Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Businesses The Internet

Ad-Supported Free Music Downloads Doomed to Failure? 226

Posted by Zonk
from the no-love-for-ads dept.
madonna writes "CNET extensively explains why the new We7.com download service — which offers ad-embedded free music downloads without DRM — is doomed to failure. 'This service absolutely, categorically will not succeed. You can quote us on that. It's true the best way to combat piracy is to provide a realistic and affordable alternative, and free is certainly affordable. But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ad-Supported Free Music Downloads Doomed to Failure?

Comments Filter:
  • This could be a nice way of distributing movies. Personally I wouldn't mind paying $3-4 for a movie with a little ad at the beginning (can always fast forward). But for a song it would suck to be in the middle and hear "Buy x-product today".
    • by NorQue (1000887) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:49AM (#18942765)
      Personally I wouldn't mind paying 3-4 EUR for a movie *without* ads in the beginning. You can get most movies little time after the release for 2-3 EUR more already, why should I waste my precious time just to save very little money? It'd also be naive to assume that you'll be able to skip these ads.
      • by gfxguy (98788)
        I'd rather pay to not have ads, but then again, most of the crap out there is simply not worth it.

        Ultimately, I like my usual strategy these days of picking and choosing songs I really like and buying them.

        On the other hand, if it's true you get an ad free version eventually, I might just download hundreds of them and not listen until I get the unencumbered version. Of course, I haven't RTFA, so I don't know that you could get away with that, but seems like a good strategy.
    • by eln (21727)
      Don't kid yourself. If this ever happened to movies, it would not be one little ad at the beginning. At the very least, it would be 10 minutes of ads at the beginning that you can't fast forward through, similar to what many DVDs do today. Hell, they might even interrupt the movie for more ads, or digitally insert product placement into the movie.
      • by dheera (1003686)
        If course you can skip the ads on a DVD. Once the DVD is in your possession, you have the data. It's not like the ad gives you a magic key you need to use to decrypt the rest of the data -- the rest of the data is physically there, on the disc, ready to read, so why not read it?

        If your player insists on not being able to fast forward through certain tracks ... well... wow, you're back in the cassette age. get a better player.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:47AM (#18942737)
    I think there's noth**Call Geico 1-800-861-8380 - So easy a cave man could do it**ing wrong with this business model
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:03PM (#18943029)
      > I think there's noth**Call Geico 1-800-861-8380 - So easy a cave man could do it**ing wrong with this business model

      We're sorry, the number you have reached has been disconnected. To continue watching this HD-DVD, please install Linux, and call 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.

  • I mean seriously- infringing on recent material makes a lot of folks feel guilty (and it SHOULD).

    If they have a way to get the stuff morally, they will because a lot of people are as moral as they can afford to be.
    • Not everyone though. Many people think that stealing from thieves is a kind of moral justice.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by koreaman (835838)
        Well, copyright infringement isn't theft, but neither is what the RIAA does (even less so, in fact!). So, what are you talking about?

        PS: IANAPhilosopher, but as best as I can tell, morality doesn't exist.
        • ...as best as I can tell, morality doesn't exist.
          So, go out and cap everyone you can find. There is no morality right?
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by koreaman (835838)
            Going out and capping everyone I can find would violate my personal interests, none of which have to do with morality.
            • by Laur (673497)

              Going out and capping everyone I can find would violate my personal interests, none of which have to do with morality.

              Interesting statement, too bad you didn't back it up with any sort of an argument. To me, personal interest is the basis for morality, quite possibly the only valid basis. To date I have found no better source for moral behavior than the golden rule, and what is that based on other than personal interest? Of course, most people also extend this concept of of morality beyond simple perso

              • Oh the golden rule can lead to some horrible abuses if you want to be treated in a way that is horrific to others.

                For example, you want to be heroically saved by doctors regardless of how much pain you are in.

                My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.

                If you don't have voluntary consent, you are probably doing evil to them. People are not really rational until a certain age. And if you have lied or tricked them with false information, then that's not right either.

                Otherwise,
                • by Laur (673497) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @04:09PM (#18947281)

                  Oh the golden rule can lead to some horrible abuses if you want to be treated in a way that is horrific to others. For example, you want to be heroically saved by doctors regardless of how much pain you are in.

                  I didn't say it was perfect, just that I hadn't yet found anything better. The golden rule is fantastic because it is simple and obvious, you can quickly determine a course of action, and live your life. For more complex scenarios, the golden rule may fall down, but in those cases you also usually have more time to mull it over. However, in your example case, I think the golden rule still works. Personally, I want people to respect my decisions, particularly regarding my own fate, and I believe that most people feel likewise. Therefore, if I was a doctor, and a patient had told me ahead of time that they do not want some specific procedure performed, even if it would otherwise mean death, then I believe it would be immoral for me to perform the procedure anyway against the patient's wishes. This is actually seen all the time in actual practice. Now, if it is an emergency situation and you have not had time to communicate with the patient ahead of time regarding their wishes, then you just have to use your best judgment, based on what you would want in that situation. Obviously, anytime you try to guess someone else's wishes it is fraught with peril (and potential lawsuits), which is why doctor's are usually ultra-conservative, and try to save the person's life, regardless of it's a good idea or if they would personally want that.

                  My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.

                  My god, how do you ever get anything done? Are you constantly questioning people over the simplest things in order to get their consent? For example, how do you decide not to ram your cart into other people at the supermarket? Do you ask each and every person that you come to whether they would consent to a cart-ramming? Or do you instead make assumptions on what you think their answer will be, possibly based on what you yourself would want in similar circumstances (i.e. the golden rule)? For that matter, how do you decide that no-cart-ramming is preferable to cart-ramming? Is it again based on your own preferences? How in the world can you decided if someone else is "rational" and "informed"? Doesn't that preclude you from dealing with most people that you encounter? If you decided that someone is not rational or informed enough, do you go ahead and ram them with your cart? If not, why not? How else do you deal with those who are not rational or informed? Can you never do anything "nice" for them? How does your morality determine what is nice or not-nice (right and wrong)?

                  If you and another "rational, informed" person voluntarily consent that it is okay to throw rocks at squirrels for fun, does that make it moral?

                  If you don't have voluntary consent, you are probably doing evil to them.

                  Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up? What about the case where you need to do things without someone's consent in order to prevent harm to others? Is it moral for the government to collect taxes from its populace? Most people do not voluntarily consent to pay taxes, they do it under threat of severe penalties.

                  People are not really rational until a certain age.

                  And usually not even then (besides, who chooses what age?). Humans aren't rational, they are rationalizing. Can you prove to me that you are rational? At all times, on all subjects?

                  In the case of file infringing: You don't have the consent of the creator to hand out free copies to other people just because you bought one copy from them.

                  Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent? There seems to be an assumption on your part that the creator has more r

                  • If i want to ram their cards (odd compulsion), then yea, I'd probably need to ask them if it is okay or else I'm forcing myself on them.

                    >Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up?
                    Just my conclusion. But it seems more reasonable than "a big imaginary guy said it is bad". As you say for your golden rule, it's not perfect but it's the best I've found.

                    >Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent?
                    Because it's their stuff?

                    >Now you are pushing off responsibility
          • by MarkByers (770551)
            As far as I am aware, you can get arrested for doing that. Whether it is moral or not is irrelevant because it's illegal and you will get caught sooner or later.

            You are unlikely to get caught price gouging, or copyright infringing so the law doesn't really enter the equation for either side. In this case, morals is a fall back. If one side acts immoral, the other side has to try that much harder to stay moral. It's very easy to slip into: 'Well if he can be bad and get away with it, I will be bad too.'

            It's
    • by Hatta (162192)
      I mean seriously- infringing on recent material makes a lot of folks feel guilty (and it SHOULD).

      I think artificially creating scarcity is what should make folks feel guilty. Legal or not, it's morally wrong.
  • by pla (258480) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:50AM (#18942775) Journal
    But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements.

    I don't know about the FP author, but I consider "legal" a pretty big point to factor into "cost"!

    And I say that as someone who loathes ads.
    • by Itninja (937614)
      You can download music legally using BitTorrent, can't you?
    • by Morgaine (4316) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:55PM (#18943907)
      I stopped listening to commercial music over a decade ago when it started to deliver crap instead of actual music. And I'm not the only one.

      If you have a problem with DRM or with copyrights or with the RIAA or with the cost of music, it's your choice: you choose to listen to crap, and crap with strings attached is what you get.

      There is 100 times as much music out there as is delivered by the mainstream western labels. Go find it, and enjoy. And when you choose to pay for something that you think is really terrific, you will be rewarding musicians, not shareholders.

      It's your choice. You know how to Google.
      • ...but then who do I pay to tell me what to like?
        • by pla (258480)
          ...but then who do I pay to tell me what to like?

          I know you meant that as a joke, but the GP has an unintended point - Yes, we can find 100x as much music out there, free even, as RIAA offers. But the vast majority of it quite simply sucks.

          I've personally found a few dozen artists I enjoy via the web (more than half from mp3.com, back when it still existed). But for each gem, I've listened to hundreds of steaming piles of crap I wouldn't inflict on Gitmo detainees.



          Personally I find local college
      • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @02:44PM (#18945699) Homepage

        I stopped listening to commercial music over a decade ago when it started to deliver crap instead of actual music. And I'm not the only one.

        If you have a problem with DRM or with copyrights or with the RIAA or with the cost of music, it's your choice: you choose to listen to crap, and crap with strings attached is what you get.

        The problem with the above, is that what defines 'crap' is purely subjective.

        In my case, almost all forms of alt/grunge/punk/whatever that stem from Nirvana all the way down are, to my ears, unmitigated crap. Have been since day one. If all of your indie bands are making music of that genre, it's just more crap that isn't on major labels. Conversely, some of the stuff I listen to might be unmitigated crap to you. (Shocking as it might sound. ;-)

        But, an indie version of Green Day doesn't interest me any more than the actual thing.

        There is 100 times as much music out there as is delivered by the mainstream western labels. Go find it, and enjoy. And when you choose to pay for something that you think is really terrific, you will be rewarding musicians, not shareholders.

        There's a lot of music which falls into that category, but it may not be possible for everyone to lay hands on it. Record stores (most of them) offer up way too much floorpsace for the mainstream stuff to be able to stock anything with any reliability -- that's because that is what will sell.

        I listen to loads of stuff which is very far removed from mainstream. Unfortunately, the recording label is still a member of the RIAA, so it's not like you can get that far removed from it. Even if the artists basically say "go ahead, share our music with your friends", the RIAA might still decide to sue on behalf of them, and against their stated wishes.

        Short of everyone going on some quest to wander about in the forest of lesser-known music, it's simply tough to find stuff which diverges from the mainstream. That, or you're ordering really obscure imports, or small runs from indie groups, or what have you.

        And, really, you can't google for "find me some non-mainstream music I'll like".

        In my case, my music collection is self perpetuating because I keep looking at stuff on the same recording label (Six Degrees) or from other artists I've found who are associated with some of the groups I've found. But, I'm nowhere near being able to find music I like without actually relying on an actual label who is, nonetheless, a member of the RIAA.

        Cheers
  • by apathy maybe (922212) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:50AM (#18942791) Homepage Journal
    Because there will always be those who wish to stay one the "right side of the law" (for whatever reason). However, considering it would be incredibly easy to remove ads from either the start or the end of a song, or if embedded in an album to separate the tracks, it will just provide another way for people to get music.

    I don't think they can make any money of the service, so OK I guess it is doomed to failure.

    Personally, I've been listening to ad free (varied full tracks, including big name bands) music legally for a few weeks from Last.fm and I'm quite happy.
  • The Elected Ones (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Itninja (937614) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:51AM (#18942809) Homepage
    Music downloading types are like electrons. They always take the path of least resistance. You can charge for music downloads, and if it's super easy to do, people will pay it. But if you make the process even slightly more complicated, no one will touch it, even if it's free.
  • Removing the ads (Score:2, Interesting)

    by koreaman (835838)
    If I wrote a program to cut off the first ten seconds (or whatever) of these songs, removing the ads, would that be legal or not?
  • In my day.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by History's Coming To (1059484) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:52AM (#18942823) Journal
    Hmmm....interesting concept....you listen to tunes which have commercial messages attached. They might even put the ads over the first or last few seconds to avoid ruining the entire track, but still have the ads embedded.

    In my day we called that "commercial radio".
    • In my day we called that "commercial radio".

      I remember when commercial radio was like this... where you could passivly listen to music, 2-4 songs and then an equal amount of time was dedicated to commercials and dj jabber. Odds were you could hop stations if the commercial breaks really bothered you.

      Now... I have a hard time crusing the FM dial without finding some radio station that hasn't been infiltrated by the "talk radio craze", which is some solo jackass with a string monologs lasting for 8 hours, n
      • Several stations in the NY area have changed to an all-music all-the-time format. Sure, they still have ads, but ZERO talk. Woohoo!
  • "But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements."

    While I agree that the concept of ad-supported download services would be a failure, the presence of ads won't be the reason.

    I'm sure plenty of people would just as soon use the ad-infested service just for the sake of legitimacy. Hell, I would, just to say I was downloading music legally. Limewire is notorious enough as an eff
  • Been done before (Score:5, Insightful)

    by david.given (6740) <dg@cRASPowlark.com minus berry> on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:53AM (#18942839) Homepage Journal

    I remember this from amp3.com, a defunct and unlamented mp3.com clone.

    I've still got a couple of tracks somewhere with the amp3.com ad header on them; however, it turned out that they had stuck the header on by directly fiddling with the mp3 stream, and simply by running the file through a mp3 sanitiser, the header would magically vanish.

    I wish we7 lots of luck, but if I were to start using them I'd damn well write an ad removal program.

  • disingenuous? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by owlnation (858981) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:55AM (#18942879)
    This negative review - of course - has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with CNET owning mp3.com does it?

    I mean why would it? Must be a coincidence, surely...
  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:57AM (#18942913) Homepage

    At some point, ads get too intrusive. Some notable failures:

    • Ad cards bound into paperback books. That was tried in the 1980s, and customers were so angry publishers stopped that, and it didn't come back.
    • Ads during telephone ring. Yes, little blipverts between each ring. Tried around 2000. That came and went so fast few ever heard one.
    • Fast food table clutter. Little stand-up things with ads on every table. The fast food industry has mostly backed off from that since the 1990s; not many sales and too much hassle.
    • The big one - sound trucks. 1930s idea, around the time amplifiers started really working. Trucks driving around blaring ads. That was so obnoxious it was made a criminal offense in most US states.

    Besides, music already has ads. 50 Cent mentioned 20 brands in his songs in 2005, according to American Brandstand. "Mercedes emerged as the top brand of the year, and 50 Cent outbranded the rest to become the top brand-dropping artist... Meanwhile, weapon brands surged..."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by griebels2 (998954)
      Maybe it would be more interesting to see why they failed:

      Ad cards bound into paperback books. That was tried in the 1980s, and customers were so angry publishers stopped that, and it didn't come back.

      Is this because the people that received those books already paid for them? For most people, books are things to stay, things to collect and having ads in them destroys the perception of value.

      Ads during telephone ring. Yes, little blipverts between each ring. Tried around 2000. That came and went so fast few

    • by Mex (191941)
      Wow, the Blaring trucks with amplifiers are still used here in Mexico.
    • Sound trucks are still prevalent here in Japan. Pachinko parlors use them quite frequently, along with the militant right-wing weirdos in their black vans. And just last week the folks running for public office in my neighborhood were driving around in vans with loudspeakers shouting at the top of their lungs. Made me want to take a baseball bat to the damn things. Consider yourself lucky they don't exist in the US anymore.
  • Flawed Analysis (Score:5, Insightful)

    by malsdavis (542216) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @11:58AM (#18942927)
    By the article author's calculations, all paid music services are doomed to failure, not just free ad-supported ones.

    From TFA:
    "don't waste your time in thinking this is going to do anything positive to the industry"

    I've heard that so many times about services which have actually revolutionised industries, many of those services are no longer in business but that didn't stop them being positive influences on the industry.

    Case in point: A few years ago in the U.K., Altavista advertised an flat-rate, £10 a year internet service at a time when virtually all domestic ISPs only offered per-minute deals. Several other ISPs then started offering competing flat-rate offers.

    The Altavista service never even ended up launching, but it had already caused other ISPs to offer cheap flat-rate deals. As a result, Altavista are often credited with helping to give the U.K. some of the cheapest internet deals in the world.

    Maybe this service won't be a massive hit, but to instantly dismiss an innovative idea is extremely stupid!
    • I've heard that so many times about services which have actually revolutionised industries, many of those services are no longer in business but that didn't stop them being positive influences on the industry... Maybe this service won't be a massive hit, but to instantly dismiss an innovative idea is extremely stupid!

      i agree. sometimes the first few iterations of an idea need to crash and burn before the market leaders can lead the way... like the monkeys they shoot into space to test the waters for space travel.

  • Extortion racket? (Score:2, Interesting)

    Quote: Even EMI -- the first of the Big Four to release music without any DRM -- basically said, "If you don't want DRM, pay more for you music."

    Pay more to remove something that shouldn't be there anyway - something THEY added to stop you having fair use of the music.

    Seems like an extortion racket to me.
    • It's not extortion because you don't have to buy music at all. They provide something and set a price. If consumers think the product is ok at the price, it'll sell. If not, it won't.

      And...yuck. I think I just defended those guys. Think I'll go take a bath.

    • It's clearly extortion. We all know the terrible consequences of ignoring iTMS and EMI, and not buying music from either of them. Oh, the horrors of not owning a particular specific piece of non-essential entertainment!
  • "But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements."

    Broadcast radio has followed this model since the beginning and it didn't hurt them until "commercial-free" paid services came on the scenes. What would have probably been better for the record industry is the inclusion of ads in songs and albums from the early days of records. That way they could have now charged a premium for ad-f
    • by FLEB (312391)
      it didn't hurt them until "commercial-free" paid services came on the scenes

      I think you meant "alternatives to the bland, top-down managed, lowest-common-denominator 'hit machine' based homogenized national advertisements" came on the scene. IMO, radio is killing itself through a slow wasting process of terminal mediocrity. It just took a bright alternative to throw it into contrast.
  • The catch to UK-based We7.com's music download service is that every single DRM-free track comes embedded with an audible pre-roll advertisement. That's right: every track. At the moment all the ads are default We7 ads, which are painfully akin to the very worst local FM radio station's ident jingle. With added "Don't steal!" messages.
    We7 claims that after listening to ads four or five times, they'll disappear from your music. That's interesting, considering the files are in MP3 format and as such are incap
  • DRM (Score:2, Interesting)

    OK, let's stop calling this by the name Digital Rights Management. That's the name that the industry puts on it to cover their true purpose.

    It's actually DENIAL of FAIR USE. DFU. Call it DFU. When you're explaining why it's DFU instead of the industry's pet name, just say "Disney Fucks U."

    DFU. That's the framing which will help to change people's minds. Don't say DRM any longer. It's not about their rights, it's about OUR fair use rights as citizens.
    • Define the battle on our terms, not theirs.

      They already got one past the media with "Piracy". It's NOT PIRACY. It's copyright violation. If it was piracy, we already had laws on the books against that. By tying the two together the public thinks they must somehow be similar. And they are not. People are very rarely fired upon with cannon shot when their software is infringed upon.

  • I just downloaded a song and am listening to it as I type (Coolio's Gangsta walk it was one of the first songs on the list).

    - There's a 10 second ad clip in the beginning for We7. After that, the music starts.
    - Half the song later, no second ad, just music.
    - The music inexplicably stops 10 seconds before the song's done, but there's still no second ad.

    I don't know how they make money off of advertising their own service in the beginning of the song. Does anyone have an answer for this? And couldn't anyone just download a song, then import it in an audio editor like Audacity, delete the 10 second ad in the beginning and export it back? A quick scan of the terms [we7.com] doesn't seem to prohibit that.
    • by Falkkin (97268)
      "I don't know how they make money off of advertising their own service in the beginning of the song."

      Presumably, their intent is to get buzz now, get bought out later, and then get rich selling ads from real companies. That's basically the business model of every significant Internet startup.
    • by Tx (96709)

      I don't know how they make money off of advertising their own service in the beginning of the song.

      They won't, that's filler until they get more advertisers onboard.

      And couldn't anyone just download a song, then import it in an audio editor like Audacity, delete the 10 second ad in the beginning and export it back?

      Yes, or better yet use MP3DirectCut, which allows cutting and joining mp3's without de/recompression - (assuming they use mp3, I didn't look). However the hope is presumably that people are very l

    • by Hatta (162192)
      And couldn't anyone just download a song, then import it in an audio editor like Audacity, delete the 10 second ad in the beginning and export it back?

      IIRC, this would recompress the lossy file, making it sound like shit. I'd rather have the ads. There is however mp3-splt [sourceforge.net] that won't reencode.
  • So, I just signed up (using a fake name and address etc. of course, for you it is tonysmtih@mailinator.com and fuckshitup) and downloaded my first songs.

    The sign up process is crap with a bunch of information that they don't really need and will probably sell (year of birth and gender (but only male and female...) for example).

    The actual ad at the start isn't that bad, but after a while I would definitely get sick of it... So, as has been mentioned, a program to skip the ads... But the music is so crap th
  • Aren't you using Kazaa to "preview the albums to see if they are worth buying"? If so, this service should be perfect for you! Legal, allows you to preview every song, doesn't stop you from buying an ad-free CD or download later. Where is the catch?
  • Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gsn (989808) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:16PM (#18943245)
    cnet is really one to talk. You had to suffer through ads before every single video clip on their site. Sometimes their ads are longer than their video reviews (only useful to get some indication of size).

    Sure ads are annoying but music is good and free music is better. If not just pay for it. You can you know. cnet might have learnt that if they even tried looking at the bloody frontpage http://www.we7.com/ [we7.com]

    At We7, we know that ads are not always desirable, so as with everything in life it's a balance and We7 will give you a choice.

            * If you want a track now with no ad, then we will give you a way to buy the track at normal price.
            * If you want a track that is free, legal, safe and the artist gets rewarded then we add the ad. However, you don't have to have the ad forever, as with We7 technology, after a period of time (4 weeks) you will have the choice to have the track 'ad free'. So, enjoy We7 and the new digital music download model.
    Oh right and as has already been pointed out if its DRM free I can simply strip out the first ten seconds or whatever.
  • My suggestion (Score:2, Informative)

    by JoelMeow (740794)
    http://www.mptrim.com/ [mptrim.com] There's a few other programs out there that can chop up mp3s without losing any quality. I downloaded a couple of mp3s from we7 and they only slap an ad on the beginning of the song, so it's easy to chop off if you don't want it.
  • mp3splt's [sf.net] silence detection works great on all the We7 files I tested!*

    mp3splt -s downloaded.mp3

    * Grand total: one. But still. It appears the "Web 2.0 based, 'pat.pending' MediaGraft engine" is just prepending a ten-second mp3 with a polite period of silence before the music begins.

  • Seriously, what's the complaint here? Even if you're too lazy to do it yourself, they'll let you get an ad-free version after a couple of weeks. Some of you guys are way too picky.
  • I agree that this service will fail, but only because it's devaluing the music too much for it to be worth it for artists. There is no way you could attract enough advertising revenue to the vast number of independent artists with relatively low audiences. This can only work for top 40 type music, with large target audiences already in place. They will never be able to offer more niche music unless they subsidize it with more popular tracks, which is no way to determine the value of music. We end up with so
  • I quit watching TV because the ads were too invasive and the ratio of content to ads was getting worse. If cable TV channels want to push more ads, then why am I *PAYING* for content...?

    I quit listening to broadcast radio because of too many ads.

    Marketers are WAY too aggressive invading our eyespace. I got so fed up with ads and telemarketers that I pulled the plug on the radio/TV, got an unpublished phone #, and signed up for the federal do not call list.

    I'm in no hurry to sign up for we7, thank yo

  • Embedded ads work well in some things and not in others. Applications like ABC's online video player work well. ABC embeds 30 second ads into the TV show you're watching every 10 minutes or so. Consumers are already used to watching ads in the middle of their TV shows so it's not a big inconvenience.

    In contrast, We7 embeds short ads at the beginning of every song. This isn't something consumers are used to, and seems a bit annoying. I wouldn't advise any of the clients our agency works with to use a fo
  • I don't know if we7.com is doomed to failure or not. I guess the market will ultimately determine that. But seriously, is cybersquatting these days really so bad that the best name for the site that they could come up with is WE7.COM?!?! Seriously?!?! WTF does that mean?!?!

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...