Chili Peppers And Metallica Resist A La Carte Downloading
from the all-or-nothing-for-the-fans dept
Metallica certainly doesn't have the reputation for being particularly fan friendly when it comes to the internet, so it's no surprise that they've made the decision not to let music download services like iTunes offer up their songs on an individual basis. Now, however, many other bands are protesting this a la carte distribution of their music. A number of other well-known musical groups, such as Linkin Park, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Green Day and Kid Rock have all joined Metallica in telling Apple they won't be included in iTunes if they have to allow for single song downloads. The artists, as they're known to do, say that this is all for "artistic" reasons rather than financial reasons. They're certainly allowed to do whatever they want, but they'll soon find that upsetting their fans isn't the smartest move in the world. If the music is good, fans will download the full album. If it's not, then why should they force them to. While some think that iTunes' unbundling of music will harm the industry, that's a very shortsighted view. By letting musicians create and distribute music quickly and cheaply, while also giving fans more of what they want, it will let musicians produce more music and grow even larger fan bases. Denying your fans what they want doesn't exactly make you look fan-friendly - and with so many choices today for where people will spend their money, not being fan-friendly can hurt... in the financial sense. Besides, if fans can't use legitimate services to download the few songs they want from these artists, they'll simply go to file sharing networks and download them for free.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm...
But I guess variable pricing is a bit tricky...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artistic?
</sarcasm>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artistic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I'm not sure of it but I'm guessing the "old" business model is probably still going to produce more revenue for well-known bands like Metallica who push huge box sets, $20 per CD, etc. For 2nd-tier bands who don't have such rabid followings per-song purchasing might make more sense. But Metallica & crew are getting 7-figure checks. And they probably don't want to risk that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Customers want individual song downloads. Not offering that is going against your customer's wants, and makes it much less likely you'll attract new fans. The industry is shifting. People who try to "hang onto" their old business model will find that it has shifted out from under them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
We sneer because its the old "piss off your consumers and they will throw money at you...they are masochists" RIAA thinking.
They are allowed to do it, just like this "techie" is allowed to sneer at it. I'm just cynical enough to believe it will still work since very very few people actually boycott these bands...
Personally I fail to see the fear, the "well-known" bands would still sell their box sets, and their special collections because these are aimed at the "I must own everything from this band" market...I'm thinking that allowing this new model might actually make them new fans...those people who maybe weren't "into" them earlier on.
You know...pusher business model: The first hit's free, the next one will cost yah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
BTW, I read about this - I did not buy the most recent Bon Jovi album!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artists
I think, as a fan, I deserve something back. This is also true for so many bands, they release one good song, put it at the begining of the album and the rest of the album is utter crap. People use P2P to share the songs they want and not the crap that litters the CD. I mean in reality a band comes up with a song or two, then records "filler" songs to make it a full CD and tries to push that on the public.
It is a shame how Metallica degraded from a band that was all about music to a band that has not put out a worthwhile album since the 90s and used the courts to get their publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Also, that was a good point about albums with only a couple of good songs, and I think the formulaic, single-driven album may be less successful than the quality album at some point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Death of Albums
What's the point of shelling out $20+ for a CD that now holds as many songs as the CD singles of only a few years ago when the price is nearly three times as high?
Perhaps the "rapid decline in sales" that has been attributed to file sharing could actually be due to customer dissatisfaction? Nah... that can't be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]