Already the number of “services” artists have to sign up for in order to have any hope of a successful release in terms of volume, almost from the start guarantees failure in terms of pure unit economics.

Supposedly this type of thing will ‘help’ independent artists gain ‘exposure.’ If successful, all it will do is clamp down on the channels of distribution once more, as this advertising, much like search engine marketing has done, will become so competitive that only those making the most money off the backend will be able to afford it and/or bid competitively in an auction environment (and as the CEO has stated, the airplay is most definitely a limited resource, in order to keep the consumer happy). And those making the most money off the backend are those than can 1) afford to spend the most on the frontend to create volume, and 2) those who can wring the cheapest prices out of their various suppliers and services…so, it would be those folks otherwise known as big-money labels, not independent artists trying to squeak something through that may be “good” but not have the backing it deserves…you know, the same folks that could afford to pay for DJ coke budgets (no, not the soft drink) in the 70’s.

And so, we are right back where we started fifty years ago.

Dan Kaufman, CEO of Jango here… you raise some good points I would like to address. “Jango Airplay” is about letting emerging artists reach potential fans and helping listeners discover music they’re likely to like – so the question of relevance and quality is a huge part of the service. It obviously has to be a good experience for everyone.

I like your idea of letting good songs get more plays/lower price a la AdSense – that is definitely in line with the way we think about this service, and something we’ll explore for upcoming releases. In a sense, it’s already happening (songs that get more than 50 good ratings enter general rotation and start getting more plays for free) but I can certainly see us developing a more advanced algorithm that rewards songs with high relevance (ie lots of good ratings, etc).

On the other end of the spectrum – songs that are not well received – we already have several mechanisms in place to ensure quality and that any really unpopular songs stop playing entirely. So it’s not the case that anyone can upload anything and it will play as many times as they’ve paid for no matter what. Here’s how it works:

- Quality review

First of all, we review all songs to ensure that they meet (our own admittedly totally subjective) quality standards, and that the “similar artists” chosen make sense – ie no song will be played next to both Keith Urban and Soulja Boy.

- Listener control

If a user doesn’t like an “Airplay” song, all he needs to do is skip. Or if he gives it a negative rating, he’ll never hear it again. This applies both for “Airplay” songs and songs in general rotation.

- Community control

If an “Airplay” song receives more negative ratings than positive ratings, it will be “retired” (and the money refunded to the emerging artist). Essentially, everybody that passes our internal quality review gets a shot at putting their song out there, but if it bombs in the community, it will stop playing. So far though, this hasn’t happened. Unlike many in the peanut gallery seem to think, just because you’re not established doesn’t mean you’re not good – and artists serious enough about their career to spend money on promotion are generally much better than you’d think. So far our users have been giving positive ratings, writing comments and “becoming fans” far more than rating down songs.

- Frequency capping

Lastly, “Airplay” songs play very infrequently compared to established artists. Users will hear an “airplay song” no more than once per day initially. Eventually they may hear more than one per day but no more than once per 20 songs (unless they ask for more).

I hope this clarifies. We’re convinced that Jango Airplay is good for emerging artists AND users. With our quality review, listener and community control, and infrequency of airplay songs (compared to established artists), we believe that adding Airplay songs to the mix actually improves the user experience on Jango. If our users tell us otherwise, we’ll make adjustments (e.g. – let users opt out of hearing Airplay songs). At the end of the day, the whole purpose is to help independents get discovered and help users discover independents – and it’s paramount that it’s a good experience for everyone. If we do that right, we think this is a MUCH better experience for everyone involved than the alternative – which is a 30 second audio ad for Lending Tree every other song.

“When it comes to promoting new music, pay-for-play schemes are generally frowned upon.”

No, widdwe Erick, it’s not “generally frowned upon”. When it comes to promoting new music, pay-for-play schemes are generally illegal.

Adwords-style auctioning.

It seems to be that as long as there is some sort of “full disclosure” that the following song is an advertisement, then more power to both sides. Artists should be able to do this and Jango should be able to charge for it, but let’s make sure that there is no confusion. Like Erick mentioned, they need better disclosure so no risk of confusion. It’s a free market after fall. Let them experiment and see if they can crack the bus model code. Could have some very interesting results.

http://www.heal...tedirectory.com

A similar debate has occurred in the past regarding their program’s similarity to payola. You can see it on their own forums here:

http://www.last...orum/5/_/332810

I agree with most of the comments here that this would be a fine monetization strategy if it was clearly disclosed that these plays are paid-for promotions. I am not aware of either Last.FM or Jango doing so though.

Even then, I’m not sure how large of a monetization opportunity this is, as most indie or unsigned bands will tell you they don’t have much of a promotional budget to throw at things like this. And there are already a variety of free ways to promote your music through iLike, MySpace, etc that I am uncertain if a site like Jango will be able to command the few dollars that these artists have.

http://www.thed...-explores-p.php

The problem with such systems is scalability… the amount of Airplays that Jango can offer is inherently limited by it’s userbase… (the amount of certain airplays possible per day is equal to the amount of daily users and the total airplays that jango can deliver per day is equal to daily users times 12). Sure it isn’t a problem today, but what if the popularity of this pay for play eventually reaches the limit and outpaces new user growth?

Something to think about.

As an artist there’s lots of modes to trying to get word out.. and not all of them cost money.. blogging, podcasting, tweeting, youtub-ing, community building.. putting together a press kit and pitching, influencer outreach.. its all more time and energy then money.. I mean welcome to social media marketing and communications, right?

So I don’t know that we artists NEED to pay for promotions but.. but more options is always good.

I frankly think that… well lets say I have a track I want you to hear.. you’re time and attention are limited commodities.. so I mean.. the notion of paying someone to check you out isn’t such a terrible thing to me.. though that’s different from paying a virtual radio station.. and the payment need not be, strictly speaking, economic..

As an artist in social media.. I want the community / consumer / audience / user experience to be the best it possibly can.. and I don’t really want to pay for promotion / advertising where.. it somehow takes away from that.. where a part of what you associate my brand with then becomes the crap you’re forced to digest to get to get whatever it is you want.

But I also thing that super highly targeted advertisement can actually be content.

So in the end I figure.. the verdict is still out.. and I think its more a question of how its done then if its done.