Fórum » Feedback and Ideas

May 20 Site Update

 
  • Russ said:
    , and 2) why didn't you talk to us?

    Because it wouldn't have made any difference. On-demand listening is expensive, so we have to try and reconcile it with our advertising. We really don't enjoy doing it.

    We want to try and bring free listening back as much as possible, but our focus is in cutting costs soon, in line with the fall in advertising. Once that's sorted, we can concentrate on making things better.

    The other problem is that we have to face is how things look to the brand new user. We could have kept players on album pages where we weren't paying as much in royalties, but that would have made the site even more inconsistent and confusing to new users. And without new users, last.fm will die.


    If your old users are confused and angry, how will you get new users? Alienating your current fanbase to appeal to hypothetical new fans doesn't work for tv shows, it doesn't work for music and it's not going to work for you.

    You guys HAVE to get better at communicating. How do you expect us to react when you're pulling features with no advance warning and with no real explanation? Don't you think that if you laid out the situation for us we would understand? When so many of us are facing cost-cutting in our own workplaces right now? Good grief.

    If there's a good and real explanation for changes, how about laying it out for us. Rather than a quick "BTW we're pulling this feature in the service you already paid for but don't worry LOOK OVER THERE OOH SHINY"

    Editado por lizvelrene em Mai 20 2009, 21h54
  • @Russ, is on-demand radio more than $10/mo expensive? Giganews has had unlimited downloads for 25/mo for years, and truth be told, I've once peaked above 100 gigs in one month. They still manage to make a profit. So does Supernews. So does Rapidshare and Megaupload. So, why can't last.fm offer on demand music for a price and turn a profit? Serve up the compressed audio on mirror clusters, protected by lighttpd's download token system, and use a couple central servers to tell the player the next track URL to download. Peer with more ISPs to reduce transit cost. Having all the stream servers in London is expensive. Put a few in cheaper countries, like the US, Canada, and Scandinavian countries.

    • Russ disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 21h51
    buzz-in said:
    Russ said:
    The other problem is that we have to face is how things look to the brand new user. We could have kept players on album pages where we weren't paying as much in royalties, but that would have made the site even more inconsistent and confusing to new users. And without new users, last.fm will die.

    Without current users using your site, or subscribing last.fm will die.
    How about cleaning up pages by removing all the video links, getting rid of the news on the side and recent activity.


    Because people do actually use these features, and I guarantee that if we remove them people will moan at least as loud as they're moaning now. Also, videos and news cost us nothing to run compared to streaming.

    All of these changes we're making are a calculated risk. Sometimes they're at the expense of our registered users and sometimes they're at the expense of brand new users. (Our registered users tend to moan on the forums more, so we have to try and balance between the two...)

    Unfortunately I can't tell you how well these changes actually worked, except to say that we're honestly, really trying to piss you off as little as possible.

    • akrde disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 21h55
    Russ said:
    On-demand listening is expensive


    Then just stop it, it's discriminating non-US/UK/DE users anyway! (see my suggestions above)

    Russ said:
    but that would have made the site even more inconsistent and confusing to new users


    Even more? That sounds like you are agreeing that the site was very inconsistent and confusing in many aspects before this May update already? But why don't fix these inconsistencies and confusions then? Don't really get the hang of it...

    • Russ disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 21h55
    mjreynolds said:
    @Russ, is on-demand radio more than $10/mo expensive? Giganews has had unlimited downloads for 25/mo for years, and truth be told, I've once peaked above 100 gigs in one month. They still manage to make a profit. So does Supernews. So does Rapidshare and Megaupload. So, why can't last.fm offer on demand music for a price and turn a profit? Serve up the compressed audio on mirror clusters, protected by lighttpd's download token system, and use a couple central servers to tell the player the next track URL to download. Peer with more ISPs to reduce transit cost. Having all the stream servers in London is expensive. Put a few in cheaper countries, like the US, Canada, and Scandinavian countries.


    Neither Giganews, nor Rapidshare, nor Megaupload pay licensing fees for their music.They are illegal music providers (and they're doing damn well as such). They are protected in many cases by legal "safe-harbour" clauses.

    Our bandwidth costs are absolutely negligible - we have some immensely good deals in London which we've been unable to match anywhere else in the world.

    The vast majority of our streaming costs are paid to music copyright holders in licensing fees.

    • buzz-in disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 21h56
    Russ said:
    Because people do actually use these features, and I guarantee that if we remove them people will moan at least as loud as they're moaning now. Also, videos and news cost us nothing to run compared to streaming.

    All of these changes we're making are a calculated risk. Sometimes they're at the expense of our registered users and sometimes they're at the expense of brand new users. (Our registered users tend to moan on the forums more, so we have to try and balance between the two...)

    Unfortunately I can't tell you how well these changes actually worked, except to say that we're honestly, really trying to piss you off as little as possible.

    Surely the audio player is used much more than those other features?
    If you can piss me off enough to cancel a £1.50 a month subscription - which in my opinion is so small for what it offers - then you obviously haven't calculated your risks enough.

    • Bloopy disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 21h57
    flaneur said:
    Yup, this was certainly a factor in this change. To be clear: every time we stream content we need to pay royalties to artists + content owners, and more pageviews make it easier for us to do that in an economically sustainable way.
    I assume you're referring to advertisements. What about for subscribers, who don't get advertisements?

    Oh wait, we do:



    I know for a fact that a lot of these tracks are not available on iTunes, so these are nothing more than advertisements trying to get me to use iTunes. Subscribers shouldn't see these unless the artist or label has actually specified that their content should have a link to iTunes.

    My latest abomination: TocarThe Bloopy Song
    • Russ disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 21h59
    akrde said:
    Russ said:
    On-demand listening is expensive


    Then just stop it, it's discriminating non-US/UK/DE users anyway! (see my suggestions above)


    In US/UK/DE it keeps a load of anonymous users using last.fm, and therefore making us money. It's a tricky balance.

    Even more? That sounds like you are agreeing that the site was very inconsistent and confusing in many aspects before this May update already? But why don't fix these inconsistencies and confusions then? Don't really get the hang of it...

    Last.fm isn't a simple concept in general, so it's always going to be a hard sell. We do conduct usability tests to try and work out how to improve things.

    The problem is that simplifying things for one group of users is always going to annoy another group of users (as you can see...). We have to do a huge balancing act and it doesn't always seem like we're doing things for a good reason.

  • VGoRiLLaZ said:
    What about "Use this photo on my profile" feature? Is it going to available any time soon?

    Btw. Kudos for the new changes.



    I second this! "Use this photo on my profile" would be great! And also, pleaseee bring the contact importer back! :)

  • Russ said:
    Neither Giganews, nor Rapidshare, nor Megaupload pay licensing fees for their music.They are illegal music providers (and they're doing damn well as such). They are protected in many cases by legal "safe-harbour" clauses.

    I'll give you that, forgot about the licensing. By the way, although they're primarily used as infringement systems, they do have boatloads of legit content. I easily do 10 gigs or more per month downloading stuff from local bands who are absolutely terrified of labels.

    Our bandwidth costs are absolutely negligible - we have some immensely good deals in London which we've been unable to match anywhere else in the world.

    The vast majority of our streaming costs are paid to music copyright holders in licensing fees.


    If you're licensed to stream to the US, put some servers there. There's absolutely no way you're getting transoceanic bandwidth cheaper than stuff that never leaves the country. For example, Russia and Ukraine providers charge pennies for in-country transit.

    Edit:
    The problem is that simplifying things for one group of users is always going to annoy another group of users (as you can see...). We have to do a huge balancing act and it doesn't always seem like we're doing things for a good reason.

    Easiest way to do that is stop altering and moving around and removing existing stuff. Introduce new things. If you think the new things are going to be big hits, make 'em subscriber only. This not only reduces anger, but also entices new subscribers and keeps existing ones even longer. Imagine that!

    Editado por mjreynolds em Mai 20 2009, 22h06
  • calling Russ on his bullshit

    Russ, is it really that confusing for new users to have a player on album pages? It is actually *way* more confusing for them to *hunt* for the albums vs. the player being right there in the corner. You just made it more difficult for *everyone*, your 'old' users in particular. If you can't afford it, then fine, but stop trying to justify the change by this 'makes it easier for new users' doublespeak when it does precisely the opposite.

    What good are new users anyway when you alienate a large percentage of what *were* loyal users, those who came every single day and gave you lots of page views? You're not attracting enough new users to counteract the loss - know how I know this? Because I'm an artist and my listens have *plummeted* - no, not dropped off, not shown a modest decline, but *plummeted*. If you would have left well enough alone, you may have been able to weather this economic/advertising storm, but you insist on tweaking every little thing and almost *all* of the changes have been highly unpopular amongst both users and artists. Are you doing any market research at all before implementing proposed changes? I can't imagine you are when the changes are universally condemned by nearly everyone, and the ones who don't make their opinions known on the forum speak with their pageviews and listens...which have *plummeted*. If you want to be a social networking music site, why don't you be *social* and check with the community, get a consensus, maybe even brainstorm: how can we keep this site vital and relevant? What features, within reason, do you want to see on the site? And when changes do occur, instead of insulting our intelligence with this PR fluff that attempts to disguise loss of site functionality as *new* functionality, give it to us straight-up. Adding dishonesty to the mix only causes further discontentment and goodwill. This site is already a shadow of its former self...now you've attacked the music and see what you get. Noone wants a MySpace Light or a FaceBook II. We just want our Last.fm.

    I think UnmadeBed said it best: Please add the following features to last.fm:
    -CAPTCHAs to song pages
    - 3 minutes sound commercial before the 30 śecond previews


    Wait...you realise that was sarcasm, right? Maybe I shouldn't have said anything..."Ladies and Gentlemen, Last.fm is PLEASED to announce, our newest UPGRADE, to make it EASIER for YOU, our WONDERFUL Listeners and Artists, to listen to music by providing a FULL THREE MINUTE FREE MOVIE before EVERY DELICIOUS 30 SECOND SONG!!! That's right! I said ABSOLUTELY FREE movies starring products you already have IN YOUR HOME! AND THAT's NOT ALL!! Providing you with a BRAND NEW GAME - CAPTCHA! NOW, you won't just get PLAIN OLD MUSIC when you click on a track, you get...hold on to your seats...A FREE GAME, a FREE 3-MINUTE MOVIE, PLUS your song! You're WELCOME! Another innovation, straight to you from your FAVOURITE Social Networking Web 3.0 Friendster YourSpace NOT a music site, LAST DOT EFFIN EM! YEEAAAAHHH!!

    Love,
    ArabHorse

    Arabhorse / Kroakers
    -
    -
    ~~Down in the hole, Jesus tries to crack a smile....beneath another shovel load~~
    • Russ disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h06
    mjreynolds said:
    Our bandwidth costs are absolutely negligible - we have some immensely good deals in London which we've been unable to match anywhere else in the world.

    The vast majority of our streaming costs are paid to music copyright holders in licensing fees.


    If you're licensed to stream to the US, put some servers there. There's absolutely no way you're getting transoceanic bandwidth cheaper than stuff that never leaves the country. For example, Russia and Ukraine providers charge pennies for in-country transit.


    Again, the bandwidth costs are honestly negligible. If it was worth our while to try and negotiate local transit, we would, but I assure you it's not ;).

    (And also, some of our content licenses prohibit us from hosting the content outside of the UK...)

  • Hrm. My edit got eaten. Easiest way to keep pissed people to a minimum and also increase subscriptions is 4-fold:
    • Stop removing features. This is the biggie.
    • Communicate better. A blog is not an acceptable place to put news.
    • Stop changing the layout. It's a pain in the ass to have to relearn where things are. This works in stores because it increases impulse shopping. Doesn't work so well on a website.
    • When creating expensive new features, consider how much people would like it. If you think a ton of users would love it, make it subscriber only right out of the gate. That way, nobody feels like they were shat on, and you get the bonus of new subscribers.

    • Babs_05 disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h16
    Russ said:
    Babs_05 said:
    There are two questions going round in my mind:
    1) where did this decision come from when it goes against everything


    It came from us. We have to make last.fm cost-efficient. We can't just sit here wasting money any more - the days of the web 2.0 boom are gone, and advertising revenues have plummeted.

    You're a music site. So where's the music?

    , and 2) why didn't you talk to us?

    Because it wouldn't have made any difference. On-demand listening is expensive, so we have to try and reconcile it with our advertising. We really don't enjoy doing it.

    We want to try and bring free listening back as much as possible, but our focus is in cutting costs soon, in line with the fall in advertising. Once that's sorted, we can concentrate on making things better.

    The other problem is that we have to face is how things look to the brand new user. We could have kept players on album pages where we weren't paying as much in royalties, but that would have made the site even more inconsistent and confusing to new users. And without new users, last.fm will die.


    Are my 3.5 years here worth anything?? Does it make a difference that I, and many others like me, use your site on a regular basis? New bums on seats, great. But what about existing users? We know our way around. And it's not like there's just a few of us. Last I heard, we were in tens of millions.

    So are you saying once the economy improves, you'll put the music back? In simple terms?

    Brand new users will learn like the rest of us did. There were no FAQs when I joined!

  • MJReynolds speaks truth...

    --Stop removing features is indeed the biggie. Especially basic, fundamental features which are intrinsic to the site's identity and absolutely essential for the independent artists who make this site tick by uploading their creative works and adding more musical flavours to the site...which adds up to more pageviews due to more unique content. Web surfers can get their Britney Spears and Lady GaGa anywhere; there are better sites than Last.fm to get our mainstream music and video fixes. We don't need another feed to YouTube videos--we can just go there ourselves.

    Again, the features you're pulling are what made Last.fm unique and distinguished it from other sites. It's what made me subscribe quite a few times and also upload my music here. Now i'm going to check out this Spotify, which I had no reason to do before. Nice one.

    Arabhorse / Kroakers
    -
    -
    ~~Down in the hole, Jesus tries to crack a smile....beneath another shovel load~~
    • akrde disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h20
    @Russ:

    Another question and please be honest to us:

    Many users found out that much of the streamable music just disappeared in the last days and weeks. There are several threads about it in the forums.

    What's the cause for this massive loss of streamable music?

    Labels, that want more money which Last.fm don't want to pay or isn't being able to pay? If not, why are many labels pulling off their music from Last.fm's music catalogue?

    Or is it just a bug and we don't have to worry about it because it will be fixed soon?

    Could you please clarify this issue for us old users now?

    Thank you...

    • buzz-in disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h20
    Could you not have just said,
    "Right, the economy is shite right now and the royalty fees are taking the piss.
    We need to get rid of the music from the artists' pages for now, but hopefully they'll be back once the economy is back on it's feet"?

    But I guess concealing it beneath layers of "Oh no, I promise it's less confusing and better and easier. I promise. I do." is much easier, yes?

    • WichitaQ disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h21
    what's next, we're going back to last.fm and audioscrobbler as separate entities? oh wait, that wouldn't be so bad actually :p

    seriously folks, this isn't getting anywhere... i used to eagerly await site updates... now i'm just bloody scared of them.

  • I actually like the update, the artist pages look better this way, just my opinion. And you still have a box with the streamable tracks on the upper right corner.

    Also, please don't remove the player from the profile pages of users like people are asking. You can have an option for each user to remove it, but don't remove them all by default. I like my player on my profile, and I want it to stay there!

  • Babs_05 speaks truth...

    ...Indeed, there are tens of millions of us existing users. There are only so many users in the world before you reach saturation. It's basic maths: your new users are going to taper off over time, it's a predictable curve. Your priorities have to shift away from attracting new bums in seats and back to fulfilling your obligations to existing users, who are the backbone of your revenue as well as your site functionality.

    Navigating the site really isn't that difficult. It's only when you have bugs, which are way too frequent, that confusion ensues. Put the music front and center. Keep yourselves ensconced fully in your niche or you'll get beat down by the sites that have already staked out the territory you're trying to claim.

    Arabhorse / Kroakers
    -
    -
    ~~Down in the hole, Jesus tries to crack a smile....beneath another shovel load~~
    • buzz-in disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h24
    RiotGrrrlCS said:
    And you still have a box with the streamable tracks on the upper right corner.

    Actually, no you don't. That's the problem.

    Sign here for the petition guys
    http://www.last.fm/user/buzz-in/journal/2009/05/20/2qm3zj_change_the_artist_audio_players_back

  • @buzz-in:
    Even if the labels are being asses (come on, they sued to stop the player piano, and then tapes, and then CDs), last.fm still needs to stand up to them. Name & shame. If they pull their catalog because of that, well, that's being anti-competitive, and there's laws against that in many countries. The labels do it because nobody will do anything about it.

    • flaneur disse...
    • Equipe
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h28
    mjreynolds said:
    When creating expensive new features, consider how much people would like it.

    We think about this every single day. Around 35 million people use the site every month, which gives us a ton of information about what features, pages, and areas get the most / least use, and how that is affected by every change we make. We pour over graphs, stats, and dashboards daily, across countries, user types (pro vs new vs anonymous), etc.

    Besides this high-level view, we also spend time with individuals, from people in the office to friends to people on the street (or sometimes even in cafes!) And yes, that includes these very forums.

    We listen to new users and existing users; nothing we do happens in a vacuum. I understand it takes a certain level of trust to accept this, and every change certainly WON'T please everyone (nor should we pretend it does), but hopefully this gives a bit of insight into the many inputs that influence our decisions.

  • Unbelievable...

    Un-fucking-believable.

    I just visited my album page and realised it's not just the player from the artist page, but from the album page as well. How on EARTH can you justify pulling a player from the album pages? Goddamnit! Are you TRYING to drive everyone away? This is the absolute STUPIDEST site change I've EVER seen.

    When a user/listener comes to my album page, they probably want to hear my album. It was a major selling point to me as an artist to be able to have a player featuring my album, or at least my featured tracks from that album, right there on the album's page. This is BASIC functionality that's expected from ANY site. If they are new to my album, you mean to tell me they have to click on each fucking track, then hit the back button (or whatever, navigate back) and click on the next track, 10-15 fucking times? WTF? You think that makes it EASIER for new users? You're full of shit. In fact, Last.fm is SHITE now. A big reeking pile of it. Fuck this change. You destroyed the goddamn site.

    Arabhorse / Kroakers
    -
    -
    ~~Down in the hole, Jesus tries to crack a smile....beneath another shovel load~~
    • buzz-in disse...
    • Assinante
    • Mai 20 2009, 22h34

    Re: Unbelievable...

    @arabhorse, don't worry! At least they'll be making more money!

Usuários anônimos não podem postar mensagens. É preciso fazer login ou criar uma conta para postar nos fóruns.