Free or not too Free - How to price our music?

This might be a tired discussion here. Apologies if it is but what are people's views on pricing their music? I'm torn. My assumption is that free has a lower barrier of entry. So people will have an easier time getting the music and listening to it. However I question if the stigma of "free" still applies to modern music. On marketing terms, people associate free with cheap and lesser quality. Is that still heavily the case with music considering that everyone steals or gets their music for free anyhow? Your thoughts?

A trade off would be to give your music away for free as lower quality mp3s. Charge for lossless quality files, and hard copies (CD/Vinyl). Another option would be to stream your music on your website, but not allow downloading. This way people could listen to your entire album via your website, to get a feel for the music, and if they really like it, have a button next to every song that says "buy full quality version" etc. But be fair in your prices. Too high, and people wont bite.

Just some thoughts.

I'd say definitely offer a free option of some sort if you don't already have an audience.

  On 2/24/2011 at 8:06 PM, Kcinsu said:

A trade off would be to give your music away for free as lower quality mp3s. Charge for lossless quality files, and hard copies (CD/Vinyl).

I'm often turned off when I grab mp3s and they are 192 or less, which might alienate me as a fan when if I were being offered the free high quality (v0 + preferably) I wouldn't think about the quality and just enjoy the music. Tho I'm not sure anybody else also thinks this way.

Also I think EVERY vinyl record should come with a free download code for a high quality rip. I never, ever buy digital files and even if I get the physical record I'm forced to resort to pirating the mp3.

If you don't have a large enough fan base I'd recommend going the free route. Look at Odd Future - all their releases as of yet are free and just look at how those guys are doing.

As long as I'm pirating software, all my music is free. I'm working on a fully "legitimate" studio (the DAW is the only thing left to actually purchase, hah), and when/if that happens, something like $4 for EPs and $7 for full albums seems appropriate. There will always be the option to download the music for free, whether I'm the one promoting that idea or not, so why fight it? I like to hand-make hard copies on CD or cassette, each one different, and I give those away to friends and put them on consignment if a store will have them.

What we did is put out a free sampler to get some traffic to our label. we're going to be charging a modest price for the rest and occasionally put out some free mixes of label related music.

We feel that we have some good traction to do this.

  On 2/24/2011 at 6:26 PM, esstevancarlos said:

This might be a tired discussion here. Apologies if it is but what are people's views on pricing their music? I'm torn. My assumption is that free has a lower barrier of entry. So people will have an easier time getting the music and listening to it. However I question if the stigma of "free" still applies to modern music. On marketing terms, people associate free with cheap and lesser quality. Is that still heavily the case with music considering that everyone steals or gets their music for free anyhow? Your thoughts?

1) should music be free in general?

probably.

2) should i give my music away for free?

probably.

3) my thoughts:

it's already hard enough to get shit out there when you're giving it away. people are stingy with their time and even worse with their money.

  On 2/24/2011 at 8:11 PM, Cryptowen said:

I'd say definitely offer a free option of some sort if you don't already have an audience.

I'm starting to think that's it. A free option of "some sort". Everyone here has good points. My original philosophy was "just make it free" and then maybe I can charge later. However I don't think that's the only option. Right now as it is, we all probably listen to music on Youtube often. That's sort of "free". It's a kind of limited version free. Then there's the free sampler mentioned here or giving all of it away for free. So something needs to be offered.

But does anyone think it's possible to be "too free" and run the risk of coming off as though you don't have work of value? Is there a big difference between "free music" and "99cents"?

  On 2/24/2011 at 9:00 PM, esstevancarlos said:

But does anyone think it's possible to be "too free" and run the risk of coming off as though you don't have work of value? Is there a big difference between "free music" and "99cents"?

depends on how you present it. is it tricked out? a nice mini-site, paragraphs of text about it? or is it just a link to a zip file with badly-tagged mp3s?

offer a free version, and if you're hungry, a donate button

  On 2/24/2011 at 9:16 PM, Adjective said:

offer a free version, and if you're hungry, a donate button

In that case, how BIG should the donate button be and should it blink?

  On 2/24/2011 at 9:03 PM, hahathhat said:

  On 2/24/2011 at 9:00 PM, esstevancarlos said:

But does anyone think it's possible to be "too free" and run the risk of coming off as though you don't have work of value? Is there a big difference between "free music" and "99cents"?

depends on how you present it. is it tricked out? a nice mini-site, paragraphs of text about it? or is it just a link to a zip file with badly-tagged mp3s?

Interesting. Do you feel that makes the difference? I actually have made a mini-site of sorts and plan on adding more later. If that does make the difference, well that'd be cool.

One thing to keep in mind is that the public at large (or at least the under 30 internet user demographic) increasingly seem to be of the mindset that digital media should be free by default and that any money the consumer chooses to spend on it is only to show the artist support/appreciation. Of course opinions will differ on whether this is a good or bad thing, but it definitely seems like an attitude adjustment that won't be going away any time soon.

  On 2/24/2011 at 9:49 PM, Cryptowen said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the public at large (or at least the under 30 internet user demographic) increasingly seem to be of the mindset that digital media should be free by default and that any money the consumer chooses to spend on it is only to show the artist support/appreciation. Of course opinions will differ on whether this is a good or bad thing, but it definitely seems like an attitude adjustment that won't be going away any time soon.

Yeah, I agree and understand. I'm partly questioning how people judge the idea of "free". They'll download Aphex Twin for free because they see that music as already having value and so making it "free" is clearly a great opportunity. If you're a no name such as myself, can being "free" potentially be a problem? Do you listeners take an artist more seriously if they charge for their product (even if they download it for free)?

Can value be assigned to our work while simultaneously giving it out for free?

I think charging money can make you look a bit more professional (mostly to people who grew up buying all of their music), but having a nice website or being on an established label would help a lot more in that regard.

Free for a limited time.

A sense of urgency will get people to download. The fact that it won't always be free gives it a value.

I think $5 for an album is a fine price.

I'm looking to get commercial with my music. Started working with a vocalist and plan to work with others. Dunno if I see it as selling out but certainly I wanna just do something with my music. I've been 'underground' for so long that I figure what the hell. To me I'd love to have a 'big' tune. How I get there I don't know but I'm certainly gonna give it a shot. I still feel I can make quality music and be commercial at the same time.

  On 2/25/2011 at 1:40 AM, Promo said:

I'm looking to get commercial with my music. Started working with a vocalist and plan to work with others. Dunno if I see it as selling out but certainly I wanna just do something with my music. I've been 'underground' for so long that I figure what the hell. To me I'd love to have a 'big' tune. How I get there I don't know but I'm certainly gonna give it a shot. I still feel I can make quality music and be commercial at the same time.

I think I understand it now. Giving away music for free is important but if you don't define your value on some terms, you're taking a risk of appearing as a bargain bin artist. So maybe there are different ways to establish your value other than price whether through hype, presentation, price (or suggested price), etc. Makes sense now.

it's in how you carry it

if it aint free it aint ndc :sup:

First off, I don't make music... this is all my opinion as a listener.

I know what you're talking about... there is definitely free music that has a cheap presentation (album artwork, website, etc.) that looks like free is the only way anyone would ever want to listen to it. I generally won't even waste my time with these. Free music with a nice professional presentation looks like the artist could be charging for it, but is giving it out because they know their music is quality and they know that once heard, some people will pay to support them.

A perfect example is Ochre. He just made a post about now offering all his music on a "name your price" plan (including free). Since doing this he's had LOTS more downloads obviously, but he's also making more money from the small percentage that pays. I, myself, downloaded all his music for free, fell in love, then returned to give my contribution to his work. For me this is one of the best ways to sample music. This way I can download the album in full quality, throw it on my iPod and listen to it on my headphones or in my car... where I like to listen to my music. Streaming tracks online never hold my attention for too long because I just end up skipping around tracks and not giving them much of a chance to wash over me properly.

  On 2/25/2011 at 5:51 PM, crono3 said:

First off, I don't make music... this is all my opinion as a listener.

 

I know what you're talking about... there is definitely free music that has a cheap presentation (album artwork, website, etc.) that looks like free is the only way anyone would ever want to listen to it. I generally won't even waste my time with these. Free music with a nice professional presentation looks like the artist could be charging for it, but is giving it out because they know their music is quality and they know that once heard, some people will pay to support them.

 

A perfect example is Ochre. He just made a post about now offering all his music on a "name your price" plan (including free). Since doing this he's had LOTS more downloads obviously, but he's also making more money from the small percentage that pays. I, myself, downloaded all his music for free, fell in love, then returned to give my contribution to his work. For me this is one of the best ways to sample music. This way I can download the album in full quality, throw it on my iPod and listen to it on my headphones or in my car... where I like to listen to my music. Streaming tracks online never hold my attention for too long because I just end up skipping around tracks and not giving them much of a chance to wash over me properly.

I've wondered about the "name your price" structure. I was starting to think it was problematic. I'm under the impression that "name your price" model can't work for artists who don't appear as valuable. However its great to hear that it working for Ochre. I've also wondered if putting a customer of the position of choosing a price is actually more difficult than having set prices to pick from. Sort of like trying to figure out a tip at the end of a meal. But maybe it's a great model. I'll have to investigate it.

Some points :

- Nowadays people got familiar with listening to a lot of music, and keeping selling albums in the "traditional way" (i.e the release at a given price) is in my opinion quite out of its time. I guess artists who got famous before this music industry crisis happened keep selling that way because at the end they will get more money (they are already established and some listeners will pay for sure).

- I think that in general people are kind of not interested in music that hasn't a financial value (I personally use to think that if I hadn't been told or hadn't read about an artist, he surely wouldn't worth it as he isn't famous ) BUT ANYWAY if you begin to share your music you will have to go through an "underground" period where some people will like it and maybe will share it, and then maybe you'll get more or less known as a musician.

- IMO the "name your price" system is way the more intelligent, modest, and natural one. People can just "own" the music for free, listening to and getting familiar with it, and then decide if they want to give money for it. I just checked how intelligent it is by downloading an album from Ochre (thank you, crono3 ! didn't know him), choosing the 0$ price and at this precise moment thinking that yeah, it's a download but it can also be paid. If that album would have cost any imposed price, I would have taken an ear on it via youtube or something, and then decide to download it illegally. And I would never have paid, I know it.

because we all know something is worthless if you can't attach a dollar value to it.