Will User Outcry Result in User Payout?
BusinessWeek offered up decent coverage of how the new web streaming fees will negatively impact the majority of internet broadcasters, but far more interesting were the reader comments.
Many express outrage at the new fees, but not one of them (to-date) said they would be willing to toss in their share of the new fees -- not even for the heavily supported (at least in word if not deed) indie-casters. In ZombieRadio's opinion it is the smaller web streamers who might very well stand the best chance of surviving this last salvo from the RIAA pickpockets.
The new licensing fees are based on individual plays of songs to individual listeners. While this could very well be a nightmare for large webcasters, (does ClearChannel pad its online listeners in order to reap more advertiser cost-per-point or do they bury actual counts in order to decrease their licensing fees?) the smaller webcasters are dealing with tens or maybe hundreds of listeners versus the thousands and thousands of "Big Media."
The indie users also tend to be the most passionate about their products, thus it may not be a hardship for the smaller webcaster to basically put out the proverbial tip jar and ask their listeners to support their online stations not just through word of mouth -- but through word of wallet as well.
Based on the newly released 2007 fees, each play of an individual song to an individual listener is charged at $0.0011 -- this means that if an online station played 16 songs per hour (which is what the Radio And Internet Newsletter is using in their own industry average calculations) it would cost a user $0.0176 to listen for an hour.
For ease of payment and collection, let's say listeners can only opt to purchase 24-hour blocks of consecutive listening time. This means a station listener could pay their own way for only $0.4224/day.
A webcaster charging their listeners $0.50/day would not only cover the new licensing fees, but make a $0.0776 profit -- and that's only if the entire 24-hour block is being used.
If a listener purchased 24-hours but only actually listened for 10 hours ($0.176 in licensing fees) the webcaster's profit would be $0.324 -- not bad considering there is only fractional mark-up in our proposed subscription structure.
A fifty-cent daily listener fee is less money than someone would feed into a jukebox (most jukeboxes start at $1 for only 2 or 3 songs) and the listener receives an average of 384 song performances.
NOW... will the fans of these threatened webcasters step-up and toss a few coins into the hat to keep them alive, online, and on the air -- or will there only be bitching, bashing, and gnashing of teeth?
Make no mistake
I am NOT a fan of the CRB or the RIAA, but neither am I a fan of those who complain about the situation and do nothing to help. This is an opportunity for the public to show their disdain for corporate radio clones and support programming they say they value -- for mere pennies each time they use the product.
Many express outrage at the new fees, but not one of them (to-date) said they would be willing to toss in their share of the new fees -- not even for the heavily supported (at least in word if not deed) indie-casters. In ZombieRadio's opinion it is the smaller web streamers who might very well stand the best chance of surviving this last salvo from the RIAA pickpockets.
The new licensing fees are based on individual plays of songs to individual listeners. While this could very well be a nightmare for large webcasters, (does ClearChannel pad its online listeners in order to reap more advertiser cost-per-point or do they bury actual counts in order to decrease their licensing fees?) the smaller webcasters are dealing with tens or maybe hundreds of listeners versus the thousands and thousands of "Big Media."
The indie users also tend to be the most passionate about their products, thus it may not be a hardship for the smaller webcaster to basically put out the proverbial tip jar and ask their listeners to support their online stations not just through word of mouth -- but through word of wallet as well.
Based on the newly released 2007 fees, each play of an individual song to an individual listener is charged at $0.0011 -- this means that if an online station played 16 songs per hour (which is what the Radio And Internet Newsletter is using in their own industry average calculations) it would cost a user $0.0176 to listen for an hour.
For ease of payment and collection, let's say listeners can only opt to purchase 24-hour blocks of consecutive listening time. This means a station listener could pay their own way for only $0.4224/day.
A webcaster charging their listeners $0.50/day would not only cover the new licensing fees, but make a $0.0776 profit -- and that's only if the entire 24-hour block is being used.
If a listener purchased 24-hours but only actually listened for 10 hours ($0.176 in licensing fees) the webcaster's profit would be $0.324 -- not bad considering there is only fractional mark-up in our proposed subscription structure.
A fifty-cent daily listener fee is less money than someone would feed into a jukebox (most jukeboxes start at $1 for only 2 or 3 songs) and the listener receives an average of 384 song performances.
NOW... will the fans of these threatened webcasters step-up and toss a few coins into the hat to keep them alive, online, and on the air -- or will there only be bitching, bashing, and gnashing of teeth?
Make no mistake
I am NOT a fan of the CRB or the RIAA, but neither am I a fan of those who complain about the situation and do nothing to help. This is an opportunity for the public to show their disdain for corporate radio clones and support programming they say they value -- for mere pennies each time they use the product.
Labels: Fees, Profits, Webcasting
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home