Forum - View topic
NEWS: GDH to Allow Downloaders to Set Price for 2 Gonzo Anime


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PonSquared



Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 192
Location: Lost in the Catskills
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:36 am Reply with quote
It worked out pretty well for NIN and their ghosts album. Hell, I paid the five bucks on Amazon just to support them in their endeavor. The music is pretty good if you want something relax/pain/etc to, but really it was a show of support more than anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenBrown



Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:55 am Reply with quote
The Radiohead album was an opening pricing experiment and was nowhere near as successful as NIN's Ghost, which WASN'T an open pricing model.

Ghosts was free for the first disc, after that there were pricing models for expanded options, 5 dollars for DRM free of the entire album (4 disc), 10 for shipped on CDs, 75 for the deluxe edition, which CDs, a DVD, and a data DVD in multitrack formatting for easier remixing.

But where they really hit it on the money was selling to super fans, the uber edition was $300 and they sold all 2500 of those almost instantly, and thats what made the Ghosts experiment a success.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options

This crunchy roll model isn't following that at all, in short it's a pretty bad idea. Those that think that it will work out to higher than 2 dollars because of "good feelings" donations are kidding themselves. The most popular venue for "good feelings" donations is charity, and the only reason it works there is because the provided services are backed by larger donations, and I doubt some mogul in Japan is giving Gonzo money to make these two series without expecting a ROI.

The BOST TV strategy is the correct one, give the first two episodes away for free, charge a fixed price for the rest, provide a lower quality free service through YouTube to curb piracy to limit initial and later availability so the DVD model works out better later down the line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenBrown



Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:03 am Reply with quote
Sagecat wrote:
It worked out pretty well for NIN and their ghosts album. Hell, I paid the five bucks on Amazon just to support them in their endeavor. The music is pretty good if you want something relax/pain/etc to, but really it was a show of support more than anything.


That's kinda sad, I'm sure Amazon took a cut of that 5 dollars and NIN probably would have made more if you'd bought it direct. Oh well, better marketing exposure has it's drawbacks I guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WileyOtaku



Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:43 am Reply with quote
Hello. Very Happy Just want to point out that Amazon did not take a cut of Trent's money apart from the initial payment--$38--he gave to TuneCore to put up the album for download, and that was it.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/03/trent-reznor-pa.html

The curious can look up the ghost's spotting section in echoingthesound forums. Trent supposedly grossed 2.6 million from amazon sales and downloads from his site. (The $1.6 million figure hadn't counted amazon, I think.)

On Gonzo's new anime,

I wish the episode downloads could be tied to some physical product a la NIN model, for a price significantly more than just $5--for downloads and the physical.

I watched Last Exile for free from one of Winamp's mid-quality streaming channels way back when, not sure if the service is still up. Happy to say I bought the DVDs. (One DVD at a time. Crying or Very sad )

[/lurk]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TJ_Kat



Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 267
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:24 am Reply with quote
I would be amused if people started paying BOST TV their $1.99, and then went and downloaded it from crunchyroll for free. That way people would still be supporting the industry and showing how dumb the crunchyroll model is at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Beruda



Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 114
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:31 am Reply with quote
I think there should just be one set price. Then people know what to expect. I don't see the point in bothering with a pay whatever you want plan.

B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goodpenguin



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 457
Location: Hunt Valley, MD
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:36 am Reply with quote
BenBrown wrote:
Quote:
The Radiohead album was an opening pricing experiment and was nowhere near as successful as NIN's Ghost, which WASN'T an open pricing model.


Hat-tip to BenBrown for some perspective on the comparison. People also have to remember that music acts like Radiohead (which already are a well-known mega-act) make a huge percentage of their income through touring, which is obviously not a revenue stream available to the anime industry.

In general, I thought this was an April Fool's deal until I saw the press release at GDH. Overall, this would have been a neat quirk in the market of 1998, but seems a little half-baked given the market situation of 2008. I wonder a bit if this didn't come from Crunchyroll's end as well, worrying that straight pay options would drive down their viewer-numbers, which is the factor they seem to prize the most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
babbo



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:06 am Reply with quote
I'm wondering, is GDH paying crunchyroll for this? And they say downloading, but it makes me wonder if they just aren't differentiaing with streaming. In any case they're probably paying a heck of a lot less than they are paying Japanese broadcast stations though. At this point in the marketing/selling of an anime series aren't they looking more for exposure rather than making money o,o?

I mean at this point doing this is the difference between broadcasting on Japanese television and not making any money 'til the first DVD and merch and doing that plus making money from an audience that isn't necessarily touched until a R1 release, before interest is necessarily even generated in the R2 dvds and merch. All this a in a relatively new/novel marketing scheme which is probably attracting attention on its own >.>

I don't approve of Crunchyroll anymore then the next guy, but it almost seems like people are having a knee jerk reaction because of crunchyroll. Gotta wonder how people would react if it was only youtube that got this deal <.<

Goodpenguin wrote:


Hat-tip to BenBrown for some perspective on the comparison. People also have to remember that music acts like Radiohead (which already are a well-known mega-act) make a huge percentage of their income through touring, which is obviously not a revenue stream available to the anime industry.


There was a very interesting post in the fansubber interview on that topic that I think a lot of people overlooked, not being knowledgeable (not to mention that I also have always thought that touring was the prime source of income for bands), I can only take his word with a bit of doubt, but it is interesting to see such a common assumption shot down:

thecactusman17 wrote:
I feel I need to make a statement about a comparison I thought was unfair and inaccurate, regarding musicians versus anime producers/distributors.

First, my bonafieds: I am currently attending Expression College of Digital Art, in one of the most prestigious audio programs on the west coast. I work with musicians on a daily basis, and music is a large part of what we do here. Knowing the music industry is vital to our careers, if for no other reason that it will always be a fallback position if things go south in other mediums we actually want to be involved in.

MUSIC ARTISTS RARELY MAKE MONEY THROUGH CONCERTS. At least, signed musicians to big labels. This is a popular myth spawned by a public's unclear understanding of how the music industry works.

Music concerts are a wildly expensive undertaking. There is a greater profit margin per attendee than CD or radio airplay, to be sure, but people need to understand those models first.

Radio airplay doesn't do crap unless you recorded the music, mixed the music, or most importantly wrote the music. Modern singer songwriters almost never get played on the radio because the RIAA doesn't like the idea of its artists actually getting money before they do.

CD and album sales are always a huge net loss to the artist. Most artists--major, successful artists whom you probably have multiple albums of on your shelf--have gone broke, or are broke today, because of the sheer expense of printing and distributing CDs. Only exceptionally old bands who can afford to make their own copies themselves and who were smart enough to acquire rights to their own music make money off of CD sales, often decades and millions of sales after the music was written. This is because CD PRINT RUNS ARE PAID BY THE ARTIST WITH LOANS FROM THE RECORD COMPANIES. Those loans must be paid off or the artist will never see a cent offstage. Similar business models apply to music videos.

Concerts are first and foremost the method that signed musicians use to get out of debt fast. It is the only method within the music industry with sufficient profit margin to rapidly repay the loan that does not involve being free of the record label (often not possible, or if possible actively prevented). CD sales and radio airplay are merely advertisements for the purpose of bringing in paying attendees to concerts. FAILURE TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL CONCERT RUN (THE LOANS ARE PAID OFF) ALMOST ALWAYS INSURES THAT THE BAND IS DONE AND PERMANENTLY BROKE.

TLC. Booker T and the MGs (actually, most of the artists of the once great STAX records). Almost every small band who's tried to "make it big," and plenty more who did.

Here is a great (if somewhat foulmouthed, so warnings aforetime) article that accurately explains to people with a complete cost breakdown what I'm talking about: Warning ! Some foul language ahead!

Why is this different from anime, especially in terms of fansubbing?

Anime has a guaranteed distribution channel upon release that recovers most or all of the money spent on the product. This would be ad or PPV-supported distribution on Japanese television, along with exhaustive and potentially lucrative ancilliary products like toys, statues, manga, etc.

This means that unlike CDs and concerts, anime actually makes money during the act of fansubbing assuming that the subs are released after the airing of each episode. Obviously, releasing shows before they premiere has the potential to rob viewership from those shows. They make money through ad revenue earned during the broadcast, or from the purchase of DVD footage. Often, this is not the case during music piracy. Also, obviously, this revenue stream is largely restricted to a regional basis (Japan).

A simple market change could make up the difference in ad revenue that fansubbing causes, whereas the music industry is very soon going to find itself gutted like a caught fish becaus it could not and would not revert to a musician- and engineer-friendly system, which is inevitably driving away large numbers of bright and skilled young talent.

OK, my rant is over, back to studying for tests.[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crilix



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 208
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:00 pm Reply with quote
TJ_Kat wrote:
I would be amused if people started paying BOST TV their $1.99, and then went and downloaded it from crunchyroll for free. That way people would still be supporting the industry and showing how dumb the crunchyroll model is at the same time.
The "Crunchyroll model" was announced on GDH first, meaning it's not Crunchyroll's idea, but GDH's. GDH is experimenting, we have to keep that in mind. We'll probably see some results the next time they plan on releasing their upcoming series online.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hentai4me



Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 1313
Location: England. Robin is so Cute!
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:01 pm Reply with quote
The problem lies in that the main draw of CR is that they offer free streams of anime...legally or not.

Why would you go to a site which has built its reputation on free anime and then offer to pay when you can get the exact same product for free from the exact same source?

If anything this weakens the BOST model as they will offer the same material and still allow those with a conscience to assuage it by paying...but paying less than the BOST price. Only difference is they are not getting the DRM free download, and I for one don't actually care about that anyway as I see little in these series that make me want to keep them...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Goodpenguin



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 457
Location: Hunt Valley, MD
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:50 pm Reply with quote
babbo wrote:


Goodpenguin wrote:


Hat-tip to BenBrown for some perspective on the comparison. People also have to remember that music acts like Radiohead (which already are a well-known mega-act) make a huge percentage of their income through touring, which is obviously not a revenue stream available to the anime industry.


There was a very interesting post in the fansubber interview on that topic that I think a lot of people overlooked, not being knowledgeable (not to mention that I also have always thought that touring was the prime source of income for bands), I can only take his word with a bit of doubt, but it is interesting to see such a common assumption shot down:

thecactusman17 wrote:
content


That's a take I hadn't seen babbo. It illustrates some interesting things, but it also muddles it's own points a bit:
Quote:

MUSIC ARTISTS RARELY MAKE MONEY THROUGH CONCERTS. At least, signed musicians to big labels. This is a popular myth spawned by a public's unclear understanding of how the music industry works.

Quote:
CD and album sales are always a huge net loss to the artist.

Quote:

Concerts are first and foremost the method that signed musicians use to get out of debt fast. It is the only method within the music industry with sufficient profit margin to rapidly repay the loan that does not involve being free of the record label (often not possible, or if possible actively prevented). CD sales and radio airplay are merely advertisements for the purpose of bringing in paying attendees to concerts.


This doesn't really shoot down touring as a major source of income at all, it just hints that concerts aren't always easy cash either. And when the poster contrasts this to anime's revenue model later in their post, notably they gloss over that anime is already struggling vis-a-vie revenue stream presently, and really blur concepts like ad-revenue in ways which are currently not used/utilized. It's an interesting contrasting music take, but it's also a little too scatter-shot for rebutting/bolstering arguments in the anime vein.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenBrown



Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:53 pm Reply with quote
babbo wrote:
I can only take his word with a bit of doubt, but it is interesting to see such a common assumption shot down:

thecactusman17 wrote:
Stuff about music revenue, correlary to anime


Thats an interesting quote babbo, it's a shame that I usually can't make it through the interview forums post by post, most of it is just too much non-sense to find interesting bits like that one.

The interesting part was he asserts that the anime studios have already recouped their expenses through the Japanese network contracts. This is completely contrary to everything I've ever heard that the studio doesn't see a dime from networks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
houkoholic



Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 83
Location: Japan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:06 pm Reply with quote
babbo wrote:

thecactusman17 wrote:

Anime has a guaranteed distribution channel upon release that recovers most or all of the money spent on the product. This would be ad or PPV-supported distribution on Japanese television, along with exhaustive and potentially lucrative ancilliary products like toys, statues, manga, etc.

This means that unlike CDs and concerts, anime actually makes money during the act of fansubbing assuming that the subs are released after the airing of each episode. Obviously, releasing shows before they premiere has the potential to rob viewership from those shows. They make money through ad revenue earned during the broadcast, or from the purchase of DVD footage. Often, this is not the case during music piracy. Also, obviously, this revenue stream is largely restricted to a regional basis (Japan).


This is not entirely true. Reportedly in PiQ's first volume with an interview with Bandai Visual's own boss has said, anime companies pay the TV stations to get their shows on air because they treat air time as one big advertisment for themselves, they in fact gets little or no advertising revenues from the TV stations.

Most people overseas don't know this (since 99.9% of the raws distributed has the ads removed) and speaking from first hand experience as I watch shows here in Japan on TV - but if you watch a show like Shakugan no Shana (partially produced by Geneon Entertainment Japan) on Japanese TV, the ads during the break are entirely centred on the show's DVDs and music CDs related to the show itself, or from artists that belongs to Geneon music such as Shimamiya Eiko (whom sang for both season of Higurashi, but never for Shana IIRC).

Another example is Minami-ke (produced by King Records/Starchild), the ads are for the CDs and DVDs of seiyuu Horie Yui, Tamura Yukari, Nonaka Ai and Mizuki Nana. All four of them are signed on to King Records/Starchild for their music career, and except for Mizuki Nana who played Minami Touma in the series, the other three do not even have a role in the Minami-ke anime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cloud1989



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:27 pm Reply with quote
if this is not a joke I suppose it makes since, everyone one knows how to get it for free, if your paying for it, it is because you want to and not becasue you think its the only way. With that said gonzo can take the place of subbers and make something back, all they can do is win more this way because evey anime can be had for free in the first place and there simply telling fans, "hey, you can now actually pay for this if you want and not be stuck being labled as a freeloader and help us out a bit, but its up to you if you think anime is worth your money". Even if only 10% pay, its still better that everyone who wants to watch it first watching for nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
babbo



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:57 pm Reply with quote
BenBrown wrote:
babbo wrote:
I can only take his word with a bit of doubt, but it is interesting to see such a common assumption shot down:

thecactusman17 wrote:
Stuff about music revenue, correlary to anime


Thats an interesting quote babbo, it's a shame that I usually can't make it through the interview forums post by post, most of it is just too much non-sense to find interesting bits like that one.

The interesting part was he asserts that the anime studios have already recouped their expenses through the Japanese network contracts. This is completely contrary to everything I've ever heard that the studio doesn't see a dime from networks.


Well I was mostly focusing on the conception that people have this idea that the comparison of the music industry to anime is absolutely unrealistic because of concert revenue <..> The point is that it's a crapshoot and most bands don't make much money off of it, which is why most bands suffer just as much from mp3 downloads as the anime industry suffers from fansubs and what not <.<

BenBrown wrote:
babbo wrote:
I can only take his word with a bit of doubt, but it is interesting to see such a common assumption shot down:

thecactusman17 wrote:
Stuff about music revenue, correlary to anime


Thats an interesting quote babbo, it's a shame that I usually can't make it through the interview forums post by post, most of it is just too much non-sense to find interesting bits like that one.

The interesting part was he asserts that the anime studios have already recouped their expenses through the Japanese network contracts. This is completely contrary to everything I've ever heard that the studio doesn't see a dime from networks.


Well I was mostly focusing on the conception that people have this idea that the comparison of the music industry to anime is absolutely unrealistic because of concert revenue <.< I admit that his ideas on the studio expenses may be off, but that's not really why I posted it >.>

houkoholic wrote:
babbo wrote:

thecactusman17 wrote:

Anime has a guaranteed distribution channel upon release that recovers most or all of the money spent on the product. This would be ad or PPV-supported distribution on Japanese television, along with exhaustive and potentially lucrative ancilliary products like toys, statues, manga, etc.

This means that unlike CDs and concerts, anime actually makes money during the act of fansubbing assuming that the subs are released after the airing of each episode. Obviously, releasing shows before they premiere has the potential to rob viewership from those shows. They make money through ad revenue earned during the broadcast, or from the purchase of DVD footage. Often, this is not the case during music piracy. Also, obviously, this revenue stream is largely restricted to a regional basis (Japan).


This is not entirely true. Reportedly in PiQ's first volume with an interview with Bandai Visual's own boss has said, anime companies pay the TV stations to get their shows on air because they treat air time as one big advertisment for themselves, they in fact gets little or no advertising revenues from the TV stations.

Most people overseas don't know this (since 99.9% of the raws distributed has the ads removed) and speaking from first hand experience as I watch shows here in Japan on TV - but if you watch a show like Shakugan no Shana (partially produced by Geneon Entertainment Japan) on Japanese TV, the ads during the break are entirely centred on the show's DVDs and music CDs related to the show itself, or from artists that belongs to Geneon music such as Shimamiya Eiko (whom sang for both season of Higurashi, but never for Shana IIRC).

Another example is Minami-ke (produced by King Records/Starchild), the ads are for the CDs and DVDs of seiyuu Horie Yui, Tamura Yukari, Nonaka Ai and Mizuki Nana. All four of them are signed on to King Records/Starchild for their music career, and except for Mizuki Nana who played Minami Touma in the series, the other three do not even have a role in the Minami-ke anime.


Again, not the reason I posted it. Additionally I already discussed the idea of anime companies paying for broadcasts, in the earlier part of my post so it should be pretty obvious I wasn't posting it for those reasons <.<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group