I'm not keen on it, to be honest. I don't want that responsibility. Should I play slightly less than the maximum figure I would pay if it were advertised at that, or what I consider to be an average ticket price for that sort of gig (in which case I will probably underestimate it). Or as little as I think I can get away with? It shouldn't be my job to decide the economics of their gig or CD release, and I shouldn't have to worry that I've not paid enough.

The intention is no doubt to assist those for whom money is tight, and a sale even at a lower price is probably better than no sale at all. However there's also a slight feeling I'm being pressured into paying more.

If someone has to choose between a gig or CD and feeding their kids then the truthful answer to what can they afford is "nothing". For the rest of us, just set a price and let us decide whether or not we want to pay it. By all means offer concessions, or even a "pay what you can" for those who need it, but then set a standard price for those who don't.

Live To Your Living Room offers a three-tier ticketing structure: a standard price, a "pay a bit less" price and a "pay a bit more" price. You are free to choose which one suits you best, no questions asked. That seems a reasonable way to approach it.

It would be interesting to know whether bands who use this strategy finds it works out better (or at least no worse) for them, or simply makes them feel better.