Jupiter Report Says Napster Users Buy MORE Music

flufffy writes "According to this report on CNet, a new Jupiter Research report on 2200 online music fans has found that Napster users are likely to buy more rather than less music. "Because Napster users are music enthusiasts, it's logical to believe that they are more likely to purchase now and increase their music spending in the future," Jupiter analyst Aram Sinnreich said in a statement. OK so it's another Napster story -- but, of all the Net behaviour researchers out there, Jupiter are one set of people I would trust more to do their research methodically and impartially. I think that this is one of the strongest surveys of the issue released so far." I'm sure that the RIAA has statistics that will say the opposite, but I think I agree with this - just because I can download something doesn't mean I don't want the CD as well.

Comments

Hilary Rosen quote

[jackmama]

"I don't think it matters at all whether we've been economically hurt," she said. "I think that if I own my shirt and you borrow it, it doesn't matter whether or not I have another shirt. You're just not entitled to borrow it without my permission. And if you have a copyright asset, that is the principle of copyright--that you get to control and own your own work, and other people don't get to profit from it without your permission."

I think we can all agree that Hilary Rosen topless is a bad thing, and if that's what happens when people use Napster, I'd rather they stop.

What people say

[ucblockhead]

I'm not saying that this is definitely untrue, but it is important to understand that this is a survey that relies on what people say they do, not what they actually did. Those two different things can be very different.

It is also dangerous to imply causation. Even if you prove that Napster users buy more music, you can't say that Napster causes people to buy more music. Just as likely is that those people attracted to Napster are music enthusiasts who buy lots of music.

(Most of this should be obvious, but it ought to be said.)

Music industry stats are just as shaky. To imply that record sale declines close to universities are due to Napster ignores all sorts of alternate possibilities, such as changing musical tastes, increasing purchase of music from online sources, etc.

I think..

[edmz]

one of the advantages/power of MP3 and other digital media is previewing, thus helping you
make better choices.

Personally, i have bought more CDs because i have
tried them before. I have even explored other
genres that I previously couldnt afford.

Now, everytime i buy a CD, its something
i really want because i already tasted; like
buying a DVD of your favorite movie.

A year or 2 ago, 50% of the cds I bought sucked and
I had no way to find out until after i bought it;
like buying a DVD only because of the trailer
of the movie.

So, mp3 have brought me:
1. wiser choices
2. less deceptions
3. enjoyed other music otherwise i wouldnt have
4. more CDs

I like the research to the contrary.

[Sangui5]

Earlier research, released by Soundscan in May, showed declining CD sales at stores near universities

In other news, computer stores and books stores next to college campuses are showing the lowest sales rates in years.

I wonder why? Could there perhaps be a connection?

Re:I like the research to the contrary.

[joshamania]

Do you think maybe that might have something to do with the fact that when I was in college, a CD cost $10 - $12. I haven't bought music in a store in a while, but the last time I did, I paid about $18 for a CD. Both situations consider current popular music, not some old Led Zepplin CD's, new releases. This has only been during a period of about 5 or 6 years that these price differences have reared their ugly heads.

Even Best Buy's prices have started edging up over the last couple of years. (Hey, check this grammar out -> ) While still considerably lower (Best Buy that is) than most campus record stores, most college students cannot afford to pay the prices the music industry charges at music stores accessible to non-car-owning college students in order to make margins on their $0.50 production charge and $12.00 "distribution" expenses.

With the wide availability of music, and the low cost of shipping through the mail, the music labels cannot justify the prices of their products in my mind. Especially when I see musicians with gold records going broke.

I live in L.A. now (yuck!) and the few musical artists I've talked to (and most others for that fact) seem to agree that the musicians make about $0.50 per disk sold. Some would even say that that number is high. Granted this is useless anecdotal evidence, but the fact that I've never heard of a musician reaping $5.00 per disk (which would come closer to justifying the price of a $15.00 CD) tells me I cannot be too far from the truth.

Breakdown:

-Burn CD $1 (that's a high estimate)
-Pay the artist $1 (another high estimate IMHO)
-Ship the CD $3.20 (USPS priority mail, up to 2 pounds...how many CD's in 2 pounds?)
-Advertise...lessee here...put the music on the internet for free (not extremely expensive venture when talking about selling thousands of CD's a day)...let radio stations download the music and don't charge them royalties (a BS practice in my mind)...how much can this cost?

Oh, wait a second...I forgot the booze and couches and TV's and stereo equipment that even non-executive management gets at Universal Music Group (I seen it with my own eyes). That's gotta be where that extra $10.00 charge comes from? Duh?

Important Clarification

[ParticleGirl]

People are saying that just because Napster users buy more music doesn't imply causation. This is true, however... The study didn't just measure the current level of spending; it measured an increase in spending since starting to use Napster. At the Jupiter Communications website, you can see that Napsters users have increased their spending more than other online music fans. This is a very important distinction, because it does imply causation.

In addition, I must say that I personally use Napster, and I certainly buy more music than I did before. I'm exposed to more groups that I wouldnt' have heard of, and I'm much more likely to hear a song or two and like it, then go out and buy the album. I have no CD burner at home, and I'd like to be able to listen to the music on my discman and in my car, not just when I'm in the same room as my computer; and anyway, it's much easier to use for sampling and exploring than it would be if I was trying to download entire albums. And I'm willing to bet that sales near colleges have gone down because of CDNow and other such services that are cheaper and easier to get good music from than most music stores that take advantage of college towns.

the analogy does NOT hold

[pezpunk]

she is getting upset because we are generating A NEW COPY OF HER SHIRT, not stealing her shirt off her back. she can still wear or sell her shirt as she pleases. i hate the "stealing" analogy because it is essentially not correct. i'm not saying THIS makes Napster ok, i'm saying this analogy is irrelevant.