What sells best online?

[Anderton]

This is a spin-off from another thread, where Peter said things like meditation music, sound effects, and holiday music sells well online. Which got me thinking...maybe what people buy online is different from what people buy at a brick-and-mortar store.

Anyone have suggestions on what to sell online for best results other than the three things Peter mentioned? Do particular genres of music do better than others? What about things like spoken word?

One thing I'm finding out from this forum is that one question leads to a bunch of other ones....

[daddymack]

One thing I'm finding out from this forum is that one question leads to a bunch of other ones.... That is what attracted me here in the first place, Chief!:thu:

I think the type of trend analysis regarding the on-line vs off-line sales is documented in several industry publications, which, sadly, I do not have access to.

[Anderton]

That is what attracted me here in the first place, Chief!:thu:

I think the type of trend analysis regarding the on-line vs off-line sales is documented in several industry publications, which, sadly, I do not have access to.

But it's also probably in Peter's head, and we do have access to that...hopefully he'll have a chance to respond with whatever he knows on the subject.

[PeterTuneCore]

I haven't done a rigorous study, but anecdotally, here's what I've noticed:

"Useful" tracks do very well. What's "useful"? Something to work out with, something to meditate with, something to sleep with, something to soothe, something to play for a specific gathering (horror movie night, holiday songs to loop for the Christmas display).

Other "useful" things that sell are tracks that work as elements in other things, such as sound effects, or little things people love to put in their ringtones or to make a playlist sound more goofy and random.

Almost without fail, a song with a video sells many, many times more than a song without. If you put your music video up on iTunes for sale, it vastly improves the potential for the song (TuneCore just introduced this feature, first of its kind anywhere! (yes, I'm darn proud of it, it was my baby)). But you can put it up on YouTube or others like it for free, and that helps too. THESE DON'T NEED TO BE PROFESSIONALLY PRODUCED VIDEOS. Look at what OK GO! did with a few treadmills and some effort.

Finally, and most importantly, do a cover. Cover songs sell beautifully. Get to know the legalities of a cover (it's in the TuneCore FAQ, extensively, free for all to read), but think about it: anyone who loves "Stairway to Heaven" is likely to search on it, and the familiarity of the cover version gives you access to an audience. If they like that, they're going to like more of your stuff.

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[Anderton]

Is spoken word stuff a factor at all? Say, an interview with James Brown before he died, or a lecture on something interesting?

[sabriel9v]

Wouldnt you say that overall good music sells well online? Stuff that people enjoy and has been marketed to some extent.

[Anderton]

I know what you're saying...music that gets linked to by others and marketed is going to do well. What interests me is that based on Peter's anecdotal evidence, what you can't find elsewhere might have priority on people's "to buy" list. For example, suppose someone has $20 and wants a rock album...they could go to Wal Mart and buy the new Eagles CD, hit one of the remaining CD stores, or check out iTunes. But if they want meditation music, they'd likely check online first because they wouldn't find it at Wal Mart or Fye's.

[PeterTuneCore]

Is spoken word stuff a factor at all? Say, an interview with James Brown before he died, or a lecture on something interesting?

I think the Podcast market covers that ground. I haven't seen much spoken word go crazy, but then, TuneCore and everyone else is hobbled by Audible's exclusive audiobooks agreement with iTunes. We can't deliver audiobooks to iTunes, no one can except Audible. Darn shame, that.

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[PeterTuneCore]

Wouldnt you say that overall good music sells well online? Stuff that people enjoy and has been marketed to some extent.

That's a flat-out yes. People who have a fan base can just direct their fans to iTunes (we provide instructions on how to get a link on your MySpace or any other page right to it). Or just shout out "Search for us on iTunes!" to their crowds when they play a gig.

It really works. I've seen the sales figures.

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[thedolaon]

Finally, and most importantly, do a cover. Cover songs sell beautifully. Get to know the legalities of a cover (it's in the TuneCore FAQ, extensively, free for all to read), but think about it: anyone who loves "Stairway to Heaven" is likely to search on it, and the familiarity of the cover version gives you access to an audience. If they like that, they're going to like more of your stuff.

peter@tunecore.com

AGREED!!!!! COVER SONGS CAN GET PEOPLE TO YOUR MUSIC!!

[slight-return]

Apparently (form convos with audiobook marketing folks) that self-help audiobook titles do better online than brick-and-mortar [probably b/c of the social stigma attached to some of the titles]

I think digital D/L has really revolutionized spoken word (Audiobook/audiodrama, etc), maybe other longform stuff too - I suppose somewhat of a niche market can make it hard for brick and mortar to stock a satisfyingly deep catalog, more physical media (cost) per unit, the physical media is a bit unwieldy, the program breaks for the physical media is hardware defined, topical programming (WSJ and NYT audio editions for instance) are perishible and there's the media-cost there for quasi-ephemeral goods too [I suppose that's a parallel with their printed counterparts]

[sabriel9v]

AGREED!!!!! COVER SONGS CAN GET PEOPLE TO YOUR MUSIC!!

I think remixes of songs can do amazing business online. Let's say Justice or Daft Punk decide to do a techno/electro remix of Jay-Z clashed with Radiohead's OK Computer (might I add that would be sick! Dolaon, I nominate you for that task :thu:). If they made the remixes available exclusively through the Internet, that would sell like hotcakes.

This forum and a couple recent experiences have really made me question whether or not physical product ie cds are as mandatory for bands as they used to be.

[ZachMetal]

Honestly, bands that release something strictly online only. Perhaps a limited edition single, or something of that sort. The band has to be big already for that to work though.

[thedolaon]

I think remixes of songs can do amazing business online. Let's say Justice or Daft Punk decide to do a techno/electro remix of Jay-Z clashed with Radiohead's OK Computer (might I add that would be sick! Dolaon, I nominate you for that task :thu:). If they made the remixes available exclusively through the Internet, that would sell like hotcakes.

That would be hotness. And I think I might TRY. I'll see what i can do. Not alot of DJs do crazy-electro remixes of rap songs.

This forum and a couple recent experiences have really made me question whether or not physical product ie cds are as mandatory for bands as they used to be.

At shows, I say they would, but for the B&M stores. I agree, just sell it online.

[PeterTuneCore]

BEWARE! If you do a remix, if you use someone's PERFORMANCE (off their CD or MP3 or whatever), you are not doing a cover, you are making use of their master--and if you do that without permission first, you are breaking the law and there can be serious consequences.

With covers (you playing/performing all on your own music someone else wrote), you're protected, provided you follow the rules. With using another person's master (which is what you're doing even if you just take a loop off an old LP or CD), you are NOT protected.

Stay informed!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[sabriel9v]

BEWARE! If you do a remix, if you use someone's PERFORMANCE (off their CD or MP3 or whatever), you are not doing a cover, you are making use of their master--and if you do that without permission first, you are breaking the law and there can be serious consequences.

With covers (you playing/performing all on your own music someone else wrote), you're protected, provided you follow the rules. With using another person's master (which is what you're doing even if you just take a loop off an old LP or CD), you are NOT protected.

Stay informed!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com


Wasn't that the controversy with Danger Mouse and the Jay-Z/Beatles mash up mixtape? What if you decide to give the remixes away for free and not profit. Does that arouse serious consequences?

[Anderton]

Wasn't that the controversy with Danger Mouse and the Jay-Z/Beatles mash up mixtape? What if you decide to give the remixes away for free and not profit. Does that arouse serious consequences?

That's still a problem. The argument could be made that the copy, even if not for sale, diminishes the value of the original compositions. It might be harder to hit you up for damages if you didn't make money, and of course, it's up to the artist being infringed to decide if they want to pursue a lawsuit. But still, you'd be treading into an area that could result in being woken up one morning with a lawyer on the other end of the line...

[PeterTuneCore]

Wasn't that the controversy with Danger Mouse and the Jay-Z/Beatles mash up mixtape? What if you decide to give the remixes away for free and not profit. Does that arouse serious consequences?

Very serious, Sabriel. It's stealing, even if you give it away, or sell it and give the proceeds to charity. Nothing matters after the "stealing" part.

I hope someday there'll be some kind of compulsory structure for master-use licensing or sample licensing as there is for publishing. Until then, careful!

As always, don't take my word for it, I can't give legal advice. For specifics, talk to a good lawyer!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[sabriel9v]

Very serious, Sabriel. It's stealing, even if you give it away, or sell it and give the proceeds to charity. Nothing matters after the "stealing" part.

I hope someday there'll be some kind of compulsory structure for master-use licensing or sample licensing as there is for publishing. Until then, careful!

As always, don't take my word for it, I can't give legal advice. For specifics, talk to a good lawyer!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

On second thought, I understand that there are serious repercussions attached to sampling rap lyrics and bonding them with rock instrumentals, but in the realm of hip hop it's considered trendy and groundbreaking. Releasing such mixtapes puts rappers, djs, and the bands that they sample in the limelight. They appreciate the attention because it makes them more high profile artists.

[fretwizz]

The discussion is now at the nexus where an argument could
be put forward that standard copyright laws inhibit creativity.
This is one of the many reasons Larry Lessig started up
Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/).

[sabriel9v]

The discussion is now at the nexus where an argument could
be put forward that standard copyright laws inhibit creativity.
This is one of the many reasons Larry Lessig started up
Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/).

But does a Creative Commons license carry the same weight as an official government copyright?

[fretwizz]

Good point.
Does anyone here know the answer?

[PeterTuneCore]

Good point.
Does anyone here know the answer?

No one knows just yet, because very few test cases have come to the courts. Also, those who use Creative Commons licenses often don't pursue action--by the very nature of such licenses, they're more free.

But I'm at the limit of my knowledge now, I'm no lawyer!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[Nijyo]

But does a Creative Commons license carry the same weight as an official government copyright?

It seems to be along the same sort of thing as the GNU Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), and as such falls into the realm of contract law.

Things like EULA and shrinkwrap licenses for software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA), the various revisions of the GPL, and the CCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons)have no real history in case law. Though in the case of the GPL, its because violators tend to settle and/or rectify the oversight that caused the violation, which i imagine would lend some weight to the entire if it ever went to trial sometime in the future? :confused:

Sadly, the copyright laws in the US as of late have strayed away from the idea of fair use, and have insanely extended the length of copyrights. The original idea was to give artists the opportunity to have exclusivity to a work for a limited amount of time in order to promote artistic creativity and allow artists to benefit from their works:thu:, but large business interests have managed to work it so that they have copyrights for many decades, in order to use them as revenue streams for a longer period of time than many people actually live. :rolleyes: (Thank Sen. Sonny Bono and the Walt Disney Corp. for that one)

I'm personally a big fan of the CCL and have used it for some online stuff I've done in the past. YMMV.

[sabriel9v]

It seems to be along the same sort of thing as the GNU Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), and as such falls into the realm of contract law.

Things like EULA and shrinkwrap licenses for software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA), the various revisions of the GPL, and the CCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons)have no real history in case law. Though in the case of the GPL, its because violators tend to settle and/or rectify the oversight that caused the violation, which i imagine would lend some weight to the entire if it ever went to trial sometime in the future? :confused:

Sadly, the copyright laws in the US as of late have strayed away from the idea of fair use, and have insanely extended the length of copyrights. The original idea was to give artists the opportunity to have exclusivity to a work for a limited amount of time in order to promote artistic creativity and allow artists to benefit from their works:thu:, but large business interests have managed to work it so that they have copyrights for many decades, in order to use them as revenue streams for a longer period of time than many people actually live. :rolleyes: (Thank Sen. Sonny Bono and the Walt Disney Corp. for that one)

I'm personally a big fan of the CCL and have used it for some online stuff I've done in the past. YMMV.


So basically the Creative Commons license does nothing?

[slight-return]

Things like creative commons, Gnu GPL etc are licenses that are empowered BY copyright, not new legal mechanism

copyright law gives the holder control over certain aspects of a work (copying, preparation of erivative works, etc) -- by way of license we can conditionally allow certain activities while continuing to reserve some rights that are given to us by copyright law

creative commons licensing is a system for streamlinging the creation and use of conditional licenses and limited licenses (so you don't have to draft new ones, so that the licenses are standardized and 'commonly understood')

[Nijyo]

Things like creative commons, Gnu GPL etc are licenses that are empowered BY copyright, not new legal mechanism

copyright law gives the holder control over certain aspects of a work (copying, preparation of erivative works, etc) -- by way of license we can conditionally allow certain activities while continuing to reserve some rights that are given to us by copyright law

creative commons licensing is a system for streamlinging the creation and use of conditional licenses and limited licenses (so you don't have to draft new ones, so that the licenses are standardized and 'commonly understood')

This is correct. The CCL, GPL, etc. don't supplant copyright, they provide a pre-wrapped, easily to explain and implement license that copyright holders can use to overcome the limitations of copyright as it exists currently (assuming you aren't of the ABKCO Records mindset, in which case copyright works just fine for you already, I guess).

[ElGenius1]

Hey Peter, you mentioned that we, the artists, can put up Videos on Tune-Core...But isnt that really expensive? Something like 75 dollars per video?

[PeterTuneCore]

Hey Peter, you mentioned that we, the artists, can put up Videos on Tune-Core...But isnt that really expensive? Something like 75 dollars per video?

Depending on the length of the music video, yep. It starts at $85. It's a completely different process, and iTunes has very strict quality control. But if you want to have your music videos for sale, it's priceless. :)

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[nfrhtp]

Peter, your impressions about what sells are thought-provoking and I appreciate them. Is there, by chance, somewhere on the TuneCore website where sales of TuneCore artists are ranked, so that we might ponder what sells in more detail?

Thanks,

Kevin
________________
Dream Art Science (http://www.myspace.com/DreamArtScience)

[Standard8]

I hope not. I'd be pissed if my proprietary info was given out like that without my permission.

[thefineline]

I have to questions with regard to covers:

What do you have to do to cover your bases legally when recording and distributing a cover?

How old does a song have to be before it becomes public domain and can be recorded freely?

maybe this should be a new thread... I'll start one

[Standard8]

It's on the tunecore website FAQ page.

[nfrhtp]

I hope not. I'd be pissed if my proprietary info was given out like that without my permission.
Would you be pissed if your song appeared on the iTunes "Top Songs" list?

[PeterTuneCore]

Peter, your impressions about what sells are thought-provoking and I appreciate them. Is there, by chance, somewhere on the TuneCore website where sales of TuneCore artists are ranked, so that we might ponder what sells in more detail?

Just between you and me and the wallpaper, Kevin--we're working on it!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[PeterTuneCore]

I hope not. I'd be pissed if my proprietary info was given out like that without my permission.

Before we ever made TuneCore live, we wrote a privacy into our Terms and Conditions. We will NEVER give out proprietary information.

However, some things, like units sold, are published by the stores to places like SoundScan, and we'll use that info just like anyone can. So a ranking based on that shouldn't be a problem.

WATCH CAREFULLY when you sign up with any service. Read the Terms and Conditions closely--you're agreeing to them!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[Standard8]

Some people may not want it to be public information how much they sold. I could understand listing a top 10 as a way for promoting the business like "Hey, look at all these successful people using Tunecore" and I think that's understandable, but beyond that and getting in detail of exactly how many units sold and how much money has been transferred, it's bad enough that the IRS can look, but the general public, that just ain't right.

The fact a band hasn't sold very much could hurt them, a potential buyer could think that just because not many other people have downloaded it then it might not be that good. Conversely, if there's 100,000 downloads, that could bring on a "Everyone is your best friend now" type of scenario that could be troublesome, or studio musicians that agreed to, say, $150 a day recording and then find out how much money you are making, well, that's not a good situation either. Lots of reasons a person/band wouldn't want that information available publically. I'm not talking about billboard top 40, that kind of success can't be hidden. But it's possible to be very successful and make alot of money without being on Billboard Top 40 and to spread word of it without consent could really cause a negative situation for alot of people. It's not going to dissuade my decision to use Tunecore at the moment, but it's something yall might want to think about.

[PeterTuneCore]

Some people may not want it to be public information how much they sold. I could understand listing a top 10 as a way for promoting the business like "Hey, look at all these successful people using Tunecore" and I think that's understandable, but beyond that and getting in detail of exactly how many units sold and how much money has been transferred, it's bad enough that the IRS can look, but the general public, that just ain't right.

The fact a band hasn't sold very much could hurt them, a potential buyer could think that just because not many other people have downloaded it then it might not be that good. Conversely, if there's 100,000 downloads, that could bring on a "Everyone is your best friend now" type of scenario that could be troublesome, or studio musicians that agreed to, say, $150 a day recording and then find out how much money you are making, well, that's not a good situation either. Lots of reasons a person/band wouldn't want that information available publically. I'm not talking about billboard top 40, that kind of success can't be hidden. But it's possible to be very successful and make alot of money without being on Billboard Top 40 and to spread word of it without consent could really cause a negative situation for alot of people. It's not going to dissuade my decision to use Tunecore at the moment, but it's something yall might want to think about.

You're absolutely right, S8, and we know it. We're all indie people first, we've been there. Navigating these waters is precisely why we've been careful and not rushed to push something out. Lists, by their very nature, are troublesome. Leaving out information could be just as damaging: "So you're the TuneCore #1 seller, but I don't know how much, why, it must be MILLIONS!" and along come the "best friends" you describe, even though we didn't publish the numbers. We're still thinking about it.

Thanks--VERY good points.

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[ElGenius1]

Almost without fail, a song with a video sells many, many times more than a song without. If you put your music video up on iTunes for sale, it vastly improves the potential for the song (TuneCore just introduced this feature, first of its kind anywhere! (yes, I'm darn proud of it, it was my baby)). But you can put it up on YouTube or others like it for free, and that helps too.

Peter, I can understand how having a popular video on youtube can direct alot of traffic to your itunes store and therefore sell alot of songs/videos on itunes, but how does just putting up your music video on iTunes vastly improve the potential for selling? Say nobody knew I existed as an artist, and I only put up my music video and song on iTunes - could I still sell alot of songs? What I guess I'm asking is does iTunes run some sort of promotion where they feature certain indie artists and their videos?

[PeterTuneCore]

Peter, I can understand how having a popular video on youtube can direct alot of traffic to your itunes store and therefore sell alot of songs/videos on itunes, but how does just putting up your music video on iTunes vastly improve the potential for selling? Say nobody knew I existed as an artist, and I only put up my music video and song on iTunes - could I still sell alot of songs? What I guess I'm asking is does iTunes run some sort of promotion where they feature certain indie artists and their videos?

Actually, I meant putting it up on YouTube does the work these days, more than putting it on iTunes. However, once you've got traction on the video, shift it over to iTunes and make some cash out of it. :)

And nothing in this crazy business of ours is "only." There's no magic one thing to do, but the combination of all that does the trick.

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com

[ElGenius1]

ah, ok. That's what I thought. Thanks for clearing that up. :thu:

Peter - one more question. I know iTunes allows cover songs to be put up and sold, but what about parody songs of existing songs? Do the same rules apply for covers as they do for parodies?

[PeterTuneCore]

ah, ok. That's what I thought. Thanks for clearing that up. :thu:

Peter - one more question. I know iTunes allows cover songs to be put up and sold, but what about parody songs of existing songs? Do the same rules apply for covers as they do for parodies?

Same rules! So long as the performance is ALL YOURS, you need only follow the cover rules, inasmuch as I can't fathom a parody song that didn't use some of the lyrics and probably all of the original music.

As always, this is a generalization, SEE A LAYWER for specific questions. This isn't legal advice.

Thanks!

--Peter
peter@tunecore.com