I Know... Let's Make A Shorter Song Snippet And Charge More For It!
from the how-they-think dept
Want to get a sense of how the recording industry thinks about things these days? We've already seen them misinterpret the success of ringtones into believing that people will pay more for mobile music, ignoring the very different way buyers view the different types of music: ringtones are expression, mobile music is entertainment. As such, buyers place very different values on them. However, as greed from both the recording industry and the mobile industry have threatened to derail the ringtone money train, it appears that some are trying to figure out the next big thing. Warner Music is apparently trying to get people to shell out again to put music on their phones, but instead of paying for ringtones, it will be for SMStones -- basically taking the same thing as ringtones, giving it a new label and trying to sell it again. Yes, that's right. A totally separate category to make your phone play a different song when someone sends you a text message instead of when they call you. It is possible to use existing ringtones for this, or songs that you already own via CD or computer download -- but Warner is apparently hoping that people will simply pay again for the convenience factor. There's no word on pricing just yet, but since it's likely to be an even shorter snippet, we wouldn't put it past them to try to charge more.
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
they all forgot high school economy class...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
we're 8 years behind japan and in fact most of europe when it comes to cell phones, in technology and features. my cell phone takes 15 second clips, my japanese girlfriend's takes as much as her memory card can hold. and they look good too. when do we say we've had enough of crappy cell phones and demand the good stuff?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ringtone Summary
It is brief, clear, and thorough; it is COMPLETELY acessible to any intelligent reader who is at all familiar with ringtones, and covers everything that said reader needs to know about the issue at hand.
This is an example of the standard for which all people who post initial posts should strive.
Matt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BAD
The reason we'll never see the jump to the newer phones is because all the big companies have a 'gentlemans' agreement not to. Why sell you the newest thing immediately when they can nickel and dime you on the way?
In a warehouse somewhere there's the next generation - a cell phone, MP3 player, hi-res camera/camcorder, games device, dictaphone, personal organiser, email device, blah blah blah. We just won't see it for another 10 years because to sell us that one would make redundant all the phones that are being made right now that aren't as good.
I'm a gadget-lover, but I gave up buying them. Someone else can pay for all these beta versions, I'll take the finished product thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: they all forgot high school economy class...
Duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would have thought....
Along the same lines, I take several products, and do some value-added work on them, and advertise them for premium prices. And sell them to the folks who care about that sort of thing. So how about a TechDirt article on how there are people who will pay $900 for a violin when you can get one for $60 on eBay? You can then waste trillions of electrons arguing about whether there is really any difference, when there are only a tiny percentage of people who care. Meanwhile, I'd get lots of free publicity, which would boost my sales...
If you don't think a ringtone (or SMStone) is worth the money, then don't buy it! Problem solved. Next?
--
Violins and Accessories
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Ringtones are a fad that should die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I would have thought....
I all of the sudden feel quite guilty. I shudder to think how many electrons I've wasted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
What both the RIAA and cell companies need to recognize is that as more cell phones have media storage, customers will expect to use those media files for ringtones without paying any additional fees. Customers will not pay $1 to download a song to their music-enabled phone and then pay $2 to download the same track as a ringtone. Having music on a cell phone exposes the ridiculous pricing structure of ringtones. Customers may pay $1.25-$1.50 to get a track AND ringtone, but nobody is going to pay $3 per track to have a ringtone enabled download.
The ringtone business is at its pinnacle today. A year or two from now, you'll simply select one of the hundreds of songs that are already stored on your cell phone whether you paid to download it or loaded it your SD card.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Hmm. I don't think it's that misleading. They've done it in the past, haven't they?
As for your second comment "corporations exist to make money" have I ever denied that? I believe strongly in that. In fact, half the point of this blog is to help companies do a better job of making money. My point is that they're shooting themselves in the foot long term in search of short term profits. The point is they could do a much BETTER job making money if they took a longer term view.
Is that so hard to understand? Pissing off consumers and repeatedly trying to rip them off isn't a particularly smart long term strategy. So, yeah, I think I'm "grown up" enough to understand that "making money" doesn't mean throwing strategy out the window.
[ link to this | view in thread ]