i'm not sure that my "favorite artists" would stop pressing vinyl. ever... hypothetical scenario that wouldn't actually apply. "Bother" me I couldn't go that far, but I would be less incline to buy an mp3 vs. vinyl regardless of cost. one is tangible and you can hold in your hand as well as sell vs. mp3s which are completely worthless.
p.s. I also read the average income from mp3 sales was apx. $12 month a few weeks ago. which seems crazy to me.. so why be limited to mp3 sales then turn around and make no money anyways? might as well press art.
in my case senerio I could "perhaps" make $144 a year or offer free downloads and move 1000's of tracks a year.
"When Beatport announced it would be late in making payouts to labels earlier this month, it was explained that this was a complication of SFX founder Robert Sillerman’s (now failed) attempt to take its parent company private. Now there are reports that the company is burning through its remaining cash and the flop of Beatport’s streaming service has made the cash crisis even worse. Reports from a source inside the company have stated that Beatport is up for grabs to a seller
When A Company Dies
Beatport’s shaky future is its own story, but it’s hard not to see this in the wider context of the fundamental weakness of the digital download business. People just aren’t buying as many MP3s anymore, and the DJ-centered dance music market is not immune to the downturn.
On May 1 2015, Stompy became the largest DJ-centered digital download seller to shut down. They will not be the last. Stompy had long-standing connections in the industry (the company began as promoters during the first flower of rave culture in San Francisco) and had even carved out a kind of specialized niche in Jackin’ House, which seems to be common among non-Beatport download shops. But it wasn’t enough.
These sort of rumors are rife in any distressed market. And make no mistake: selling mp3s in 2015 is now selling to a “distressed market.”
Of course, if you’ve got any time in this business you’ve been down this road before. When print distributors were going broke in the late 1990s, observers noted that at the end of their lifespan they functioned similar to a Ponzi scheme: sales of new products paid for old ones, and vendors with accounts past due were encouraged to keep shipping inventory so the imperiled distributor would have something to sell and eventually pay everyone.
It never worked. Vendors put themselves further in the hole than if they had just cut off the distributor and let them go bankrupt. And when businesses go kaput, there’s rarely a perfectly balanced ledger of revenue and debts (which it appears some of the labels owed money by Stompy seem to believe). When a distributor or a retailer goes underwater, their vendors take a bath with them. There’s virtually no business on earth in which this isn’t true.
take from : http://5chicago.com/technology/mp3-download-sales/