Universal Music exec says that recording companies can't survive exclusively on sales of digital downloads. This apparently is one reason why music sector won't give up on subscriptions.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
I've been a Napster to Go subscriber for some time, and it really allows you to expand your horizons. When there's no cost involved in downloading, if I hear and like a song by an artist I don't know, I'll download 20 or 30 songs by that artist, keep the ones I like and delete those I don't. Sometimes I'll get nostalgic for some god-awful song I liked as a teenager, I'll download it, listen a few times, then delete it before someone actually sees it's on my player. I download comedy routines for plane trips and delete them after I've listened to them. The site makes it easy to discover new artists. It would be brutally expensive to do this through a paid download service. Of course, with just a bit more hassle, I could do this illegally, so if you prefer infringing then I could see how you'd have an issue with subscriptions, but if you want access to all the music and entertainment you can handle at a very low per-unit price, subscriptions are the way to go.
My only concern is that I can do the math and I know that these artists are not getting much money from my downloads. That bothers me.
"That's the business we want", they'd say. Well, no, you can't have a pony. Tough.
the labels are "clinging" to subscriptions because they're trying to make money (for them and for their artists), and subscriptions represent another form of digital revenue -- just like ringtones, just like ad-supported music from my company, imeem.
you make it sound like a bad thing that in the transition to digital, people are trying to make money from something other than iTunes download revenue. in fact, it would be irresponsible of them not to try to make money from subscriptions, and i suspect you and other people would knock them for leaving money on the table if they decided to drop support for subscriptions. you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I have nothing against the labels' attempts to make money. I used the word "clinging" to call attention to their insistence on pursuing subscriptions after trying to make the model work for so long and failing. Maybe they'll be rewarded for their persistence, but I don't see any reason to be encouraged.
I can easily justify the $15 a month expense, even without the new keep 10 songs per month perk. When I was using an iPod with iTunes, I was buying, on average, 2 albums a month. That's $20 per month for 20-30 songs (depending on how many songs were included on the album). For $15 per month, I can download however many albums/songs I want.
It's not for everyone. If you only buy an album every couple of months, it's probably not worth it. But for me, who was consistently buying 2 or more albums per month, the cost savings are immense. And if I was going to spend that $20 or more per month anyway, why not get access to a larger collection of music for less money?
Music and movies are things I can easily do without, and considering the junk they turn out I often choose to go without.
What you are seeing is the chilling effect that Apple's monopoly is having on the entire music industry.
I own an iPod, and I can download stuff from e-Music and AmazonMP3, and load it into iTunes and onto my iPod just fine. In fact, I rarely buy anything from the iTunes store.
I believe this makes your point null and void.
Try placing any music you have subscribed to on an iPod or iPhone. You have completely missed the point of my post which is that Steve Jobs is single-handedly killing the subscription business with his monopoly on the player market.
You might not have noticed but I was weighing in on your side.
Sorry, didn't catch the sarcasm the first time around.
If I lose my player.. no problem it's in the "cloud" - I can get to my music from anywhere at anytime. If I stop paying my $12.99/month for my service I will lose access to the music - but when I come to my senses and start paying again after realizing how dumb it was to stop - I won't skip a beat.. all my music is there waiting for me like millions of loyal dogs with their unconditional love ;-)
Downloads and subscriptions are ok, but the labels shouldn't rely on them to hang their hat adn make most of their profits - there is no substitute for physical goods. Just make them quality physical goods, begin distributing singles again, and you will see the industry begin to turn around again.
Where is all the money they're saving from not having to pay CD manufacturers going?
The thing that keeps consumers subscribing is value and quality new music or a rotating selection of songs every month to keep consumers adding music to their collection, therefore keeping the revenue coming in. I restate that consumers must be allowed to keep the music they collect or a subscription based model will not work for very long.
Movies are different because people only watch movies a few times at best and seldom collect huge libraries like they do songs. People want to own their music that is it.
This is also the device that reached 3rd spot in worldwide sales in less than 5 years.
P.S. Before you fanboys start whining, I own a 160 GB video iPod myself and I wouldn't switch it for any other MP3 player (Zune included).
But the majority of consumers listen to few genres & don't have any interest in exploring - why would they want to spend $13/month to check out a couple of albums?
The big labels aren't going to change people's listening habits until they stop selling crap & start selling quality & variety. Selling an overpriced cd by having 1-2 singles air on the radio every half hour doesn't cut it anymore. These days people just don't want to risk $ on music they haven't heard, since history has shown that it is most likely to be redundant filler.
- by jon654321 February 8, 2009 8:30 PM PST
- The recording industry "as we currently know it" may not survive. But the world will go on - music will thrive. There is nothing more satisfying than to see a Cartel crumble.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (111 Comments)Cartel - definition = an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.
Subscriptions will ultimately fail - it would be brilliant if it wasn't so counter to what music is all about.