Labels Losing Money With iTunes Variable Pricing
from the shot-yourself-in-the-foot-again,-did-ya? dept
Right before Apple finally implemented variable pricing in iTunes it wasn't hard for many to predict that it would backfire badly on the major record labels as they tried to jack up prices. So, it should come as little surprise to find out those predictions appear to be entirely accurate. New reports say that the major record labels are losing revenue from variable pricing. Unit sales are dropping to the point that revenue is less as well. That's just bad business no matter how you look at it -- and totally preventable if they knew their own business. Plenty of people made it clear that sales would drop with higher prices, and it's amazing that the execs were unable to accurately predict how much.Sometimes when we question the motives of entertainment industry execs, people say that we're being unfair in questioning the "intelligence" behind those moves. We're told over and over again that industry execs are much smarter than we are, and they know better than we do. And yet, almost everything that has been predicted has come true... over and over again. The industry keeps doing things that at least make it appear that it has trouble understanding the long-term implications of almost every move it makes. Perhaps they are smart. And perhaps it's all part of some grand plan. But, to date, the only evidence we've seen is that nearly every move made by the industry has backfired, and resulted in less revenue coming in, while those who predicted alternative and embraced alternative business models are finding tremendous success. At what point do we stop assuming that the legacy industry execs "are smarter" and recognize that they seem too focused on the old way of doing business to recognize how to competently change course?
![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
Filed Under: itunes, variable pricing
Companies: apple, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I guess people just started getting their bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eventually you get a company that is actually run by the support people for upper management and that works great till one of the geniuses decides to change something they actually know nothing about and then the circling starts, eventually ending in a gurgle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are Smarter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are Smarter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are Smarter
thats exactly who grows up to be record execs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal anecdote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personal anecdote
What the hell did you think $1 per song was, genius?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal anecdote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal anecdote
I took all items that went up to $1.29 out of my cart. I simply will not buy them. I rarely buy an entire album anymore since most of the songs aren't that good. On the majority of albums, I buy by the song. Even when the album is discounted to $6.99, it's still a waste of money to pay that when I only like 2-3 songs.
For most albums that I do buy I wait for the album to be liquidated (yourmusic site or Amazon price drops). Only my 'true fan' artists get my pre-orders for their latest release.
I have a library of few thousand songs, so ya 30% is a big increase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personal anecdote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't buy the $1.29 tracks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't buy the $1.29 tracks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a SOurce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad to see that, maybe, the price hike is hurting them enough that they might notice and reconsider it. I'd like to go back to spending more money on music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having the same price for every song is easy for the consumer. If someone goes to iTunes and they know it's 99c/track, they know what they're spending. It's easy to make instant purchases without considering the cost. There's no extra thought involved and no confusion. With variable pricing, you have to start shopping around. This track that used to be 99c is now $1.29... I wonder if that same track is on Amazon for less?
Add that to the fact that an extra 30c (30%!) is simply an unreasonable price hike for many people, and it's not surprising that some people don't bother buying at all. Not to mention the psychological factor - I'm no expert, but I'd guess that there's a psychological barrier when something more from being less than $1 to more than $1...
Finally, there's the catalogue issue. It's been well documented that while it's been extremely easy to find tracks that have been jacked up in price to $1.29, it's very hard to find any that have been lowered in price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calculating prices...
Every time you click on "Buy" you're doing the price/value comparison anyway. "Worth a buck? Worth a buck thirty? Do I want it?"
By this logic, Amazon should price every book, CD, and DVD in the store the same price in order to eliminate "confusion" as to how much you're spending online...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calculating prices...
Of all of the reasons not to increase prices, I find the "price confusion" argument the most absurd. Is it really that hard to figure out that three $1.29 songs are going to cost about four bucks? Or to check the total in the cart?
Yeah, it is. It seems odd if you're approaching it from a perfectly rational point of view (and this is the failing of many economists) but the reality is that the consumer has different priorities.
"I want to hear song X!" OK, if it's a level field, she (i.e., my GF, who is the iTunes buyer in the house, and thus is what I'm basing this on) has one calculation to make: "Do I want to hear this a dollar's worth?" Pretty easy.
Now we introduce variable pricing. She then has to decide if she's getting screwed because a thirty year old song (personal aside: Fuck Eternal Copyright) is worth paying *extra* for. I can tell you straight up, before she even tries to complete that math, she's looking for another song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calculating prices...
At $1 most folks associate the cost as trivial and not worth the effort to torrent it. Above, $1, the cost becomes "real".
In today's market, the reason to purchase from iTunes is for convenience and possibly to avoid feeling guilty. I can easily see someone gladly spending $1 for a song as it is truly a trivial expense and mentally just doesn't register. Once you go above $1 then it is "real" expense.
The true issue is that you are making people think about the purchase decision. It is no longer an impulse decision. If there weren't any options in the market, then this probably would be a different story. But then again, if there weren't any options in the market, the record labels will still be trying to charge $14.99 for a digital download of an album and one that included DRM to boot with no options to purchase the songs outside of an album.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Losing Money"
which to hear them tell it =100..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mental Block
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they are plenty smart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where's the value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where's the value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (Anon Coward @11:21am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value
It's been well-known that Jobs and the record companies have been butting heads for years. Maybe he finally just said "fine, let's see what happens."
With revenue dropping this quickly, they may be forced into Jobs' arms yet again, and maybe we'll now see an increase in value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Possible Explanation
One of them says, "We really need to experiment with a different pricing model to see what the market will bear."
Another one says, "You know, those devoted Apple fans are already used to paying more for 'cool factor.' Let's try new pricing at iTunes, just to see what will happen. It's not like most iPod users are going to go to the trouble of figuring out how to buy mp3s elsewhere."
It's a boondoggle, fer shur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predictions
I think it is safe to say their model predicted that enough people would still buy songs at $1.29 to compensate for those who wouldn't (I'm one of those who won't either).
I'm also going to guess that the drop of revenue will be chalked up to a couple factors. First, the economy in general. iTunes is not a necessity for life, so if you have to make each penny count, the latest song is not going to be purchased at any price. Second, I'm also going to guess their model may have predicted an initial drop as people react to the price increase and it also predicts that over some stretch of time (say a year at most), people will come around and the revenue stream will rise to where their model predicts it will.
So my guess is the labels are not too concerned about this yet. In fact they may be expecting it. For it to be punishing, the drop in revenue has to be sustained over a much longer period and directly attributable to the price increase.
I don't believe the $1.29 price reflects a fair price and so I won't buy. I hope that doesn't mean the record labels will in the future request bailout assistance if enough of us don't buy either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A "smart" exec would say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law of nature
Unfortunately the modern economy is dominated by monopolies, cartels, and anti-competitive legal systems. This means that the execs can usually live in their fantasy worlds quite a while by keeping volume sellers out of the marketplace.
Instead of being able to shop for a good price, customers are only allowed the choice of buy/don't buy. Execs are shocked that so many people are exercising the "don't buy." option. This brings industries rapidly to solutions that involve some type of tax (on Internet access, blank CD's, Google, or whatever is available) to subsidize the industry even if they don't have products that the public is willing to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Record Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is anybody surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free LEGAL music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will never pay for any product or service with any profit going to the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jobs needed the record label for a little while, just long enough to establish his ipod line/vision. They don;t need or care about them too much now. There hardware makes them a nice profit, and now the can sell apps for .99 & up and make for more the than they ever could selling music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart Execs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with your main point, but I was wondering what you thought the labels should do instead, focusing on the long term. If the labels return to $0.99, how long should they stay there? At some point, they are going to have to raise prices (even if just to keep up with inflation) to accommodate.
Further, I think you've mentioned this before, but .99 is a really distinctive price, and the longer they stay there, the more people will be outraged when it changes (for instance, see the press on variable pricing right now). Isn't it better to get away from it now and take the heat while it's less, than to wait until some other point in the future? When would be better than today? Doesn't this plan make more sense in the long term, once the news cycles have left this idea far behind and people realize that, if they still want Flo Rida's "Right Round", they're just going to have to suck it up and buy it at $1.29?
So what would you say the labels should do instead? How can they maximize profit through a different model?
Thanks,
Joel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not so. Look at the history of any infinite goods (or look up increasing marginal returns) and you'll see that on those goods, prices tend to decrease, not increase over time.
What they should do is stop thinking of music as the moneymaker, recognize that it makes other (scarce) goods more valuable and focus on selling those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Inflation actually a factor with infinite goods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure. It may not, technically speaking, but when people have more money they buy more so prices go up. That includes anything consumers are willing to pay for - infinite or scarce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even $0.99 is too high...they would make more selling for $0.49
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
30% increase? what for?
Then they started offering the plus service thing... well I've never bought a song that way, I didn't see the point either I use an iPod and the difference in quality didn't pay for me. Then they started to sell all songs with the plus format at the same prices without DRM and 256kbps, wow, that was something... I've got completely mad and bought more in that period than ever.
Since the price increase I haven't bought not even one song. Nothing, zero. I've installed a script that will lookup the same song in amazon (which is still $0.99), but amazon only allows mp3 download on the US, so not an option either... then the only way to go is boycott by not buying anything more, simple, I'm the client, I have my money that I'm willing to spend, but I'm not going to because a 30% increment for nothing means greediness to me.
I've had already the good deal of AAC with no DRM and 256kbps for 99 cents and now without even offering me nothing more, nothing extra, nothing new... they increase a 30%? I have the feeling they think we consumers are idiots and we will continue buying, well there you go, I'll find another place to spend my money on.
Another one bites the dust... :-D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]