Music Labels Still Don't Get It
from the who-gave-these-guys-power? dept
Last month we wrote about how the music industry was, inexplicably, looking to (a) raise prices on digital downloads and (b) force people to buy a bad song to get a good song. They clearly have no clue that they're basically killing the one, very minor, success they've had in the world of digital downloads. Now, even folks in mainstream magazines like Newsweek are screaming about how the labels just don't get it. Steven Levy takes a look at a number of downloadable albums that cost more than their CDs, while giving the user less (one of the CDs comes with a DVD as well). He also can't believe that the industry hasn't pushed to make downloadable songs play on a variety of devices, as that would encourage more people to buy. However, the folks who run the labels don't get it. They only look at digital downloads and see piracy. They are blind to the idea that it might be an opportunity, and thus they have no real reason to come up with reasons to encourage it. Of course, all this really does is push end-users to seek less than legal alternatives.
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
Question is: Do they want to get it?
I think their approach at the moment is: "Can't hurt trying to milk the customers and reconsider later."
Bad idea, IMHO. The digital world has a really short attention span, thus if they don't do it right the first time around, failure is inevitable. There will be no second chance.
Erik
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question is: Do they want to get it?
I think they do "get it" and what they get is this:
- They know they'll continue making money if they do as we've all been suggesting, but less money then they make now.
- They probably also realize that pirating, while it might increase, won't be an issue to the cash coming in (and I don't believe its affecting the sales right now all that much either)
BUT:
- They know that if they continue to screw things up online the result will be that sales will continue (in other words, they'll STILL make money because people are still suckered AND they have a virtual monopoly)
- They also know that they can point to their blundering attempts and say to the law makers, "SEE? We TRIED it..and they didn't buy! They just kept STEALING...help us put them in jail!"
They have NOTHING to lose by keeping the status-quo because even if sales go down by a little (which is ALL it will dip because most of the people buying are sheep) they'll still rake in a ton of money because there is almost no other outlet for music...AND they can buy all the politicians they want to sponsor initiatives to scare the public into going their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better "get it" soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
It shouldn't. Pop music isn't food. Pop music isn't air. Pop music isn't shelter. There's no reason to seek less-than-legal alternatives to get a product which is only legally available at the end of a purchase transaction.
I believe in the Copyright bargain: fair use is a legally defensible concept, but the whole of the content isn't at your discretion.
Borrowing a disc from your friend (and making a track selection copy for personal use) is fair, but installing or visiting an anonymous dorm room download server isn't fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
The important part of this equation is that the consumers (I would be one of those) don't buy if they raise the price or at the very least, buy a lot less. Bought 4 singles off itunes last night. Price goes up ... I would have only bought 1 ... the other 3 were impulse buys ... at .99 it's a good price. At 1.19 ... nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
That's an incredibly short-sighted way to run a business. It doesn't take into account the fact that this is a new, developing market that they should be trying to grow.
The risk is that they further piss off people, driving them to other solutions. I agree with the others that people should just walk away if they don't like it, *however* the point is that it's pretty clear that most people don't just walk away - they walk away to file sharing. If you're trying to compete with that, then it's best not to piss off your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
It's not like we can all sitdown and have a meeting and that's why change takes time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
... I'll just continue to illegally download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then walk away.
There is no government threat of force or denying you the ability to use your property if you choose to NOT to do business with the RIAA/MPAA monopoly.
So stop doing business with 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then walk away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]