Chromatest Pantsmaker wrote:
Chris Johnson or Shannon Beets wrote:
Not really. The promo item was already made and paid for. Its sale or resale costs the artist nothing. (Unless, of course, you don't purchase a commercial copy of the item in question.) it was paid for by the artist. The only people that make money from promo sales are the label (they make money on all things, even if it's a 'loss') and the guy at the record store that sells it.
That was not my point...once it is made, the artist paid for it. It doesn't matter how many times it is resold at that point; it doesn't cost the artist any more, except the possible loss of a retail sale.
Promo items have been a fact of life for a long time, and certainly have less of a potential impact on sales than mp3s...the distribution of promos is finite, and outside of major media markets, spotty. Mp3s can be available anytime and anywhere, for anyone who wants them. the money used to pay for the manufacture and distribution of promo items comes out of the artists pocket. Money used to pay for mp3's comes out of the encoder's pocket. There are many arguments supportting that mp3's hurt record sales, and others that prove the opposite. Radiohead, eminem, to name a few...
You seem to be missing my point. Promos have been around for a while, and are part of doing business. Their impact is factored into the business model. They are a finite commodity, with limited, physical distribution; you can't just pull more out of thin air. Mp3s however can be replicated near-infinitely, without physical or geographical constraints, and on that basis alone have more potential impact on sales. If nothing else, mp3s are a *new* factor in the business model, the true impact of which has yet to ascertained, unlike promos.
Also, let's not forget record club sales... artists get their royalties from record club sales the same as retail.
Nope. Artist royalties for record club sales are a fraction of what they get for retail. Anyway, how 'bout that DJ tour? ;) Chris