From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #294 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, October 9 2003 Volume 03 : Number 294 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [dmw ] [loud-fans] california uberama [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Dan Schmidt ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Steve Holtebeck ] [loud-fans] Re: Massive downloading on the horizon (fwd) [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Dan Schmidt ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes (fwd) [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes (fwd) ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Chris Prew ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] Broadcast [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes ["W. David Barnes" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:12:28 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes I assume all eMusic subscribers got the notice about the impending sale of the company and the subscription changes. Ah well, it was good while it lasted. Is everyone sticking around? I haven't decided yet. I'm certainly not upgrading to the $50/mo plan. --Rog The new subscription info: >Unless you visit the link below: > >and notify us of your intention to cancel your subscription >prior to November 8, 2003, your EMusic subscription will >convert into EMusic Basic. Under EMusic Basic, you will be >billed $9.99 per month for access to the service with no >minimum monthly commitment, but you will be limited to no >more than 40 downloads during your monthly billing cycle. > >In addition, EMusic is pleased to present a special, >limited time offer available exclusively to current >subscribers - EMusic Premium. Designed for our most >active subscribers, this plan allows you to download >up to 300 tracks per month (approximately 25 albums) >for a monthly charge of $50.00 - a price of just >16 cents per track - with no minimum monthly commitment. >If you are interested in registering for this subscription >plan, you must complete the EMusic XL registration >form no later than November 8, 2003. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:27:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > I assume all eMusic subscribers got the notice about the impending sale of > the company and the subscription changes. Ah well, it was good while it > lasted. Is everyone sticking around? I'm sure not going to. $10 for 3 albums in mp3 form isn't a bad price if you know in advance there will be things you want, but their selection right now doesn't live up to that. It's interesting how eMusic have, in some ways, built a business on being just barely good enough in lots of ways, and survived because (I suspect) people love unlimited things. If, for example, they had every Matador release on the site the day it came out, consistently, I'd drop $10 just for that; it might work out to not much less money than I would have spent anyway, but I imagine I would enjoy it. Instead, Matador releases trickle in whenever. It's not clear what's going to show up eventually and what isn't coming at all, etc. Isn't 2003 kind of late for an internet company to shoot itself in the foot by switching to the "you'll take what we've got and you'll like it" strategy? aaron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:40:47 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > I assume all eMusic subscribers got the notice about the impending sale of > the company and the subscription changes. Ah well, it was good while it > lasted. Is everyone sticking around? I haven't decided yet. I'm > certainly not upgrading to the $50/mo plan. --Rog The "plus" service level of $15/65 tracks is just below my "what it's really worth to me" threshold of $0.25/track. That's roughly a fourth of what the other "legit" services are trying to establish as the "going rate" for downloads that are a) lower audio quality* and b) encumbered by DRM restrictions I really hope everybody doesn't bail on them, because I'd still like them to stick around. Paying what I think as a fair price for downloads is much better than paying an absurd price for downloads, even if it's not as good as all-you-can-eat. Which was obviously an untenable business model. I would have rather seen the supersize model at a price point of $30/150 tracks or so. $50 is a big bite if i'm not convinced I'm really going to use it. On the other hand, if it everybody bails, it would probably only be for a month or so. Oh well. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:10:09 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] california uberama y'all know about this already, right? www.johneasdale.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:07:03 -0400 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes Aaron Mandel writes: | On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: | || I assume all eMusic subscribers got the notice about the impending sale of || the company and the subscription changes. Ah well, it was good while it || lasted. Is everyone sticking around? | | I'm sure not going to. $10 for 3 albums in mp3 form isn't a bad price if | you know in advance there will be things you want, but their selection | right now doesn't live up to that. Yeah, I'm out too. I'm kind of surprised at what the new rates are, since I bet a lot of people download way more than 40 songs a month. (Heck, I downloaded 40 songs yesterday when I picked up the whole Mates of State catalog. I like it a lot, but I can't listen to these songs without imagining that they're being performed by Will Ferrell and Ana Gasteyer...) If the new $/song cost were anywhere near the old $/song cost for me, I might bite the bullet and continue. But they're off by an order of magnitude. I wonder what their business model is. Do they pay labels a flat fee, or does it depend on how many of the label's songs are downloaded every month? If it's the latter, maybe they won't care if lots of people leave. Dan - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:33:52 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes dmw: > The "plus" service level of $15/65 tracks is just below my "what it's > really worth to me" threshold of $0.25/track. The base level of 40 downloads for $10 falls right at that $0.25 threshold, so there isn't much of a price break between the base and plus memberships $15 for 65 = $0.23. I think a quarter a song is a fair rate for mp3s. I balked at paying $5.99 (50 cents per track) for the new Jupiter Effect CD on mp3 format, but would've had no problem paying $2.99 (25 cents per track). It all depends whether they have stuff I want to hear or not. Off to suck more tunes down the fat pipe, - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:36:56 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Massive downloading on the horizon (fwd) I still think under the new terms E-music is an excellent deal for the consumer (vs. buymusic.com, apple music store, rhapsody), and it can now be fair for the musicians/record companies too. At the mid-tier 65tracks/$15 level (which is what I'm planning to opt for) you're paying $0.24/track, a quarter of what the other services charge, for files with no DRM nonsense and much higher audio quality. The statutory rate for (the first 10 songs on an album) is $0.085. At that level, the split could look something like 0.08 emusic operating expenses 0.08 label 0.08 artist It probably doesn't break out that way because the artists are probably accepting a discount on the satutory rate as a condition of participation - -- the label, as always, gets the lion's share. but it's a credible number for implementing reform. it looks a lot more fair to me than the apple music breakout which is reputedly on the order of 0.30 apple 0.70 label (i haven't seen any credible info on what the artists' take on the label share might actually be) The all-you-can-download was clearly untenable -- my sources tell me they've been losing boatloads of money for months. I've been afraid, as some of you know, that they might declare Chapter 11 and shut down at almost any moment (although they've been inking new deals with labels even this month). I'd much prefer to see them stick around than to just go away, and I'd like to urge everyone to think carefully vs. knee-jerk bailing. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:36:35 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes dmw on 10/9/2003 4:40:47 AM wrote: > The "plus" service level of $15/65 tracks is just below my "what it's > really worth to me" threshold of $0.25/track. I don't remember them mentioning that level of service in the e-mail, though I can't really check it now. $14.99 for 65 downloads sounds like a reasonable compromise between $9.99 for 40 and $50 for 300. > I really hope everybody doesn't bail on them, because I'd still like them > to stick around. Paying what I think as a fair price for downloads is much > better than paying an absurd price for downloads, even if it's not as good > as all-you-can-eat. Which was obviously an untenable business model. Agreed, but I still wish it was something like 100 downloads for $9.99. If I'm going to stick around at one of the new levels, it would really help if they increased the amount of new stuff available. > I would have rather seen the supersize model at a price point of $30/150 > tracks or so. $50 is a big bite if i'm not convinced I'm really going to > use it. Yes, that's the rub there. It might be hard to actually do 300 downloads a month to get your full money's worth. > On the other hand, if it everybody bails, it would probably only be for a > month or so. Oh well. ?? I don't understand this statement. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:40:48 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Dan Schmidt wrote: > I wonder what their business model is. Do they pay labels a flat fee, > or does it depend on how many of the label's songs are downloaded > every month? If it's the latter, maybe they won't care if lots of > people leave. As far as I know, everything is paid out on a per-track basis, although it's possible there might be ceilings, and it seems likely to me that terms are not equal for all labels. But either way, they need enough subscribers to cover their own overhead. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:46:10 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > > On the other hand, if it everybody bails, it would probably only be for a > > month or so. Oh well. > > ?? I don't understand this statement. I mean, based on the response I've seen from other subscribers this morning, if I were a betting man, my bet is that if I opted for the premium $50/300 plan, I'd only spend $100 before the doors were shuttered for good. If they lose 80% of their customers next month -- and judging by the numer of "I'm outta here" emails I've seen in the last hour and half, they could -- I don't think they'll last into much (if any) of 2004. Damn shame. On the other hand, maybe they'd be forced to offer more favorable terms if everyone says they're quitting. But I don't see how they can offer much more favorable terms and meet their operating expenses -- let alone deal with what I presume their debt-load must be. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:54:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Steve Holtebeck wrote: > I think a quarter a song is a fair rate for mp3s. Me too, which is why I think it's insane that eMusic is keeping their pay-in-advance system. If they want to charge a quarter a song, more power to them. However, I'm not sure there have been even three new albums I really wanted from eMusic in the past month, and I don't think that's a fluke; their acquisition of new stuff is incredibly inconsistent. But a quarter per song doesn't make sense for things outside the 3-minute pop mode. Actually, it doesn't even make too much sense there; is a punk album with 20 90-second songs worth more than twice as much as the Red House Painters' "bridge" album? Here's a new eMusic model I'd sign up for in an instant: $5/month to be a member, $2/album. EPs are a quarter a track, and yes, that means some human has to decide what counts as an EP and will probably get it wrong sometimes. Note that this is *more* than $10 per month for three albums, so it should be worth more to them than the current model almost no matter what. But eMusic has a long history of sticking their heads into both the sand and their asses. It was worth putting up with their shitty customer service for the incredible rates they offered. I'm not sure it will be now even if on paper the deal is reasonable. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:57:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, dmw wrote: > But I don't see how they can offer much more favorable terms and meet > their operating expenses -- let alone deal with what I presume their > debt-load must be. From the look of the new plans, they're still trying to make money by getting people to pay for downloads they don't use, rather than finding a real price-per-song point that's reasonable and doing incremental billing from there. That's what makes the new plans the wrong shape for me, and that's what makes me think they still don't have anyone sensible at the wheel. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:10:04 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes What makes me sad about the new pricing structure is that if I were to stick around, I would only download what I was absolutely sure I would enjoy. There would be a lot less experimenting. Gone would be the days when I would download something like Even In Blackouts, which was not mentioned on LoudFans and which I tried because of the plug eMusic gave it. I really enjoy that album. One of the things I look to eMusic for is the chance to experiment with things I ordinarily might not listen to. Now it's just going to be a place to go to when I'm damn sure I know what I want. Which is why I made the comment that they better be adding a lot of stuff. I think aaron's proposed pricing structure is something I could be happier with. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:08:36 -0400 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes dmw writes: | But I don't see how they can offer much more favorable terms and | meet their operating expenses -- let alone deal with what I presume | their debt-load must be. Yeah. To be more clear about my first email, I don't think that emusic owes me anything - if they can't make their business model work, they've got to change it - but as a consumer, the new pricing structure is not sufficiently attractive to me. My main beef is actually with the songs per month limit, which seems awfully low. Aaron's model sounds more appealing to me. Maybe I just have to do a lot more previewing - right now I tend to download whole albums before knowing for sure whether I'll like them. Dan - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:45:57 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes Dan Schmidt on 10/9/2003 10:08:36 AM wrote: > My main beef is actually with the songs per month limit, which seems > awfully low. On further reflection, I think that's my main peeve also. I can see this scenario happening: I'm on the $9.99/mo plan and I use up my 40 downloads during the first two weeks of my month. Suddenly, they add an album I really want to download. Now I have to wait 2-3 weeks before I can download it. The straight monthly fee just doesn't work. If they're going to have something attractive, they really need to switch to some sort of per-download fee, which can be in addition to a (sufficiently low) monthly fee. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:03:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > I'm on the $9.99/mo plan and I use up my 40 downloads during the first > two weeks of my month. Suddenly, they add an album I really want to > download. Now I have to wait 2-3 weeks before I can download it. Right. With the new model, you get a metered amount of "product" AND a metered amount of convenience. You can't tell me it's going to be a satisfying customer experience to be putting off downloading something you want in order to avoid massive frustration later. Also, note in the new FAQ that unused downloads don't roll over from month to month. So if you download a 15-song album and a 13-song album, forget about pulling down the new New Pornographers record; the best you can do is to download most of it this month, and take the rest out of your 40 downloads next month. Glossing the Basic plan as "three albums per month", which is what I was doing, is actually papering over a significant problem. eMusic set out to attract fans of music, not people looking for the hottest singles. I think hard limits + pay-in-advance are a bad idea, but even if they're going to go that way, they should at LEAST go to per-album accounting instead of per-track. (It's not unlikely that some customers will now use single-track downloads to preview albums when the thirty-second clips don't cut it, but should we really be paying for that?) a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:31:21 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes (fwd) FWIW -- eM's putative new owners -- i think i can safely say here that the deal is not 100% finalized -- are the folks behind The Orchard. personally, i don't think that's a good sign. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:05:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, dmw wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > > > I assume all eMusic subscribers got the notice about the impending sale of > > the company and the subscription changes. Ah well, it was good while it > > lasted. Is everyone sticking around? I haven't decided yet. I'm > > certainly not upgrading to the $50/mo plan. --Rog > > The "plus" service level of $15/65 tracks is just below my "what it's > really worth to me" threshold of $0.25/track. Rog is correct that this wasn't mentioned in the subscriber letter: it's on the website at the "qanda" link mentioned in the subscriber letter. That link also points out that the "premium" letter is, apparently, available only to people who sign up this month. I'm kind of surprised at the rather venomous responses to this, really, rather inevitable move. The business does have costs - and I supsect their error was in understimating the number of high-frequency downloaders (like lots of us here). I guess I'm thinking: $15 for approx. 4 albums is an album a week: can I really digest much more than that - esp. given that I'll be buying other titles as well? Given my schedule, probably not - so I'll most likely stick around at that level. Of course, in part this is the case because, based on something a little bird whispered in my ear, I had an inkling that something like this was going to happen - and so have been downloading like a fiend for the past two months and burning raw MP3s onto CD-Rs w/o even listening to 'em (so now I can gradually figure out which ones I want to upgrade to .wav files). Probably, the fact that I have this ungodly backlog of music already makes me a bit more sanguine about the changes. But really, I'm surprised that people think there's not that much available - esp. from Aaron, since I recall him posting a list of around fifty eMusic titles he recommended. Certainly, it's true they're inconsistent in which titles from a label are available, and when they show up - but that may be the labels' doing, not eMusic's. Anyway, I certainly hope they don't crash and burn - since I still think they're a better deal than any of the other services I've heard of. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::crumple zones:::::harmful or fatal if swallowed:::::small-craft warning:: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:07:59 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes (fwd) dmw on 10/9/2003 7:31:21 AM wrote: > FWIW -- eM's putative new owners -- i think i can safely say here that the > deal is not 100% finalized -- are the folks behind The Orchard. > > personally, i don't think that's a good sign. Yeah. Having dealt extensively with The Orchard, I'm not hopeful. They distributed our Reign of Frogs CD, and we have yet to see Penny One from that. Mostly because they kept changing their payment policies. But even just trying to deal with customer service was a nightmare. Yeaarrrgh. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:15:06 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes At 02:05 PM 10/9/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >I'm kind of surprised at the rather venomous responses to this, really, >rather inevitable move. The business does have costs - and I supsect their >error was in understimating the number of high-frequency downloaders (like >lots of us here). I guess I'm thinking: $15 for approx. 4 albums is an >album a week: can I really digest much more than that - esp. given that >I'll be buying other titles as well? Given my schedule, probably not - so >I'll most likely stick around at that level. Well, we're being told that we can't be pigs at the trough anymore, and that always pisses people off, so there you go. The midline deal is entirely reasonable, I think, and that's probably where I'll stick around. And if they keep a per-song fee even on things like all those great Atavistic free-improv albums that have two 20-minute tracks, or the five-or-six-songs classic post-bop records in the Fantasy/Prestige catalogue -- hey, bargain! S ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:16:19 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, dmw wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > > > > The "plus" service level of $15/65 tracks is just below my "what it's > > really worth to me" threshold of $0.25/track. > > Rog is correct that this wasn't mentioned in the subscriber letter: it's > on the website at the "qanda" link mentioned in the subscriber letter. > That link also points out that the "premium" letter is, apparently, > available only to people who sign up this month. Interestingly, some subscribers got letters which default them to "basic" and some to "plus"; to the best of my knowledge, no one defaults to "premium." I don't even know which I am, because my spam filter apparently ate the e-mail. > I'm kind of surprised at the rather venomous responses to this, really, > rather inevitable move. The business does have costs - and I supsect their > error was in understimating the number of high-frequency downloaders (like > lots of us here). I guess I'm thinking: $15 for approx. 4 albums is an > album a week: can I really digest much more than that - esp. given that > I'll be buying other titles as well? Given my schedule, probably not - so > I'll most likely stick around at that level. Me too. (Although most likely I won't be buying many other titles). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:33:27 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes > At 02:05 PM 10/9/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >> I'm kind of surprised at the rather venomous responses to this, >> really, >> rather inevitable move. The business does have costs - and I supsect >> their >> error was in understimating the number of high-frequency downloaders >> (like >> lots of us here). I guess I'm thinking: $15 for approx. 4 albums is an >> album a week: can I really digest much more than that - esp. given >> that >> I'll be buying other titles as well? Given my schedule, probably not >> - so >> I'll most likely stick around at that level. > > Well, we're being told that we can't be pigs at the trough anymore, and > that always pisses people off, so there you go. The midline deal is > entirely reasonable, I think, and that's probably where I'll stick > around. > > And if they keep a per-song fee even on things like all those great > Atavistic free-improv albums that have two 20-minute tracks, or the > five-or-six-songs classic post-bop records in the Fantasy/Prestige > catalogue -- hey, bargain! > > I always knew the day would come when this would end. I'll probably stick around at the $15 level, but I'll miss being able to download an entire album just because the band name was cool, etc. This should be the chance I need to catch up on all the stuff I haven't listened to yet, though. I think the pricing structure is fair at 0.25 a track, owing to the relative obscurity of most of the artists. This is probably the one and only time in our lives, people, where our tastes in non-mainstream artists is of a financial benefit. I just hope they add an a la carte option, in case Matador or Beggars Banquet or someone actually starts posting stuff again. So, I suppose, all us Emusicer's should provide each other with a list of must-downloads to try and get ahold of prior to the switchover. Apologies to everyone who couldn't give a rats ass about emusic. We could always go back to talking about politics, depleted uranium, cd storage, etc. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:39:18 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes Stewart Mason on 10/9/2003 1:15:06 PM wrote: > Well, we're being told that we can't be pigs at the trough anymore, and > that always pisses people off, so there you go. The midline deal is > entirely reasonable, I think, and that's probably where I'll stick around. My earlier comments maybe made it look like I was really upset with eMusic, but I would like to make it clear that I'm not. I understand it's a business and they've got to make money to stay in that business. I knew things would change for the worse eventually. When a deal seems too good to be true, it often is. I'm glad that I was able to partake of the service in its "Golden Age", at least for the short time I was a subscriber under the original plan. I hold no malice towards eMusic or the new owners. I'm happy to support them and I hope they stay in business. HOWEVER... It sure seems like they could've thought out the new business model a bit better. Did it even occur to them to ask their customers for input first to see what price structure would retain the customers and still allow eMusic to turn a profit? Was there any market research or focus groups done? When Dish Network decided to start charging for their new HDTV offerings, they did a lot of research to see what the (niche) market for that service would bear. I know eMusic doesn't have the resources available to do that sort of thing on that kind of scale, but jeez, they could've done *something*, like a little e-mail survey of the customers. Apologies for you non-eMusic subscribers who are tired of this thread... Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:45:36 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes >Apologies for you non-eMusic subscribers who are tired of this thread... That's OK. I keep reading it waiting for a full-scale argument to break out, but you're all disappointing me. Just kidding...really. Anyone hear and have comments on the new Broadcast album? Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:19:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > I'm kind of surprised at the rather venomous responses to this, really, > rather inevitable move. It was inevitable that some change in pricing be made. What was not inevitable was: - - Sending out an announcement filled with hot air in which the information about plans changing was buried six paragraphs down, and the specifics buried farther. - - Changing the model and pricing to take away the service's flexibility and feel. - - NOT posting any information about the change under "site news" on the site itself. - - Disabling the message boards. (There's no way to know for sure this was intentional, but I will be very surprised if it wasn't.) > Of course, in part this is the case because, based on something a little > bird whispered in my ear, I had an inkling that something like this was > going to happen - Then I'm surprised in turn that you would take a swipe, however gently, at the reactions of people who didn't get any such tip and are irritated about being disrespected once again by eMusic. Don't take your luck for granted. > But really, I'm surprised that people think there's not that much > available - esp. from Aaron, since I recall him posting a list of around > fifty eMusic titles he recommended. I think there's a lot of good stuff on eMusic. I don't think good stuff is steadily being added. > Certainly, it's true they're inconsistent in which titles from a label > are available, and when they show up - but that may be the labels' > doing, not eMusic's. Well, sure, but does it matter? Some of my comments on this thread have been driven by pique, but when it comes to the long-term inconsistency of eMusic's adds, I don't hold a grudge, I just don't think they justify a pay-in-advance system where unused downloads don't roll over to the next month. > Anyway, I certainly hope they don't crash and burn - since I still think > they're a better deal than any of the other services I've heard of. I'm starting to wonder if they're just occupying a market niche that someone else would handle better. On the other hand, that Even In Blackouts album Rog mentioned is pretty good... one of the guys from Screeching Weasel leading an all-acoustic band. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:48:30 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes Quoting dmw : > Interestingly, some subscribers got letters which default them to > "basic" > and some to "plus"; to the best of my knowledge, no one defaults > to > "premium." I think the Q&A page explains this: the implication is that if you're on a $15 3-month deal currently, you get shunted to the $15 deal; if you're on the $10 year-long deal, you get the $10 deal. The logic, I suppose, is no one appears to suffer a price increase. I think if there were a third intermediate level between plus and premium, that would be good: from $15 to $50 is a jump, and something like $20 or $25 would probably cause a few more folks to bite. As someone (Rog?) said, you'd have to be pretty dedicated to get your money's worth from the $50 level (I haven't calculated the point at which you're better off at that level compared with the $15, but it's probably still pretty high.) And definitely: they should have different rates for albums vs. tracks: maybe an album should just count as ten downloads regardless of number of tracks, an EP five downloads, etc. (There are, btw, some albums that will become *impossible* to download as albums at the $10 level: anything with more than 40 tracks, apparently.) And a per-track overage fee would seem to be a good idea, *that* rate could be set slightly higher than the plan's per-track rate, to encourage people to bump up to the next level (this would work best with that second intermediate tier). Still: no DRM bullshit, higher-quality encoding, a very broad range of tracks - I'm not sure what all the complaining's about. Well, I am - but it seems kind of unjustified to me. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:56:03 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes Quoting Chris Prew : > So, I suppose, all us Emusicer's should provide each other with a > list > of must-downloads to try and get ahold of prior to the > switchover. I can't claim every one of these is good - truthfully, I haven't listened to a note of many of them (see earlier messages for why) - and I hadn't really begun much exploring outside my already existing tastes, but I've posted the list of my downloads at . ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country :: will be called "Coach" :: --William Gass ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:58:11 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Broadcast Quoting Aaron Milenski : > Anyone hear and have comments on the new Broadcast album? Heard one track (courtesy Matthew at Fluxblog); like it enough to put the album fairly high on my to-buy list. You fucking bastard! ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. np: compiled Liz Phair thing ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:16 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes Quoting Aaron Mandel : > It was inevitable that some change in pricing be made. What was > not > inevitable was: > > - Sending out an announcement filled with hot air in which the > information > about plans changing was buried six paragraphs down, and the > specifics > buried farther. > > - Changing the model and pricing to take away the service's > flexibility > and feel. > > - NOT posting any information about the change under "site news" > on the > site itself. > > - Disabling the message boards. (There's no way to know for sure > this was > intentional, but I will be very surprised if it wasn't.) All true. I also wouldn't be surprised if the message boards are down because they're overloaded. > > > Of course, in part this is the case because, based on something > a little > > bird whispered in my ear, I had an inkling that something like > this was > > going to happen - > > Then I'm surprised in turn that you would take a swipe, however > gently, at > the reactions of people who didn't get any such tip and are > irritated > about being disrespected once again by eMusic. Don't take your > luck for > granted. I don't see how it's a "swipe": I said I was surprised at the reaction. At any rate, I certainly didn't intend to criticize anyone just because they disagree with me. But your last two sentences are important: I haven't been disrespected repeatedly by eMusic, so I wasn't aware that there was any luck that I was taking for granted. In other words, it's apparent that other people's prior poor experiences are coloring their reaction to this one: a completely understandalbe, probably even completely justifiable, reaction. > I think there's a lot of good stuff on eMusic. I don't think good > stuff is > steadily being added. I've noticed it tends to come in waves: nothing, nothing...then huge swaths of the Beggars' catalog, for instance. but when it comes to the long-term > inconsistency of > eMusic's adds, I don't hold a grudge, I just don't think they > justify > a pay-in-advance system where unused downloads don't roll over to > the > next month. That's true...I wonder how much of the new system's flaws are panic-driven. If what Doug says is correct (and it probably is), they may have been forced to make (bad) decisions very quickly, or go bankrupt. On the other hand, the insustainability of their old model should have been obvious for quite some time...and as you said (or was that someone else - sorry), at the very least they could have asked subscribers for some input. > I'm starting to wonder if they're just occupying a market niche > that > someone else would handle better. That may well be - but at this point no one else *is* occupying it, or if they are, they're so far under the radar that they might as well not be. Jeff Ceci n'est pas une .sig ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:16:22 -0700 From: "W. David Barnes" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] eMusic Changes I'll second a lot of what Aaron Said. I've been a subsciber long enough to have more than gotten enough value from the music side. What's always driven me nuts has been their lousy customer service and their total indifference to their subscribers. No updates on service or selection, the message boards go either unmoderated or moderated by people who could care less, and oustide of the infamous 'you have violated the terms of use' letter they send out to the uberdownloaders don't communicate with anyone at all. Whatever the price point or business model is, it never hurts to treat your customer with some courtesy. I'll wait and see what sort of letter I get (if anything) and make my decision then but am not feeling too happy with Emusic right now.... David B. On Thursday, October 09, 2003, at 02:19PM, Aaron Mandel wrote: >On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > >> I'm kind of surprised at the rather venomous responses to this, really, >> rather inevitable move. > >It was inevitable that some change in pricing be made. What was not >inevitable was: > >- Sending out an announcement filled with hot air in which the information >about plans changing was buried six paragraphs down, and the specifics >buried farther. > >- Changing the model and pricing to take away the service's flexibility >and feel. > >- NOT posting any information about the change under "site news" on the >site itself. > >- Disabling the message boards. (There's no way to know for sure this was >intentional, but I will be very surprised if it wasn't.) > >> Of course, in part this is the case because, based on something a little >> bird whispered in my ear, I had an inkling that something like this was >> going to happen - > >Then I'm surprised in turn that you would take a swipe, however gently, at >the reactions of people who didn't get any such tip and are irritated >about being disrespected once again by eMusic. Don't take your luck for >granted. > >> But really, I'm surprised that people think there's not that much >> available - esp. from Aaron, since I recall him posting a list of around >> fifty eMusic titles he recommended. > >I think there's a lot of good stuff on eMusic. I don't think good stuff is >steadily being added. > >> Certainly, it's true they're inconsistent in which titles from a label >> are available, and when they show up - but that may be the labels' >> doing, not eMusic's. > >Well, sure, but does it matter? Some of my comments on this thread have >been driven by pique, but when it comes to the long-term inconsistency of >eMusic's adds, I don't hold a grudge, I just don't think they justify >a pay-in-advance system where unused downloads don't roll over to the >next month. > >> Anyway, I certainly hope they don't crash and burn - since I still think >> they're a better deal than any of the other services I've heard of. > >I'm starting to wonder if they're just occupying a market niche that >someone else would handle better. > >On the other hand, that Even In Blackouts album Rog mentioned is pretty >good... one of the guys from Screeching Weasel leading an all-acoustic >band. > >a ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #294 *******************************