Digital music is worthless, pay what you want is the future
Ranked #16,805 in Music, #492,283 overall | Donates to Acumen Fund
HERE'S WHAT I THINK
Digital music is worthless, pay what you want is the future
Anyone who has taken a basic economics class knows that the value, or the price, of anything is directly derived from how scarce it is. Things that are abundant are cheap, while anything that is hard to find or make is going to be much more expensive. Now when you relate this knowledge to the music industry, things start to make sense. Digital music formats cost next to nothing to make, store, reproduce, or distribute, so there are many more copies of any particular song or album than there ever were of CDs. And because there are so many digital music files like MP3s floating around peoples' computers and on the web, the economic value per file is very close to zero.
Read my full arguement here to find out why pay-what-you-want is the only way digital music is going to be worth paying for in the future.
YOUR TURN!
Digital music is worthless, pay what you want is the future
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byYes, you're right!
Bevs says:
Indeed, due to free resources where people can download their favorite music in form of mp3's, buyers of original CDs as well as vinyl records sold in music stores have declined in number.
Posted September 03, 2008
Wyatt says:
I actually just launched a new pay-what-you-want music service called Aralie.com, we've found so far that 80% of people pay over retail for the music they purchase on our site. The pay-what-you-want model works well with independent artists, but were not sure how it will work for large manufactured artists because users dont have the same connection with them, as they do with a smaller local act.
Posted August 07, 2008
Greg says:
Chris Anderson has a brilliant article on the Wired.com website about the free economy. He mainly talks about why digital files have become free and giving away things (like music) online is so valuable. Please take a look: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all
Posted February 27, 2008
Stephen says:
Although I mostly agree with you... I see it from a slightly different angle...
I am focused less on the format of music and more on the actual music the industry is trying to sell me. With most of the Top 40 music sounding all alike, it just bores me. I find myself relying on bands I already enjoy, or just flat out listening to music from other genres and/or generations. Jumping back to big band or classical is more enjoyable than listening to a Top 40 radio station.
Considering that I don't enjoy most of today's new music, it's no surprise to me when the RIAA says they're losing money. Re-packaging it in a new format will not change the fact I think it's crap. There's plenty of music out there I would not even consider downloading illegally for free, let alone forking over my money for.
With bands I already listen to, I undoubtedly have their CD's. Because of that, I'll buy a CD instead of a digital format. If I'm going to spend money, I want something I can hold. Plus if I already have a bunch of their CD's, I don't want to change formats. So in the end, I guess I do see a digital version of a song worth less than it's "physical" counterpart.
Posted February 14, 2008
No way, Monkeybrain!
SunilWWW says:
I'm an indie digital musician who recently entered online music selling, and I feel that with consistent effort I can develop a strong fan base and be able to market my music online profitably. This cannot happen overnight, though.
Posted March 22, 2009
murty says:
The argument is definitely oversimplified in economics terms. Scarcity is not the only thing that drives price up. Prices are often determined through work effort and quality. If it took a band a few years to create an album the labor going into the creation would be significant and prices will reflect it even if copying the digital file makes the music abundant. Also quality has to be taken into account. The more consumers value the quality of the product the more they will be willing to pay for it. If people value music or artwork whatsoever then they should be paying something for it. With Pay what you want many people will choose to pay nothing even if they value the music at a higher amount because they are getting it at a discount. Now this is real economics, not just simplified arguments
Posted March 11, 2008
TimTamashiro says:
The real numbers for the "pay what you want" campaign from Radiohead are quite attractive although it's not a model for every musician. When given the choice to pay what you want, most of the 1.2 million people who downloaded In Rainbows chose to pay nothing. The GOOD news is that roughly 20% of people chose to pay between $6-8 for a download.
Where this gets interesting is when you consider the future value of the 1.2 million e-mail addresses Radiohead now has to market other things to. Pay what you want was a stunt that worked one time but it's not something that can work for most musicians or record companies. Granted, the value of music is practically at zero right now but it's still valuable to the artists who create it.
Posted February 20, 2008
NadjaCS says:
I'm not saying the system is not badly broken right now, I definitely agree there, but I think things are more complex than you describe. The main problem with "pay what you want" is that most people want something for nothing, and don't consider what it costs to make the product, and what it costs for the product's creator to survive off his or her creation. And pure supply and demand economics don't really carry over directly to digital products. Yes, a product is only worth what the market will bear, but just because I can copy a file a million times does not mean that I could have created the original as easily.
This gets into a question of whether or not art is a "valuable" product. I don't *need* a book or a CD, I don't *need* to watch a ballet or a movie the way I need food and shelter and clothing. But these things add value to my life and make things more enjoyable. Such artistic items need a certain level of skill to be of any value to most people, and attaining and maintaining that skill takes a large amount of time and effort. Attempting to create something new and interesting instead of churning out more of the same old crap takes even more skill and time. And I would posit that the digital form of the artwork still has intrinsic value based on the skills and time that went into creating the original.
People who are creating artwork, even digital artwork, have a right to make a living wage, too. Now, some might say that pop stars or whatever are overpaid but for every megastar there are easily hundreds of struggling artists trying to make ends meet. The current system is not going to help them, to be sure. The mainstream music industry is really very self-serving, as you have observed on numerous occasions. But at the same time, going to a donation-based method is also not going to work for them. And are people going to pay more for some unknown than they are for their long-time favorite musician?
The argument is really just way over-simplified, I think. Yes, there are some good examples of this working, but it is all artists who have enough of a following that they still get a reasonable return spread out over a large enough number of sales or donations or whatever you are calling them... Take a less well-known artist and it doesn't work.
Posted February 11, 2008
HELP ME PROVE MY POINT
If you agree, add links (proof!) that help me make my case
Add a link that makes my case.
Please add at least one item before saving.DISPROVE MY POINT (fine, be that way)
Disagree? Put your money where your mouth is and show us why.
Post links that point out why you think I'm wrong.
Please add at least one item before saving.News Posts about Digital Music Pricing Models
- Why Independent Labels and Artists Get A Raw Deal from Digital Music Services ...
- Even major bands, including Radiohead with the 'In Rainbows' album, have experimented with a...
- Checking in with Jared Mees on Tender Loving Empire's Priceless Music Project
- More Last month, Tender Loving Empire sounded the proverbial trumpets in order to announce its plans...
Blog Posts about Digital Music Pricing Models
- Why Independent Labels and Artists Get A Raw Deal from Digital Music Services ...
- Even major bands, including Radiohead with the 'In Rainbows' album, have experimented with a...
- Checking in with Jared Mees on Tender Loving Empire's Priceless Music Project
- More Last month, Tender Loving Empire sounded the proverbial trumpets in order to announce its plans...
More links about the future of digital music
- Why digital music is worthless and how bands can derive value from it
- This is the original post for this argument.
- Coolfer.com blog
- Coolfer is a great news blog about the music industry.
- Kings of A&R blog
- Kings of A&R is a music news blog with great articles about digital music and the future of the industry.
- Chris Anderson in Wired
- Chris Anderson (author of The Long Tail) posted a great article on Wired.com about the free economy online. It's a great read and I think it supports my argument pretty significantly.
by gepilling
Hello world. This is my bio. I can edit it later!
- 0 featured lenses
- Winner of 2 trophies!
- Top lens »
