Bands Take Pay What You Want To Merch... And It Works Great
from the business-models-that-work dept
While at the Leadership Music Digital Summit last week, I got into a fantastic conversation with Dave Allen, perhaps most well known for being in the hugely influential band Gang of Four. In fact, the reason I missed the panel discussion about ISPs teaming up with the RIAA was because the conversation with Dave was so fascinating. I hope to talk to him some more in the future as well, but he's a musician (who now helps other musicians) who really seems to understand the new business models that are out there.Part of what we talked about concerned an experiment, where he convinced a few bands to stop offering set pricing on all of their merch, and instead, told them to ask each buyer what they wanted to pay. The bands that have tried this found that this made fans much happier. Many fans paid more than list price (even when told the "recommended price") because they really wanted to support the band. Other fans, who wouldn't have been able to afford the merch at the list price, came away much happier because they were able to afford stuff. Those fans become committed lifelong fans who are much more willing to spend more money in the future as well.
A few more bands have been taking Dave up on the challenge to try this model, and Ben Taylor (son of James Taylor and Carly Simon) recently tested it out and found that he made a lot more money doing things that way.
We took in well over $1000 in CD sales, double what we would on an average night. We normally sell 3 Full Lengths at $15 each and an EP at $5.
We sold a total of 84 CD’s averaging almost $12 per CD!
Last night we were in Jackson Hole, the trend continued, proving another good night. Where we sold 48 CD’s and averaged almost $11 a CD.
We are moving more product than we normally would and in average making more than what our CD were to sell on iTunes or a record store.
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
Filed Under: business models, merchandise, music, pay what you want
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ignorance
Music is just different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music is a free seller to upsell to merch and concert tickets.
So then someone gives away music AND merch, to hope to sell concert tickets.
Then someone gives away music, merch, AND concert tickets to hope to sell, I dunno, damn, what's left?
This is so freaking funny as to be beyond understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? Everything you just wrote? Yes, you are correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since everybody knows trolls have 9 lives, the only way to kill them is to skin 'em alive; make their skin into slippers, and wear the slippers until the wear out.
Or is that cats??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey man, only 3.5 or D20 Modern. :P
Here's one: 4.0 came out only after THE man (G.G.) kicked off--which is why it's the "For Dummies" version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where the hell did anyone say anything about giving away merch? They are selling merch for money and making profits on the merch! This is basic herd mentality of humans here! I'm a jerk and not easily swayed by others so I'll just walk on by since I can just google up places to steal their content anyways to play in my unlocked iPhone that rapes underage girls and sells the footage to old men for massive profits. I am also a defense lawyer for hardened BT criminals to help them continue their crimes against artists and music companies trying to make an honest buck.
am I missing anything here to make myself a caricature of the typical internet user in WH's eyes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most artists give that away, now they can start charging for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reality: do you speak it?
You are in full-on 5yr old mode, eyes closed, hands over ears, shouting "LALALALALALALALALALA".
This isn't theory, or conjecture based on emotions. This is actually happening. Now, not in the dystopic future you seem to envision. Real people in real bands of all sizes and levels of exposure are coming around to the new business world created by the culture fast and free exchange of information that has been created by the internet. And they are profiting from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everybody wins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont Feed the Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is what file sharing is like. It is a two way street, the artist is ok with someone paying less, the customer is thrilled. It is just plain wrong for the customer to force the same thing on to the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is what file sharing is like.
Really? Because I can show you proof of just how wrong this statement is.
Taking stuff means the good are gone. COPYING means just that... the goods aren't gone.
Otherwise, iTunes is busting their damn asses replenishing all those mp3 files every minute.
Or was this an April Fools reply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.mightypurple.com/news.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt comments section
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAIL
That is what file sharing is like."
Ah, a WeirdHarold in sheeps clothing. No, that is NOT what file sharing is like. File sharing is the sharing of digital files, and there is no depriving the owner of the original. Once again, this is INFRINGEMENT, and is does not have the same legal standing as THEFT.
Walking up to a table and stealing a shirt is theft. The shirt is an item that you have now deprived the owner of. A better (but still not perfect) analogy would be you walk up and take a picture of the shirt, then go home and make your own based off that image. Owner has the original, you have a copy (or sort-of a copy).
I'm not debating whether its right/wrong/good/bad, but to equate these is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAIL
Put this out on the net, explain it to people at their next show, and suddenly it will be a free for all.
Remember, if you lower the price to nothing, sooner or later the value will catch up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FAIL
merch is a different game - merch costs money to produce. So name your price means that you risk losing your shirt in more than one way. Basically, people today will likely pay on average what they thing the shirt is worth. But over time, when they learn that shirts ain't worth that much (because people give them away) then suddenly they aren't valuable anymore. Worse, by taking the value out of a scarce product, the only way you make the money back is by selling the "infinite product" (shiny disc)?
If I teach you that you can have dinner at the best restaurant in town for any price (including free), you will probably pay a decent price the first few times, but then one day you will try lower and nobody will argue, then lower, and the one of your friends will call you an ass for paying anything at all "man, it's free, just walk out, nobody cares!". You think that restaurant will ever sell you a meal again?
When everything is "free" or "name your price" what is left to actually make money on and have value for the consumer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
How much does the average poster here thing a song is worth? Most of them think about zero. Why? Because they have learned that this is what they are worth. Why BUY a CD when you can just go take it online?
Value != Cost. Air has no cost, yet is very, very valuable. Also, CD = Compact Disc, and I can't take a compact disc online, I have to actually go touch it with my hands. You are *really* bad at this whole digital/solid thing, aren't you?
Furthermore, we have not "learned" that this is what they are worth, we have learned that basic economics says that the free market will drive a price down to its cost. Since it costs *nothing* to copy a digital song, the price will fall to zero. Which leads me to..
merch is a different game - merch costs money to produce.
This is you admitting that music costs nothing to produce.
Basically, people today will likely pay on average what they thing the shirt is worth. But over time, when they learn that shirts ain't worth that much (because people give them away) then suddenly they aren't valuable anymore.
Tell me, little howie, what is it that makes a plain blue t-shirt cost $5, and a blue t-shirt with a $0.30 patch on it worth $20? Perceived value. (again, value != cost) A non-fan sees an overpriced shirt, a fan sees a way to show their loyalty to the band, and to support the band. Why would a non-fan even *want* a band t-shirt? Poke your little head out of your cold little cave and let your beady little eyes adjust to the light-- we're not all cold, ruthless thieves with pack-rat tendencies. I don't want music from a band I don't like regardless of cost. Metallica couldn't give me an actual CD of their music. Nor their T-shirt. I would decline-- my closet space and hard drive space is limited-- I don't want music I don't like. Period. I will give unknown music the benefit of the doubt, but if it is no good, then I will delete it. This is one of your many fundamental flaws in logic, that "free" is all that's required for me to accept it.
Worse, by taking the value out of a scarce product, the only way you make the money back is by selling the "infinite product" (shiny disc)?
Oh, you silly, floppy-headed man. Shiny discs are *not* infinite. You obviously don't understand what that word means. It is not a geeky way of saying "a lot". Bad Howard.
If I teach you that you can have dinner at the best restaurant in town for any price (including free), you will probably pay a decent price the first few times, but then one day you will try lower and nobody will argue, then lower, and the one of your friends will call you an ass for paying anything at all "man, it's free, just walk out, nobody cares!". You think that restaurant will ever sell you a meal again?
You are correct, there would be *some* people who would cheap out. These are not customers, and should be ignored. However, if you told people to pay what they felt it was worth, and the chef made a delicious meal, then I would be willing to bet he would make more than if he just set a high price and limited his customer base. The flaww in this story is that there are a finite number of resources (both seating and foodstuffs). You really do have a problem dealing with this concept, too.
I am beginning to think that you assume everyone is like you, and you are the type of person who would pay nothing for an excellently prepared meal if he could get away with it. For shame, sir. For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
How much does the average poster here thing a song is worth? Most of them think about zero. Why? Because they have learned that this is what they are worth. Why BUY a CD when you can just go take it online?
Value != Cost. Air has no cost, yet is very, very valuable. Also, CD = Compact Disc, and I can't take a compact disc online, I have to actually go touch it with my hands. You are *really* bad at this whole digital/solid thing, aren't you?
Furthermore, we have not "learned" that this is what they are worth, we have learned that basic economics says that the free market will drive a price down to its cost. Since it costs *nothing* to copy a digital song, the price will fall to zero. Which leads me to..
merch is a different game - merch costs money to produce.
This is you admitting that music costs nothing to produce.
Basically, people today will likely pay on average what they thing the shirt is worth. But over time, when they learn that shirts ain't worth that much (because people give them away) then suddenly they aren't valuable anymore.
Tell me, little howie, what is it that makes a plain blue t-shirt cost $5, and a blue t-shirt with a $0.30 patch on it worth $20? Perceived value. (again, value != cost) A non-fan sees an overpriced shirt, a fan sees a way to show their loyalty to the band, and to support the band. Why would a non-fan even *want* a band t-shirt? Poke your little head out of your cold little cave and let your beady little eyes adjust to the light-- we're not all cold, ruthless thieves with pack-rat tendencies. I don't want music from a band I don't like regardless of cost. Metallica couldn't give me an actual CD of their music. Nor their T-shirt. I would decline-- my closet space and hard drive space is limited-- I don't want music I don't like. Period. I will give unknown music the benefit of the doubt, but if it is no good, then I will delete it. This is one of your many fundamental flaws in logic, that "free" is all that's required for me to accept it.
Worse, by taking the value out of a scarce product, the only way you make the money back is by selling the "infinite product" (shiny disc)?
Oh, you silly, floppy-headed man. Shiny discs are *not* infinite. You obviously don't understand what that word means. It is not a geeky way of saying "a lot". Bad Howard.
If I teach you that you can have dinner at the best restaurant in town for any price (including free), you will probably pay a decent price the first few times, but then one day you will try lower and nobody will argue, then lower, and the one of your friends will call you an ass for paying anything at all "man, it's free, just walk out, nobody cares!". You think that restaurant will ever sell you a meal again?
You are correct, there would be *some* people who would cheap out. These are not customers, and should be ignored. However, if you told people to pay what they felt it was worth, and the chef made a delicious meal, then I would be willing to bet he would make more than if he just set a high price and limited his customer base. The flaww in this story is that there are a finite number of resources (both seating and foodstuffs). You really do have a problem dealing with this concept, too.
I am beginning to think that you assume everyone is like you, and you are the type of person who would pay nothing for an excellently prepared meal if he could get away with it. For shame, sir. For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
So the problem is that if you give it away or allow it to sell under cost, you lose - real money.
"You are correct, there would be *some* people who would cheap out. These are not customers, and should be ignored."
Here's the rub: A few people cheaping out can start a trend. Word gets out, and suddenly people are only dropping $2 on the table for a T-shirt. If for every people that pays you $10 you have someone paying $2, you aren't making very much on merch - and merch is suppose to be one of the major profit centers in "Masnicks Music Buisness 2.0
".
My main point in the end is this: We were told give away the music, it's promotion for your "brand" - and that brand sells scarce goods, concert tickets, merch, and so on. If you start to pluck away the remaining scarce goods and remove their income potential (or severely limit it), you can end up with no money at all.
So music is free, merch is cheap, concert tickets are over priced so nobody goes to the show to buy the cheap name your price merch, and so on. It's almost getting to the point of "just sell 1 concert ticket for $10 million and retire".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
If a band decides to give this model a try, and they start to lose money, they can modify it. Breaking even on at a concert, while not ideal, is not a complete failure. It is still advertising, potentially increasing the fan base, and not a loss.
The point is that at least SOME bands are making money with this sort of model and that SOME are making more than they have with traditional price structure. You are ringing the funeral bells industry wide based on assumptions you are making, whereas actual bands with actual results are saying otherwise. Unlike using the big corporations to control everything where contracts set things in stone for long periods of time, this allows for fluidity.
No one here appears to be saying that every band, every performer, and every artist must adopt this now and forever. The idea seems to be (and perhaps I am way off base in this assumption) that performers can, and perhaps should, try some variation of this (and other models for that matter) because there is potential for a big upside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
For example, I went to a concert in which the $10 ticket also came with the new CD (it was a local band's CD release show).
I could have just borrowed my friend's CD and copy it to my hard drive and not have gone to the concert. Instead of being a freeloader, I had a rockin' good time and the lead singer pulled me on stage so I could jump into the crowd (three times).
The more and more bands bundle their music, the thing that fans enjoy and can get for free anyway, with the concert tickets or limited edition merch, the more appealing the deal -- and thus, more customers. If they accept that their music can't be sold conventionally anymore due to massive pirating, they can use the music to attract customers for their concert tickets and merchandise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAIL
The concert ticket is a scarce good.
The CD is also a scarce good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAIL
It only works for now because people aren't figuring out the costs. Enough bands do it, and people will ransack the tables and leave a couple of bucks total.
Your first flaw is that you assume that people will go *out of their way* to rip off a musician. This simply is not true. They would have to hear of the band and their business model, then follow them to know when they'd be in town, then go to their show, possibly *pay to get in the door* just for a handful of free t-shirts and a cd they could have downloaded from their couch. Seriously? The people showing up would be regulars to the venue, fans, and the random extra few people who just happened to be there at the time. You are *again* mixing up digital and solid goods. While it is *easy* to download music (which is infinite anyway) it takes effort (as stated above) to go out and grab a few T-shirts to stick it to the musicians.
I mean, honestly.
Now, for the breakdown:
The venue regulars could grab 10 t-shirts and run, but since they're regulars, they probably won't because they'll want to come back to the venue-- and coming back as a jackass probably isn't their goal. So they would probably be the type to take a free item, or at most below cost. (the effects of alcohol on judgement notwithstanding) There is also a chance that a regular really likes the band, and pays above average for the merch.
The fans will no doubt pay above average for the merch. This is the nature of a *fan*.
The random strays could swipe 10 t-shirts and leave with no ill after effects, though many "free candy" situations show that most people will not do this, especially if someone is at the counter collecting money-- but let's say they do anyway. What would someone do with 10 t-shirts from a band they didn't like? Make rags, sure, but who needs that many rags? In all likelyhood, they'd just be thrown away, or given away. Let's follow that path: You have recently grabbed 10 shirts from an unknown band in a bar you never go to, and your friends casually ask why the hell you have 10 shirts from a band they've never heard of. You explain that it was "pay what you want" and you wanted to pay nothing so you took 10. Congratulations, you have just advertised for the band. Also, there is the chance a random stray could like the band and pay above average, or even below average just to support the artists.
What I don't understand is why you are so hell bent on saying that the current method for making a living as a musician is the *only* way, when clearly it isn't anymore. The times, they are a'changin', my Wierd little friend, and what once worked will not work for much longer. The fact of the matter is that the time has come where a cookie-cutter method for getting a band's name out there will no longer work. Creativity will now be King, and no one has *ever* accused the record labels of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAIL
WH assumes, incorrectly, that most of the world are jerks. That's untrue. Most people have no problem supporting bands who they feel deserve to be supported.
Put this out on the net, explain it to people at their next show, and suddenly it will be a free for all.
Except that's not what happened. But, since when has WH ever let reality interfere with his thought process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAIL
Just because it's not physical, doesn't mean it's not property. As in software, music, photographs ect... I'm a songwriter. You didn't write my songs, I DID. You don't own them, I DO. The fact that you don't get that shows what's wrong with YOU. It is stealing. Open your eyes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I often fix computers 'pay what you want'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh....Business 101 anyone?
How is it you can spout such nonsense? You DO realize that EVERY BUSINESS EVER CREATED falls under this same maxim, right? Just to be clearer, NOTHING guarantees good numbers tomorrow. That is why its called WORK and RISK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Allen--2 steps ahead. As usual.
Another example of Dave's principle in action in a totally different industry:
---------------------
www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9942764
Store tells customers to pay what they want
SPOKANE -- A Spokane business is trying to help out those who are suffering during these tough economic times, by letting people pay what they want to.
David Madvin owns a tanning salon along Cheney-Spokane Rd. and over the past few months, he noticed that his clientele was shrinking as the economy got worse. To combat this problem, Madvin decided not to raise prices, but instead ask people what they you want to pay.
Since Madvin started the pay what you want program, his business is up by about 10%.
-----------------
And another...
------------------
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_031309_lifestyle_resta urant_name_price.3053fe18.html
Portland-area restaurant lets customers create their own prices
By TERESA BLACKMAN, kgw.com Staff
LAKE OSWEGO , Ore. – A Portland-area restaurant is offering guests the option of naming the price they want to pay for their meals in today's budget-strapped economy.
The Blue Sage Cafe in Lake Oswego.
Blue Sage Cafe managers said customers will still need to pay the posted price for their drinks, but they can write down the amount they want to pay for their entrees.
---------------------------
Sounds like a next-gen business model to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dave Allen--2 steps ahead. As usual.
Example the tanning salon: His business is up 10%, but the average person is paying HALF what they paid before. While it's a nice story, there is actually the underlying question: Was he over charging before, or is he quietly going broke now?
The restaurant example is even more, umm, contrived. You have to pay full price for your beverages (cokes often cost only a few cents and sell for $2.50 on their dinner menu), you can only get this deal during the week (their dead time) or for brunch. More importantly, the average item on their menu is about $8 to start with. So even if half pay nothing (but still buy a coke), they are going from a 12.50 ticket down to a 6.50 ticket - which is still above their food costs. Again, they are increasing business but shooting their bottom line in the foot.
Both examples also do something I consider the worst thing: They are allowing people to set price, which is connects directly to value. It is hard as heck to ask something to go back to paying a higher price after the promotion is over, especially if you cannibalize any part of your existing business with your promotions. Those clients who were paying $8 for a tan might be a little upset to find out that some people are only paying 25 cents for the same thing.
It's my biggest fear in the music business, that the rampant piracy and the lack of value placed on music by the younger members of society means that music may not have any true marketable value in the future. That doesn't just mean they won't pay for shiny plastic discs, but that they might not even find a come-on upsell with a CD in the package as having any real value at all.
Mike will wander in soon as say "price and value are not related", but they are. Heck, even wikipedia says so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dave Allen--2 steps ahead. As usual.
You just never stop being wrong, do you?
I never said they weren't *related*, I said they're not the same.
Value is a piece of the demand side of the equation (how much does an individual value a product is a factor in determining the demand curve). *PRICE* is the intersection between supply and demand. So they *ARE* related. The problem is when you indicate that PRICE impacts VALUE. It does not. It's the other way around, and value is only one component in price.
I mean, this is like fundamental stuff. Maybe 3rd week of basic economics if your class is slow. The fact that this has been explained to you about 10 times already, and you still don't get it is almost comical if it wasn't just sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dave Allen--2 steps ahead. As usual.
Price does impact value - because over time, if the price is too low, people will value it less. It is very signficant when you give something away for free, you have to consider the impact on it's value. Give enough of anything away, and the value goes away.
Price and value in the end are tied to each other with a rubber band - pull either one of them too far out of line, and the other one will follow.
That was in the 4th or 5th week, if I remember correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dave Allen--2 steps ahead. As usual.
This is why no one values air at all.
Or roads.
Or television and radio.
Oops. Wrong again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dave Allen--2 steps ahead. As usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tip System
But part of the process, which hasn't been discussed, is the human interaction when when giving the tip. Generally the person leaving the big tip does it visibility enough that the performer knows he has been given a big tip, and the tippers' friends also see the gesture. The guy who drops in that $50 is likely to wave it a bit in front of the tip jar before dropping it in.
Conversely, someone who would take a t-shirt for free or $2 might not leave do it if everyone around him can see he's either a cheapskate or broke.
So my recommendation would be to have the artist standing at the merch table so he can acknowledge the overpayments for merch and CDs, and can perhaps "shame" the underpayer from doing so.
It also helps to have money in the tip jar, and to have a friend come over and put money in to show everyone else what is the "expected" behavior. If people see that others are paying full price a t-shirt, they are more likely to do so themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People actually end up paying more than they would at any other restaurant, not only because they are not jerks but also because they want the place to survive.
They know well that if everyone grabs a free meal, the place would shut down sooner than later, and that would be a huge loss, since the place serves authentic stuff that's hard to come by in this little red dot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Furthermore, we have not "learned" that this is what they are worth, we have learned that basic economics says that the free market will drive a price down to its cost. Since it costs *nothing* to copy a digital song, the price will fall to zero."
So how does iTunes rake in billions by selling the infinite goods, especially when "basic economics" has brought the price down to zero? Perhaps they aren't too bothered about basic economics but are focused more on marketing since they know that there's more to succeeding in business than basic economics. I hate Apple, but I love them for proving that the "can't sell infinite goods" theory is just BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason prices fall to cost is because of competition: iTunes sells song for 99 cents, jtunes drops their price to 89 cents to drive in business, itunes then drops their price to 79 cents to get back customers, etc.
I hope this wasn't posted too late for you to read it, because it seems like you were asking honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Joe, Merch is different because you don't produce it yourself. You have to entirely outsource it."
Oh Harold, didn't you know we live in a brave new world. Surely if artists can write, sing, perform, market, distribute and sell merch themselves - kill the labels, kill 'em all - surely it's just a step away for them to produce their own T-shirts, CDs, what-have-you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Churches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know, yeah, I work for a record label/RIAA, greedy singer, etc. You can justify your actions all you want, but you and I know deep down how it really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, if it is wrong for people to, "believe that it is their god given right to have the music for free," then can't you see how it is insulting when musicians (or more often corporations who are supposed to represent musicians) believe it is their god given right to have the music bought at the price they (the producers) want? The market doesn't work that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, my cowardly friend, you are describing the choices a consumer has in a monopoly. In the free market, your sentence would go like this: The consumer determines the price by what they are willing to pay, and their alternative is to buy the product from someone else.
Unfortunately, the recording industry has had a nice little scam going for quite a while where they had a government supported monopoly on music. Ah, but the times, they are a'changin'. Technology has come along and is starting to open peoples' eyes to the ridiculousness of this monopoly-- they started to look for that elusive "other option" and Napster was born. Ever since, the recording industry has been throwing money at lawmakers to stop this natural progression of technology so they can keep the scam going, and it has worked to a point, by slowing the progress of technology.
Now, what sense does it make to slow the progress of technology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, the business could lower the price, or add value to the item, or find another way to increase sales rather then, you know, fail completely.
The fact that the supporters of the music system not changing do not see that a lot of people on this site are advocating ways that music companies can stay in business (whether we like them or not) is bordering on comical. As it stands the music business will eventually go under, being supplanted by something much more efficient and beneficial to the consumer. Attempting to find that "something" sooner, rather than later might actually keep businesses afloat.
..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just believe everything should be free and choose to just claim what is not given free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was asking honestly, because while Mike and every other expert on this site keep talking about giving away music and make money selling scarcities, iTunes is doing even better - selling infinite goods AND scarce goods. Full loaf better than half a loaf.
"ITunes can still rake in money becuase the free market has been perverted by artificial monopolies."
So everyone should have the right to sell an artist's music in a perfect world? I don't know how many musicians would agree with that.
"Intellectual property laws say that only one person (the copyright holder) can say who can and can't copy their work."
Not just copy their work, but make money of copies of the work too. Which is a good thing, I would say. But of course you'd disagree with me:)
"Well, if the people with that right all charge 99 cents, the free market ceases to work because there is no competition to drive it down to cost."
Which is exactly why IP protection was created in the first place. For a limited time the creator would have a monopoly on making money off his creation, after which it would fall into the public domain.
"The reason prices fall to cost is because of competition: iTunes sells song for 99 cents, jtunes drops their price to 89 cents to drive in business, itunes then drops their price to 79 cents to get back customers, etc."
But here the bigger problem is jtunes/ptunes/etc are all hosting the same MP3s for free. In spite of that iTunes has succeeded. How was that possible? After all, basic economics dictates that they should have failed - but they have mastered the art of selling what technically costs nothing to reproduce and what is widely available on the Net.
As long as they are around and selling of infinite goods is not merely possible, but lucrative, what incentive does a musician have to give away music free?
Thanks for your take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iTunes sells convenience
I put the turning point in the industry on the invention of the iPod with its huge storage capacity. When you buy a device that can hold 1000 songs, you start thinking in terms of collecting 1000 songs. Few people are actually going to go out and pay $1000 for that many songs.
IPods seemed to foster the idea of collecting lots of cheap or free songs. I can't think of any other item (baseball cards, beanie babies) where people try to collect so much stuff and therefore need to get it free. Even in hobbies like leaf collecting or bird watching, it's done for free, but there is a time investment involved.
In other words, the iPod screams, "Fill me up" so people do with lots of songs: from CDs they may or may not own, legal free songs, legal paid for songs, and for some, illegal downloaded songs.
It was the iPod, with its huge storage capacity, that psychologically reduced the value of the individual song. The ringtone falsely suggested people would pay a lot for a digital song, but people buy relatively few of those, so they are willing to pay more.
I'm a big fan of fee-for-unlimited music schemes because I want lots of music, don't care if I own it, and don't want to spend much time looking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]