Slashdot Mirror
Yet Another Look at CD Sales
citizenkeller writes "Dan Bricklin, of VisiCalc fame, has published a very interesting essay on "CD sales, downloading, and burning". In his own words: 'Given the slight dip in CD sales despite so many reasons for there to be a much larger drop, it seems that the effect of downloading, burning, and sharing is one of the few bright lights helping the music industry with their most loyal customers. Perhaps the real reason for some of the drop in sales was the shutdown of Napster and other crackdowns by the music industry.'"
It's the economy stupid. That's the reason for the drop. Plus there is a lot of crap that sounds the same. It's not the pirates.
Just maybe, it's the fact that the music that's being pumped out is inane trash, and maybe, just maybe, a handful of the sheep have started to break away from the flock?
... give me a break. Pop Music sucked before and it still sucks.
I mean, it sickens my stomach when MTV does a special on "Pop Music Post 9/11"
I've said it before, but people don't seem to get it yet: The music industry has a larger plan, namely to seize on the issue of "piracy" to justify purchasing legislation mandating the infrastructure required to support ubiquitous pay-per-use. Today's battles aren't about unit sales of music, but rather about shifting America to a pay-per-use entertainment business model.
This is why the RIAA is perfectly willing to shoot itself in the foot in the short term (5 years). It lets them bleat about piracy while they try to get rid of that revenue-limiting buy-once play-many business model
Remain calm! All is well!
Napster is long dead. There are MANY other (better) options now available. When my roommate used Napster back in the day the average search returned a good enough list to download something at a decent speed. But let's look at Kazaa. The average list resulting from a search is insanely long and the combination of downloads for a higher speed is SO much better. Granted Napster would have incorporated the same thing into itself but that's not the point.
My point is that just b/c Napsters gone does NOT mean that people are no longer able to download/burn music. That's just stupid to say that b/c it is gone there is no more desire to buy CDs.
My theory (based on my own economic situation after the stocks went to shit) is that economics have played a large role in the downturn of everything, including CDs.
Already have an Internet connection, already have a CD burner, already have P2P software, blank CDs running me about $1 a piece/average.
New CDs run me $9.99 - $17.00 depending (especially for smaller bands like I prefer to listen to, SCI, WSP, etc).
What am I going to do? I am going to download the damn MP3s or SHNs and burn them. Just like everyone else is.
Stop w/the happy horseshit.
Support freedom of music. etree and FurthurNET
They are losing buisiness because they are treating their customers like shit. You dont' treat your customers like shit and stay in buisiness for long. Eventually they must learn the painful lesson that laws can never overpower market forces and customer satisfaction.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Well as much as i personally agree with your point let me play devil's advocate and show you their thinking. Its not the current situation that is going to make them lose money. They are scared that in the future something will cause a mass switch over to p2p and they wont get any money. Personally i dont htink this will happen but this is why they are doing what they do.
Now the problem with their motivation is that its not going to get congress angry with them. They must make it look like they are being hurt NOW and must take IMMEDIATE measures to stop the swappers. If they simply said "we are afraid that in the future this non-issue will become a problem" than nobody would help them.
So really I think we are int he right as swappers. This is absolute BS they are pushing because they are scared and greedy which is a bad combination.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
If I opened a bakery, and all I did was sell white bread, eventually I'm going to hit a saturation point. After that, I can't expect my sales to improve much year over year.
... you'd think I was nuts .
So I could either increase the price of my white bread, to compensate for the lack of additional sales. But that's a dangerous route to take, because for every price increase, I'm going to probably lose customers (either to another bakery, or to people who just decide to bake at home).
If I wanted the government to mandate that people can only buy white bread, or only from me, or that other bakeries pay me a $0.05 for every loaf they sell, or that consumers pay me a $10.00 levy when they purchase a new oven
The right choice would also expand my product line. and sell other types of bread. Of course, this too will reach a limit. But as long as I sell a variety of products, at reasonable prices, I should make enough money to cover my expenses and be happy.
Right?
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
I'm not saying there isn't good music out there but the only new music that gets any attention is typically the latest boy-band or a fresh piece of lip-synching-jail-bait and that is simply not the material I want to part with my money for.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
for the money. Most people realise that you get like 50+ hours of enjoyment out of a good game while you only get a couple of hours out of a cd until it becomes background music. With the exception of that rare album that you play until your roommate destroys your stereo in retribution.
Also video games have multi million dollar budgets, are in development for years. Most albums are produced with at most a couple hundred thousand dollars, and composed in only a few months. Video games are big business, and may eclipse movies (if they haven't already).
Piracy is a paper tiger. Those who have discovered new artists through file trading have spent more money than the "freeloaders," most of whom wouldn't have bought anyway, have held on to. I suggest having a look at this Life In Hell comic strip from 1988. It shows that the RIAA's whining about piracy was BS then, and is BS now. The music biz first said player piano reels were killing them, then said the radio giving away free music was killing them, and so on. It's the same old BS.
How ya like dat?
Of the last 10 CD's I have bought, 8 of them have been because I had picked up MP3's of songs off them by swapping files with coworkers. I don't have broadband at home, so I haven't done much file sharing.
CD sales are slumping because a lot of things in the economy are slumping. I don't listen to commercial radio much since I don't like commercials and I can't stand listening to the morning DJ's, so, aside from MP3 swapping, I hear most new music by occasionally (and vainly) trying to watch videos on MTV/VH1 (don't have MTV2). Maybe CD sales are slumping since the music video channels don't show videos anymore.
Next, I find it annoying that most record store chains have higher prices than discount stores. I know it is a chicken and egg problem based on supply and demand, but I'm talking about nationwide chains, in every mall in America. This goes for movies, too. Why would I go to Suncoast and pay $5 more for a movie?
Finally, if a CD of ~12 songs costs ~$12 and I can obviously rip it as soon as I get it, why can't I just go to the record companies site and buy the MP3 for a song for $1? I would pay, they would get a lot more money per song, and I would be no more or no less likely to share the song as I would if I bought the CD (except that I might not bother buying the CD if I only wanted one song and my buddy has it).
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
I really don't see how your "mathematical" refutation works. First you're using totally unkown quantities to try and boost a group by making generalizations:
Today, pretty much the only people who are offline are older people who are afraid of/unable to learn the "new" technology.
You then follow this up with:
I highly doubt these people buy many CDs; hell, they may not even own a CD player.
Of course his statistics show that these people don't buy many CD's (thus the 54% of population and only 39% of sales).
Finally, you throw in:
As for the nonusers, this splits into two main groups the way I see it: younger people who are against piracy and older people who don't use their computer for much more than web browsing and email.
Convenient grouping. Care to back it up with any statistics or facts? I'm a P2P non-user yet I'm an IT professional with multiple computers and a broadband connection at home. I'm against piracy, but I don't classify P2P as piracy.
So, after all of this inanities you then trot out the following:
Ultimately, I think the only relevant numbers would be if you could figure out the statistics for Nonusers, Dabblers, Learners, and Lovers between the ages of 13 and 25 or so and their CD purchasing habits because these are the users who make up the statistically significant number of music downloaders and purchasers.
OK, fine. Let's control for that. By your figuring the percentage of users in that group should be *MUCH* higher. So, since these people make up a significant portion of total CD sales, then a drop in CD purchases because of P2P usage would also be *MUCH* higher.
If the 13-25 group represented 75% of sales and out of that group you had 75% of the P2P learners and lovers then say a 50% drop in purchases from this group would be manifested as a greater spike in total sales losses.
Again, no matter how you slice it, the numbers just don't add up. (Controlling for age groups is irrelevant as this study is about overall CD sales.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I have to disagree. There are PLENTY of artists out there that are experimenting w/music. I believe it to be the majority of people who are being stupid and buying crap for music.
The industry puts out a wide range of music, just b/c sales are up on N'SYNC and Brittany doesn't mean that the other bands don't exist.
People like to listen to poppy shit. I am glad the 80's are dead for that exact reason. The largest group buying records are teenagers. They are the ones fueling this shit and ignoring what some of us consider good.
What do I know though, I listen to the Grateful Dead and String Cheese Incident. I'm just a weirdo.
Since I have been able to download and listen to music, I have noticed 2 things:
1) I buy fewer cds
2) I haven't bought a bad cd.
So, in my case the reason for my decline in purchases isn't because I'm listening to it for free, it's because I have the resources to know more about what it is I'm buying. Before, I'd hear a song on the radio, I'd like it, buy the cd, and hate the other 12 songs, and that cd would go to the boneyard because I just can't switch cds in my car every 5 minutes. Now, I hear a song, like it, download more songs by that artist, and if I don't like what I hear... I don't buy the cd that I otherwise may have.
So yes... in my opinion... digital music sharing decreases sales... but not because we're stealing from the record companies, but because we are more educated about the product they are selling. We're now able to open the hood of that "used car" that we're looking into and see if there's a birds nest in the carbuerator.
Which reminds me... why aren't the bands complaining like RIAA? Oh yeah... because they aren't seeing this money anyway. Maybe there's deeper evils at work??
I urge musicians to produce and sell their own cds. Only then will we truly be able to support them by buying a cd.
I can't recall any significant company that has genuinely lost business due to its poor treatment of customers.
I can only speak for myself, but I much prefer to give my hard-earned dollars to companies that, at the very least, dont "treat me like shit". However, this usually occurs on a very small scale. For instance, this month I am not renewing my agreement with Sprint as a cell-phone service and instead am switching to AT&T because Sprint screwed me on a rebate. When I call up to cancel I will tell them as much if they bother to ask.
I know it sounds corny, but I encourage everyone to take responsibility for their purchases... Consider each one a small vote. When you get pissed off with a company, make the effort to move to a different one if possible. Even better, let the company know why they have lost your business. In a free market you should rarely if ever have to give a single cent to a company you do not like.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
If the opportunity presented itself where I could legally give a swift kick to the behind of everyone behind the current dominate music distribution model, I would. That given, I thought I would give a take on this whole downloadable music thing that I haven't read before.
This article makes a little inroads in the direction, but I want to point out that just like music downloaders are in various categories, you have a whole continuum of music PURCHASERS. And it isn't a descrete category that people fall into... it is a continuum.
On one side, you have the people who compulsively buy buy buy everything music. On the other side, you have people who don't buy any music at all. In between, there are all sorts of levels of music purchase. And somewhere in between, is the "sweet spot" of consumers which can be swayed one direction or another to buy or not buy CDs.
Now, you have a disruptive technology like online music distribution. Some people like it for the convenience. Some people like it for the cost. Whatever. It doesn't matter except that in most cases, it slightly pushes them down the continuum towards not being as big of a music purchaser. (However, yes, there are counter-trends, like someone getting more excited about music and finding a new favorite group, and supporting them.)
But whenever someone downloads music, in general terms, it pushes them down the continuum towards being a non-purchaser. The effect on an individual level is probably quite small, and difficult to measure. However, when aggregated across a large population, the impact is dramatic.
I think the problem with surveys of how downloading CDs have affected music purchasing decisions is that it is too focused on the individual level. From their point of view, their behavior may not have changed significantly. Or they may not be aware of any change. But a slight change has occured.
That slight change is enough to push some people out of the sweet spot and into becoming a non-purchaser. Or the aggregate of a large number of people sliding down the continuum has an affect on sales figures.
So, this is the basic guts of the theory that I have when it comes to online music downloading vs consumer purchasing.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?
The problem with your argument is that you're trying to tell us that there's more innovation and variety from the last thirty year span of music than there is in the last two years (or so). Um...duh. I fully expect there to be a big difference between Pink Floyd and Shania Twain - look at when the music is coming from. If you want to talk about innovation in music, pick from a few genres other than "pop". Of course we can't tell the difference between the various Britneys, but you should be able to tell them apart from Moby. Or Aphex Twin. Or The Vines. And so on. And the same argument you make about all rock bands sound the same, all pop bands sound the same can be made for ANY era of music. Within the same genre, you will always have bands that sound alike. How many 70's / 80's rock bands sounded just like Kiss/Van Halen/AC/DC/Metallica? Lots. How many disco bands sounded the same? All of them. If you don't like current mainstream music, turn off MTV and hit a local club that caters to small indie bands. You'd be surprised.
do not read this line twice.
I know late -- but here is my view. I used to always get burnt in the 80's - 90's buing CD's that ended up being crappy. After awhile -- I got tired of the whole "hear one song on the radio" -- think that maybe, just maybe this CD may be the next "Dark Side Of The Moon" -- 90% of the time it ended up being bait and switch. So I stopped wasting my money.....Thus without ever even offending me -- the RIAA was out my cash.
Fast forward to Napster and AG. I am really able to give the music a proper test drive -- hence I find a new band that makes the hair on my arm stand up -- I rush to the record store to purchase said CD. Rinse, Repeat. Hell, from my point of view -- the record companies should have been paying Napster and AG rather than suing them. (Maybe the radio stations would have gone broke...)
Fast forward to Post-Napster, Post-AG...(never used Kazzaa (I don't have a windows machine -- they don't have a linux client) -- I have played the dangerous game of trying to decide what bands to buy based on a carefully placed track on the bands website -- or maybe a low quality snippet or two elsewere. I am about 2 for 20 again...Right back to where I last left off.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
So if I rip a CD I'm lumped into the same catagory as those who download copywrited music? Every time I buy a CD the first thing I do is to rip it so I can listen to it on my computer while my CDRom is being used as a CDRom, not a CD Player. Nothing about ripping music I already paid for is against the law.
"If just half of the blank discs sold in 2001 were used to copy music, that would mean that the number of burned music CDs worldwide is about the same as the number of CDs sold at retail."
That is a statement with absolutly no statistical backbone. I just said that I rip every CD I buy. I then make my own CD's with my own mix of music. Once again, nothing illegal. And yet the RIAA wants to use that statistic to show that I'm a "pirate".
"...over 50 percent of those music fans that have downloaded music for free have made copies of it.
Yep, and I'm part of that 50%. But I still didn't break the law because I downloaded the songs legaly from Amazon.com or epitonic .com or any number of artist websites that give away free music. Once again the RIAA lumps legal behavior in with illegal behavior in an attempt to boost their statistics. I don't have a single illegal mp3 on my computer, but once again, I'm lumped in with the "pirates".
While Bricklin missed pointing out these statistical errors at least he did point out some other significant points:
- CD prices have gone up significantly.
- Radio and MTV are presenting a narrower selection of music.
The obvious answer there is to support college radio and internet radio. Present more choices to the customer and they'll buy more. And yet the RIAA is killing both!Unfortunatly, in this country rather than letting an absolete industry die a well deserved death we'll probably prop it up with more unconstitutional laws and continue to prosecute the industry's most faithful consumers as prirates. The record industry keeps shooting itself in the foot and then blames it's customers for making it pull the trigger. It's pathetic.
As an artist on one of the big media congloms' major labels (who also happens to offer all of his songs as free downloads on his site) I'm still not sure what effect piracy has on my career....the jury will probably be out indefinitley.
What has suprised me is a lot of /.ers' misconceptions about being a musician and the music industry in general.
The RIAA's actions shouldn't suprise any of you nor anger any of you (which, by the way i find insanely funny) they are, at heart, a bureaucracy and, like all bureacracies their medium of choice is the obvious- things like piracy.
Secondly, not buying RIAA sponsored material won't 'stick it to the man' like you think. You are effectivley cutting yourself off from the majority of the artists that you will in turn 'pirate' anyway. The congloms will still make their cash on the britneys of the world (after they lay off hundreds of employess and artists as a result of this 'correction'), and the only person hurt in the end is the artist you enjoy enough to listen to.
The suggestion that artists should forgo the major label route altogether and 'sell cds out of the trunks of their cars' is completley ridiculous. Mostly major labels give an artist a chance to actually make rent and worry about making the best music he or she can make. It's like telling software engineers to quit corporate jobs at Symantec or Electronic Arts and start making utilities and games out of their garages. Give up your healthcare!!! Worry about coding, and marketing and packaging and positioning your product!!! Sure there ALWAYS successful indies in any field, those people are truly dedicated. But most people, including those who post on this board, will opt to stay at their nice job, wouldn't you?
The one point that keeps coming up that is absolutley hilarious is that 'music sucks nowadays.' This claim is made for many reasons, the obvious being that the person is comparing all the CDs that have come out in the past year to their entire collections, which usually span 30+ years. Of course 2001 sucks compared to 1964-2000!!! Are you people listnening?? Most years only have 5-15 important albums anyway. Are you in denial that modern bands like Tool, Radiohead, Air, PJ Harvey, Nine Inch Nails, et al, are making some of the most important music of the 21st century?? Should they get paid for it??
Next time you think that the RIAA is trying to shove shit down your throat and you shouldn't support legitimate artists because of it, have some respect and remember your history- for every Beatles there was a Hermans Hermits, for every Led Zepplin there was a Bay City Rollers, for every U2 there was Mr. Mister, so on and so forth. Same as it ever was. If music sucks for you now then it is obvious you are continuing to listen to the radio and watch MTV like you always have, because that's where all the bad music is, plain and simple You're not looking hard enough in new areas.
I honestly believe that most intelligent people do use swapping as a way to 'preview' an album. My only fear is that the Joe Sixpacks of the world who love 'free shit' are getting their hands on this technology.
Being a musician is really not that different from being a software engineer, we keep insane ours (mountain dew = cocaine, we just go straight to the source), we usually slave for years for free or on minimal pay to acheive any kind of success, projects (albums) can often take 2+ years and cost enourmous amounts of money, and we pull multi-layered, intricate creations out of thin air to enhance people's lives with nothing more than inspiration. How come you guys don't bitch when the IDSA goes after pirates?