What if:
- people had access to downloads to commercial music
- people can listen to commerical music online for free
- people had access to downloads for illegal copied commercial music
- what if people didn't like indi tracks
- what if people didn't want to download music daily
- what if people didn't want to pay for singles
- what if people had access to many thousands of music tracks?
There are many what ifs around. But we know that they are not what ifs, we know they are here and more than likely they are going to stay.
Unfortunately commercial music will be copied, we have access to CD burning/ ripping software that is bundled with our computers and people know all to well about illegal downloads/ file sharing sites.
I don't even think people care too much if you are an indi act really.
But when faced with all the what ifs (or what nows), what actually do you do?
It is very possible to change peoples perception and to change their views on things. Walmart sells some cool stuff, but I have found one or two near enough the same object in the DollarStore for...one dollar. But people still buy from Walmart, the same goods because there is some value behind it.
If you can make your music "valued" to the customer you will get more buyers. If you bundle stuff with your music (like a coupon, or even free tracks/ videos) then you will get that repeat business. 1 single is never going to be worth $3- handle it, unless it is a great group's song, something is bundled with it, you have 5 different artist remixes of it as well, or they are subscribed to a club for "special members".
Don't think about all the negatives of the music world, change is going to happpen whether you like it or not, instead think about how you can adapt and change with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


3 comments:
Hi,
My name is Tiffany and I'm working in association with Thumbplay.com, a leading online platform of mobile entertainment content that offers ringtones, wallpapers, games and text-based services through a membership-based, community experience.
I feel the information on your site you provide is very useful. I would love to know if you could link to our ringtone resource.
Best regards,
Tiffany
The monetary value of music will always be subjected to degrees of consumer taste. Many musicians and record labels respond to this by adopting premium pricing strategies and ignoring the global economic recession whilst counting their millions in the bank. Illegal downloading has increased dramatically over the years; perhaps society hasn’t become more immoral, but instead because record companies have failed to adapt to market conditions. Radiohead are a clear example of adjusting to a different market environment, by releasing their album via downloads online, they asked consumers to pay the value they perceived to be ‘fair’. Ultimately there would still be a number of users illegally sharing these files, but significantly lower than the downloading of other musicians. Should record companies continue to price music albums from £9.99 to £14.99, illegal downloads will continue to be extremely high. Napster was originally formed on the basis of users able to share music with others. It was not about illegal activity but instead about the freedom of the internet and not paying unfair prices.
The fact is that many musicians and their subsequent record companies make the highest amount of profit from show tickets and merchandising. So why are record companies so intent on out-pricing the average consumer for music? The simple answer is greed. Should it continue demand will continue to fall and illegal downloading will continue to rise. Russia’s failure to secure copyright laws is an ostensible example of a country with free music to download. Music artists are not poor or homeless, but on the other hand the majority are not ridiculously rich multi-millionaires with diamonds encrusted on every part of their clothing. Recognised artists in Russia command salaries comparable to corporate senior managers. From this perspective, why does the UK music industry believe there is a right to make millions from an entertainment service? As long as there is demand, the music industry will continue to declare prices are appropriate value. Yet as demand collapses beneath their feet, will they adjust to the digital revolution and respond with lower pricing and downloads or will they hold firm and watch as illegal download occupies a permanent stranglehold in the market?
What about emerging musicians rather than recognised artists plastered across every communicational medium consumers face day-to-day? Napster is one of the major influences upon the illegal download market and possesses this heritage despite the transfer to legitimate subscription packages. However Napster featured emerging bands such as Dispatch at a time where the band were not able to make contact with radio executives yet alone reaching millions of users within hours. The result was mass interest in the band with an intense loyal customer base forming making the band a success. Significant money was made via tour tickets and merchandising, media attention was gained via the Napster exposure, and soon the band was regularly played on the radio. Ultimately, despite the music being free, Dispatch created success and made significant money. Perhaps not the millions upon millions other artists make, yet Dispatch seem to recognise that artists possibly don’t deserve the type of income currently being generated. Perhaps it is time for the rest of the industry to fall in line with this perspective at a time where globally consumers are feeling the credit crunch.
By Chris, Alex, Teri and Craig
Interesting post. I wrote some articles on the same subjects.
Please feel free to check them out here
Post a Comment