Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
ah great, numbers. let's take a look at that: At 05:09 PM 6/24/2002, Rick Walker/Loop.pooL wrote: >I'm afraid you are, Mark..........you made an understandable calculation >error and >made your equation based on 7/100 of a cent per song when, in reality it >is >7 cents per song. Mark's numbers were per listener, your's are per 100 listeners. (if I've got that right.) The correct rate is .07 cents per listener, or 7 cents per 100 listeners, or 70 cents per thousand listeners, for one song play. >here's a quick revision of your math: > >288 songs X $.07/song = $20.16/24 hours worth of songs >$20.16 X 7 (days) = 141.12 a week >$141.12 X 4 (weeks) = $564.48 > >That's an impossible figure and will put almost every 'legal' free >internet >radio station out of business. period. point. dot No it isn't. I can't understand how you guys keep reaching that conclusion, without following up with any analysis of the business of running a real web site. Let's see what kind of advertising rates you would need to charge to make this work. 288 songs per day X 100 listeners = 28,800 plays/day 28,800 plays X 28 days = 806,400 plays/month let's say you play 2 ads every 5 songs. 2ads X (806,400 / 5) = 322,560 ad plays. So you have ads being heard 322,560 times during the month. Visual ads are usually sold on a "cost per thousand impressions" (CPM) basis. I'll assume web radio ads are sold on a "cost per thousand listens" basis. $564.48 / 322 = $1.75 CPM In other words, you have to charge only $1.75 per thousand listens for your ad space. If audio ads are comparable to banner ads, that is well within industry rates for completely generic, splattered-anywhere ads. For targeted advertising you can easily charge 4-5 times that or more. I would expect audio ads could charge even more than banners anyway. Which makes $1.75 a fairly low ad rate. This is not hard to accomplish, even for small time operations. I'm doing it right now, for real. It is NOT impossible, or even close to impossible. >There goes the underground, my friend. only the underground that can't figure out the most basic business concepts. >And,as my wife points out, commercial radio doesn't even have these fees >in >place and they have advertising revenue Radio stations have to pay considerably higher fees for licenses to broadcast over the radio spectrum. And since the number of radio channels available to them are very limited for any given region, those licenses go into bidding wars and become even more expensive. Plus the costs of broadcast equipment, studios, staff, etc. make a radio station a lot more expensive to run than a web station. Yet somehow they manage to pay much larger bills by selling ads. Clearly it is possible. How come webcasters are unable to do the same? That's why at the beginning of all this I said Herb Tarlek was a genius compared to these guys, and this notion that webcasters are being driven under by these royalty rates is BS. kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com