Manage updates with the Download AppJanuary 19, 2006 4:00 AM PST
Digital music spins new sales approach
- Related Stories
-
Yahoo takes on iTunes with new music service
May 10, 2005 -
Got playlist anxiety? You're not alone
April 6, 2005 -
Red Sox fan? It's time for a postgame playlist
October 21, 2004
(continued from previous page)
Analysts say that subscription services need to spend far more time explaining their version of legal music swapping to the public before the approach will become a significant draw.
"I think (playlists) will be an important feature that many people will eventually use," said Jupiter Research analyst David Card. "But it will have to be promoted to death."
Digital music's baby steps
Indeed, after all the headlines about iPod sales and the impending death of CDs, it's easy to forget just how unfamiliar digital music remains to most people.
According to a recent Jupiter Research survey, just 16 percent of online adults listened to music using a playlist in 2005, up from 9 percent in 2004. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, 43 percent listened to playlists in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004.
Only 2 percent of adults now online, or 9 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds, actually shared playlists during 2005, the Jupiter study found.
For now, most consumers say they're more interested in price, virus-free music and the amount of music available, Card said.
Many of the big services are still in the process of adding technology that makes legal digital music sharing more simple.
Yahoo launched its initial subscription service last spring, with features that allow subscribers to post playlists online, and send song links to one another through Yahoo's chat software. The company hasn't said what, if anything, it plans to do with the Webjay playlist site.
"We're really trying to educate people about subscription music first and foremost," said Yahoo spokeswoman Charlene English. "Community sharing and discovery has always been a priority for us."
Rhapsody, which has always allowed people to e-mail playlists to one another, recently moved much of its service onto the Web. The new version of the service allows even nonsubscribers to click on playlists like those at Burke's site and hear the first 25 songs for free.
For its part, Apple allows iTunes users to publish their playlists in the iMix portion of the iTunes store. However, without purchasing the songs, users can hear only a sample of each song on the playlist. An iTunes customer can also purchase a playlist as a gift for a friend.
But until these services are able to introduce the sharing features to more people, the playlist sharing phenomenon may well stay in the grassroots.
For committed mix-makers like Burke, whose site now attracts about 50,000 hits a month, that's only fair. He's still waiting for more songs to be available, and for features that make sharing music through the subscription services even simpler.
"Ultimately, there will be a true celestial jukebox, where everything is available," Burke said. "Then you can have playlists available that don't have gaps. That's what I'm trying to get to."
See more CNET content tagged:
subscription service, digital music, online music, playlist, song
56 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Subscriptions will never work out.
I'm one that favors the subscription model. For the price of a dozen iTunes song, I can pretty much listen to anything I want during the month. The model works for some people and not for others.
I have no doubt that Apple will have a subscription model in the near future - Jobs said he was against having video, but once he saw the demand he jumped on the bandwagon. Now that music subscriptions are starting to build, Jobs will copy that too.
Jobs is great at taking what others do and making the user experience fantastic. He copied a lot from Xerox for the Mac, put the Mac graphical layer on top of UNIX, saw the audio handheld inventions and then created the iPod, and then brought video to the iPod after others did the early innovations.
It's really quite simple. Depending on the service, you will spend $6.99 ro $9.99 a month to stream ANY song you wish to any computer.
For about $15 a month you can also load them to a portable player and take them with you.
I have found the only folks who say they don't like the subscription model are those who haven't tried one.
If you love music and try it you're hooked. It's access to anything you want to hear, whenever you want to hear it.
Also, the download and subscription models are not mutually exclusive. Subscription services are ideal for discovering which albums are really worth purchasing.
That alone makes up the cost of a subscription service worth every penny.
If you come to my house I can play anything you want to hear over my home system with YMU or Rhapsody. No iTunes only stiff neck can do that, unless that is, you've spent $2 million on digital files and have the hard drive space to hold them.
Subscriptions will never work out.
I'm one that favors the subscription model. For the price of a dozen iTunes song, I can pretty much listen to anything I want during the month. The model works for some people and not for others.
I have no doubt that Apple will have a subscription model in the near future - Jobs said he was against having video, but once he saw the demand he jumped on the bandwagon. Now that music subscriptions are starting to build, Jobs will copy that too.
Jobs is great at taking what others do and making the user experience fantastic. He copied a lot from Xerox for the Mac, put the Mac graphical layer on top of UNIX, saw the audio handheld inventions and then created the iPod, and then brought video to the iPod after others did the early innovations.
It's really quite simple. Depending on the service, you will spend $6.99 ro $9.99 a month to stream ANY song you wish to any computer.
For about $15 a month you can also load them to a portable player and take them with you.
I have found the only folks who say they don't like the subscription model are those who haven't tried one.
If you love music and try it you're hooked. It's access to anything you want to hear, whenever you want to hear it.
Also, the download and subscription models are not mutually exclusive. Subscription services are ideal for discovering which albums are really worth purchasing.
That alone makes up the cost of a subscription service worth every penny.
If you come to my house I can play anything you want to hear over my home system with YMU or Rhapsody. No iTunes only stiff neck can do that, unless that is, you've spent $2 million on digital files and have the hard drive space to hold them.
worlds. No subscription fees: people "own" their music, yet can
listen to complete songs 3 times before deciding to buy. And when
they buy, the recommender gets a commission for helping to
spread the music. In fact, if you want to start your own on-line
music store, just buy some Weed files and post them to your web
page, blog, MySpace, whatever. Also, weedshare has the pricing
flexibility that iTunes doesn't.
worlds. No subscription fees: people "own" their music, yet can
listen to complete songs 3 times before deciding to buy. And when
they buy, the recommender gets a commission for helping to
spread the music. In fact, if you want to start your own on-line
music store, just buy some Weed files and post them to your web
page, blog, MySpace, whatever. Also, weedshare has the pricing
flexibility that iTunes doesn't.
I don't trust the music publishers to keep a tune available in the "celestial jukebox" for my entire lifetime. I expect that some years down the road either these services or the music publishers will start to pull tunes with low listening statistics. The reality is that even though storage is cheap and slowly getting cheaper, there will likely still be a tipping point for the cost of maintaining the "celestial jukebox."
I will continue to buy my music, thank you, and in a format that preserves my right of first sale.
I don't trust the music publishers to keep a tune available in the "celestial jukebox" for my entire lifetime. I expect that some years down the road either these services or the music publishers will start to pull tunes with low listening statistics. The reality is that even though storage is cheap and slowly getting cheaper, there will likely still be a tipping point for the cost of maintaining the "celestial jukebox."
I will continue to buy my music, thank you, and in a format that preserves my right of first sale.
I don't for the life of me, understand why the two models are pitted against each other like they are mutually exclusive?
How do you discover the music you want to purchase?
Radio? lame
MTV - lamer
blogs - better, but incomplete
Why not take all the latest releases for a test spin and see if they are worth buying.
We are talking about less than $10 a month here people. Less than one CD a month. If you subscribe to a music magazine, cancel now and get a Yahoo or Rhapsody subscription. You'll thank me.
I don't for the life of me, understand why the two models are pitted against each other like they are mutually exclusive?
How do you discover the music you want to purchase?
Radio? lame
MTV - lamer
blogs - better, but incomplete
Why not take all the latest releases for a test spin and see if they are worth buying.
We are talking about less than $10 a month here people. Less than one CD a month. If you subscribe to a music magazine, cancel now and get a Yahoo or Rhapsody subscription. You'll thank me.
You folks with subscription services and playlists need to target another area. See who Muzak targets, and go there. Do you feel that little spark of opportunity? Right. Now go forth and pump your subscription music into every elevator, every dentist office and shopping mall across America.
Do you get it now? Good. Just send me my 20%.
You folks with subscription services and playlists need to target another area. See who Muzak targets, and go there. Do you feel that little spark of opportunity? Right. Now go forth and pump your subscription music into every elevator, every dentist office and shopping mall across America.
Do you get it now? Good. Just send me my 20%.
Those offering subscription services and playlists need to go after another area. See who Muzak targets and go there. Feel that spark of opportunity? Right. Now go forth and fill every elevator, dentist office and shopping mall with your subscription music service.
Now do you get it? Good. Just send me my 20%.
(originally posted earlier, but was removed, hmmm.)
Those offering subscription services and playlists need to go after another area. See who Muzak targets and go there. Feel that spark of opportunity? Right. Now go forth and fill every elevator, dentist office and shopping mall with your subscription music service.
Now do you get it? Good. Just send me my 20%.
(originally posted earlier, but was removed, hmmm.)
Subs continue to grow and there is room for everyone. Show me a iTuner and a subscription customer and I'll show you the person more knowledgable about music. And he won't be the one with an iPod.
But hey, we're talking about SOUND BUSINESS MODELS and not music knowledge.
Show me someone who is knowledgeable about music and someone who know's how to build a sound business model for their target market, and I'll show you who knows how to run a successful music download business. And he won't be the one trying to make up excuses or pointing fingers.
Now for others, the subscription plan is perfectly fine because they just want to listen to music. They don't care about collecting it. They don't care about why this artist is more alternative than that artist. They just want to listen.
Just because someone subscribes to a music service it does not mean they are automatically more knowledgeable about music. You make it sound like everyone who uses a download service just grabs the top ten for the week and never explores anything else. A depth of a person's exploration of music depends on the individual and has nothing to do with how they find it. Someone who really wants to find new music will find it.
Subs continue to grow and there is room for everyone. Show me a iTuner and a subscription customer and I'll show you the person more knowledgable about music. And he won't be the one with an iPod.
But hey, we're talking about SOUND BUSINESS MODELS and not music knowledge.
Show me someone who is knowledgeable about music and someone who know's how to build a sound business model for their target market, and I'll show you who knows how to run a successful music download business. And he won't be the one trying to make up excuses or pointing fingers.
Now for others, the subscription plan is perfectly fine because they just want to listen to music. They don't care about collecting it. They don't care about why this artist is more alternative than that artist. They just want to listen.
Just because someone subscribes to a music service it does not mean they are automatically more knowledgeable about music. You make it sound like everyone who uses a download service just grabs the top ten for the week and never explores anything else. A depth of a person's exploration of music depends on the individual and has nothing to do with how they find it. Someone who really wants to find new music will find it.
Maybe that's a hard concept for you to understand, so let me make it easier.
1. Economics. I can listen to any of over a million songs for 10 bucks a month. The cost of downloads / CDs prohibits you from LISTENING to the amount of music I can. Subscribers can listen to a more diverse selection then you could ever dream of with iTunes or physical media. Even with a budget of $500 a week you will not have scratched the surface of what a subscriber has at their fingertips.
2. Volume. Even if you could afford to buy a library that equals that of a music subscription service customer, where will you put the data? Do you have the hard drive space? Can iTunes handle it? Nope. And if your hard drive ever crashes you're out of luck. My million+ songs can be accessed from any Internet connected computer on the planet. You can carry at max of what, 60 gigs?
3. Time. While you download, transfer and maintain your files I am listening to music. It's all done for me. Also, if I read a great review of a brand new album by a critic I respect, I can search for it and be listening to the full album in a matter of seconds. Then I can make a determination on whether to buy it. You can listen to :30 clips. Lame. When I buy a CD I am 100% certain that it's something I love.
This brings me to another point against your ignorant and irrational point of view. People who use subs also buy CDs and pay for downloads. We are just much better informed customers. Would you buy a suit without trying it on or a car without driving it? Why buy music you are not familiar with?
Simple no?
It's because subscription services and their customers lack common sense.
It's all clear to me now. Thanks for the explanation.
Maybe that's a hard concept for you to understand, so let me make it easier.
1. Economics. I can listen to any of over a million songs for 10 bucks a month. The cost of downloads / CDs prohibits you from LISTENING to the amount of music I can. Subscribers can listen to a more diverse selection then you could ever dream of with iTunes or physical media. Even with a budget of $500 a week you will not have scratched the surface of what a subscriber has at their fingertips.
2. Volume. Even if you could afford to buy a library that equals that of a music subscription service customer, where will you put the data? Do you have the hard drive space? Can iTunes handle it? Nope. And if your hard drive ever crashes you're out of luck. My million+ songs can be accessed from any Internet connected computer on the planet. You can carry at max of what, 60 gigs?
3. Time. While you download, transfer and maintain your files I am listening to music. It's all done for me. Also, if I read a great review of a brand new album by a critic I respect, I can search for it and be listening to the full album in a matter of seconds. Then I can make a determination on whether to buy it. You can listen to :30 clips. Lame. When I buy a CD I am 100% certain that it's something I love.
This brings me to another point against your ignorant and irrational point of view. People who use subs also buy CDs and pay for downloads. We are just much better informed customers. Would you buy a suit without trying it on or a car without driving it? Why buy music you are not familiar with?
Simple no?
It's because subscription services and their customers lack common sense.
It's all clear to me now. Thanks for the explanation.
Subscriber growth is excellent.
I suppose by your logic Ashley Simpson is the best musician in the nation since she is currently selling the most?
Get a clue sheep. baaa
Subscriber growth is excellent.
I suppose by your logic Ashley Simpson is the best musician in the nation since she is currently selling the most?
Get a clue sheep. baaa
sample music.
But remember, you're paying every month and if you don't, your
subscription is "POOF" gone!
What happens in 2 years when your $9.99 is increased to
$12.99, then $19.99...
You've spent all this time amassing your library and then they've
got you over a barrel.
They get what they want...LOCK IN, and you get to keep paying.
Subscription, at the right price is fine for exploration, and that's
what the subscriptions are offering.
I just wouldn't invest in it as a tool to maintain my music
collection.
Whether you subscribe is really a matter of how much music you listen to. If you only buy a track when something is played on the radio that you love a sub is not for you. If you LOVE music, want to explore and learn, then a sub is a Godsend.
sample music.
But remember, you're paying every month and if you don't, your
subscription is "POOF" gone!
What happens in 2 years when your $9.99 is increased to
$12.99, then $19.99...
You've spent all this time amassing your library and then they've
got you over a barrel.
They get what they want...LOCK IN, and you get to keep paying.
Subscription, at the right price is fine for exploration, and that's
what the subscriptions are offering.
I just wouldn't invest in it as a tool to maintain my music
collection.
Whether you subscribe is really a matter of how much music you listen to. If you only buy a track when something is played on the radio that you love a sub is not for you. If you LOVE music, want to explore and learn, then a sub is a Godsend.
people's playlists. They need to get a life. A bunch of
Self important people who think that their taste is
something the rest of us should take note of. The same
type of people who sit down the pub, talk loudly and tell
you how the world works. Losers.
The important thing about iTunes is how it allows you to
get your music into your iPod. Why do many reporters
in the media forget or just blatantly miss the point that
most people with a music catalogue can import all the
songs to their iPods.
You would think from the press/media that the only way
to get music into the iPod is to pay 99c a track. I have
approx 230 albums in my iPod and only two have been
bought via iTunes. I have also bought approx 20
individual songs.
Having unlimited music via a subscription service
sounds good but how many people go beyond their
own taste in music and start to listen to hundreds of
songs they don't really know.
Forget someone else's unimportant playlist.
Buy your CD's and import to your iPod
and don't waste your money on a subscription service -
that's why you have radio stations - to find new music
You're view of playlists is too limited.
Playlists can be MUCH more than someone's personal taste as you describe. They can be learning tools.
Songs based on a particlular subject like Horses, Dentists, Football, anything help you find music for events quickly and easily.
Playlists based on charts (number 1 hits, etc, easily help you start listening to what was hot anytime in history without doing the research yourself) Want to hear the top selling albums on the day you wer born? Playlists can do that.
Learn about music history-- Songs written by a certian songwriter or produced by a certain producer.
Songs in a certain time signature, the same key, or chord progression helps teach music theory.
Playlists are not just "my favorite songs"
people's playlists. They need to get a life. A bunch of
Self important people who think that their taste is
something the rest of us should take note of. The same
type of people who sit down the pub, talk loudly and tell
you how the world works. Losers.
The important thing about iTunes is how it allows you to
get your music into your iPod. Why do many reporters
in the media forget or just blatantly miss the point that
most people with a music catalogue can import all the
songs to their iPods.
You would think from the press/media that the only way
to get music into the iPod is to pay 99c a track. I have
approx 230 albums in my iPod and only two have been
bought via iTunes. I have also bought approx 20
individual songs.
Having unlimited music via a subscription service
sounds good but how many people go beyond their
own taste in music and start to listen to hundreds of
songs they don't really know.
Forget someone else's unimportant playlist.
Buy your CD's and import to your iPod
and don't waste your money on a subscription service -
that's why you have radio stations - to find new music
You're view of playlists is too limited.
Playlists can be MUCH more than someone's personal taste as you describe. They can be learning tools.
Songs based on a particlular subject like Horses, Dentists, Football, anything help you find music for events quickly and easily.
Playlists based on charts (number 1 hits, etc, easily help you start listening to what was hot anytime in history without doing the research yourself) Want to hear the top selling albums on the day you wer born? Playlists can do that.
Learn about music history-- Songs written by a certian songwriter or produced by a certain producer.
Songs in a certain time signature, the same key, or chord progression helps teach music theory.
Playlists are not just "my favorite songs"