This Los Angeles Times article about pay-what-you-want release of Girl Talk's new album has a few things to note. First, it wisely points out simply getting the album to fans was not the only reason for an online strategy. Like Girl Talk's previous album, this one may run into retailers unwilling to sell it because the 300 samples have not been cleared with publishers (nothing like media attention to stay under the radar...and there are some very recognizable samples on the album).

But the most interesting part of the article was the label owner's claim that all 12 artists on Illegal Art's roster will be on the pay-what-you-want model by the end of the month. But will it work for older albums?

More troubling for (Illegal Art's) Farnsworth than those who downloaded without paying was the tapering interest among fans after a few days, suggesting that the pay-what-you-want model may be good at garnering publicity to create an event but can't sustain itself.

For a small label, it will be hard to say whether or not the tip jar will a sustainable model. At that level, a label is fighting for attention and should be less worried about the trade-off -- paid for free -- implicit in the model. Increased distribution could help future releases as well other releases not released with a tip jar, and it will increase overall awareness of the label. Both will offset the downsides of limited physical distribution and resources. Being the first label (to my knowledge) to go this route should result in incremental traffic that wouldn't have happened if the practice was more commonplace. To the early mover go the spoils.