Thanks blogger community for solving my mysterious error. I'll hang on to Audio Killed the Radio Star
This is a bit of an aside, and it's not. One of my students had a song on her web site that I recognized but did not have (Anna Nalick, "Breathe"). So now that grades are turned in and I can take a breath, I decided to see if I could find an MP3 version on the web. Of course this answer was yes, but I liked the business model that I have been preaching on this Blog forever. I first found the URL for the mp3, clicked on it, and then was presented with an ad for TBS. I was able to click on a link that said "Continue on to the song" and I did. The fact that I am telling you the ad was for TBS is striking in and of itself. My involvement with my "interactive" computer had me perhaps, just perhaps, more involved with the content to which I was being exposed. Then, the song began to play (the Quicktime version was a bit choppy and so, I assume, it was streaming rather than playing an MP3 that had downloaded onto my computer. But with Flash video requiring so little bandwidth (for the video ad), I can easily imagine watching a Flash commercial or other promotional content while what I really want is downloading in the background.
I would scream it from the mountaintops and, in fact, will the next time I present on this topic. I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in the United States, we like this deal! Content subsidized by advertising. Be very skeptical of pay per play would be my advice if I were an investment advisor (which I am decidedly NOT!).
Here's what I did:
On Google I did a search
"Anna Nalick" breathe mp3
and the fourth hit looked good (www.musicremedy.com) and sure enough, there was the song in either Windows Media Player or Quicktime format (I'm using Windows XP and WMP did a better job).
Now, is the copyright holder of Breathe and its performance by "Anna Nalick" getting paid by the web site? I suppose I could call the webmaster and find out...or maybe not.
You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite my ideas as © 2006, Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. Find any typos! Don't smite me, let me know!
posted by Dr. K @ 1:02 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
It looks like some other people might be agreeing with you. A new site called SpiralFrog is hoping to take a bite out of iTunes market share, with a web site offing FREE legal downloads that are ad supported. Below is what www.spiralfrog.com says about itself:
"SpiralFrog is a new online music destination, offering ad-supported legal downloads of audio and video content licensed from the catalogs of the world’s major and independent record labels.
SpiralFrog will be a secure environment where music lovers can satisfy their unyielding passion and thirst for music, entertainment, and information. Our site will be as multifaceted, smart, and current as the audience we hope to attract. An audience that we believe is the driving force behind the way music is created, discovered, and consumed today.
The SpiralFrog website is currently in Beta, and will debut in Q1 2007."
Here’s the deal: I do not like being a victim of guerrilla marketing. If I want to see an advertisement or a promotion, than I will choose to see that particular advertisement or promotion. That’s why I am not bothered by television commercials. I can choose whether or not to view these ads. If I don’t want to watch the ad, I leave the room or switch the channel. On the other hand, I hate pop-up ads on the computer. When I go to download a song or program from the Internet, I do not want my computer to be infiltrated by some pop-up ad showing me promotions from TBS or what have you. I just don’t care for it. Now, with that being said, I do agree that content subsidized by advertising on the Internet has a strong future. I would love to see a new Internet source come out as a challenger to itunes© or any of the other pay per song sources. If the web-site could do some sort of payoff to the artisits themselves, than there wouldn’t be the need to illegally steal internet downloads anymore. But for now, I would rather not be bothered by any kind of content via pop-ups when downloading my one time play of a song. It’s just not worth it to me.
Yeah, I love this idea! Pop-ups are sort of a pain, but I would totally put up with an ad or two to get out of paying for online content. We talked about the Wall Street Journal in class and how it was one of the few papers to be charging and online fee.... well, this seems like it could solve that problem for them -- just show an ad or two before letting the customers view the paper. They would have to be careful, however, not to have too many -- too many would turn people off. But, like Caitlin said, I too believe "content subsidized by advertising on the internet has a strong future."
Amelia Johnson
Post a Comment
<< Home