Amazon Sound Sample Policy

[Chuck Nessa]

Amazon has announced that “we no longer support audio samples for product unless we have an equivalent MP3 album in our digital catalog. If you wish to have sound samples displayed for your title you will need to add an equivalent MP3 offer to our catalog."

[Stefan Wood]

Not a difficult thing to do, but reading between the lines here perhaps they are moving away from the physical cd sales and more towards downloads?

[MomsMobley]

wow. i'm a satisfied Amazon customer in a # of areas, return policy is aces when its been required but this is a RIDICULOUS effin' policy. (i've heard of some similar proprietary shenanigans on the books end-- esp. e-books-- but didn't play close attn to the issues involved.)

what if you or any other label owner reasonably declines to sell ANY mp3? tough shit? amazon's cut on the retail isn't enough to host your 30-second samples?

i don't know the business #s but it's too bad Nessa can't be on, say, Naxos.com, like BIS is and likewise doesn't sell MP3s or lossless (praise be Robert von Bahr.) (Though I'll note Hyperion and Chandos both sell CDS, MP3 and lossless.)

Amazon has announced that “we no longer support audio samples for product unless we have an equivalent MP3 album in our digital catalog. If you wish to have sound samples displayed for your title you will need to add an equivalent MP3 offer to our catalog."

[mikeweil]

I noticed a few months ago that practically every album of which I could check out samples was available as MP3 download, so the tendency was there already, I'd say. No surprise to me, but not a good thing for smaller labels not going the download route.

[sonnymax]

Sorry you're being hassled in this manner, Chuck, but I do wish your stuff was available for download.

[Pete C]

but not a good thing for smaller labels not going the download route.

Time is also not a good thing for them.

[Clunky]

Not a helpful policy but I wonder how important the samples are in influencing a purchase. The committed could look for them elsewhere but I suppose those with only a passing interest might not bother.

[BeBop]

Not a helpful policy but I wonder how important the samples are in influencing a purchase. The committed could look for them elsewhere but I suppose those with only a passing interest might not bother.

I don't download, but I do want to hear samples (at least of really unfamiliar stuff), including samples of things not available other than on CD. So this is a bummer for me.

[J.A.W.]

Not a helpful policy but I wonder how important the samples are in influencing a purchase. The committed could look for them elsewhere but I suppose those with only a passing interest might not bother.

I don't download, but I do want to hear samples (at least of really unfamiliar stuff), including samples of things not available other than on CD. So this is a bummer for me.

Same here.

[Shawn]

30 second samples are essentially worthless, especially for genres with very long songs, I never make a judgement based on a 30 second clip. These days I want to hear the entire album before purchasing (too many releases, very little disposable income) so sites like Spotify and Mog allow me to preview before plunking down money.

[ejp626]

Not everyone wants to sign up with these sites. I can't get Spotify even if I wanted to, but I guess I could get Mog. I figure people all have different approaches to this, and I am definitely not happy to be losing sounds samples at Amazon.

[Big Beat Steve]

Not a helpful policy but I wonder how important the samples are in influencing a purchase. The committed could look for them elsewhere but I suppose those with only a passing interest might not bother.

I don't download, but I do want to hear samples (at least of really unfamiliar stuff), including samples of things not available other than on CD. So this is a bummer for me.

Same here.

I haven't checked out these sound samples very often but just recently it has saved me from an unwise purchase (no big deal, just something that while not bad was something I could and will do without). So I'd regret seeing those samples go (because some minor labels indeed don't do MP3 - and I would not expect them to).

[papsrus]

I'll bet the person buying an MP3 makes the decision to purchase much faster than the person buying a CD.

It's more of an impulse buy. And this is how they drive that impulse-buy traffic.

I'd guess the MP3s deliver a higher margin for them as well.

Plus, MP3s feed their cloud, and perhaps the sale of Kindles and other devices (which I notice a bunch of them are featured right at the top of their home page).

It's all about sales metrics at Amazon, right?

Faster sales. Lower cost of sales.

[medjuck]

Chuck: I'm curious. Do you make less on a downloadn(if you offered them) than you do on a cd?

[WD45]

I'm sure there are some infrastructure savings for them on a move like this. They are a business, and found a place to save some costs.

Not sure how the sound samples used to be uploaded. Does anyone have insight into that? Did labels provide them? (I remember the days of RealAudio samples and the like. Ugh.)

[David Ayers]

I've noticed amazon doesn't always have downloads that itunes does. Apple is amazon's biggest rival, and I think this change is intended to drive a catch-up.

[David Ayers]

To clarify: their USP over itunes is that you can toggle between hard copy or d/l in the same store - so they want to give you the choice and this is a way to influence copyright owners to play that game.

[Chuck Nessa]

Exactly.

[GA Russell]

Chuck, I don't understand what your objection is.

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck, I don't understand what your objection is.

I'm curious if you read an objection from me or if this was imagined.

My second query would be if you didn't learn anything from the thread.

[GA Russell]

Sorry you're being hassled in this manner, Chuck, but I do wish your stuff was available for download.

To clarify: their USP over itunes is that you can toggle between hard copy or d/l in the same store - so they want to give you the choice and this is a way to influence copyright owners to play that game.

Exactly.

Chuck, I don't understand what your objection is.

I'm curious if you read an objection from me or if this was imagined.

My second query would be if you didn't learn anything from the thread.

Chuck, you didn't disagree with sonnymax's statement that you are being hassled, so i assumed that you agreed with it. I don't see the hassle.

I don't understand what David Ayers meant when he said "USP over itunes". You agreed with him, so I am asking what you have on your mind.

[Chuck Nessa]

Previously potential customers could listen to sound samples of my cds and make a decision. Now, since I do not have mp3 files for sale on Amazon, they will not provide the sound samples of my cds. Is that clear enough?

This potentially limits my sales unless I (SURPRISE) provide downloads of mp3s on their site.

Under this policy they don't need employees to unload, pack and ship - they just need the software to deliver an inferior product.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Chuck Nessa

[GA Russell]

OK, but why the reluctance to provide mp3 downloads? Is that a great expense? Since so many people are downloading their music, it's not clear to me what your thinking is.

Edit - OK, you've answered my question as I typed.

Edited August 1, 2012 by GA Russell

[Shawn]

I'd guess the MP3s deliver a higher margin for them as well.

Doubtful. I worked for an online music store for awhile and there is very little profit to be made by the retailer. The record labels take such a large chunk there isn't much left over once you add in the costs of content providers, server farms, database admins, etc. That's why so few of them succeed.

Apple makes minimal profit from iTunes store sales, they use iTunes to get people to purchase iPods, all the profit is in the hardware...the store is operated just to fuel those hardware purchases.

I predict streaming services will start sucking away alot of the iTunes profit, because for the cost of purchasing a single song (.99 cents on iTunes) that same amount of money allows you to listen to 64 songs on Spotify in their premium tier.

Under this policy they don't need employees to unload, pack and ship - they just need the software to deliver an inferior product.

Why not strike up a deal with HDtracks to sell 24bit/96khz (or 192khz) downloads to your potential customers, then you will be offering a superior sounding product to what CDs can reproduce?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Shawn

[sonnymax]

Why not strike up a deal with HDtracks to sell 24bit/96khz (or 192khz) downloads to your potential customers, then you will be offering a superior sounding product to what CDs can reproduce?

That might appeal to some folks, but not to me. Spending as much, and in some cases possibly more, for downloads compared to a physical product is counter-intuitive and makes little business sense. I fully accept Chuck's decision not to offer downloads, although I personally don't agree with his assessment that they are necessarily "inferior". When I play my Nessa recordings, I'm not focusing on the sound, I'm experiencing the music, and I don't believe that mp3s prevent me from enjoying them in any way. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, it's been awhile since I placed an order with Chuck, so I'm going to buy a title or two from him. Although I rarely buy CDs anymore, a "Nessa" is always a good investment.