The More Music You Share, The More Music You Buy?
from the another-study dept
We've seen a bunch of studies like this in the past as well, but here's yet another report claiming that the more people share music, the more music they buy. Now, there are some caveats here. The report is done by a company that's trying to build a business around "legal music sharing," so it's a biased party. Also, its methodology is not particularly clear. So, even though it supports what plenty of other (more complete and open) studies have said, I'd at least take this one with a grain of salt.Of course, there are some conflating factors in all of this. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest file sharers are also some of the biggest music buyers, since they're often the biggest music fans. However, it would be wrong to then assume that because such people buy "more," it means that they buy more than they would have otherwise. That point has not been shown by studies. It may be true for some and probably is not true for many. However, what it does clearly suggest is that these file sharers are happy to pay for things when it makes sense. Once again, this reinforces the key point we've made before, that this is a business model challenge. These are underserved customers who are willing to buy, if the offer is reasonable.
Once you realize that, you quickly recognize the sheer pointlessness of the RIAA's strategy over the past decade plus. Rather than treating these people as underserved customers, who could be better served with better offerings, they instead treat them like criminals. That pushes them away, rather than making the more likely to buy anything. It's really amazing that the RIAA and the big record labels still haven't figured this simple point out.
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
WithMe takes this number, and notes "14% of the tracks in our users' libraries are digitally purchased". They note that since their users are sharers, they come to the conclusion "People Who Share Music Are 5x More Likely To Buy Digital Music". I suspect this hypothesis is true, but this "report" does absolutely nothing to show it.
Problems with their methodology:
1. iTunes reported the percentage of tracks in their library that were purchased in the *itunes store*, which WithMe then compares to a number of tracks simply *purchased digitally*. There are MANY ways to purchase music digitally outside of iTunes, so this comparison is meaningless.
2. Even worse, WithMe is making the claim that *iTunes users are not music sharers*. Why? Because they don't use WithMe. So they aren't sharing music.
Mike, I don't have to take a grain of salt with what they say, and neither do you! You can see clearly how they're backing up their claim, no salt necessary. This is nothing but an advertisement for their service.
You're doing a disservice to the real evidence of the benefits of sharing by including this PR piece in the ranks, even with your disclaimer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have about 4500 tracks in iTunes.
I bought about 100 from Apple. This translates to 2.2%.
I have bought about 500 DRM-free MP3s from Amazon. That's 11%, very close to 14%.
The rest (≈84%) are tracks that I have ripped from CD.
I don't share at all, but my numbers match the article pretty closely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually it's good for the community to see that both sides, MAFIAA and sharing may have their 'bogus study day'. MAFIAA with more frequency than it should.
Even being a supporter of file sharing and engaging in the activity in a daily basis I can see this study can't be taken seriously as much as the gazillion lost sales studies released by MAFIAA affiliated companies can't be a source of how the entertainment industry is faring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the Past
On average, a "pirate" spends more money on movies/music than anyone else. The exception is commercial pirates and actually sell/give-away discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation is not Causation (or is it now?)
You cannot say that the reason they buy is that they pirate, as the same demographic bought MORE pre-Internet piracy.
If you want to imply that correlation is in fact causation (ie. pirates buy the most so piracy is good for sales), you also have to accept other correlative-causative relationships. That would include the clear correlation that as piracy has steadily increased, sales have gone down.
You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correlation is not Causation (or is it now?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now thanks to ripping and sharing, if a group of friends like many of the same artists, they need buy only one copy of a CD. The rest can buy other CDs further down the list. Collectively they might buy just as many CDs, just each buying different ones instead of everyone having to buy their own copy of whichever ones they like best. And then you get Internet radio, with literally thousands of different formats covering niche genres, older time periods, and music taste algorithms. People discover new artists they enjoy. People looking for something to contribute to the filesharing pool will seek out obscure and backlist titles to add to it. There's lots of music out there in the long tail.
Which comes back to that theory I mentioned at the start. The record companies look at all this and say, 'That's the problem'. They want to go back to the way things were when everyone bought a lot of the same CDs, when few listeners were exposed to anything that didn't get played on broadcast radio. When too many consumers are spreading out their purchases across more different artists, when it's too easy for listeners to discover new music, to gain access to lesser known backlist and long tail artists, they see this as a problem, and would like to herd most of these music fans back to the chart-toppers they want to promote. That's why the recording industry hates filesharing. That's why they're trying to kill Internet radio with crippling royalty rates.
At least, that's my theory. I might be wrong, but I suspect it's at least partially true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time travel, putting toothpaste back in the tube, and rocks spontaneously rolling uphill are all things that that executives in formerly successful industries fervently believe are possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't care how many people are buying music, as long as we're buying their music. They need for all musicians to have to go to them if they want to make a living wage in the music business, because they know if musicians can do it without them they will, and their jobs as middlemen will be done for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is a very good theory. Taking it a little deeper, it really boils down to the internet being designed as a many-to-many communication platform, as opposed to the older one-to-many platforms, like tv, radio, newspapers magazines and even what music was physically available to purchase at the brick & mortar stores.
Many-to-many communication platforms are by their very nature hard to control and control is really what they like to get back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Places like these took a big chunk out of the record companies. I am sure a few of these were created simply because of out of frustration, and being sick of being treated worse than dirt by the record labels. As for youtube? I can pretty much see a trend come upon them too. Many new artists not wanting the record labels breathing down their necks will start to use youtube as a means to get their music out to the public. Just like the places mentioned above I bet we see many artist jump to youtube, and use a few of the other alternative resources to show off their talent. Then we really will see record company's take a plunge. I believe youtube is ready for them. So is the public. I know Google will be breathing a sigh of relief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike, they're good views! I agree! But you can't emphasize the importance of scrutinizing evidence only some of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But, this is a little beyond the pale. As was mentioned, it borders on being an advertisement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the reverse is also true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the reverse is also true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the reverse is also true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been tempted to write to the RIAA and congratulate them on the success of their campaign to drive down music sales by pissing off the music-buying public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a crock
Now, really... how much does the auto industry claim it has lost because people steal cars? Were car theifs truly potential customers who would have purchased that new BMW that they stole if they couldn't find one to steal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]