The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Artists: Labels need YOU --- NOT the other way around Modular Synthesizers
Old 14th April 2010
  #181
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Been doing this professional 22 years. A number of years before that in the "trying to get it going" stakes.

Tax rates, business assist and many other gov activities have contributed to my company success - and it's been a lot better under the last 13 years than the previous bunch. You're right - let's keep the political debate out of this - but Rupert Murdoch is the biggest problem in this country..... and the guys a Tory. AThe banks and corporations really run any western country - blame the Tories for getting us into THAT position.


yeah you've been in the music biz for 22 years and well done for that cos it is very tough.


but, THIS IS NOT THE MUSIC BIZ we're discussing - IT IS THE INTERNET BIZ

thats the biggest problem people have trouble getting their head around

the internet biz is completely different and holds revenue models which labels & musicians are simply ignoring completely.
Old 14th April 2010
  #182
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7161 View Post
...but, THIS IS NOT THE MUSIC BIZ we're discussing - IT IS THE INTERNET BIZ...
True however the internet biz is in fact nothing but the broadcasting biz and NOT really anything new at all.

The biggest lie is the notion that it is new or that any new "business models" are appropriate or even possible.

It's all BS from the folks selling investments.

By the way, broadcast stocks led the big stock market crash of 1929 because most investors didn't comprehend that patents owned by the largest players prevented new, better ideas from making the slightest difference in the success of new companies.

There are only three "business models" available.

1. selling the artist's fans access to the music

2. selling merchandise to the artist's fans

3. selling advertising to people who want to reach a particular artist's fans.

Can you show me any "business model" that isn't just a subset of these three?

The first two are the only ones where there is a direct relationship between artists and fans. The third always suffers from a third party imposing their choice of "content." Historically this third one has been a sure path to artistic mediocrity since the 1920s.
Old 14th April 2010
  #183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post

There are only three "business models" available.

1. selling the artist's fans access to the music

2. selling merchandise to the artist's fans

3. selling advertising to people who want to reach a particular artist's fans.

Can you show me any "business model" that isn't just a subset of these three?
Absolutely. thumbsup

Throughout all the months of discussion at Gearslutz we've never gone beyond this equation.
Question is: Can you still sell recordings, or do you have to resort to touring, or (worse) selling cosmetics and underwear?

It's worth holding on to recordings with our 'cold dead hands' in my humble opinion.
Old 15th April 2010
  #184
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7161 View Post
yeah you've been in the music biz for 22 years and well done for that cos it is very tough.


but, THIS IS NOT THE MUSIC BIZ we're discussing - IT IS THE INTERNET BIZ

thats the biggest problem people have trouble getting their head around

the internet biz is completely different and holds revenue models which labels & musicians are simply ignoring completely.

The problem people have is trying to make money out of the internet directly - you can't really!! We USE the internet as a mechanism to drive other areas in our business. The labels tried to control the internet years after letting it eat away at their core - my lot definitely didn't !!
Old 15th April 2010
  #185
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Absolutely. thumbsup

Throughout all the months of discussion at Gearslutz we've never gone beyond this equation.
Question is: Can you still sell recordings, or do you have to resort to touring, or (worse) selling cosmetics and underwear?

It's worth holding on to recordings with our 'cold dead hands' in my humble opinion.
I think directly selling recordings - for so many reasons - is a done deal. I don't get involved any more with acts or projects that are all about "selling music".... there are:

more interesting ways
more lucrative ways

... to do business!
Old 15th April 2010
  #186
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
True however the internet biz is in fact nothing but the broadcasting biz and NOT really anything new at all.

The biggest lie is the notion that it is new or that any new "business models" are appropriate or even possible.
I think there is a semantic problem here with the word 'business model'. Internet can be seen as an expansion to the broadcast biz but there are so many differences that you cannot just take the model of doing business in the broadcasting world and bluntly apply that to the Internet.

Quote:
There are only three "business models" available.

1. selling the artist's fans access to the music

2. selling merchandise to the artist's fans

3. selling advertising to people who want to reach a particular artist's fans.

Can you show me any "business model" that isn't just a subset of these three?
I think you confuse the word 'model' with 'product'. I would say a model is the systematics you use to sell these products. So while you sell the same 'goods' both on the Internet as with broadcasting, the model cannot be exactly the same because of the many differences between the two.

But to refer to your statement: this would imply that the music made buy the artists could be given away for free because it is not what we are really selling. Is that what you mean?
Old 15th April 2010
  #187
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
The problem people have is trying to make money out of the internet directly - you can't really!! We USE the internet as a mechanism to drive other areas in our business. The labels tried to control the internet years after letting it eat away at their core - my lot definitely didn't !!
thats because those people are trying to use the internet to pursue business in a traditional way - 'a shop on the web' basicaly.

one of my investors makes a mill + annualy providing access-based services. and i can assure you he doesnt do much work. In fact right now he's lazing on a beach in thailand i expect.

conversely, according to the press, Lady ga-ga had 10 million streams or so on spotify and got paid 100 quid.

i wouldnt get out of bed for that money. if i presented a business plan which projected 100 quid revenue for 10 million hits, i'd be laughed out of the room, yet for some strange reason the labels think it's a bloody great idea!


I had a meeting a while back with an ex-head of digital services for one of the big-4 majors - he was in short a total f*ckwitt who had not a clue what he talking about

there is revenue, but not the way the labels are going about it.


first of all and most importantly they are businesses who are only realising revenue from the head-end of their catalogs - they arent getting revenue from the majority of their assets, the 'tail'

thats a HUGE fail for starters. why bother extending copyright if you dont earn anything from that extention AND your assets cease to yeild revenue after a few years!
Old 15th April 2010
  #188
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Absolutely. thumbsup

Throughout all the months of discussion at Gearslutz we've never gone beyond this equation.
Question is: Can you still sell recordings, or do you have to resort to touring, or (worse) selling cosmetics and underwear?

It's worth holding on to recordings with our 'cold dead hands' in my humble opinion.


yeah well there is an old Sufi story:

this bloke is walking home with some liver and his mother in law's recipe for liver pie.

suddenly a crow swoops down and grabs the liver from his hand, and flies off with it

the man shouts at the crow as it flies off; "Fool! You may have the liver, but I have the recipe!"
Old 15th April 2010
  #189
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
True however the internet biz is in fact nothing but the broadcasting biz and NOT really anything new at all.

The biggest lie is the notion that it is new or that any new "business models" are appropriate or even possible.

It's all BS from the folks selling investments.
yes and the people selling that new 'dot-com' are the labels. i agree. spotify being a prime example of BS dot-com-ism



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
There are only three "business models" available.

1. selling the artist's fans access to the music


and therein lies the problem - they arent selling access, they are selling individual downloads of per-unit file.

thats not a new model, thats not selling 'access' - that is just a shop on the web.
Old 15th April 2010
  #190
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7161 View Post

I had a meeting a while back with an ex-head of digital services for one of the big-4 majors - he was in short a total f*ckwitt who had not a clue what he talking about
!

oh there's quite a few of them !! heh
Old 15th April 2010
  #191
its those [expletive]'s that are never going to go away. They're frat-boy connections get them lucrative positions without qualifications so that when any kind of creativity or actual productivity (love of craft/business instead of love of money? anybody?) they're heralded as geniuses and 'honest people.'

this thread btw, feels a bit off. I think there's a lot of mis-information and too much speculation. Part of that isn't any of our faults, but as articles like this spell out - there's not enough transparency to be helpful to any of us.

Even Trent Reznor, who I love and adore, and who openly gave his thoughts, opinions, and suggestions to artists like us (I assume) who are trying to make a living at this whole music thing, don't have the numbers. We don't know how many units he sold of Ghosts, or The Slip. On Ghosts - how many of each offering was sold? Compared to top torrent site downloads (it's creative commons this just offers more input) how many people put up money for his product? [edit] - i should clarify that I'm talking about current. I've found 'within the week' sales figures, which is awesome - but what about the long tail as that's what us non-rock-gods are dealing with.

THose are the questions that we AS ARTISTS need to know if we are going to try and take the power back. But nobody is putting it out there. The people that know these answers are the same [expletive] wads that would sell their soul (and probably already have) to make a buck.
Old 15th April 2010
  #192
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

Just saying that there are 3 models (music sales, merch sales, and advertisement) and that's the only thing possible, is the equivalent of Nike saying that shoes are all the same, a fastening mechanism, some assembly surrounding the foot, and a portion at the bottom to interface with the sidewalk.

if in fact that's what Nike thought, then they wouldn't be around today.

doing it better, or in a new way is what the new model is referring to, at least that's what i thought.

IMO the new model hinges upon a system where the third part (advertisement) gets done in a way that DOES NOT involve any artistic degradation.

and thanks 7161 for the Gaga numbers, ROFL.
Old 15th April 2010
  #193
actually it was per 1 million streams

Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return - News, Music - The Independent

a lot of shady garbage that further demonstrates this lack of transparency.
Old 15th April 2010
  #194
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

and another new one

Internet abuzz with BitTorrent bypass code - Draconian UK law gets SeedF**cked


A block of 86 lines of C# code is creating a buzz online following claims it may make BitTorrent downloads untraceable.

The code, sweetly named SeedF*cker, is actually an exploit discovered last November that would allow a BitTorent user to fake the IP address of a server from where a file could be downloaded. It could also be used to flood a BitTorrent with dozens of fake peers. The sudden interest in the exploit follows measures in a new UK law, passed last week, where ISPs may be obliged to provide IP addresses to the authorities of files that are said to be infringing copyright.


Internet abuzz with BitTorrent bypass code







and this:


That massive amount of money that business groups such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) claim is being lost due to piracy and copyright infringement? Well, fuggedaboutit.

US gov cries foul on MPAA piracy claims
Old 16th April 2010
  #195
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermichael View Post
..IMO the new model hinges upon a system where the third part (advertisement) gets done in a way that DOES NOT involve any artistic degradation...
That's the fantasy.

The problem is trying to sell somebody advertising where they can't control the "content." There's 110 years of advertising history that tells us this doesn't work. This is what the hustlers selling investments don't want the general public to know, assuming they were smart enough to do their home work.
Old 16th April 2010
  #196
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
That's the fantasy.

The problem is trying to sell somebody advertising where they can't control the "content." There's 110 years of advertising history that tells us this doesn't work. This is what the hustlers selling investments don't want the general public to know, assuming they were smart enough to do their home work.
I'm not following you. long day perhaps.

who's selling what to whom here? i mean i know what goes on, but in your post.
Old 16th April 2010
  #197
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7161 View Post
suddenly a crow swoops down and grabs the liver from his hand, and flies off with it

the man shouts at the crow as it flies off; "Fool! You may have the liver, but I have the recipe!"
The crow ate that night, the man didn't.

It's no good musicians owning any recipes unless they can convert them into tangible results.
Old 16th April 2010
  #198
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

bingo!
Old 16th April 2010
  #199
Here for the gear
 

well what do you guys say to the artists then? all this talk about the "artists". You guys seems to know your ****. So guide us.

my band has self- released two records. Sold out of both pressings of 1000. charted on CMJ, toured across the east coast and midwest for months on end. We play the CMJs, the SXSW, even the occasional big festival like Voodoo Fest. Our record got played at over a hundred college stations across the country, and everyone who see us live LOVES us. We've done and funded everything ourselves- from booking, to paying for professional recordings, all of it. We make money and make fans everywhere we go- in fact, we have been going for it for about a year since we all quit our jobs to tour.

we're sitting on a record now that i think is the best thing we ever done and trying to figure out the best way to release it. i think the sound straddles indie but is radio friendly enough to be major. and we feel like we're ready to just go for it beyond all belief.

But how do you get out there to people actually IN the industry?

to me, it seems like indie labels are looking for a very specific aesthetic nowadays. And they're not that interested in what you've done or how many records you've sold- they're interested only in finding the next band to appeal to their niche of fans they've collected. the indies that you can contact on your own are too small to really even do anything more than what we can and have done for ourselves. The bigger indies operate almost like majors. Can't even send in an unsolicited demo anymore to places like matador. They're like trendy smaller majors now.

but major labels you can say, "hey look, I've done this" and they of course are interested in the dollars and cents of it all, and they would seem to be interested, but you might as well try to get the CEO of Walmart himself on the telephone.

So what the **** do you do? shop to indie labels who don't really want to be shopped to? Shop to majors? Just sit around and wait for someone to figure it out? Send out a hundred emails like the ****ty bands who just want to be signed and have no idea what it means to work for themselves?

self-release yet again, and hope that this is the record that sells dramatically more despite not having that much more resources than the ones before it?
Old 16th April 2010
  #200
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Sounds like you've got everything but enough angel investment to take it to the next level. A lot of people I know just like you are what inspired me to post a lot and even start my own forum about this subject instead of audio. You are the ones who got screwed by file looting, not Elton John or the major labels. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye would have the exact same problem today.

What would I do?

I'd be harvesting the e-mail addresses of all of my fans and apply all of my creativity to making an extraordinary newsletter that they can really feel like a part of.

Then I'd start doing live, NEVER recorded weekly net-casts. Live is what makes them special and pushes you to extraordinary performance. It could be from gigs or from your rehearsal space. You'll also need somebody to host it and fill in the dead spots between songs.

I'd start by e-mailing to wherever your biggest fan-base happens to be located. The nice thing about web-casting is that it's cheap if it's audio only and you can be located around the world from where your target audience is.

As I posted above, it's all about your relationship with your fans. You can strengthen it without going broke but you need enough fans that investors and labels start coming to you without there being any talk about "potential."

I'd sell USB keys with 96x24 audio files at gigs and on the web. You don't need to be background music on somebody's i-pod.
Old 16th April 2010
  #201
Lives for gear
 
7161's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmapol1ce View Post
well what do you guys say to the artists then? all this talk about the "artists". You guys seems to know your ****. So guide us.

my band has self- released two records. Sold out of both pressings of 1000. charted on CMJ, toured across the east coast and midwest for months on end. We play the CMJs, the SXSW, even the occasional big festival like Voodoo Fest. Our record got played at over a hundred college stations across the country, and everyone who see us live LOVES us. We've done and funded everything ourselves- from booking, to paying for professional recordings, all of it. We make money and make fans everywhere we go- in fact, we have been going for it for about a year since we all quit our jobs to tour.

we're sitting on a record now that i think is the best thing we ever done and trying to figure out the best way to release it. i think the sound straddles indie but is radio friendly enough to be major. and we feel like we're ready to just go for it beyond all belief.

But how do you get out there to people actually IN the industry?

to me, it seems like indie labels are looking for a very specific aesthetic nowadays. And they're not that interested in what you've done or how many records you've sold- they're interested only in finding the next band to appeal to their niche of fans they've collected. the indies that you can contact on your own are too small to really even do anything more than what we can and have done for ourselves. The bigger indies operate almost like majors. Can't even send in an unsolicited demo anymore to places like matador. They're like trendy smaller majors now.

but major labels you can say, "hey look, I've done this" and they of course are interested in the dollars and cents of it all, and they would seem to be interested, but you might as well try to get the CEO of Walmart himself on the telephone.

So what the **** do you do? shop to indie labels who don't really want to be shopped to? Shop to majors? Just sit around and wait for someone to figure it out? Send out a hundred emails like the ****ty bands who just want to be signed and have no idea what it means to work for themselves?

self-release yet again, and hope that this is the record that sells dramatically more despite not having that much more resources than the ones before it?


as i said i think the problem is this closed-shop sketch, where agents and promo companies do deals with radio, tv and magazine people - it's like insider dealing, if they dont control it & profit from it, you are locked out

in uk anyways the mags dont review unsigned acts afaik


it's crap cos the whole basis of the trad old industry structure relied on a continual filter UP effect which seems to have been decimated
Old 16th April 2010
  #202
this is just a shot in the dark, but what about what universal is doing.

The Marriage of Tunecore and Universal – What it means for the Independent Musician | Online Musician Promotion and Music Marketing

when I read that (i skimmed just not, it sounds like the original I read years ago copy+pasted). Maybe contacting them to gain access to some of their promotional help?

I would read up on the links above that talk about "relationship with fans+reason to buy" modes of business and see if anything hits you (which I hope it would). Look at bandcamp.com too. I bet you could probably approach Ethan Diamond over there and see what tricks he might have up his sleeve.

How fast did you sell your 1k copies of your previous two records? Think about offering more 'reason to buy' opportunities for your fans. Read that article that I just posted that lists all these different examples of how artists are making money selling 'opportunities' to their fans and including them in what you are doing as a band.

example. You KNOW that you're going to be able to sell at least 1k CD's of your album. What information do you have about on-line sales? You could make bandcamp the sole place to get your album (where all profits goes directly to you) on-line and set a minimum price of like 5 bucks. All of this is going to be 'icing' ontop of the 1k you KNOW you're going to sell (although I would press more this go around) and work on figuring out creative ways to bundle other physical goods with it at different price points. You might have a rabid fan that is willing to pay $5000 for an opportunity to perform on stage with you at a show, or multiple shows. Or how many people would love to pay $200 or so to get VIP treatment at ALL your shows for a year? A $30 bundle that includes all of your back catalogue material as well as unreleased demo's and band practices to get new fans up to date.

The sky is the limit really - I can't WAIT to be in your position =P

but those are just my thoughts - I am nobody yet 0.o
Old 16th April 2010
  #203
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7161 View Post
as i said i think the problem is this closed-shop sketch, where agents and promo companies do deals with radio, tv and magazine people - it's like insider dealing, if they dont control it & profit from it, you are locked out

in uk anyways the mags dont review unsigned acts afaik


it's crap cos the whole basis of the trad old industry structure relied on a continual filter UP effect which seems to have been decimated
does it really matter if you don't get reviews in physical newspapers anymore? pitchfork gets over 2 million UNIQUE views each month and that's just ONE source of music news. I don't believe print is dying, but it's not longer the ONLY place people get information now-a-days
Old 16th April 2010
  #204
Here for the gear
 

i'm all for reaching out to fans and finding creative attempts at revenue, but i still can't help but feel disingenuous trying to SELL SELL SELL to our fans.

We love them, to entertain them and make them feel that they're a part of our experience. That they're our friends. If someone wants to come onstage with us, it'll be because we love them and we know they love us so we pull them onstage to dance and sing. Not because we want to charge them by the performance like a stripper giving a lapdance. we sell what we sell by making great t-shirts that people love to wear and by giving the sweatiest happiest rock show we can give. it doesn't hurt that our singer (a girl) is hella sexy in a debbie harry sort of way.

the problem becomes one of exposure. Of having the resources and the staff of people with connections to tastemakers who can get our music to the ears and eyes of the world and beyond the people who have come to our shows across the country. to get them to the people who can tell 100s or 1000s of others instead of just their friends to come to the next show.

i have no doubt that we could be one of those bands that blast across the blogosphere. we've seen glimpses of it. Someone blogged at a tourstop in st. louis that our show "was like there had been an outbreak of rock and roll- symptoms include smiles and wild dancing."

it seems to me like we're just one gatekeeper from busting it open. do we release the record ourselves? Do we try to find that gatekeeper? we're just ready to be out there.
Old 16th April 2010
  #205
I'm not trying to tell you to take on the SELL SELL SELL mentality, I'm just saying you can achieve your goals. Which might be the problem. What are your goals? What is 'successful?' if you're making a living doing what you love, awesome. But you obviously want the fame too, so it's not JUST about rockin out. I don't mean to make that sound vain, or horrible, or put it in some shallow light, because that's not it. I could talk about the psychological reasons that artists crave recognition for a while and from much personal experience. But with that out in the air and open, why don't you think about these two things.

1 - you are obviously more interested in the music aspect but maybe someone in your group has a little bit of business ingenuity and could come up with creative ways to solve this problem of exposure (since that's what needs to change). If you have someone IN the band that can read these articles (did you look into that Universal Music Group opportunity at all before restating your questions? Talk to representatives about options THEY can provide that are literally in line with your goals?) and implement some of the strategies to get you a wider audience. Really they just have to think like a web-geek; have their hands tied into one or more internet niches and the know-how to utilize the internet.

2 - find someone else to do that FOR you. You strike me as the guy that wants to be told the answers and that's fine. FIND THE GUY WITH THE ANSWERS! You play a lot of shows, talk to the other bands that have an exposure similar to what you want and find out what got THEM the exposure you want. Behind every great band is also a great TEAM. Most successful people in the world have a successful team behind them. If there is anything lacking in your current team FIX IT!

So everybody in your band is making enough money to quit their jobs yes? Maybe you guys should plan out what kind of money you need to make from this release to continiue that reality. If you sell only 1k more records, that's 10k split between bandmates (are you REALLY living off that+touring?), how long will that keep you guys afloat? If you HATE doing this kind of stuff and everyone else in your band hates it too, expand your team because it's gonna have to happen eventually.

You're going bottom up here, so it takes time. How long has it been since the first album came out?
Old 16th April 2010
  #206
and then there's this gem... what artists can look forward to doing it themselves... so much for music 2.0, web 2.0 as a solution...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...rn-online.html
Old 16th April 2010
  #207
Again, I feel like people aren't listening to what good information IS being posted here. What about Bandcamp.com that doesn't take ANY money from yours sales and where the average number of people that pay DOUBLE the asking price. ON AVERAGE. Why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT GOES STRAIGHT TO THE ARTIST. That's an important concept that fans fully understand. It's no secret how horrible the music industry is, has been, and foreseeably always will be.

Maybe I talk up bandcamp lot...but I haven't seen anything out there yet to match it. Tunecore was recently opened up, maybe that can help. They even have that partnrship with Universal I was talking about.

Yes those people are not going to make you any money - WHICH IS ALL THE MORE REASON TO AVOID THEM. They are auxilliary sources of income, even for people like Trent Reznor (READ THIS: my thoughts on what to do as a new / unknown artist).
Old 16th April 2010
  #208
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmapol1ce View Post
...We love them, to entertain them and make them feel that they're a part of our experience. That they're our friends...
This is exactly what it's all about and no doubt why you have as many fans as you do.

The only people who can expand your fan-base are your fans themselves and not gatekeepers. Every bozo on the internet will try to sell you something they say will expand your fan-base. It's all B.S.

Word of mouth is the only thing I've ever seen expand people's fan bases in a manner that didn't cost more than they could possibly profit from a larger fan-base. It's really all about the quality of that relationship.
1
Share
Old 17th April 2010
  #209
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsbarricades View Post
does it really matter if you don't get reviews in physical newspapers anymore? pitchfork gets over 2 million UNIQUE views each month and that's just ONE source of music news. I don't believe print is dying, but it's not longer the ONLY place people get information now-a-days
online reviews dont mean ****. Unfortunately.
Old 18th April 2010
  #210
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
online reviews dont mean ****. Unfortunately.


that's completely, and utterly, your opinion. I learn about artists more from on-line reviews than print because I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO PRINT. The only times I read print are when I'm waiting around in a doctors office and I read about some trendy pop the industry squirted out.

S for me, and millions of other people that don't read print...how does it not mean anything?

Now, if you meant the 'quality' of the reviews, then that's a different story. However we're talking about exposure - in which case your comment has no bearing because any website that puts out reviews that is out of touch with it's subscribers/visitors will be a) condemned for it's publications (possible increase in exposure as, "no publicity is bad publicity" or b) of no use because nobody will visit the site to read the review in the first place.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
VegasMusicMan / Downloads, the future - Q+A forum with expert guests from CD Baby, Tunecore and Nimbit
16
bschigel / Geekslutz forum
7

Forum Jump
Forum Jump