So, SaaS removes the expense of buying, and instead rents you the software, along with the support, for however long you want it. I'm not in the market right now, so I don't know how long the contracts last, but the point is that companies probably won't continue to buy enterprise software if this model works out like SalesForce.com hopes it will. So far it's working like gangbusters. They're projecting about $1.3B in revenue for 2010.
The correlating service in the music business would be something like Napster, I guess. You pay a monthly fee and you get access to their whole database of music. Services like these haven't taken off for crap, mostly because iTunes already owns the market and it's still just too easy to rip music off for free. iTunes has proven such a success because they really do make it super easy to get what you want, the prices are reasonable, and they don't even insist on that DRM crap anymore (which was only there in the first place because the majors insisted on it).
What if a band with a pre-established fanbase wanted to try this out on their own? What if there were very regularly updated music, video, whatever on a site dedicated to the band, and the only place you could get that stuff was from that website? What if it were super simple for anyone to use, and super affordable for anyone to join? In other words, what if it were worth it?
Would people try it?
Would bands try it?
If the other option is to put out another CD that you can only buy at the merch table, or maybe online somewhere and even then only if you're already looking for it, I think this could be a way forward for a really motivated band.
Interesting concept. I work for a SaaS vendor so I get it -- and simplicity is the key.
ReplyDeleteLove the blog.
Becky
Definitely. I can't see a downside to this, especially if new content is added regularly, both live and studio. Imagine going into the studio every couple months -- not sure if you all have access to the Lone Croft these days or not -- and releasing the equivalent of EPs. Record 3-4 songs, release them weekly. This is a nice reveue stream, for sure, as you know there's a built-in fanbase for this. Even selling a couple thousand a month at $.99 has to have an upside. Now, I'm guessing MP3 would be the recording style of choice, for lower bandwidth/overhead? While I've become a snob - largely thanks to that great post you put on earthboard a year or two back - I can't see this being bad.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe release honest-to-goodness CDs periodically, culling the bestselling of the online tracks for inclusion, along with a couple extras not available elsewhere.
Going outside the mainstream with new product delivery methods can only be good.
I like this idea, and as a fan I can say that if it were top quality content I'd definitely consider subscribing.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Apple/iTunes are trying out a similar service. :-/
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/02/24/depeche-mode-offers-itunes-season-pass-for-upcoming-sounds-of-the-universe/
Have to say that the way things are changing so quickly and how fads are now becoming mainstay ways of living and socializing, the music industry as a whole is way behind. But the individual bands who have a dedicated fanbase, they are the ones who could appreciate and go far with this type of service. I have worked with a company for years but it was awhile ago who only thrived on subscriberships. The content is key. If the content is worthy and not available anywhere else and is affordable (keep in mind we are in a downturn here in the economy), I do think that it could work. It would also differentiate the band from all the others out there. All I can say is Sopranos. The content makes a proposal such as yours above viable. It keeps the people coming back and making the subscribership worth it. I have Sirius, I have cable, etc. As a music fan of said band, if I felt it was worth something to me then a service like that would work. It connects the fans with the band. Now that is something.
ReplyDelete