Has The Recording Industry Finally Realized That Selling 1,000 Songs In One Package Makes Sense?
from the could-it-be?!? dept
While we still think SanDisk's new music format is unlikely to get much traction, there was one bit of interesting news in a report on the new slotRadio device designed to play its music-on-microSD: you'll be able to buy slotRadio cards with 1,000 songs on them for $40. We've been wondering for years why the industry is so focused on the $1/song price, when new technology allows for tens of thousands of songs to fit in your pocket. In fact, if you get past the whole price-per-song thing, you start to wonder why you can't buy an iPod stuffed with thousands of songs based on exactly what you like. To date, it's always been a price issue -- with the industry requiring its huge fee per song.But apparently that's changing. slotRadio has almost no chance (DRM included!), but the very fact that it got the industry to agree to a package that involves 1,000 songs for $40 shows that, somewhere, somehow, people in the industry are realizing that, when you can carry 40,000 songs in your pocket, the $1/song pricing model just doesn't make sense.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
fewer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless he was speaking in terms of CD portability (player in the house vs. in the car).
On topic:
$40 for 1000 songs. Great! Sign me up! Now, where do I go to select my 1000 songs?
*search*
Umm...
Pass. No way in hell will I pay $0.04 for a Britney Spears song or other artists I don't like.
No choice. No sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
everyday posts
flames and buttered toast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
5-7-5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A sad little nincompoop
That suck suck suck sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much fewer than a CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woohoo! A new business model that Mike likes that gives you less rights. Damn straight, Mike is switching teams!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reading comprehension is your friend: I said *THIS* model isn't very good because of the DRM (which, yes, is fewer rights than a CD). But the very notion of finally recognizing that packages of 15 songs makes a lot less sense than a package of 1000 songs is a huge step forward.
Is it that hard for you to separate two concepts in your brain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can't see why you are happy about a significant increase in DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yet another logical mistake, Harold. Yes, that's the market price *now*, under the business model they're currently trying to enforce (and even then only via major labels). There's no specific reason why they can't be priced lower, especially with a "lucky dip" kind of structure like this.
It's not a bad model once you remove the DRM. Submit your likes and dislikes, get a grab bag of 1000 songs for virtually nothing per track. Remove the ones you don't like. The customer gets a good deal (unless the selection is *really* off, they get a significant saving on the tracks they keep). The label gets a good deal (exposure for lesser-known artists and back catalogue tracks that wouldn't normally get bought).
As ever, the DRM is the sticking point. But other than that, it's a good idea. The reason why this is a positive move is that previously the RIAA has been obsessed with per-track pricing, claiming that 99c/track isn't enough. This looks like a good move in the other direction, letting consumers choose their pricing model. Time will tell how this works, but it's a nice gesture toward giving some value to customers even if the DRM ultimately makes it useless.
"the only reason the package exists at that price is because of super restrictive DRM."
It was claimed just a few years ago that iTunes could only exist with DRM, and that it would be impossible to sell unrestricted files. This has been proven wrong. You do seem to concentrate on the current status of new ideas rather than look at their future possibilities. It's a shame that people as closed-minded as yourself are the ones in control of the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dude you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Even a 7 year old can understand what Mike is saying, why can't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, you're a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey! I thought you don't like assuming.
That brain remark contradicts that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying new things....
Now if you got to pick the songs, have them preloaded in a specific order like playlists, it might gain more interest. Maybe for people who like older music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoooa guys...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I wonder IF you get to choose 1000 song OR do you get a prepackaged deal?" - yech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if this site uses a spam filter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To be honest, I was antognistic a few times, but nothing like WH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, we use a spam filter. We get approximately (no joke) 20,000 spam comments a day. The filter is pretty good... Probably only about 25 spam comments get through to the site each day, and about 1 false positive is flagged each week -- though we do let those through eventually.
Not sure why John Doe's posts got caught, but hopefully shouldn't be an issue going forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
BTW, with all of your posts you have about the music and movie industry; do any of the record labels or studios ever call you up to chat? Have they ever sat down with you to hear the counter opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, not personal. And, yes, I cleared out the one that got blocked last night (it was the only false positive in a list of 700 to check). The spam system dumps things in two piles: one is *this is 100% spam* and the other is *this is most likely spam*. Yours was in the latter, but it's usually easy to pick out the real posts (they include actual words!). But I whitelisted your IP also, just to make sure.
BTW, with all of your posts you have about the music and movie industry; do any of the record labels or studios ever call you up to chat? Have they ever sat down with you to hear the counter opinion?
Only recently that has happened. But... so far only one label has actually taken the time to really talk it out (so far). Others have called, but basically to complain about what we write. I've asked them to take part in the discussion or to explain what I got wrong, but they refuse.
But, there is a growing openness. I've now at least talked with people at all 4 of the major record labels, with one recently expressing a lot of interest in talking further. So, we'll see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even royalties are screwed
This is why Pandora has to do this, this is why Sandisk has to do this, it's stupid. Mike, can you look up and/or someone link as to where or why this is? I never could figure it out, but it's really stupid overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point once again WeirdMoron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unplayable without special software
I don't know whether to say it'll happen quickly (due to the potential of all those songs and/or the possibility of using them on any Rockbox-compatible player) or slowly-to-never (due to the fact that no one will care, since all the songs are probably available on the internet in un-DRM'd MP3 already).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Sharing is Caring
Then you reply, "Oh this is so-and-so. Their first cd sucked but this one is awesome!"
So then, you burn them a cd and say, "Here's a cd from that band you asked about the other day. I think you'll totally love it!"
See, no one burns a cd for their friend and says, "Hey, here's a cd from so-and-so. This cd is complete crap and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Just keep a bucket handy in case it makes you vomit!"
My point is people share experiences they enjoy with their friends. Movies, tv shows, music, whatever. It's really retarded for any group of individuals or businesses to assume that each 'experience', each play for each person is going to equal a sale. If the experience was worth while enough for the person who did not originate the purchase then they may choose to purchase the content which will then be shared with their friends. Which may generate more sales but never in a one-to-one relationship.
Personally, the movie studios and music industry should really be paying me for exposing my friends to music and movies that they otherwise wouldn't have experienced and would never have bought.
My best example is the movie 'Pootie Tang'. Which, if a friend had not exposed me to, I would never have watched. After see it, I bought the movie and have showed it to all my friends. Who, of course, never would have watched it. Now they have experienced it, some have purchased it, but none of them would have if not for someone sharing the experience in the first place.
A referral fee of about 10% sounds good. Thank you very much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
restrictions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... They give BJs?
How about a house that comes pre-loaded with lots of movies and songs in a media database as well? Why not. Could do it for cars as well. Buy a car, get 1000 free songs, DRM-free, pre-loaded on an on-board media system.
Then the artists could just schedule a time to come by and blow me for a few dollars -- or a "pay what you think it's worth" BJ. Pretty cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so new
I bet I have amassed 500+ gigs of mp3s alone not, counting the terabytes of .avi files. I started in the late 90s, just as anyone with a clue and new the value of infinite copies is nothing.
Hey Harry take your short-sighted retarded views and go let the 'AAs anally rape you. Like anybody can stop this, it's like trying to stop the "Global Warming".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in defense of concept
Note: the promotion was doubly pleasing because they accidentally sent me a second card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great - except...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emperor's New Clothes
The Sansa "couldn't-be-bothered-putting-any-effort-into-your-gift-so-I-got-you-this" slotRadio....... for (snigger) "music lovers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sansa Fuze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]