Music Videos Should Pay For Themselves!

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

I can play videos and listen to music at the same time on my ipod. If I want to just listen to music I can do that also. Why spend thousands of dollars on a video no one can buy when distribution only takes a phone call or a email. Most people would rather spend two or three dollars for the vingle than 99 cents for a single. The vingle accomplishes what the single provides and more.

Videos should pay for themselves.

The BB Hot 100 formula should consist of....

Airplay - 30%
Music Video Sales - 35%
Singles Sales - 35%

Why take money away from the artists when the videos released can pay for themselves with advent of Itunes and other online outlets.

What are your thoughts?

[skaterboyccs]

not all the artist release videos and that not works for them... and... for me... radio airplay must count 0%

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

What artist do you know that does not release a video? Not all artists release singles to Itunes is an argument that could be made as well.

Radio airplay is valuable and shows popularity because of the ad dollars associated with radio.

[winner2000]

How many times are you going to post this?

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Well I thought it deserved its own topic.

[skaterboyccs]

Madonna (Nothing Fails, Love Profusion), Britney Spears (Outrageous),Beyonce, and some others pop artists that release singles for radio airplay ... so I don't think that videos should be counted for separated of digital sales

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

That could work also. Simply lumping them in with the other sales.

[Love Plastic Love]

Who would rather pay for a vingle than buy the single?
I dont know anyone who even buys the vingles...why when you can get them for free everywhere? Though I guess the same could be said of the music...but I definitely wouldnt pay 3 dollars for a video that I will watch once, maybe twice.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Music Video downloads should have their own chart on Billboard if they don't already.

[legend1982]

Love Profusion has a video

[legend1982]

I believe if we had artists who made the kind of videos that were being made in the mid 80's - mid 90s (Music video's peak, in my opinion) people would be more willing. But, the quality is really poor right now. I don't think vingles can be big enough without videos equivalent to Thriller, Like A Prayer, Rhythm Nation, Father Figure, etc.

[Damage]

Everybody doesn't have an ipod though. In fact, the vast majority of people don't.

[JaydaKyssed]

Yea like me. I don't have an ipod, and don't plan on getting one any time soon either.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Alot of people don't own a computer either. That doesn't mean artists and record companies shouldn't be selling their music videos in perpetuity.

[Deleted]

First, a music video for a single song would need to be defined as a single. Second, there would have to be enough sales for there to be a video downloads chart on Billboard.

Only then, would it work into the formula for singles sales in the Hot 100.

As far as airplay goes, the Hot 100, since its inception has always been compiled from a combination of sales and airplay. From reading their site, it sounds like it always will be that way,

[Damage]

adonis said:

Alot of people don't own a computer either. That doesn't mean artists and record companies shouldn't be selling their music videos in perpetuity.

I guess I just thought that negated the idea of making a vingle have some big influence on a chart.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Over time the market for vingles will grow. I agree with the poster who said singles and vingles should just be lumped together.

[Deleted]

adonis said:

Over time the market for vingles will grow. I agree with the poster who said singles and vingles should just be lumped together.

Video music downloads won't grow all that much, if at all.


A couple reasons:

Space:
It takes 10 times the space to store a 4 minute video on your hard drive, as it does to store a 4 minute song.

Useage:
Yes, ipod is a growing technology but, in your daily activities, what do you do more, listen to a 4 minute song? or watch a 4 minute video?

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

True but you are also forgetting technology is remedying the space situation. Even as we speak, computer hardware and software is being commoditized.

[Deleted]

Perhaps but, a video will always take up 10 times the space of an audio song of the same length.

There is still the usage issue though:

Videos have been around forever but have never been more than a minor part of the music listening experience.  One simple reason:  You can do another activity while you listen to a song.  If you watch a video it is just like watching TV, you pretty much have to stop what you are doing and watch it.

Thus growth of music video downloads will be somewhat limited

[ritymeez]

2m said:

Perhaps but, a video will always take up 10 times the space of an audio song of the same length.

There is still the usage issue though:

Videos have been around forever but have never been more than a minor part of the music listening experience.  One simple reason:  You can do another activity while you listen to a song.  If you watch a video it is just like watching TV, you pretty much have to stop what you are doing and watch it.

Thus growth of music video downloads will be somewhat limited

I totally agree.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

2m said:

Perhaps but, a video will always take up 10 times the space of an audio song of the same length.

There is still the usage issue though:

Videos have been around forever but have never been more than a minor part of the music listening experience.  One simple reason:  You can do another activity while you listen to a song.  If you watch a video it is just like watching TV, you pretty much have to stop what you are doing and watch it.

Thus growth of music video downloads will be somewhat limited

That's a valid point IMO.

My overall argument is still the same though. Music videos should pay for themselves. Artists and record companies have to pay for them in alost of cases.

[tomasz77]

well what if people want their airplay time on mtv or vh1 count??

[FSUmcIL]

adonis said:

2m said:

Perhaps but, a video will always take up 10 times the space of an audio song of the same length.

There is still the usage issue though:

Videos have been around forever but have never been more than a minor part of the music listening experience.  One simple reason:  You can do another activity while you listen to a song.  If you watch a video it is just like watching TV, you pretty much have to stop what you are doing and watch it.

Thus growth of music video downloads will be somewhat limited

That's a valid point IMO.

My overall argument is still the same though. Music videos should pay for themselves. Artists and record companies have to pay for them in alost of cases.

But it's part of the promotion for the song/cd. If you count that, then why not count the number of talk-show appearances an artist makes...it's a slippery slope.

[Trebizond]

fsumc said:

But it's part of the promotion for the song/cd.  If you count that, then why not count the number of  talk-show appearances an artist makes...it's a slippery slope.

I think this sort of missed the point , you don't pay to watch a talk show (aside form the cable bill) like you would pay for a vingle.

Though like has been said above the Vingle market will always be smaller than that for singles. Though the idea of vingles is a good (aside from the bad name, vingle?), if even a limited number of people will pay for the video why not make it availabe help recoup money spent making it. 

Airplay - 30%
Music Video Sales - 35%
Singles Sales - 35%

This assumes a robust video market, which i don't think will ever be.  A better idea would be to offer the plain single and a package of the single and video together, that way the either sale would count towards the chart position of the song.