Big Music revenue declines
p2pnet.net News:- Revenues for the Big Four Organized Music cartel members continued to fall in the first half of 2006, “raising fresh questions about whether they are winning the fight against piracy and illegal downloads,” says The Financial Times.
The decline might also underscore the reality that EMI, Warner Music, Vivendi Univesal and Sony BMG customers are become increasingly weary of accusations that they’re potential criminals who can only be controlled by DRM (digital restrictions management) programs, and that they must be constantly sued for sharing music with each other online.
“Global music sales fell by 4 per cent in the first half to $8.4bn in trade values, or $13.7bn at the retail level, according to the IFPI, the recording industry’s international trade association,” says the story. “In 2005, the industry declined by 3 per cent.”
Revenues from CDs and music videos were down 10% worldwide, compared with 6.7% in the previous full year and, “CD sales and prices have been hard hit by the ready availability of pirated physical copies, illegal peer-to-peer services and the fact that the growing market for digital downloads has allowed many consumers to buy single tracks rather than entire albums,” says the FT, also saying, “The industry has won several battles against pirate music sites, but an IFPI report in July estimated that 20bn songs were downloaded illegally in 2005 – or 40 for every track that was downloaded legally.”
The FT follows what’s now established mainstream media practise, publishing Big Four ‘estimates’ without question as though they’re concrete data from reputable sources.
Expect renewed actions against p2p file sharers, including children.
Also See:
The Financial Times – Music sales weaken in first half, October 12, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
October 13th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Because we ALL know that online file sharing is the ONLY factor determining global music sales!
Ridiculous.
The RIAA will fit any statistic to suit their political agenda, and this is just another fine example of their work. Ask any of these individual companies why sales declined, they might get an honest answer. Ask the cartel as a whole, you’ll get the same old cartel line.
October 14th, 2006 at 3:03 am
Well lets see…
The cartels lost their grip on the forced sale of the album for a single song. No one but them wanted that. The paying public learned that mostly those albums were full of filler and that the music was far over-priced for what they actually wanted. Add to this that they also learned that the hype rarely equaled the product and learned to distrust what they didn’t hear.
The cartels have made sweetheart deals with the chain stores that mom and pop stores could not match in price to sell to the customer. The results of that were the closings of most of those independent stores as they could not compete. This means there was far less “product” available to be sold to the public. That equals reduction in income. It also equaled the loss of the middleman and their jobs to go along with the Mom and Pop stores.
The chain stores offer far less shelf space towards dedicated entertainment. Yet what they do offer makes better than 80% of national sales. There is relatively no back catalog sales (something in the past the cartels have stated makes approximately 30% of overall sales). Further the chains have demanded lower prices or that the cartels can take their business elsewhere. This force yet again lower income levels back to the cartels.
The cartels are in a hurry to get rid of the cd. They want the income that replacing it with whatever is current format brings. It is what they have depended on to keep sales going. It has not come to be that the cd has willingly and conveniently died. The cartels also want the endless virtual shelves that on-line would provide for back catalog sales. Very few people want DRM and even less want rental plans that the legals are offering. There is no bargain there, incompatibilities between formats and players abound, there is no second sale for what you don’t like, and there is no permanence to what you buy. Certainly not worth the money charged.
The cartels have also dropped the grooming of artist groups for the long haul. Those that now step up to the Top Ten have no staying power. A continual churn of new stuff must be provided, no matter how poor the fare, in order to keep the change rolling in. Top Tens have no durability and their stay at the top is extremely limited. This translates to income of short term duration for the product. Another downward trend.
Of course we all know the answer and what it will be. Pirates are on the loose again and responsible for all the ills and woes of the cartels. Were have we heard this one before?
October 14th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Does anyone report the income of artists, musicians and songwriters?
Does the Department of Labor?
Of course not. No one cares about the unorganized fools, not even themselves.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I think the mentioning of single tracks being downloaded over full albums should be a red flag. Mayb, just mayb record label profits are falling beacuse they put out nothing but crap, if you put out a CD with 15 songs and only 1 of them is worth anything what makes you think someone is going to buy the whole album, 20+ dollars, DRM, and the rest of the bullshit attached is no where near worth it.
Mayb thrie profits would increase if they output quality content instead of the same processed crap, and i bet anything that whole record sales would increase if the consume could actualy listen to the content they purchased without the massive amout of aggrivation attached to DRM.