in this thread is that you can become a YouTube partner in the YouTube Partner Program if you post regularly and have views in the millions.

In this case the record label gets a share of the ad revenues. It's now an income stream somewhat similar to the public performance monies from radio airplay in Europe. If an independent artist or small label is succesful in obtaining a partnership deal with YouTube it's a lot more lucrative than Spotify.

Most labels have people employed to report copyright infringing videos to YouTube in order to maximize streams of the original video.

However, both YouTube and especially Spotify are swindling the copyright owners, but the latter is doing so in cohoots with the major labels who bought part of Spotify. This enables the major labels to set very low prices and therefore pay very low royalties to the songwriters, artists and producers while they're building the marketshare and worth of Spotify itself, which is not subject to royalty payouts. A classic swings and roundabouts scam.

Interesting! Do you have any figures of how much different partners of youtube would be earning through ads etc?

[IIIrd]

It's easier than getting it on the radio would be my answer, with potentially the same size audience...only global.

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

It's not just a question of promotion...

YouTube and Spotify are swindling the artists and songwriters.

Thanks for your whole post. These are things people need to know.

Mychal

[Lagerfeldt]

You're welcome, and I agree.

Originally Posted by Joelistics

Interesting! Do you have any figures of how much different partners of youtube would be earning through ads etc?

All You Tube partners are bound by a non-disclosure agreement, so the exact figures aren't publicly available. It's based on the AdSense system so in any case it's hard to tell in advance.

You can find many estimates on the Internet, but it's generally wild speculation and nowhere near the often reported USD $2.5 per 1,000 views.

[Timsplace]

Here's an interesting read that includes much info on Google (Youtube's) interests in intelectual property.

Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist

[greggybud]

Originally Posted by Nonlinear

This is an "OT" post but I thought you folks close to the big names might know the answer:

Why do so many big name acts post their new releases on YouTube – where anyone can “rip” the audio for free?

Many of these videos sound pretty good (i.e., they’re consumer quality mp3). So why would someone BUY it on iTunes?

Great answers in prior posts, and I will add the following:

1. Do you really want to rip a video version which often contains long video intros, and additional video effects dubbed in for the video version?

2. The quality of a lot on Youtube...even with ones that have over a million views, can be horrible...meaning much less quality than a standard MP3 at 128. I have seen videos with MONO audio and over a million views. If you don't believe me, then start paying attention to the high end. What you pull off Youtube is a total crapshoot except for the label release.

[Nonlinear]

So, given what's been said above, is it best to release a new "small time indy" production to YouTube with:

A) The best possible fidelity - for the best first impression?
or,
B) Reduced fidelity - to encourage the truly interested to purchase?


I know this isn't a music marketing forum but any opinions/input appreciated!

[Nordenstam]

Originally Posted by Timsplace

Here's an interesting read that includes much info on Google (Youtube's) interests in intelectual property.

Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist

Thanks for posting this. Interesting indeed.