Fenxy

what do u think? hell yeah i would.

=D if that really happens, i think everybody will do this.

I actually prefer buying schwag. Like a tee or something. If I really like the artist it's something I can use to show that. 15 euros for a shirt is not too much and if the site/artist manages it well, the profit can be considerable. I also prefer just transferring the cash instead of using a credit card.

Probably.

well, I am more of a live music fan (jambands and the like)...and most of these do their best financially selling concert tickets, as opposed to record & merchandise sales.

Now, if I happen to like one of these bands, I will, in addition to buying regular tickets to their shows, purchase cds and such to help "further the cause".

A prime examples from my own experience...and I know I'm not the "norm", but I have HUNDREDS of hours of live Widespread Panic recordings (well over 150 cd's)...and some of these are super high quality (better than what you can get at a store anyday). These were also all freely traded either online via bit torrent, or through a network of folks I know personally. That being said, I also "try" to see anywhere from 5-15 Panic shows a year. And on top of that, at least once a year, I buy a shirt or something, and a poster or two from the concert's merch booth. AND, I also own almost every studio & live commercial release on cd (and a couple of tapes), and several vhs/dvd movies. The only thing I haven't hopped on in this case, is purchasing the live recordings from their "concert vault".

Now...this type business model doesn't work for everyone, but right now, Panic is 25 years into the game, full on, and they are one of the top touring acts around. This same model has also worked for The Grateful Dead, Phish, String Cheese Incident, Sound Tribe Sector 9, The Allman Brothers, Lotus, and many others...

Yes, I wrote about this quite some time ago.

I love models like NIN's Ghosts I-IV release where I can pay the artist directly instead of giving money to a retailer and knowing the artist sees so little.

I think I would, or would purchase items the band was selling that put money directly into their profits.

@Peroty I agree whole heartedly.

I believe in supporting the artist. The Record Co.? Not so much.

Read Chris Anderson's Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business. It's the next step in his discussion about "The Long Tail."

His essential point is that because the cost of digital distribution is so low, a company can make a profit from only a small minority of users/buyers. The 1% who pay subsidize the remaining 99%, and usually get something extra for their fee.

Look at flickr. Regular users are given a really nice product for no cost at all. Those who want or need more can opt to pay for the Pro version.

The key here is that the free version isn't unduly burdened or limited.

With music, it can work the same way. Look at radiohead and nine inch nails. Both offered multiple versions of their latest albums, including the option to get it for free download or through more expensive elaborate physical products.

There's another factor to the donation model that rarely gets mentioned though and that's the easy of payment. Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth the trouble of tracking down a credit card number and registering on a site (another login/password to remember) just to chip in a couple bucks, no matter how much one might want to.

Radiohead gets some minus points for their credit card only + service fee payment method while nine inch nails made it so easy with paypal that i didn't even have to think about whether $5 was worth it.

If they deserved it, and it was something that I really enjoyed. Of course.

Honestly? Unless it was something that literally blew me away again and again and again... no.

Hope this doesn't come off as spam but... Grooveshark is our company and we are the proponents of our own music revenue model, for pretty much everyone in the chain of digital download and sharing (labels, artists, consumers). It is basically a marketplace in which users are able to share their music files over a p2p network and pay for them for a low price, but the transactions are tracked (without DRM) in such a way that we make sure that the creators of the content are given a portion of the transaction, since it is their work. We make relationships with labels and musicians so they know what the service is, and we allow them to see analytics of what is going on with music of theirs that is being distributed within our p2p network. Our basic premise is that the consumers know what they want, and the current system isn't giving it to them... That leaves users to look elsewhere for music (p2p illegal networks, online social music communities, streaming radio, live gigs) and it leaves artists wondering how they can support themselves when their choices seem to be either continue with the archaic methods of the RIAA, or risk uncharted waters by distributing their music in their own independant costs and methods. We are trying to make a unique marketplace that gives them another option. That is a very very basic explanation of the system, but if you're interested in knowing more you can head over to http://www.grooveshark.com

Even if my favorite artists DIDN'T donate their music for free, I would LOVE a "tip jar" that was actually going to go directly to them. No question about it.