0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What about giving listeners or curators the ability to earn a small # of tokens or credit by opting in to audio ads? That way, peertracks can tout itself as 100% free of audio ads for those who want it that way, but it can also monetize a ton of $$$ from listeners who don't mind audio ads.Peertracks could take a cue from LinkedIn, which currently appears to have 3 major revenue streams: premium subscriptions, advertising revenues, and talent solutions (e.g., HR recruiting tools for headhunters and corporations). Having features for professional networking would make PeerTracks something of a one-stop destination. It could have premium subscription-based accounts that allow many different types of music industry professionals to connect to others via e-mail: artists, aspiring band-members, curators/talent scouts, DJs, recording studios, technicians, record producers, nightclub owners, music lawyers.
Remember our audience has the attention span of a squirrel.
So if I'm a popular playlist creator. And I am building my "Best House of 2015" playlist and will include an Avicii and a David Guetta song in it, I would be smart to buy Avicii UIA and David Guetta UIAs before I make the list public.
Quote from: cob on July 29, 2015, 08:10:36 pmQuote from: bobmaloney on July 28, 2015, 04:27:19 pmQuote from: bobmaloney on July 17, 2015, 06:37:32 pmI thought your original (but redacted) post outlining some of your monetization plans were brilliant.That being said, I think one bitshares 2.0-esque referral type system that may work somewhat would be charging for a "Premium" account which allows the user to submit playlists and/or entire custom channels (let them be their own DJ with access to the peertracks catalogue).Allow the user to make $$$ (or at least -$$$ off their monthly "Premium") based off how many people and how popular their playlists are.Just to add some additional support to my earlier suggestion:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/09/apple-music-interview-jimmy-iovine-eddy-cuehttp://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2015/07/06/humans-not-algorithms-apple-music-revolution-and-growing-influence-curatorhttp://www.mondaynote.com/2015/07/05/human-curation-is-back/Apple is going big on human curation for good reason. I think it would benefit Peertracks to make it a highlighted feature with the possibility to earn income from it. This can not only allow for competition to create better playlists and channels, but could also be a way to bring about new era of popular DJ's or even new talk radio type personalities like Howard Stern.So you are suggesting public playlist creation would be a paid feature.They would be ranked how exactly? upvotes?And how are the playlist creators compensated exactly? The upvotes being payments?If so, why would a user upvote/pay to have a playlist rise in the ranking? What does that person get out of it (unless he's an artist featured on that playlist of course)?Not a paid feature - Rather a built-in, standard feature quite similar to the function of Google Music, where a search brings up not only tracks, albums and artists - but also playlists that might include or be related to the search. I would suspect that the most accurate and useful way to rank individual playlists would be how often they are chosen by listeners/users of Peertracks and whether they like/save/share the playlist as well as how often they go back to listen to it.I imagine that it would be best for Peertracks to incorporate and handle payments from their end - using a small fraction of the funds that will currently be used to pay the artists/labels, etc.I would suspect this feature should sell itself to artists/labels, etc. as one of the primary goals is getting users to listen and use Peertracks as their source of music/entertainment.The way other systems currently use playlist curators is pretty much equal to unpaid marketers.Payments to playlist curators may get tricky due to regulation/tax/whateverelse overhead - I suspect the CNX guys may know this area much better than I.If Peertracks is successful, popular playlist curators would be able to compensate themselves by investing in smaller, lesser-known artists before finding their way to their well-shared and populated playlists.I'm sure the most successful ones will have to navigate a new era of payola, as I suspect that with the Peertracks system - any abuse will find them losing subscribers quickly.At the very least, I would imagine you can give them credit toward, or completely cover premium accounts for useful curators - maybe tokens akin to Brownie.PTS as well? Additionally, I see every one of these features ALSO working well carried into an author/ebooks platform.I try to view everything on this blockchain through both filters lately and they seem to match perfectly as far as I can see.Maybe more importantly, I believe that independent authors, may offer a very important adoption advantage simply due to the fact that they write - and write well - often news, blogs and opinion articles besides just books.What a terrific and effective way to propagate the formula ;-)
Quote from: bobmaloney on July 28, 2015, 04:27:19 pmQuote from: bobmaloney on July 17, 2015, 06:37:32 pmI thought your original (but redacted) post outlining some of your monetization plans were brilliant.That being said, I think one bitshares 2.0-esque referral type system that may work somewhat would be charging for a "Premium" account which allows the user to submit playlists and/or entire custom channels (let them be their own DJ with access to the peertracks catalogue).Allow the user to make $$$ (or at least -$$$ off their monthly "Premium") based off how many people and how popular their playlists are.Just to add some additional support to my earlier suggestion:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/09/apple-music-interview-jimmy-iovine-eddy-cuehttp://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2015/07/06/humans-not-algorithms-apple-music-revolution-and-growing-influence-curatorhttp://www.mondaynote.com/2015/07/05/human-curation-is-back/Apple is going big on human curation for good reason. I think it would benefit Peertracks to make it a highlighted feature with the possibility to earn income from it. This can not only allow for competition to create better playlists and channels, but could also be a way to bring about new era of popular DJ's or even new talk radio type personalities like Howard Stern.So you are suggesting public playlist creation would be a paid feature.They would be ranked how exactly? upvotes?And how are the playlist creators compensated exactly? The upvotes being payments?If so, why would a user upvote/pay to have a playlist rise in the ranking? What does that person get out of it (unless he's an artist featured on that playlist of course)?
Quote from: bobmaloney on July 17, 2015, 06:37:32 pmI thought your original (but redacted) post outlining some of your monetization plans were brilliant.That being said, I think one bitshares 2.0-esque referral type system that may work somewhat would be charging for a "Premium" account which allows the user to submit playlists and/or entire custom channels (let them be their own DJ with access to the peertracks catalogue).Allow the user to make $$$ (or at least -$$$ off their monthly "Premium") based off how many people and how popular their playlists are.Just to add some additional support to my earlier suggestion:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/09/apple-music-interview-jimmy-iovine-eddy-cuehttp://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2015/07/06/humans-not-algorithms-apple-music-revolution-and-growing-influence-curatorhttp://www.mondaynote.com/2015/07/05/human-curation-is-back/Apple is going big on human curation for good reason. I think it would benefit Peertracks to make it a highlighted feature with the possibility to earn income from it. This can not only allow for competition to create better playlists and channels, but could also be a way to bring about new era of popular DJ's or even new talk radio type personalities like Howard Stern.
I thought your original (but redacted) post outlining some of your monetization plans were brilliant.That being said, I think one bitshares 2.0-esque referral type system that may work somewhat would be charging for a "Premium" account which allows the user to submit playlists and/or entire custom channels (let them be their own DJ with access to the peertracks catalogue).Allow the user to make $$$ (or at least -$$$ off their monthly "Premium") based off how many people and how popular their playlists are.
Let the people bet whatever amount they want on songs they like and let them get paid every month when/if they reach the top 100 best songs on the platform (charts)...Or much better copy the BINARY OPTION system from the forex markets...Let the people bet on songs making a CALL (if they like it) or PUT (if they don't) using the music tokens !!!Let them have a potential profit from 70% to 85% and let the platform keep the rest!PLEASE SEE HOW BINARY OPTIONS WORK and implement the idea here !!!!
What happens to the users who just want to listen to unlimited ad free music without all of that other stuff like tokens, you know the ones that just unchecked the box for notifications.
Or a giant middle finger.
Quote from: Ander on July 24, 2015, 05:15:04 amQuote from: bitsharesblog.com on July 24, 2015, 02:56:22 amQuote from: Ander on July 24, 2015, 02:11:47 amThey have said absolutely no audio ads.Because everyone despises them.I bet that they change their tune, audio ads are inevitable.I bet they dont. They do have a plan and it doesn't involve audio ads.I agree with @Ander .. costs have been reduced drastically simply by using the blockchain tech .. so why shouldn't income be reduced to only those streams that are not-annoying?
Quote from: bitsharesblog.com on July 24, 2015, 02:56:22 amQuote from: Ander on July 24, 2015, 02:11:47 amThey have said absolutely no audio ads.Because everyone despises them.I bet that they change their tune, audio ads are inevitable.I bet they dont. They do have a plan and it doesn't involve audio ads.
Quote from: Ander on July 24, 2015, 02:11:47 amThey have said absolutely no audio ads.Because everyone despises them.I bet that they change their tune, audio ads are inevitable.
They have said absolutely no audio ads.Because everyone despises them.
Quote from: bitsharesblog.com on July 24, 2015, 02:56:22 amQuote from: Ander on July 24, 2015, 02:11:47 amThey have said absolutely no audio ads.Because everyone despises them.I bet that they change their tune, audio ads are inevitable.I bet they dont. They do have a plan and it doesnt involve audio ads.
Its like you could go as far to create a social network for people who hold coins and connect with people with similar interests.
Quote from: Ander on July 23, 2015, 08:13:27 pmLeaderboards for who is the biggest fan (owns the most artistcoins of an artist) is a must. People will buy coins to try to get themselves to the top.This is actually a brilliant idea. Its like you could go as far to create a social network for people who hold coins and connect with people with similar interests.
Leaderboards for who is the biggest fan (owns the most artistcoins of an artist) is a must. People will buy coins to try to get themselves to the top.
this kind of thread makes me wonder what those guys have been doing for the past couple of months? Are you serious talking about basic stuff NOW? Asking the community who has been waiting for almost one year to see first releases?Very disappointing.
I think the reason they aren't just going with that is that the model is freemium and they dont expect a lot of the potential users to ever pay any signup fees or anything.
COPY AND PASTE IN THE BTS REFERRAL PROGRAM!
You own the network, but who pays for development?