All-Access and VIP Update 5/6/09
Since the VIP’s are like board members at Matthew Ebel dot net (dividends paid in cool shwag annually) and the All-Access subscribers are like share holders, it’s time to ask them how best to proceed with a particularly tricky issue facing the site.
[hidepost=2]
Someone's looking for 'Night Train' torrents. Oh dear.
We need to find a way to make expired songs available. How can we do this without making the subscribers feel like it’s just another music store? Here’s what we’re thinking (and we want your feedback on this!):
Sell Members-Only Archives
- Run the songs as we have been for the last 6 months. Matthew will keep releasing new material that the All-Access and VIP Members get as part of their monthly subscription.
- Once a song has expired, it’s gone… for 6 months. Wait, 6 months? Didn’t we say exclusive for 12 months in the FAQ? Yes… but we’re not going to release the songs to non-members just yet…
- When 12 songs or more have expired, release them as a Members-Only Archive. You’d still need to be a member to purchase the album, but new members could still grab old songs on a volume-by-volume basis.
- These would NOT be Members-Only Albums. Matthew still intends to release albums that VIP‘s get as a free download and All-Access members can purchase- such as his planned Christmas album he hopes to release this fall. Archive albums would only be there to let newer members buy old songs.
So what do you think? Would this be acceptable to you as paying members? Please leave a comment right here in this thread and let us know how you feel. Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated!
[/hidepost]
Pingback: Matthew Ebel » Blog Archive » Arr, There Be Pirates Here!
To be honest, exclusivity isn’t something that I’d go out of my way to pay for, and I imagine many people do it out of necessity. I give you money because I want you to keep making great music, and I’d do so regardless of whether you actually sold things through a traditional store mechanism.
I think it would be a service to your fans and to yourself to drop such extensive periods of exclusivity as a business model, and even copyright in general. People who want to pay you would keep doing so, people who don’t want to spend money will hear your music and eventually be convinced to do so (on T-shirts or concert tickets if not albums), and the increased exposure from having so many people listening to and sharing your music will make you much more likely to get a sold-out show at a concert hall or a gigantic corporation licensing your music.
Hmmm, I like the idea of members being able to purchase the songs after they’ve expired on a yearly basis. It’d probably be best to release them with the option of volumes or singles so people can pick and choose. Just my two cents.
Sounds like a fair solution to me.
Speaking for myself, I’m not that hung up about the exclusive access of the songs. You may be better off selling the songs > 12 months old to new monthly members or giving them away as a sign-up bonus for annual subscribers.
My thoughts? I’d certainly like for you to make them available. (Personally, I missed “Night Train” by *this* much. (Hold fingers about a centimeter apart.)
Frankly, I’ll get behind whatever method you feel is fair. Like Zachary, I didn’t sign up to get “exclusive music.” I signed up to support you and your music in the most effective way that I can. I don’t feel that the song need to be “exclusive to subscribers” for any great length of time. If you can get additional support, financial or otherwise, by selling your songs, by all means do it!
(That and I’d like like to buy “Night Train” sooner rather than later…I’m selfish like that.)
Well, I don’t really care about whether or not the stuff is exclusive. I’d say to just release the previous year’s worth of studio tracks as one album and a box set of the live recordings every January for everyone to purchase. Perhaps offer “collector’s editions” of them to the .net subscribers. Lyrics and such on the studio recordings and a small book containing photos from the concerts for the live recordings.
Ditto the above. I don’t really care about exclusivity. I just want new stuff. Heck, I’d even trade off the exclusivity part (or a vastly shortened window) in exchange for other, different things, like Garageband mixes or more custom songs.
I’d definately pay for songs that are not on your albums!
don’t hesitate to sell “packs” of songs too.
having the lives & other events on the website would be a good idea too, with maybe a two month limit for members, only the last one for new members and constant access for vips?
I think the 6-month 12-pack is a great idea. Especially if you make sure it’s roughly the same time year in and year out (say January and July, you could even do it as a “Late X-mas” and “X-mas in July” release thing).
I’m not too sure if having them exclusive is the best way to go. Those you just clamor for the songs would sign up for an account for one month every so often to grab what exclusive ‘packs’ they’ve missed.
I think just having 6-month ‘stash’ packs released like albums but being online-download only from the website would be perfect. That way you’d have multiple angles fans can go down. The normals: buy albums at performance/website/itunes, The dedicated: albums + website visits to get the 6-month packs, and The Hardcore: Subscribe year round to get each song as it comes out.
I understand how you’re trying to walk a tight-rope between making the packs full out ‘pack’ albums and potentially making members mad and locking the packs down too far and forcing people to subscribe to the monthly service (angry fans over having to be a monthly subscriber and then having to pay to get the older stuff if they missed one song at one point).
Another two cents – perhaps you could have the albums named like Ubuntu releases! (10.01 – the train, 10.06 – twitterific) Sorry, had to throw in another geeky reference.