Dromed Advanced Member Posts:900  
| 2/15/2006 2:28 PM |
|
|
I was looking at the David Bowie website recently and decided to sign up for the newsletter etc. On trying to join the site I see that if you want to be a member you have to pay over $60 membership fee....WHA???!!!!
https://secure.ultrastar.com/davidbowie/signup/
I know Bowie has been a bit of a web pioneer but is this the norm for uber-stars these days? In light of accessibility on the internet these days and the like, I was pretty shocked to see that. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Protein biscuit Basic Member Posts:364
| 2/15/2006 3:59 PM |
|
|
Yeah, it's pretty s**tty. He's got his own bank too where you can sign up and open a Bowie Bank Account, get a credit card and other such fiscal stuff. First artist to effectively convert his past, present and future popularity into dollars by floating himself? Mixed feelings about it but my instinct tells me it's BS. I certainly wouldn't pay 60 yo-yo's to become a member. Of course Bowie is quids in so i suppose he doesn't give a damn.
"All the nightmares came today and it looks as though they're here to stay"
|
|
|
|
Una Veteran Member Posts:1721
| 2/15/2006 4:10 PM |
|
|
A Bowie credit card would be cool. You can get KISS credit cards too. Any other bands have these? Well, maybe Bono's Amex Red is one by default...
|
|
|
|
off the postBasic Member Posts:284
| 2/15/2006 4:12 PM |
|
|
Sounds like he's turning into the Manchester United of the music business.
|
|
|
|
nerrawBasic Member Posts:475
| 2/15/2006 4:14 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Una
A Bowie credit card would be cool. You can get KISS credit cards too. Any other bands have these? Well, maybe Bono's Amex Red is one by default...
|
|
|
|
AntistarAdvanced Member Posts:544
| 2/19/2006 12:12 PM |
|
|
U2 charge their fans 40 euro to join their site. 40 euro!!! One of the richest bands in the world. Sick.
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 2/19/2006 1:12 PM |
|
|
Money makes money. I know a few people who were perfectly happy to pay for U2.com membership as it meant they got to have priority booking on the gigs.
|
|
|
|
scullster New Member Posts:33
| 2/19/2006 7:10 PM |
|
|
The extra money made by these bands charging for websites is nearly cancelled out by the amount of illwill generated. For every fan that joins, ten don't and won't come back to the site. It is clear that business has become the main motivation in the band at this stage and that scares off many people who want more from a band.
Next thing you know we will be able to buy shares in Bowie on the stock exchange!!!
|
|
|
|
DromedAdvanced Member Posts:900
| 2/20/2006 9:09 AM |
|
|
It just seems to go against everything that music on the web is about these days....obviously you can expect to pay for downloading music or ordering merchandise and what not, but surely being charged for access to information is a joke? I'd have more undertstanding if there was a premium membership where you paid and got the likes of priority booking or whatever and then a basic membership that was free, but being charged money to read a few tour dates, look at some photos or read a biography is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
AlanStoneoceanNew Member Posts:24
| 2/20/2006 9:32 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by scullster
The extra money made by these bands charging for websites is nearly cancelled out by the amount of illwill generated. For every fan that joins, ten don't and won't come back to the site. It is clear that business has become the main motivation in the band at this stage and that scares off many people who want more from a band.
Next thing you know we will be able to buy shares in Bowie on the stock exchange!!!
he already floated himself on the stock exchange several years ago making him one of the richest people in music, he was also the first artist to float himself. |
|
|
|
akablueNew Member Posts:78
| 2/20/2006 9:46 AM |
|
|
Bowie's been ahead of the game using the world wide web for some time now and has totally cleaned up as a result. Its all money these days, he made shed loads you'd think he'd "give something back to the fans" or if not give something back then maybe not charge for the privelige....Its a shame cos I love his music but he's up there with Rupert Murdoch in the pursuit of the mighty dollar IMHO. $60 that's outrageous
|
|
|
|
adminBasic Member Posts:399
| 2/20/2006 10:26 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by AlanStoneocean
quote:
Originally posted by scullster
The extra money made by these bands charging for websites is nearly cancelled out by the amount of illwill generated. For every fan that joins, ten don't and won't come back to the site. It is clear that business has become the main motivation in the band at this stage and that scares off many people who want more from a band.
Next thing you know we will be able to buy shares in Bowie on the stock exchange!!!
he already floated himself on the stock exchange several years ago making him one of the richest people in music, he was also the first artist to float himself.
To be pedantic about it, Bowie didn't "float himself" on the stock exchange. What happened was that in 1997 he issued asset-backed securities of current and future revenues of his first 25 albums (a step often called the issuing of the "Bowie Bonds").
The Prudential Insurance Company coughed up $55 million for the "Bowie Bonds" which "were a ten-year issue, after which the royalties of the songs would return to David Bowie. By forfeiting ten years worth of royalties, Bowie was able to receive $55 million up front, which allowed him to buy out the rights to the David Bowie songs owned by a former manager. David Bowie now owns the rights to every one of his songs." (for more info check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowie_Bonds )
Continuing is the same pedantic vein, the U2.com subscription was 40 US dollars, and not 40 euros. No matter though because - whether euros or dollars - it's still not worth it. The only caveat ineed being if they are on tour and members are offered priority booking rights for concert tickets, as was the case last year (membership gave you the right to buy 4 tix for the Vertigo tour, and so added a relatively tolerable levy of US$10 onto the price of a ticket, and I freely admit I coughed up the sponds to avoid the usual headache of securing tix for their tour).
eoghan |
|
|
|
Protein biscuitBasic Member Posts:364
| 2/20/2006 10:53 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by scullster
Next thing you know we will be able to buy shares in Bowie on the stock exchange!!!
Eh...you actually can buy Bowie Bonds believe it or not. |
|
|
|
Vent My SpleenAdvanced Member Posts:500
| 2/20/2006 1:48 PM |
|
|
Actually, Bowie got a lot of bad press at the time of the bond but I think that an artist taking all the steps possible to buy back the rights to his songs is admirable. The thing that surprised me was the fact that he didn't just stick his hand in his sky rocket and and just pay up from his chump change. Perhaps he wasn't sure the royalties would continue to roll in as they have/had.
|
|
|
|
Protein biscuitBasic Member Posts:364
| 2/20/2006 1:55 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vent My Spleen
Actually, Bowie got a lot of bad press at the time of the bond but I think that an artist taking all the steps possible to buy back the rights to his songs is admirable.
Paul MacCartney's failed attempt to wrestle the rights to Beatles' songs from the gloved hand of Michael Jackson proves that point.
I suppose people (myself, i should say) might have a problem with an already wealthy rock aristocrat with alternative musical sensibilities selling what is perceived as his soul to the mainstream. Personally i'd rather pay 60 yo-yo's to see the man perform (mainly his back-catalogue too, mind) than pimp my credit card with his face. I'm a Bowie fan and have seen him perform live 3 times and each gig was remarkable for the length of the show and his very audible talent. |
|
|
|