Why Microsoft, labels cling to music subscriptions

LOS ANGELES--For anybody wondering why Microsoft and the top record labels continue to promote subscription music services, the answer was revealed Thursday.

Label exec David Ring says download sales by themselves won't solve music industry's woes.

(Credit: Universal Music Group)

David Ring, executive vice president of business development for Universal Music Group's digital arm, said at the EconMusic Conference that the recording industry simply can't sustain itself with download sales alone.

"If what we're trying to do is one-by-one downloads...that's not a business that can grow," Ring told conference attendees during panel discussion he participated in. "It won't be healthy for the industry."

Prior to Ring's statement, Chris Stephenson, an executive in Microsoft's entertainment unit, was ballyhooing the progress made in Zune's subscription service. Zune is the digital music player that Microsoft launched in November 2006 to compete with Apple's iPod. This is also the device that saw a 54 percent decline in sales for the fourth quarter of 2008.

Ring's statement made a big impression on me. The recording industry obviously continues to work the subscription angle, which is more than 5 years old, because a better way to boost profits hasn't come along. Label honchos aren't ready to discount anything--not when the margins on 99-cent downloads are so slim.

I was under the impression that eventually the download would replace the CD as the music sector's main sales unit. I assumed that instead of packaging a dozen songs together on a disc, the labels would just be forced to sell those songs individually. That isn't what they want to do, according to Ring.

Ring made clear subscription services are not the only business model Universal Music, the largest of the four top record labels, is exploring. Universal execs will continue testing strategies until they find one, or a combination, that works.

What strategies show promise? Panel members discussed some well-worn ideas, such as bundling music fees into people's Internet-access bills. One idea tossed around was packaging music into Netflix or a similar service.

I asked the panel, which included Cory Ondrjka, a vice president at EMI's digital unit, and Michael Spiegelman, head of Yahoo Music, how much longer the sector would try to breathe life into subscriptions. Anyone can see consumers just haven't warmed to the idea of renting songs.

There isn't a single music-subscription service selling music from the top labels that generates significant revenue. Yahoo couldn't make a go of it and got out. Napster and Rhapsody, RealNetwork's subscription service, continue to appeal to niche audiences. People just don't like the idea of losing their music if they stop paying fees.

Ring never wavered. He said subscriptions work and cited Netflix and cable TV as examples. There's no arguing that the vast majority of us pay for subscriptions: magazines, cellphones, insurance, Internet access, the list is long.

The music industry, however has yet to produce a subscription plan the public finds as compelling. And what was clear after listening to the panel is that nobody in the sector is ready to give up trying.

[bhushan bhaagii]

The issue boils down to "ownership". In a magazine subscription, I have a tangible product in
my hand. In downloaded subscription music, if it's for a limited time period, subject to renewal,
I'll always worry that I will be losing the music. It's not like cable tv or internet service, which you MUST have and renew regularly.

[Super2online]

Must have? I don't have to have cable tv, cable is definately an option!

[tm_anon]

Actually, the issue boils down to what kind of media it is. All the types listed which have a viable subscription service are also the kind where you stop and actually pay attention to the media.

When's the last time you stopped and did nothing else but listen to a song?

Like many others, when I'm listening to music, I'm also reading a blog or writing or doing work or washing dishes or cleaning or a myriad other activities, but very rarely do I stop and just listen to the music.

First step, make music that makes us stop and appreciate it. After that, perhaps a subscription service would be more viable.

[Fil0403]

I think it would be fair to conclude then that it doesn't boil down to Microsoft, as the article gives the idea.

[bhushan bhaagii]

Ok, as far as cable TV is concerned, my reference is to India, where I am based. The favoured general entertainment and sports channels (which actually boils down to CRICKET that has a HUGE following) are delivered by cable operators.

[ofmyony]

We need a subscription service that allows you to keep all the music you have downloaded. An all you can eat model, that is controlled by the industry by either adding new music 90 days after it is released so they can first get profits from the paid downloads then add it to the new subscription model.

Second they then would rotate a library of titles each month to keep the consumer subscribing each month to get older songs the may not have.

This all creates value for the consumer and ensures profits for the industry. A win win for everyone, its to bad nobody listens.

[dascha1]

As I've said time and time again, look at the history of "music-on-demand"... it was proposed this way from the very beginning... although set-top 'boxes' are still a fight in progress but who will be bold enough to separate the hardware?

[RobertAPierce]

Funny how Ring cites netflix as an example of a subscription service that works. Movies are inherently different than music. Unless you're 5 years old and want to watch some kids show over and over and over, you generally watch a movie once, maybe twice. A subscription is perfectly fine for movies, it allows me to view it, and when I stop my subscription it doesn't matter if I can't view it again.

People want to buy songs because they can listen to them over and over again, whenever they want. Stop paying your subscription, and you lose the music you want to listen to. The idea of music subscriptions is just plain stupid. Fairly typical for music industry thinking, these are the same dinosaurs who faught digital downloads tooth and nail and continue to fight their own consumers at every turn (RIAA).

[Super2online]

"Stop paying for music and you lose the music you want to listen to". Since when? I can listen to all the music I want to on the internet and on the radio. They play the same songs over and over and over! Give it a try, I think you will find that they share your musical preferences!

[DrtyDogg]

Netflix isn't a good example for sure, subscription music is more like Sirrius/XM.

[rnaoncfixd]

@Super2online:
But what about the music that I want to listen to? Radio is nice when it wants to be because it is so closely controlled by the higher ups of what should be played and what shouldn't. Internet radio comes a bit closer, but the same higher ups are tightening their grips, making it harder for them to play a wider selection of music. I notice that Pandora is beginning to play some of the same songs over and over for a period of time.

It seems that you mostly like popular music because all you hear on the radio is what you already listen to. I listen to loads of music that you can barely even find on Amazon and iTunes; what makes you think that they are going to start playing that all on the radio?

[BigGuns149]

I agree with your general premise (ie. people generally watch films once or twice, but will listen to a musical piece more often), but that doesn't mean that music subscriptions aren't viable at all. For young people with fickle music tastes or people who simply want to sample music a subscription depending upon the monthly price and the selection *may* not be so bad, but typically speaking once we reach a certain age our tastes are pretty predictable and hence we are pretty happy listening to the same songs hundreds of times.

That being said I think it is safe to say that there is far more interest in owning music than there is in renting a catalog of music. That doesn't mean that subscription models are dead, but I think that they will never be more than a niche.

[seven7dust]

@bigGuns
I love sampling music too, hell I even listen to non-English music sometimes
which is why we have the Internet
Pandora,last.fm,Imeem and so many more sites
they not only help you discover new music but also work as a Social networks
and these r now available even on my Iphone
and last.fm actually has more songs than itunes,the zune sore and Amazon combined
So I Discover music via these sites and buy the ones I like
basically the Rental method just doesn't work when you can do so for free !

[Dalkorian]

To all the brainwashed that think subscription services are great for "sampling music", consider how you'd feel if while checking out of Costco you were charged for all the "free samples" you had. What's the difference, except the obvious one where in Costco you were told the samples were free but with the RIAA you knew you had to pay for them?
.
You have been scammed. Period. Sorry to slap you in the face with reality that you don't want to recognize, but it's time to grow up and realize that you're just wrong. Subscription music was invented by the RIAA in order to charge you for nothing, to get you to just give them money and get nothing in return. It's supported by RIAA shills and people to stupid to realize they're being scammed and no one else.

[xcal78]

@Dalkorian

Wow there's nothing I can say to this without starting a fun discussion. Let's just say your opinion works for you. Some people gain a better benefit from a subscription while other's don't. Some gain a better benefit from iTunes others don't. If a subscription doesn't work for you then don't TROLL a subscription thread. If you don't see how a subscription would benefit you then ask or say why it wouldn't work for you but trolling for the sake of trolling, come on. If your not part of the solution your part of the problem!

[jean.luc.picard]

The model that needs to change here is not the distribution model. Subscriptions will only work for a very small minority of the population. People clearly want to own their music. What needs to change is the vast amount of junk the labels want to foist on the listening public. Their profits have fallen with track by track digital downloads because only a quarter or a fifth of the music on an album are with having. Now people don't have to take the crap with the 3 songs they want.

[Super2online]

Now there's an opinion that's dead on. But it's not the record labels hoisting the rubbish on us, it's the artists. The record labels don't create music, musicians do!

[daves_done]

You pretty much have it there. It used to be that a hit single would sell a whole album. Yes the labels did put out a single usually with a few other songs that were not released on the album and sold for a little bit less. The rest of the record could be sh*t, but people would buy it for the hit single (see Alien Ant Farm's cover of Smooth Criminal). Now if they want one song, they can buy it for 99 cents. This is good and bad. The artist now has to give the consumer what he/she wants to make money, however the argument could be made they would also have to sacrifice some artistic integrity to do this thereby abandoning those (such as myself) that really do appreciate the artistic value of a good album.

[tm_anon]

@daves_done

There's the solution to the problem in your last sentence.

All the artist has to do is either make the single or make a good album. Artists typically come up with one really good song and then just fill an album with fluff because they have to fill a certain number of spots on the album.

When they actually concieve of an album as a whole and make it properly, tying the songs together or just filling it with wonderful pieces of artistry, the album sells and it sells well.

[Shabizzle]

@Super2online

There are a lot of artists who put out records that you will never hear because of the label gatekeepers. The labels may not be creating music but they sure do control what you hear!

[i_am_still_wade]

A rental is different than a subscription. Anybody with half a brain knows that, which explains why record execs do not. In a rental, you get a product or service, use it, and return it to receive another product or service. In a subscription, you get to use a product or service and keep using it until you stop paying for the product or service. Netflix is a rental service. Even if I could rent CD's, Netflix is still fundamentally different than what the labels and Microsoft want.

What these evil cartel wants is for us to pay them money for the rest of our lives for "privilege" of listening to music the way we want. At least, that is the way they act. These guys don't get it. Listening to music they way we want is a right, not a privilege. If they succeed in convincing the world subscriptions are a good thing, then everybody will be forced to pay a fixed fee for music the rest of their life. So instead of paying a one-time fee for your music, prepare to reserve part of your paycheck for the RIAA and the dummies that support them.

If these people where in any other industry except the music or entertainment industry, they would be out of business decades ago. Only in media can you be so inept and still succeed.

[ducttape36]

heres the thing though, i have a subscription to zune's music service, and i love it. but i know that if i ever stop paying for it, ill lose the music. so what do i do? i actually buy the records that i love so much. you can say its like paying twice for the music i love, but not really, because the music i download from music subscription FAR out numbers the music i would actually buy if i never had it. music subscription is a way for me to discover music. sure its 4.99 a month for zune pass (actually its 14.99 but they let you keep ten songs every month) but i think that is more than reasonable. people pay for satellite radio, and you certainly dont get to listen to any song on there anytime you want. so i do think subscription is a viable model, people just dont seem to realize that because they get so hung up on the fact that you don't "own" it.

[NPGMBR]

Ditto ducttape36 - I've been a Zune Pass subscriber since the Second Gen Zune came out and I love it. Granted I'm not a fair weather music listener. My 4800 track collection is expansive and includes Jazz, Rap, Rock, Alternative, Dance, Techno, Classical and many other genres. Half the music I have was purchased as CDs but I discovered the other half just downloading albums and trying them out; somehting you simply CANNOT do with iTunes. So when I discover a song I don't like I simply delete if from my colleciton and then buy the tracks I want to keep. Too many people are fooled into believing buying tracks for .99 is the better deal and that may be true if they only listen to the song of the month or don't have varried tastes in music but for someone like myself, subscriptions work better becaue the honest truth is....when I did this music will likely be useless to my family members because they will likely have their own collections but even still they can have my collection if they want.

[contentcreator--2008]

"Listening to music the way we want is a right, not a privilege. " --- no, you most certainly DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to other people's music. The creators give you a license to listen to it in certain ways, if you pay the appropriate fee. It's a basic contract, you can accept it or not, but not change it. Do I have the right to come in to your house and use your electricity, your water, your space, your refrigerator, etc? I didn't think so. Why should anyone work for you for free? Why should you be able to tell anyone how they can run their business? You can either accept it, or forgo it altogether. Can you walk in to a store and tell them they charge too much and take what you want at the price you want (or none at all)? Can you call up your insurance company and tell them they charge too much, you're only sending them $100 this year, deal with it, change your 'business model'? Yet somehow you have a right to tell a musician that YOU are so high and mighty you have a right to do whatever you want with his/her life work----take it for nothing, "share" it with all your friends.

[zato_3]

The Microsoft employees and music industry shills have arrived.

[SammyWA]

Agreeing with ducttape36 and NPGMBR, have been a Zune subscriber since it was available (also subscribe to Sirius, Xbox Live, and a few online games - so get the whole stop paying and you lose it mentality). When I first started subscribing I felt the same way ducttape did - I'll 'buy' what I really like, but what I've found over the past few years is that I actually don't buy CDs EVER, yet I probably download about 200 songs a week (about 50% I actually like and continue listening to). I have been using the 10 free monthly downloads to grab all the Led Zepplin and Metallica - as those two bands seem to be hold outs in the digital age. My tastes are ever changing, and with subscription I can listen to everything. My old CD collection is gathering dust. Of the hundreds of CDs I have in my collection, I've probably downloaded copies of about 10% with my subscription, mainly because I don't care about th other 90%. To be fair is this subscription service went away tomorrow I'd be pretty bummed at losing the freedom, but how much of my collection would I rebuy on CD? Maybe 10%.

[daves_done]

@contentcreator

Fair use says I do have a right to do with music I purchase whatever I want so long as I'm not distributing it. I can remix it, mix a match songs to make a playlist/mix CD or even record fart noises over the tracks if it entertains me. As long as I'm doing it for my own purposes, they can't tell me what to do. Noone is working for me for free and your argument about people coming into my home and using my utilities for free is completely invalid. As for your walking into a store argument, your half right. If I think someone charges too much for something I have every right to tell them so. I don't have a right to take it, though as it is their property.

[daves_done]

@ ducttape36
"people pay for satellite radio, and you certainly dont get to listen to any song on there anytime you".

I think the MAIN point of satellite radio is to listen to uncensored commercial free music and talk radio. Just like the point of cable TV is to watch uncensored and commercial free movies (watching Goodfellas on network TV sucks). Sure there is no on demand with satellite radio but half the fun of listening (for me anyway) is hearing a song you haven't heard or even thought about in awhile and realizing how much you like it all over again.

[ducttape36]

@daves_done

True, but then you'd probably love the zune channels. they are basically playlists that update themselves and can be loaded automatically to your player. You can even get radio station picks on them like KEXP. then you have hours of music on your channel that you can play, pause, and even transfer to your actual music collection at the push of a button. the only difference is there is no dj to introduce the songs.

[daves_done]

@ ducttape36
You could be right. ;-)

[tm_anon]

except for portability, last.fm is a much better choice. I've discovered new artists, found new sounds and just new songs from artists I've enjoyed for quite a while without paying any money. It's a web 2.0 music site with social networking built in, meaning I can find artists through friends as well. I'd rather not download music unless I actually enjoy it, this way, I can discover what I'll enjoy and never have to pay a "subscription" fee.

By the way, subscription means they keep sending you items which you will own, rental means you return them, that's the difference.

Magazines and newspapers go to subscribers and stay with them, nobody comes to pick them back up when you're done and you never have to return them. Movies go to renters, they must be returned. If you keep a movie that you rented, it is stolen. The music industry doesn't want a subscription service, they want a continued renewal for a rented music service.

[elllroy]

of course the don't give up searching for the licence to print money aka subscriptions.

thankfully for the consumer apple has freed us from the iron grip of the music cartels. no need to buy an album anymore just for the good 2-3 songs. no need to pay $15 for 2-3 good and 10 filler songs. and yes there are a few albums one can consider art und should be bought and listened to as a whole but that is not the majority of music out there.

music is a different breed than tv-shows or movies (for these a subscription would make sense to me). because you want to listen to your favorite music over and over again. not only once or twice as watching a tv-show or a movie. maybe if they start to combine music-subscriptions with a way to keep a number of songs per months (aka turning subscription primarily into a way to discover new music) more people will use it.

if you lose all your music the day your subscriptions ends, this model will never take off.

[paul613]

"If you lose all your music the day your subscription ends, this model will never take off."

Which is why the current recession will likely result in waves of subscriber's remorse. How can one justfify, to himself or his partner, "Even though I'm out of work, I must continue to feed the beast, lest I lose all I've paid for."

You find the same one-sided payment model for long-care insurance. "Pay us $100 a month for the rest of your life, and we'll guarantee you that we'll take care of you in your old age." Except that after paying faithfully for 22 years, if you're laid off and must stop paying, you're kicked off the plan.

[pkb205]

For me the issue is paying something (subscription fee) and feeling as though I get nothing in return (loss of all music) if I stop the subscription. In the days of radio, you could hear new music (not selectively) but you did have a way to hear the music before you bought. A simple way to solve this issue is a combination. Have a subscription service to set up play lists and constantly sample new ideas and music forms. Then if you hear music you like, buy the tracks at a discount (tracks only - not albums). Instead of $.99 per track, say $.69 per track. I know I would sign up for a subscription service in a heartbeat as long as i could purchase at a reasonable discount.

Then offer the buyer a choice. Individual tracks at regular price or buy a subscription and get a discount on the tracks. The bottom line is the the buyer makes the choice, not the suit.

[Renegade Knight]

If the subscription is cheap enough, you won't care that you lose your songs. The entire key to subscription services is to keep the rental rate lower than the cost of owning. The more convenience they can introduce to the rental (portability for example) the more tempting they make the service.

At this point all electronic music is a rental. Amazon happens to be a lifetime rental, but you still don't own it (no right to give it away, will it to your kids, or sell it in the secondary market)

[elllroy]

or how about a $3 a months "iTunes discovery" subscription? you pay $3 and you get full song previews. so the subscription is a mean to discover and judge the songs you want to keep. i would have saved a lot of money on a lot of songs which turned out to be less than spectacular though the 30 sec. preview was quiet promising.

[xcal78]

They'll never do full music previews since people can create an MP3 via streaming if you do that. I know lots of people who use napster or zune this way. Buy 1 month then make all the mp3's they want then cancel. Then you can listen to thos forever and 4-6 months later when they need new stuff they get another 1 month then cancel.

Ref:
http://applian.com/replay-music/

[rapier1]

Lets assume that you'll buy at least 10 songs a month. Would you spend an addtional $5 for full song previews? How about full song previews and the ability to listen to those songs on your music player whenever you wanted?

That's the zune service. Full song previews, download all you like, keep 10 songs each month even if you quit the service. $15.

[NPGMBR]

rapier1 - Amazing how people can't seem to figure that out by themselves huh? You tell people over and over that if they give the subscription model a try they'll get full ALBUM previews for as long as they like, yet the hear subscription and run away.

[tm_anon]

How about just trying out last.fm and buying the tracks you've already listened to and enjoyed for free.

[seven7dust]

why pay money when you can do it for free via last.fm,pandora etc.
not only can you preview a song you can also find similar music
plus the social network aspect is good too
I end up finding more and more songs via these services
and can buy the ones I like
as far as portability is concerned
last.fm and pandora r available for some phones too !

[Super2online]

Here is why I enjoy renting. 90% of the music out there is crap, but I have a family (6) that does not share this view. They have a wide range of musical tastes. When I rent, everyone gets what they want, if I buy I have to buy for everyone, and that gets expensive. $14.95/mth serves my whole family affordably.

I have 3 desktop systems and 4 laptops. They all have Zune on them, and everyone is really happy listening to what they want. They also download everything they want onto their Zune MP3 players and take it anywhere they want to go. Sharing, yes they share all the time among themselves and 5 other kids in the neighborhood that also have Zunes.

Now the only question is who will get the 10 FREE purchases every month! Thank god someone is offering the rental option. It keeps this household happy!

[xcal78]

I don't get why people will flock to buy songs at .99 a pop and won't buy a service like Zune. $15 a month and you get 10 free songs a month so that's $5 a month to listen to anything you want! Most people will drop more then $5 bucks on food upgrades at fast food places without a second thought. I'm really curious why that's not cheap enough or good enough for people.

[eBob1]

Becasue that's not how I consume music. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. The reason that I don't have NetFlix is because I would never be able to watch that many movies to make it worthwhile. Same with music subscription services.

[xcal78]

I understand some people are in your boat but $4.99 for a month of netflix is equal to 1 rental a month at a local place. If you watch less then 1 movie a month then yea it's not worth it. The same with MP3's if you spend less then $120 a year on MP3's then paying for a subscription service isn't worth it.

[markusfarkus]

For a lot of people, 10 songs a month just isn't enough. I'd much rather pay $15 / month for my eMusic account and get 65 mp3's per month.

I can appreciate the idea of being able to listen to everything and choose what you want to buy. It makes sense for some people. But as a huge consumer of music and a collector, there's so much free music available on the net from various promotions and blogs on top of the music available from the download services (which also provide free tracks as promotions) that I don't even have to try that hard to get hundreds of free tracks each month on top of the $15 or $25 I spend between iTunes, eMusic, Amazon, and Beatport. Considering how much I used to spend on full albums, I'm saving a bundle and I get to keep my music and transfer it the way I want to.

[xcal78]

I've not heard of eMusic. I'll check that out thanks.

[rapier1]

I think something people don't understand is that they are stuck on the idea that the Zune music service is *only* a subscription service. Its more of a hybrid system. You can subscribe or pay ala carte like iTunes. Personally, I do both. I listen to a lot of music and I explore a lot. I can't really figure out if I like a song after listening to 30 seconds of it and I'm unwilling to spend $1 to find out. So with iTunes I really never bought a lot of music. Within a few weeks of subscribing to the zune service I had downloaded at least 30 albums. Some of them I deleted right away, some of them I got bored with, and some I kept listening to over and over again. I bought those 5 or so outright. Doing that sort of exploration under iTunes would have cost me at least $300. Cost me around $75 under the Zune.

[tm_anon]

I listen to tracks on last.fm and hear musical artists I've never heard. I could do so 24 hours a day, every day and never pay anything. I also get the chance to download certain free tracks and if I choose, I can purchase tracks directly from the site for a fairly standard fee of roughly .99. Why would I pay for a Zune subscription just to explore new artists when I can already do it for free? Just to download it?

When I'm in a car, I tend more towards listening to music I like, music I've heard before, because I don't need to focus on it. When I'm in public, I'm actually paying attention and being with public. When I'm at home on my computer, I listen to music for free with last.fm because I can finally pay attention to it.

[rapier1]

Personally I like to live with my music for a while. Ya know, in the car, biking, at work, out walking. Difficult to do with last.fm. With the subscription service I can listen to an album for a few weeks and decide if it was really good or just a passing fancy before I put down any significant cash.

[smokinmunky]

I would jump at the chance to sign up for zune pass (but they don't have it in Canada yet). I torrented all of my music up until this point and I feel that a subscription would validate all of the downloading I've done throughout the years.

[CDubber]

"I feel that a subscription would validate all of the downloading I've done throughout the years"

Uh, riiiight...

[markdoiron]

Not one mention in the article that, with a ZunePass subscription, you get not only access to their entire library of music, but you also get to download and keep ten tracks per month. These ten tracks you own. So, basically, for the price of one CD per month ($15), you get one CD's worth of music to own, plus you get unlimited access for one month. Or, another way to think of it: For 5$ more than buying the music from iTunes, you get ten tracks you own, plus unlimited access to music for one month (IOW: The subscription costs you $5/month). I like my ZunePass a lot, and it's phenomenal with the wi-fi features such as Zune Marketplace Search and Channels. --mark d.

[tm_anon]

Also not one mention of last.fm with free tracks suggested from your playlist of music. The more you listen, the better the choices get.

Did I forget to mention it's free and you get at the very least more than 10 free downloads per month?

[sting7k]

The music industry is just going to have to get used to the fact that they won't be as rich and powerful as they once were. Prices were getting out of control for awhile until all the pirating started happening. Legal download services have greatly lowered the prices on their content. Even CDs in most stores are much cheaper than they were at the start of the 2000s.

There is so much content out there now that just putting out albums and tracks aren't good enough, especially when a lot of it is crap. The only ones who survive will be the real artists who are committed to tours and entertaining their fans. Hopefully this will weed out all the terrible ones who just care about money.

[sting7k]

Forgot, comparing a music subscription to Netflix also is idiotic. With music people will probably listen to the same song dozens if not hundreds of times over a long period if they like it. With a movie unless it's one you really really like you will probably only watch it once, so Netflix is great for that. Movies are expensive to rent and with more and more people getting home theatres Netflix is a great cheap alternative to see a lot of new movies instead of going out and blowing that same amount every week to see it in theaters.

Just to place the counter view. I love subscriptions, have no desire to pay for songs. I have Rhapsody, along with Rhapsody to go, with 4 MP3 players (I have 4 kids), We can listen to anything we want (and the variety of music across the family is huge). The Rhapsody server (cheap old PC) is hooked through a Sonos system so everyone gets to listen to what they want in different rooms. And the kids get to go to school with tons of songs on their players (to which all the other kids ask how they have such an extensive library). It would cost a fortune for each of my kids to get the music they want. And music tastes change - I don't listen to much of the music I used to buy about 5 or 10 years ago. So here's at least one vote for subscriptions - I would not have music any other way. (I do not work for Real Networks or Sonos BTW).

[ordaj]

Why must there always be growth? (I know, investors.) Why can't businesses operate sustainable businesses? (Because Wall St and new investors are always chasing higher returns.) Maybe they should revisit their models?

[Penguinisto]

Wow - lots of justifications for a model that quite frankly, the majority has no love for... even that $5/mo subscription model with a $10/mo. purchase plan that Microsoft runs.

The Zune service had only recently added the "oh, and you can keep 10 songs a month forever if you want"... because they had to in order to try and attract users. I noticed that most of the folks here defending the sub model go out of their way to mention that the Zune setup lets you keep 10 songs a month... Well... BFD. It's basically a $5/mo. sub service with a $10/month "buy your 10 songs or lose the money" payment plan latched onto the back-end.

I notice the defenders don't say so much about the benefits of the sub portion (or a pure sub service) with anything other than "I can listen to all the music I want! weee!"

Well crap, folks - I can do that with XM/Sirius radio right now, and not be chained to a laptop or a tiny PMP screen at best to use it. I can burn my stuff to CD and store it on other non-DRM media, no matter what it is. I'm not stuck with one operating system just to use it (the Zune thingy).

Sorry folks - but the majority of the market has spoken, and they detest the idea of the subscription model, hybrid or not.

[xcal78]

Thanks for your 1 cent worth it was a blast to read and got a laugh from.

[tm_anon]

@xcal78

I don't often agree with Penguinisto, but his points do have merit. Perhaps you could try having some merit or even having some points in your next post.

@Penguinisto

You may want to check out last.fm. I've mentioned the site a few times on here already, but there's a good reason for it. You can look up an artist and listen to the music, look up artists related to that one and listen to it, download music that's been suggested, some of which is free and should have no trouble playing on multiple platforms (I have a friend who plays these songs on her iPod after downloading on a Windows PC) and does in fact offer paid downloads for other tracks.

Almost forgot, it's also a social networking site based on music. Add your friends and listen to their tracks as well.

[pdskep]

@tm

So with last.fm you can download a whole album or any part of it and listen to it at your convenience on your portable player? I didn't think so. It's not the same thing.

@Peng

If Jobs for some reason decided to go subscription, millions of the members of the Apple cult would swoon and think it was the best thing since slice bread. Subscription music suffers because the company that has the stranglehold on the market doesn't want to play ball. So you can selectively download the music you want from XM
and burn it? I didn't think so. So ****.

As others have suggested, I use the subscription model as a full album or song preview that I can test drive before I actually buy the CD (the actual CD) if I really love it. It more than plays for itself and it does away with those songs you like at first, but end up only listening to a few times. The 10 free songs a months is simply a bonus.

[Penguinisto]

"If Jobs for some reason decided to go subscription, millions of the members of the Apple cult would swoon and think it was the best thing since slice bread."

I sincerely doubt that - it's more likely that the masses would revolt and iTunes would end up a ghost town.

You know, everyone who claims that the Mac-owning crowd is some kind of mindless robotic army in love with Apple has never really read Mac-oriented forums... pdskep - you really should try reading a few sometime. Try AppleInsider as a good start.

"Subscription music suffers because the company that has the stranglehold on the market doesn't want to play ball."

You do know that sub services have existed long before iTunes' Music Store, right? Notice how there aren't so many of them around (and notice further how many of them died long before the word "iPod" was even spoken by anyone outside of Apple's R&D?)

"So you can selectively download the music you want from XM and burn it?"

Can't do that with a sub service either... you've heard of DRM, right?

Also, why on earth should I be forced to pay for the privilege of previewing songs, when I can do the same thing for free in my car with the factory-supplied radio? The only diff is that you get to pick and choose which songs... which last.fm lets me do for free (as tm_anon happily pointed out).

@tm_anon: yep - I gots the love for last.fm. It adds an element that the sub sites can only try to add - a people-driven social element. I really should get off my butt and be more than just a guest there.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Well, I don't do music subscriptions. I want to pay for and download the songs I want. If you can live on then fine with me. The entire music industry can go straight to hell. Artists with their own web sites should be handling the sales of their music themselves any ways.

Robert

[rapier1]

Because most artists are really good with the business and promotion side of things in the first place. Why not make use of their natural strengths, right?

[oldguytoo]

Not one artist - even the revered Radiohead, can get anywhere close to the exposure a label can provide.
If the bands are serious about a career, they need labels at this point. There is no other reasonable alternative.

[rnaoncfixd]

Ok, here's a thought. With the falling economy, people are going to be cutting things off the list and try to save every penny. Let's say that I want to stop paying for music, for a time being because I will eventually in the future start up again and music isn't so much of an important part of my life that I need a new album every day/week. Let's say I cut off buying music for a year. With a subscription service, all my music is rendered unplayable; at least until I subscribe again. With a pay as you go service, I still have everything with no extra costs.

[pentest]

Labels were left behind last century, I guess they missed the memo.

If selling downloads is not sustainable, then how did they last so long selling records, cassettes and CDs?

They simply want to sucker people into paying over and over for the same thing.

[camrow]

From a strictly PR perspective, these guys are just having a fundamental problem with listening to their customers. I think they have forgotten that in a market place, you give the consumer what they want, or your business fails. You don't get to dictate unless you have absolute control over your market, and that they don't got.

Listen and respond and they will do fine. If they don't they'll all lose their jobs and the music industry will become a direct-from-artist-home-production model. Of course, a music executive that has no talent himself would never suggest that.

[Waam]

Absolutely CO-SIGN!!!