It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
True! Personally, I find it interesting to see how the online video review process and the amount of videos has changed so much so rapidly. If they offer discounts to the store on music equipment, that might spur some on to pay. Or, really good online lessons!
choking, slapping, maybe some scat (but only if it's essential to the plot).
For a tenner a month I'll explain how to extend the advice to cover any number of other publishers.
The gear they play is used for shop demo anyway, so all they are out is cost of the camera sound gear and the wages of those involved (which probably comes from advertising budget)
Anderton's wouldn't even be close to being on my list though but I would continue to buy gear from them so their YouTube vids would still allow them a share of my winnings
- the cost of the premises (they bought a house for it to keep it away from the noise of the warehouse and the shop)
- the additional business rates
- soundproofing and acoustic treatment
- paying the guys (I believe Rob, Bea and Pete are all freelance)
- editing
- promotion for the channel itself
- paying guests (might come as a shock to know that Steve Vai, John Petrucci et al don't do this sort of thing for free)...etc etc.
Still, I can't imagine it's cheap for the higher-end guests.
If Richer Sounds came out and said they're making a loss on their video and promotional material, no one would sponsor them.
Even if they do make a small loss on this side of the business, it is certainly in part advertising, so they can't complain too much because the bread and butter of their business wouldn't be thriving as much without the YouTube presence. Not to mention all the exposure it's given the guys involved, who now all gets tickets to all the events round the year, get to go and do stuff with other brands etc.
I think it's just Andertons being Andertons, they're forward thinking, they explore new revenue streams, and I guess despite a few of us thinking it's a bit cheap, overall they'll still be better off financially in the end, and money means far more than integrity these days, apparently.
Ahhhh...so it's not that musicians should do it for free in return for the exposure, they should do it for free in return for their endorsers' exposure? Got it.
Why don't you give Steve a call and book him for an event, then tell him he's doing it for free on that basis? Let us know what he says.
Not sure about the Vai one, but the Petrucci one was very Musicman heavy, as were Nick Johnston and Keith Merrow with Schecter; do these guys not get paid by their endorsers for doing this?