141–150 of 640 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's apparent that you work for them somehow. Because they understand what Bandcamp is charging for? The page for Bandcamp Pro lists all the feature you get (and everything that isn't listed there, is stuff you don't get): https://bandcamp.com/pro
Do you seriously think those features are worth 20 dollars a month? Again, clearly advocating for the platform and missing the entire message. A musician can easily self host a site that does exactly what bandcamp represents for them. Also, most serious artists are already distributed to platforms that do exactly what Bandcamp does and more. There is very little value in bancamp, unless you are perhaps trying to sell…
But if you signed up for Bandcamp Pro for $20/month, then clearly you either were happy with what you were getting, or you misunderstood what you were about to get. But personally I think that pricing page is pretty clear about what you get.
Judging by the Bandcamp United's (Union about to form at Bandcamp) feed, it seems they were nearing the completion of their initial steps to ask SongTradr to recognize and negotiate with the union. The "Last Call" post was made just 4 days ago: https://union.place/@bandcampunited/111219165521125342 Wonder if it ever got started or SongTradr tried to nip this whole thing in the bud?
It also could be a purely financial decision. Bandcamp claimed $51m in revenue (I assume gross?) in 2016 [1] and, per reporting, had about $20m in net revenue in 2022 [2]. With the reported 210 employees, that's $95k in net revenue (not profit -- wages / costs are not yet accounted for) per employee. That is very low. You could easily see an acquirer wanting to be more profitable and cutting things like editorial. [1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a hypothetical scenario: - You're running the successor to Bandcamp - You're making good money, employ a couple staff - Epic comes to you offering millions to buy your business The rational choice is to sell. Would you choose the stress of running a sustainable business over the payout? I know I wouldn't. There's no indication afaik that Bandcamp was in financial trouble before they got acquired. This is inevi…
Cheaters think everybody cheats when given the opportunity. Thieves believe only fear of the law is what keeps the masses in line. Liars believe lying is normal and that they’re only embellishing anyway and really it’s for the greater good and also pragmatic and necessary to succeed. There are many people who would not f their users and employees over when given the opportunity. Be like that.
But the reality is, I have other things I need in life too, and those things require money. My dad is working into his 70s, what if I could fund his retirement? What if I could pay for my brothers uni? Or for my grandma's nurse?
When our basic necessities are not secure, we can't always make the ethical choice. Until then, people will keep selling out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could this be considered a union busting action? Especially if the union was planning to negotiate for remote work. Edit: previously said strike breaking instead of union busting.
> Could this be considered a strike breaking action? "Strike breaking" is a different epithet, you're looking for "union busting". Nobody at Bandcamp is on strike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a hypothetical scenario: - You're running the successor to Bandcamp - You're making good money, employ a couple staff - Epic comes to you offering millions to buy your business The rational choice is to sell. Would you choose the stress of running a sustainable business over the payout? I know I wouldn't. There's no indication afaik that Bandcamp was in financial trouble before they got acquired. This is inevi…
It's not at all as simple as a "rational choice". It completely depends on your objective. Why did you start the business in the first place? If it was to make a few mill and never have to work again, sure, sell. If you wanted to build something bigger than yourself, work with great people, feel accomplished, then why sell? How is that few mill going to get you those things? A lot of founders regret their first sale…
Believe it or not you can buy that. Though I'm sure there's some corporate backed, non-replicable, behavioral science study that says otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> i only go there to buy music if I have a direct link. > Bandcamp doesn't even allow YouTube video embedding for music videos, which is a huge mistake alone. > Music platforms should be heavily promoting any independent artist that pays them a monthly fee... They seem to think that monthly subscription money form hard working artists is simply for extra file storage above free accounts. You haven't really understood…
Just calling someone dumb isn’t constructive. Instead tell them what you think Bandcamp had to offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of my money goes to the artists when I purchase with iTunes Store? If I recall correctly, Bandcamp gives ~80% usually to the artists, except on Bandcamp Fridays when they give ~90% to the artists (waiving their own fee).
I don’t think it’s a fixed amount, it’s negotiated and not public information.
> on Bandcamp Fridays, an average of 93% of your money reaches the artist/label (after payment processor fees). When you make a purchase on any other day (as millions of you have, with more than $1 billion now paid directly to artists), an average of 82% reaches the artist/label.
Background, I work in diligence for software aquisitions. There are a lot of assumptions on this thread. I don't know the answers in this case (not sure if anyone does?) but I think it is naive to assume that Bandcamp was wise to be employing all these people. While acquisitions tanking a company with stupid decisions are super common, it's also super common for companies who are trying to look like they are growing…
But I'm spitballing here, anyone know more about whether Bandcamp was bloated?
Bandcamp was shown to be profitable quite recently. Hard to justify slashing staff in half with that in mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to what? Genuinely asking, because I like Spotify's recommendation system yet I always have the feeling that it can be better... even with the recent enhanced shuffle playlist and efforts to provide more contextual recs.
YouTube music, Pandora, I'm sure there are others. Spotify likes to feed you back stuff you liked even if it's only tangentially related to what you're asking for. It also repeats the same recommendations for things like radio over and over again.
But yeah I still feel more can be done. Their new Hi-Fi package is supposed to have more options too.