This Tuesday, musicians and record labels rejoiced at the sight of a long-forgotten phenomenon in the music industry: a stampede of fans buying music! That's pretty much...unheard of! It's like waking up one day and hearing they got Bin Laden or that Lance Armstrong does steroids. Completely bizarre stuff.
But there was a time when major artists' albums would prompt midnight lines at record stores on Monday nights, waiting for important Tuesday releases. Pre-ordering a CD was, at one time, a surefire way to make sure that on Tuesday, your copy was securely waiting for you on your doorstep. Yes, there was actually a time when consumers were so gungho that they were worried that they might not get their own copy on the first day! Well, that's not really the case anymore; the word "copy" doesn't even make sense. It's just digitized information, 16-bits a second at 44,100 hertz. That usually amounts to about 100MB or less for a full length album, and that's a negligible amount by today's high-bandwidth standards.
But alas! when Lady Gaga's 2nd full-length album Born This Way was released, and there were hordes of fans beating down Amazon's virtual doors to buy the MP3s. Amazon's spokesperson said that it was, "the largest amount of interest we have ever seen for an album in just one day." The traffic was so heavy that Amazon couldn't keep up, and had to re-tool and try again the next day.
The only catch to this monumental re-birth of the industry was that the full album was being offered for 99 cents. That's the price of gum; the cheap gum, not that fancy Orbit kind. It's roughly the price of one-quarter gallon of gas; about the amount you'd need to drive a Vespa to a Best Buy to buy the Lady Gaga CD for $17.99.
By the way, the background of this $0.99 deal was that it was a promotion for Amazon's MP3 store to place itself as a legitimate competitor of iTunes, and it isn't the permanent price of any full album in the store.
So, being the perpetual optimist that I am (uh), I'm inclined to see what's genuinely good about the Ultra-Low pricing solution.
First off, paying 99 cents at a reputable store like Amazon is possibly easier than getting it for free via Mediafire or torrents. With those types of sources, you have three downsides: It's illegal. It's immoral. It can take a few extra seconds or minutes to find the exact item you're looking for. If you can go to Amazon and legitimately purchase an album for the roughly the price of a pack of Trident, the cost-benefit analysis will probably find you saving more by taking the "Legal, Moral, But-Still-Convenient-Enough Path." And, hey, 99 cents might not be much, but it's better than nothing.
And while "better than nothing" doesn't seem like a very lofty goal, I don't have a whole lot of faith that there will someday be a situation where the majority of people will pay $17.99 for an album, or even $9.99 for that matter. Piracy is too easy and convenient, and will likely stay that way. So, isn't it logical to try to beat piracy at it's own game? Make it easier and more convenient to purchase.
Secondly, it would force a sense of economy on the music industry. The industry could come out more trimmed-down, more artist-focused, and with less side-bar players taking a percentage (because how many ways can you possibly split-up 99 cents?). Even though the music game has slimmed down considerably since the pre-2000's, it still has fat left to be burnt off. Maybe the loss of players such as PR firms, consultants, low and mid-level managers, would be detrimental to the overall health of the industry, but it's hard to argue that there's really anything to make the music industry "more dead" than it is right now. It was quite arguable, in my opinion, that for the music industry to ever grow again, it needs to shrink considerably first.
But is there really enough meat on a $0.99 bone to support the costs of making music? Probably not. There are still studios with $500,000 mixing consoles and $500,000 worth of other microphones and instruments, and people with decades of experience in how to make great records. It still takes weeks, if not months, to properly produce an album that meets the public's standards. How is a million dollar facility expected to be used for dozens of days, to produce a product that is only worth $0.99? How is a record label supposed to afford to pay for that cost when they know they're only going to make pennies off of that product, even if all goes perfectly? How are young bands, who are currently paying $500 per month for a rehearsal studio, supposed to justify their hard work for something that is valued at about 1/3 the price of a can of Red Bull? Is the demoralization going to be worth it? Will it create a situation where, even the world's finest songwriters, need to work nights at the grocery store to make ends meet? Or, will music meet the fate of other types of fine art, where high-quality music will be elevated to an exclusive delicacy, with wealthy patrons footing the bill? Or can we all just think to ourselves, "we can do this!," and remember that the 99 Cents Store is really not so bad!
But there was a time when major artists' albums would prompt midnight lines at record stores on Monday nights, waiting for important Tuesday releases. Pre-ordering a CD was, at one time, a surefire way to make sure that on Tuesday, your copy was securely waiting for you on your doorstep. Yes, there was actually a time when consumers were so gungho that they were worried that they might not get their own copy on the first day! Well, that's not really the case anymore; the word "copy" doesn't even make sense. It's just digitized information, 16-bits a second at 44,100 hertz. That usually amounts to about 100MB or less for a full length album, and that's a negligible amount by today's high-bandwidth standards.
But alas! when Lady Gaga's 2nd full-length album Born This Way was released, and there were hordes of fans beating down Amazon's virtual doors to buy the MP3s. Amazon's spokesperson said that it was, "the largest amount of interest we have ever seen for an album in just one day." The traffic was so heavy that Amazon couldn't keep up, and had to re-tool and try again the next day.
The only catch to this monumental re-birth of the industry was that the full album was being offered for 99 cents. That's the price of gum; the cheap gum, not that fancy Orbit kind. It's roughly the price of one-quarter gallon of gas; about the amount you'd need to drive a Vespa to a Best Buy to buy the Lady Gaga CD for $17.99.
By the way, the background of this $0.99 deal was that it was a promotion for Amazon's MP3 store to place itself as a legitimate competitor of iTunes, and it isn't the permanent price of any full album in the store.
So, being the perpetual optimist that I am (uh), I'm inclined to see what's genuinely good about the Ultra-Low pricing solution.
First off, paying 99 cents at a reputable store like Amazon is possibly easier than getting it for free via Mediafire or torrents. With those types of sources, you have three downsides: It's illegal. It's immoral. It can take a few extra seconds or minutes to find the exact item you're looking for. If you can go to Amazon and legitimately purchase an album for the roughly the price of a pack of Trident, the cost-benefit analysis will probably find you saving more by taking the "Legal, Moral, But-Still-Convenient-Enough Path." And, hey, 99 cents might not be much, but it's better than nothing.
And while "better than nothing" doesn't seem like a very lofty goal, I don't have a whole lot of faith that there will someday be a situation where the majority of people will pay $17.99 for an album, or even $9.99 for that matter. Piracy is too easy and convenient, and will likely stay that way. So, isn't it logical to try to beat piracy at it's own game? Make it easier and more convenient to purchase.
Secondly, it would force a sense of economy on the music industry. The industry could come out more trimmed-down, more artist-focused, and with less side-bar players taking a percentage (because how many ways can you possibly split-up 99 cents?). Even though the music game has slimmed down considerably since the pre-2000's, it still has fat left to be burnt off. Maybe the loss of players such as PR firms, consultants, low and mid-level managers, would be detrimental to the overall health of the industry, but it's hard to argue that there's really anything to make the music industry "more dead" than it is right now. It was quite arguable, in my opinion, that for the music industry to ever grow again, it needs to shrink considerably first.
But is there really enough meat on a $0.99 bone to support the costs of making music? Probably not. There are still studios with $500,000 mixing consoles and $500,000 worth of other microphones and instruments, and people with decades of experience in how to make great records. It still takes weeks, if not months, to properly produce an album that meets the public's standards. How is a million dollar facility expected to be used for dozens of days, to produce a product that is only worth $0.99? How is a record label supposed to afford to pay for that cost when they know they're only going to make pennies off of that product, even if all goes perfectly? How are young bands, who are currently paying $500 per month for a rehearsal studio, supposed to justify their hard work for something that is valued at about 1/3 the price of a can of Red Bull? Is the demoralization going to be worth it? Will it create a situation where, even the world's finest songwriters, need to work nights at the grocery store to make ends meet? Or, will music meet the fate of other types of fine art, where high-quality music will be elevated to an exclusive delicacy, with wealthy patrons footing the bill? Or can we all just think to ourselves, "we can do this!," and remember that the 99 Cents Store is really not so bad!
I think we have to realize that music doesn't make us money nowadays. Resign yourself to the fact that your music is as good as an electronic image of yourself and give it away. Then try to make money on tangible assets: merch and the live show. If you develop those enough, then your music is just like a picture that is hopefully enticing enough to bring people to see you in person.
ReplyDeletei've always seen that in other types of entertainment...
ReplyDeletemovie theaters sell popcorn and soda.
theme parks sell candy and games.
sports franchises sell clothing and beer.
but at the end of the day, movie studios make money from box office sales, theme parks make money off admission, and sports teams make money off ticket-sales. to match up with the competitors, music HAS to make SOMETHING on the front-end. right?
sure, they have to make something, but who says it has to be the main driver of sales? Regardless of what you do, your album on iTunes will be given a value by iTunes, even if you aren't actually selling it (as will happen with our new album). That means music will be making (a portion) off the front end still, but it's best to take the much larger proportion of your income off the back end, because that money is going directly to the artist.
ReplyDelete