Welcome to P2PNET.net - The original daily p2p and digital news site. Always First!
Register | Login
RIAA News
Cool Stuff
MPAA News
Games / Consoles
News
Music
Movies
TV
Open Source
Mobiles
Advertising
Product News
P2P
Off Topic
Freedom
Politics
Interviews
Security
DRM
Links
Kids and Kartels
Search: 
Search
 
Web P2PNET   
Search: 
Search
Torrent Site Tracker
MP3Rocket
 
Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

Paying for the music

p2pnet.net News View:- Let me ask you a question. “How much are you really prepared to pay for music?”. What I’m trying to get at is: what is the price point where you are prepared to buy music (and hence be relatively legal) as opposed to getting it from a file sharing system (and hence be relatively illegal).

I aso think that using p2p as a mechanism for distribution (particularly systems like BitTorrent) has a great deal of merit regardless of whether it’s for profit or not.

Before we try and answer that, let’s look at the fact the UK record industry wants to sue 28 alleged file-sharers in the UK, as well as others in Europe.

It now seems that the music industry madness is worldwide. We’re getting all the same lies and half truths to justify this in the UK, along with the usual suspects wheeled out to spout them.

The key point here, though, is the music industry is wedded to a process and distribution system that expects to use physical distribution of a limited quantity and range of product. Take it to its 30 year logical conclusion - they’re stuck with the need to develop the 20% of “Stars” who represent 80% of their revenue.

Then we have The Long Tail, a Wired article that explores the realities of Internet distribution. We’ve known all this for nearly 10 years now (or all the way back to Negroponte’s bits vs Atoms). In Internet distribution we have economies of scale that become economies of abundance rather than scarcity. A track that’s only downloaded twice a year costs no more to host and deliver than one that’s downloaded two million times.

If you solve the economies of scale, then one million tracks delivered twice each costs you the same as that one hit, but generates more money.

The implication for the record companies is that they should be digitising their back catalogues and all those copyright-free recordings as fast as they can and offering them for sale at a much reduced rate.

In fact, the best business model for them for downloading looks to be huge volume of inventory allied to a premium rate for the latest hits, rapidly dropping to near zero for back catalogue.

Never mind the one million tracks on iTMS or the 700,000 or 500,000 on the other paid download services. We need ten million, 100 million or whetever the figure is for every piece of audio that’s ever been recorded. Because somebody somewhere wants to buy that recording of Fats Waller live at Radio City or Reebop Kwaku Ba’s recordings of the Genoua in Morocco or the tape of Danny Rampling’s set on the beach of Anjuna Goa on 31-12-97

Now, for this to work, you, the customer, needs to actually buy all this stuff. Somebody, somewhere, has got to pay to cover the costs. Which finally brings me to the question.

How much are you really prepared to pay for music?

Here’s my answer.

The first thing I want is a product I actually want to buy. That’s a minimum of an mp3 digitised at 192Kb VBR with no DRM. That’s the point where the product is as good as something I rip myself from a CD. It’s also quite a bit higher quality than that available from iTMS, Napster, Sony, Rhapsody and the other online services. And I can play it anywhere. On my home PC, on my laptop, my portable music player, my mp3 CD player, or in the car. Without jumping through the DRM hoops and with the ability to back it up.

At the top end, for me $0.99 (or whatever the UK equivalent is) per song is too much. I have to think about whether I want to blow $10 on this album instead of that one. At the bottom end, grabbing it for free from a p2p service means too much hassle in locating it, fixing the tags and file names, assembling the album and discarding the badly ripped or corrupted copies.

Some p2p services are better than others but as one wag put it, it’s hard work at below minimum wage.

Now, what I’ve discovered is: if I buy it from AllOfMp3.com at $0.01 per Mb or about $0.06 per song, I don’t even think about the cost. $1 per album is so low that I’ll just do it. The end result is that I’m buying more music and listening to more music, and I’m actually spending more than I used to when buying CDs.

So for me, at least, the price point where I’ll switch from trying to get it for free and actually paying for downloads is somewhere between $0.06 and $0.99, or $1 and $10 per CD.

My guess is that for most people the point where they stop thinking about the price and download huge quantities is around $0.25 per song. I’m a cheapskate, so my personal boundary is probably $0.10. But I suspect the tipping point for most of us is a bit higher.

So, putting this together with the detail from The Long Tail, it seems clear to me that the best strategy for the music industry is to go flat out for scale so that the overheads drop well below $0.25. And then offer up everything they’ve got, even it only gets a couple of downloads a year.

Offer it at three price points:

  • $0.50 for recent big name launches.
  • Drop that to $0.25 for reasonably current releases after 6 months.
  • And then sell everything else at $0.10 per song or $0.02 per Mb

From the labels’ point of view, this should look like Free Money. It’s from inventory that’s already covered it’s costs and wasn’t earning anything anyway.

And then we can all just forget about DRM, suing customers, price cartels and regional price differences.

And at that point maybe the p2p file sharing networks will just fade away because nobody can be bothered any more.

Julian Bond - voidstar.com

==================

See:-

28 alleged file-sharers - Big Music anti-piracy war, p2pnet, October 7, 2004

Internet distribution - The Long Tail, Wired Magazine, October, 2004

HOME

9 Responses to “Paying for the music”

  1. Reader's Write Says:

    He has good ideas, but i’d probably only pay if it were a set price for unlimited downloads. You could think of it like a cable or telephone bill. It’s a service that you enjoy and its worth the $10 or $15 / month. I’d pay that. I hate to think of every download as costing me more and more money, instead of a set price ive already paid and its all you can “eat”.

    If you continue the resturaunt or food analogy, if im really thirsty, but i go to a resturaunt and after that first drink, im still thirsty, but there are no free refills, i think twice about getting that second drink. If there are free refills, i drink all i want and come back to that resturaunt again. Same with food. If i go to an all you can eat buffet, i dont contemplate what im going to get on my plate as much. I can try different foods to see how they taste without paying anything extra. Same with music.

    -MW

  2. Reader's Write Says:

    Don’t ask for mp3 wich is patented and bound,
    ask for ogg! The specification is in the public domain.
    The resulting file sounds better.

    Do you dare to compare?
    http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/listen.html

  3. Reader's Write Says:

    Unfortunately my Creative Labs Zen Xtra 30Gb doesn’t support Ogg. Nor does my Sony CD-Mp3 player. I’m obviously OK with Winamp on a PC. The good thing about MP3 is that *everything* supports it. As the single market leader, does the iPod support Ogg?

    The point here is not really AAC vs MP3 vs WMA, vs Ogg. It’s that the quality of music from the legal download systems is cr*p at 128kb fixed. Not only is it DRM controlled but it’s also considerably and audibly worse than a CD and yet they want the same price for it. 192Kb VBR with the LAME codec is the *minimum* quality where it’s *hard* to tell the difference.

  4. Reader's Write Says:

    A choice of flat rate, all you can eat or incremental pricing is really just about business models.

    The key is that every piece of audio ever recorded is available for download in a reasonable quality and without DRM at a price low enough that you stop thinking about the cost.

  5. Reader's Write Says:

    Julian,

    Great article. I couldn’t agree more.
    I hate to see this discussion turning into an mp3-ogg-flac-whatever discussion. That’s completely beside the point.

    Your three price point system is exactly what I have been suggesting to the management of Weblisten.com. Too bad even those guys don’t see that this is the way to go.

    I have started paying for music once I discovered Weblisten. I have now switched to Allofmp3 and Mp3search because they are cheaper. Mp3search charges $0.05- $0.10 per song.

    For those interested in the cheap services a visit to http://www.museekster.com/index2.html is a good place to start.

  6. Reader's Write Says:

    And of course, there’s always the EFF’s ‘Let the Music Play’ [http://p2pnet.net/story/838].

    It, and Julian’s model, give the lie to the record label cartel when it cries, “But what else can we do?” - as it pillories yet another schoolgirl.

    Nice one, Julian.

  7. Reader's Write Says:

    The day they offer lossless (ie: literally no important data is lost, such as FLAC (oops, no DRM with that)) is the day I consider it (unless absolutely no other option in sight, _anywhere_). B/c when broadband access is mainstream and everyone’s going at >= 1 MB/s, there is no excuse for supercompressed, lossy files for “instant gratification”. If paying for it (and many traditional costs are almost zero), I want quality for my buck.

  8. Reader's Write Says:

    That day is here. Allofmp3 offers lossless music FLAC and other formats. And the good thing is you pat far less than a buck ;))

  9. Reader's Write Says:

    I hve listened to OGG files and have no doubt they are superior. But, each person has their own preference (and each person’s system has its own limitations). In my case, I’m 54 years old and my hearing is such that a 128k MP3 and an OGG file sound the same. And, I doubt if my hearing will improve as I get older. For me, 128k is my standard … and I will say that I _can_ tell the difference between 96k and 128k. But, beyond that, the ol’ eardrums just shrug.

Leave a Reply

Please no Spam, flaming (attacking others), trolling, and posting off-topic. Thanks.

    Advertisements
GigaNews
 


Remove Spyware with AntiSpyware for Windows®