[fruityloops] Re: MP3.com vs. Ampcast vs. ????
- From: "Gwydion Elderwyn" <Gwydion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <fruityloops@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:02:54 +1100
> Anybody have any comments/reviews of these services?
> I've heard good things about ampcast and bad things about
> MP3.com ... nothing very specific though ..
I'm a member of both - here's my assessment. I am unashamedly in favour of
Ampcast, and I think the following will show why. I've tried to be fair and
objective.
=== MP3.com ===
=Good=
* Huge exposure - I mean, everyone knows MP3.com!
* Well-designed site that's compatible with most browsers
=Bad=
* Huge exposure also means a LOT of artists on the site - so you need to
do a lot of self-promotion work just to get people to your page.
* Since it's owned by Universal, there's lots of commercial artists
there, so your chances of making the charts are virtually nothing
* Slow approval times (for uploaded songs & graphics) on free service -
usually at least 3 days and often 5 or more. That means, your uploaded
songs are not available during that time.
* Paid service is $US20 per month - $US240 per year.
* MP3s can be 128kbps only
=Ugly=
* Each track download pays only about one tenth of a cent (and that's
only if you're on the paid service). To put that in toperspective, to break
even on the paid service you need to get about 20,000 plays per month, or
quarter of a million plays in a year. If you're that successful, you're
probably good enough to be on a record label and don't need MP3.com anyway!
* Absolutely terrible support - most queries get nothing more than a
form letter response which quite often does not address the questions or
issues raised at all.
=== Ampcast.com ===
=Good=
* Membership is only $US75 per year
* Each track download pays five cents. So, to break even at Ampcast you
only need 1,500 downloads in a year, or 125 per month (compared to 250,000
or 20000 at mp3.com)
* Instant approval for uploaded songs & graphics
* MP3s can be up to 192kbps
=Bad=
* Paid membership is mandatory. But let's be fair, this is an
independent site, not backed by a major record and film company - so the
money has to come from somewhere!
* Not anywhere near the exposure of MP3.com - however, there are a lot
less artists there as well. It's counter-intuitive, but I've had far *more*
traffic to my Ampcast page than to my MP3.com page
* Apparently, has problems in some browsers (I can't verify this
personally)
=Ugly=
* So far, I've had no reason to put anything into this category!
Other related posts:
