Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
from the basic-economics-time... dept
There's been a lot of talk in the last year or so about the fact that the recording industry supposedly "missed an opportunity" to "monetize" online music a decade ago when it failed to come to an agreement on licensing with Napster. The idea was that Napster could have been iTunes, and people would be paying for music. That claim is made, yet again, in a CNN article about the decade since Napster, with a Forrester analyst claiming:"That four-year lag [between Napster and iTunes] is where the music industry lost the battle," said Sonal Gandhi, music analyst with Forrester Research. "They lost an opportunity to take consumers' new behavior and really monetize it in a way that nipped the free music expectation in the bud."That implies that if the industry had simply licensed its music online in 1999, rather than 2003, the dollars spent on recorded music would have remained propped up. I don't buy it. This ignores the fundamental economics of what's happening in the industry -- but, thankfully, some folks are noticing this. Matt Yglesias points out how wrong the claim by Forrester is, by noting that the market for recorded music was due for a correction just based on fundamental economics:
Music industry executives can tell themselves that as long as they want. But under conditions of perfect competition, the price of a song ought to be equal to the marginal cost of distributing a new copy of a song. Which is to say that the marginal cost ought to be $0. That's not a question of habit, you can look it up in all the leading textbooks. Of course real businesses rarely operate in circumstances of perfect competition, and record companies have a variety of political and legal tools they can deploy to try to protect monopoly rents. But this is hard to do. I think the real story with the iTunes store is that over time competitive pressure has impelled it to largely drop DRM and over time I expect we'll see that the CPI-adjusted price of songs declines.Tim Lee, who pointed us to this piece in the first place, tacks on the point that "the economic argument for free music is unrelated to 'piracy.'" This is, indeed, a key point and one we've tried to make in the past, but one that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. The basic economics of music suggest that it was going to face downward pricing pressure all along. That has little to do with unauthorized access to music or whether or not the major record labels sucked it up and did licensing deals with Napster. It was just where the market was going to head one way or the other -- because, over time, more and more people would begin to realize that free music was an excellent promotional tool for other things, and that would drive more business to those other areas. That, in turn, would lead more and more musicians and their business partners to recognize the benefit as well. In fact, we're seeing that happen today. The fact that unauthorized access to files online may have helped push that realization forward doesn't change the fact that those pressures were going to come one way or the other.
The recording industry may have missed a chance to slow down the decline in recorded music sales, but it hardly could have kept the numbers as artificially inflated as they used to be.
Separately, the CNN article is incredibly weak in that it makes the mistake of implying that the recording industry is the entire music industry. It completely ignores the fact that the overall music industry has actually been growing as sales of recorded music have dropped. People have just shifted their spending habits, and that likely would have happened whether or not any licensing deal had been worked out in 1999.
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, economics, monetization, music, napster
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why not set up a wholesale pricing program. Throw in the towel a bit and say we have failed at the distribution. Give others a chance to wholesale there music for say twenty five cents a song Perhaps Sam Goody, Virgin Music stores etc... whomever thinks they can get more people buying the music instead of "stealing it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i think they are holding out of something that will pay them at a rate which was commensurate with the late 90's. when you frame it that way, then yes, that boat has sailed and it ain't comin back no more.
also, i think the recording industry's major problem is their product: catchy, but ultimately forgettable radio tunes, just don't transition to digital delivery. the industry wants to push a reletively small amount of product and promote it so that it is virtually guaranteed success. that process costs a lot of money and leads to lots of unauthorized downloads.
the industry's problem is that product with mass appeal gets massively downloaded without authorization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where...
;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where...
It completely ignores the fact that the overall music industry has actually been growing as sales of recorded music have dropped.
Mike, actually, both the UK and Swedish numbers suggested that consumer spending as a whole remained flat for a long period of time, the dollars shifting from recorded to live music, but that not really any more money was spent. Further, neither of those two studies indicated if there was an increase in live attendance and live shows, or just a significant increase in ticket prices (as has been shown for acts such as Madonna and Bon Jovi).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where...
The 2008 numbers are there, I can't seem to locate the 2004-2008 numbers (I know they are around). Net in 2008 is only a 3% increase in consumer spending, and that brought consumer spending back to the level or 2004 (if I remember correctly). There is a missing story through the guardian that had a nice link to those numbers and graphs, which comes back blank now).
For Sweden:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml
Basically, the total music industry revenues in the swedish graph (including licensing and collecting) has remained flat over the 2000-2008 period as a net number. Recorded sales down, live sales up, collections up. Net consumer spending (less collections) actually flat or down.
I am not sure if Mike remembers where the UK numbers for 2004-2008 are, I can't seem to find them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
I'm going right now to the mirror to see if my forehead have some lettering reading "stupid" or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
The UK single year study shows a net 3% gain in that single year, but the total net consumer dollars spent was the same as it was about 4 or 5 years earlier. If I get a chance I will see if I can find those numbers on another site, but as I mentioned to the AC in another thread, I am not your research intern, and I don't intend to spend the day searching for old reports. I am hoping that Mike might remember where they are and pipe up, as I can't seem to find them on Techdirt (even though they were discussed at length, which makes me wonder if some content has been retired off the site or something).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
I will just call you a fool because only fools say something they can't back it up and risk being made a fool in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
Ha, awesome line!
Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
1978 $US 35
2004 $US 125 million (beginging of contract with Live Nation)
2006 $US 194 million
2007 $US 120 million
2008 $US 280 million
2009 $US 408 million
Do you want to put some of those numbers on a simulation to see what comes out?
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/topic.html?topic=Economics&limit=20
And beware rats everywhere are abandoning the ship they are all going "garageband" on the studios, but there is fierce competition from Ardour, LMMS, Hydrogem Drum Machine, Denemo, Rosegarden, Muse, TuxGuitar and others.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-10-13-apogee-gio-music_N.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
That is what happens to people who actually entertain and work for a change. When you work you get money when you sit on your ass you don't what is hard about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where...
(You're welcome.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
I never respond to his 'arguments' for several reasons.
Chiefly, I asked for a reasoned response to a single economics question (a fairly basic one for anybody who's taken a college econ class) with the offer of always responding with thoughtful discourse if only he could offer a factual reply. To date: no reply. So, until then, I shall only respond to him as "Igtor, my pet ignorant troll."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where...
I'm considered a douche equal to TAM?
I'm not sure if that makes me incredibly proud or incredibly suicidal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where...
As I've said previously: usually you're voicing my inner thoughts before I get to it, and in a funnier manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
Make that 2 somebodies :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
1) you said something of value
and
2) you weren't an AC spewing crap.
Rock on DH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
Can you feel the love tonight?
*gets served with DMCA takedown notice*
...dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where...
It's okay, my techdirt doghouse is large and spacious, the flatscreen TV with Directv is down the hall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember people sharing music via IRC and Usenet in the mid 90s. But it was difficult so not many newbs did it. It was not until 1999, when Napster was released, that suddenly everyone could share music.
iTunes did not come out for four more years. And even when it did finally open, it was limited to only iPod users. It was several more years before Amazon provided a DRM free reasonably priced alternative for everyone else.
During those years between Napster and legitimate services, people got used to getting what they wanted for nothing. By the time the legitimate services arrived, it was too late.
I'm not arguing that P2P never would have existed. Certainly it would have existed and it would have been widely used. However, most of the sheeples in the world would have stuck with the 1997 iTunes because it would have been relatively cheap and easy to use. And most sheeple never would have had any reason to use P2P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that's true, but again, the point of the post was that it wasn't Napster that has driven the price point down, but basic economics that would have driven the price point down no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, they still would have massively screwed it up regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Check out the Pixie's latest offering, its $500 but its jam packed with every release, art, extras, every band mate's signature, all kind of crap. I'm a big fan since the late 80's so I bought one. And I hate spending money on crap like that. Its a beut of a piece of crap though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone else, except those outside the US borders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes it's a perfect storm.
To ima_fish: an iTunes-like store could not have gone anywhere in 1997 because nearly all home users were on dialup, and the public web was only a couple of years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. If Napster got as big as it did with most users on dialup, there would have been plenty of opportunity for a paid system. The problem is, Napster offered a great deal of benefits that weren't directly tied to its free nature - it was a fantastic discovery tool, and featured pretty much everything you could possibly want to obtain along with no DRM. Even now, the labels refuse to offer such a service, so back in 1997 it would have been impossible. But that's their mindset at issue, not the technical nature of the connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FREE MUSIC
RADIO was the medium.
In the larger areas you also had OFF brand music, that was nowhere else, insted of the PAID OFF radio stations POUNDING a series of songs.
AS radio has become a COMMERCIAL HAVEN, music had to move out and find a better place to be heard.
Even Live music, has changed. Tickets used to be CHEAP, and the artists got paid good money for a Live concert. NOW they get paid(most times) and the tickets cost a small fortune if you want to be ANYWHERE CLOSE enough to hear the music. And there are FEW location that more then 15,000 people can sit and watch a BAND in the USA.
In Europe and a FEW places in the USA, you can hear the music OUTDOORS and millions can come hear the music, but someone has to PAY??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basic economics?
Yglesias is wrong here, isn't he?
In the econ courses I took, the natural price was the intersection of supply and demand. Cost has nothing to do with it. Yes, a lot of people get this all mixed up and talk about cost as being the determiner of price, but it's simply not true. (Is movie theatre popcorn expensive because it costs a lot to make? I don't think so!) Cost may drive you out of business if it's greater than the natural price set by supply and demand, but it's not a basis for pricing.
What scares the music studios, I feel, is that, in this modern age, the scarcity of supply has all but evaporated – they can't control supply to create scarcity like they did, and on the flip side demand can be quite elastic in the face of overly high pricing – which means these new conditions tend drive down the price for which they can sell the music.
That is what I conclude from the economic textbooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basic economics?
No, he's actually correct.
In the econ courses I took, the natural price was the intersection of supply and demand. Cost has nothing to do with it. Yes, a lot of people get this all mixed up and talk about cost as being the determiner of price, but it's simply not true. (Is movie theatre popcorn expensive because it costs a lot to make? I don't think so!) Cost may drive you out of business if it's greater than the natural price set by supply and demand, but it's not a basis for pricing
Yes, the price is where supply equals demand, but in a competitive market, that's *the same thing* as marginal cost. Matt's point is exactly right. Supply/demand intersection is actually the same thing as marginal cost. It's actually a good way to "check" your economics. If the intersection of supply and demand is the same as marginal cost in a model, you did it right. If it's not, something went wrong.
The popcorn example is meaningless, because that's not a competitive market.
What scares the music studios, I feel, is that, in this modern age, the scarcity of supply has all but evaporated – they can't control supply to create scarcity like they did, and on the flip side demand can be quite elastic in the face of overly high pricing – which means these new conditions tend drive down the price for which they can sell the music.
Right. And the reason the supply went infinite is.. because the marginal cost is zero.
See, it all works!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basic economics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Universal CEO Doug] Morris insists there wasn't a thing he or anyone else could have done differently. "There's no one in the record company that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"
Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me." Morris' almost willful cluelessness is telling. "He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Greeaat. SO- who in their right mind would sign this guy to run anything? Wouldn't you WANT some one who was clued in? I think the only corp this guy would be capable of running is Barone Sanitation. Or maybe the Teamsters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misunderstanding of technological progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AWAITING (MORE) PROOF OF TAM'S "TROLLERY"
by IshmaelDS (profile)
I'm curious, could you link to those numbers? I would be interested in reading what they say. Mike was kind enough to link to his numbers, I'd like to compare them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So here it is TAM. You have the opportunity to prove you are not a troll. Someone other than myself asked you a question. Of course..you aren't expected to answer right away. The point is...let's see if you answer at all. Of course you're not REQUIRED too, as you've so stupidly put it before, but it doesn help prove you are here for discussion, which I troll wouldn't be interested in.
(Cue Jeopardy! sound track)....=)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It looks like Anti-Mike does indeed believe you are a troll, and is thus a troll, because he refused to link to the studies on UK music sales figures. Even if the figures are not online (ie..from a proprietary report, or he couldn't find them) he could at least respond. Did he?
NO. Is he a troll? YES.
PROOF OF TAM'S TROLLERY PEOPLE. YOU REARD IT HERE FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple things:
And can we also *please* stop confusing the "recording" industry with the "recording/distribution/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" industry?
1. The "music industry" is -- in it's broadest sense -- any "music-related" activity which somehow involves money: everything from busking on street-corners, to doing live gigs, etc. etc.
2. The "recording industry" is any RECORDING of music for money, whether that involves a "label" in the traditional sense, or not. For example -- in the town where I live there are several studios where you can go, and they'll record and mix your music for a fee. They usually have nothing to do with the distribution side of things, which is why a lot of "unsigned" (GENUINELY independent) artists end up with 1000 physical units (CD's nowadays, previously cassette tapes) in their garage or basement.
3. The ones *really* losing out with so-called "piracy" and suchlike, are the "record/distribute/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" crowd -- primarily the multinational corporate megaliths using front-groups like the RIAA, BREIN, IFPI, etc. to bullshit us into believing that THEY are the "music" industry -- as opposed to the rapaciously greedy, useless shits they really are.
So can we *please* be clear about what we're discussing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple things:
And can we also *please* stop confusing the "recording" industry with the "recording/distribution/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" industry?
1. The "music industry" is -- in it's broadest sense -- any "music-related" activity which somehow involves money: everything from busking on street-corners, to doing live gigs, etc. etc.
2. The "recording industry" is any RECORDING of music for money, whether that involves a "label" in the traditional sense, or not. For example -- in the town where I live there are several studios where you can go, and they'll record and mix your music for a fee. They usually have nothing to do with the distribution side of things, which is why a lot of "unsigned" (GENUINELY independent) artists end up with 1000 physical units (CD's nowadays, previously cassette tapes) in their garage or basement.
3. The ones *really* losing out with so-called "piracy" and suchlike, are the "record/distribute/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" crowd -- primarily the multinational corporate megaliths using front-groups like the RIAA, BREIN, IFPI, etc. to bullshit us into believing that THEY are the "music" industry -- as opposed to the rapaciously greedy, useless shits they really are.
So can we *please* be clear about what we're discussing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn Double post crap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conversations of the past .....
Music, TV, News, and Movies are all loss leaders. Once the people distributing content realize this things will work out for the better short term. The recording industry is doing 360 deals with artists which is a start. The problem with 360 deals is simple. All you need is a big artist to pay attention to you and be willing to promote you and the labels go away. Market efficiencies come into play with the labels being inefficient and a big placing the artist on their next album being efficient.
I should have stretched that thought out to the full explaination but I think most people will get the idea.... been doing that alot here recently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conversations of the past .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about ring tones?
People are more than willing to pay a nominal price (even if it's near 100% profit to the seller) for something if it is more convenient to buy rather than the alternative. People pay $5 for a cup of coffee with 50¢ worth of ingredients in it. People pay $10 for a glass of wine (in a plastic cup) at a festival when the entire bottle can be bought for $10 at BevMo, and the actual cost to make the bottle is closer ~$2. People pay $60 for a bottle of wine at dinner when they can buy the SAME bottle at BevMo for $20, and pay $10 corkage to have it served to them at the same restaurant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They certain missed an opportunity
If they had moved to protect their copyright given monopoly by embracing the changes rather than opposing them they would be better monetizing music today.
Importantly, while the economics suggest this could only ever be a case of delaying the inevitable, the delay would have given them more time to adapt to a new reality. Time they no longer have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opportunity Knocks
It will be interesting to see what will dominate in the future, in regards to music ownership vs streaming. I must admit that I haven't seen the value for me in streaming. However, I am quickly opening up to this development.
I can say that here in Nashville there are some major developments going on under the surface that will shake the overall music industry if the planned launches are successful.
Regards,
Benjamin Wade Inman
Managing Partner
ZONG Music Partners LLC
Nashville, TN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music A Product?
First up, I've been involved with people in the music business, and most of them were absolutely clueless what to do.
Most of the managers remind me of Universals CEO Doug Morris.
This technological disruptive technology moved too fast for their methods of business conduct.
It's all very easy for you people to cite their short comings in hindsight, and now they're realizing their own.
But at least they were there.
But I still take issue with tunning artists into product.
What your doing is commoditizing the human condition and its art.
But to add insult to injury, you say they're not a scarcity!
That's funny, truly gifted people and art is. What you have today is just that, product!
Just so you don't take me the wrong way, I do believe in the new frontier of distribution. But I'm still very skeptical about many peoples motives, as anyone acutely aware of human behavior would.
The reason ticket prices are through the roof, is to make up for lost revenues and escalating costs. The only reason people pay it, is because they can't jump the fence.
As soon as atomic relocation technology becomes available,
that may change. Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem me up Scotty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artificial Inflation
What this argument fails to account for is that invariably, included in the cost of distributing the album, would be the cost of "manufacturing" the album which at this point would merely be represented by the creative process of the artist and the value that the music imparts to them. This would certainly not amount to zero.
Where the industry's economics are faulty lies in the fact that sales figures have been artificially inflated over the past few decades due to the format of the album. Prior to the advent of the CD, listeners heard songs on the radio and then went to the store to buy those songs that they wanted.
In the CD era, listeners would hear songs on the radio and would go to the store to buy them but end up with 10 extra tracks tacked on and a price tag of ~ $20.
What we've seen over the past few year in the iTunes era is a decrease the amount of album sales and an increase in the number of singles sales. This indicates that we are finally getting a realistic picture of the size of the market for recorded music, not what a record company wants it to be.
Obviously these examples pertain to the commercial music industry but that is afterall the market that generates sales charts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]