Slashdot Mirror
Digital Music Stock Market?
tommertron writes "Adam L. Penenberg has a column on Slate about about
the pricing of digital music, specifically, iTunes'
99-cent-a-song model. Basically, he suggests that song prices be determined by
market forces, just like stock and commodities markets. The more a song
gets downloaded, the more it would cost. Song by big-name bands would cost
more, and lesser-known acts would cost less (with a minimum of 25 cents.)" From the article: "Steve Jobs, who has been willing to take a few pennies per download so long as he sells bushels of iPods, calls tiered pricing 'greedy.' That view is shared by millions of consumers who believe the record companies have been gouging them for years. From the buyer's perspective, however, Apple's 99-cents-for-everything model isn't perfect. Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
"Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
... oh ... just for example ... 99 cents); buy two songs, pay 2x, etc. People want their music, they don't want to have to solve an accounting problem to figure out how much they'll pay for it. "Ten songs, ten bucks, plus I save a dime. Cool." That's how people want to buy music, and that's why iTunes has succeeded while every other pay-for-download system has pretty much crashed.
... and you know, given the long sad history of stupidity in the music industry, that's saying a lot.
No, apparently it's not.
This is a striking example of how dumb the "popular=good" meme is. When I buy music, or anything else, I don't care what it's worth to other people; I care what it's worth to me, whether I'm one of a hundred, a thousand, a million, or a billion.
Aaargh. Why the hell are people trying to fix something that's not broken? (Well, okay, I know why the RIAA is trying; what's this guy's excuse?) Tiered pricing, supply-and-demand pricing (hey economist guy: the supply is unlimited!) or any other fancy pricing scheme that requires people to pay more than 99 cents per song doesn't work. 99 cents per song, OTOH, does work. That's what online music buyers have decided, en masse, they'll pay for legal music downloads. Charge more and piracy looks a lot more appealing that paying for it. That's the reality.
Not to mention that it just makes sense: buy one song, pay x, where x is some reasonable amount (say
Stock market pricing is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard WRT the music industry
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Commodity pricing is based on the idea that supplies are limited. Likewise with stocks, as there are a finite number of shares of any given company in circulation. Even if every person with a computer on planet Earth bought a copy of the same song, it would not be in short supply.
That's not to say that there isn't value in a variable pricing scheme, but it wouldn't really be commodity pricing, or a "digital music stock market."
-JMP
If you're going to set a floor price, you'd better be prepared to set a ceiling price as well. Otherwise the model is both unfair and unstable because it's subject to unlimited inflation, which is just as unfair to consumers as unbounded deflation is to the artists and vendors. Either take both the upside and downside risk or ameliorate both.
licet differant, aequabitur
This is great -- as long as the maximum price is 99 cents.
Such a model cannot be accurately applied to the digital media market.
Busiesses are trying to offer products with a variable pricing scheme with a commodity that has infinite supply. It doesn't make any sense.
It barely costs them any more to sell 20,000 albums than 200.
The record industry should hire a few economists. This is a great idea, but they've got the pricing completely backwards. The more popular songs shold get cheaper and the less popular more expensive. Why? That's easy.
The stock market works the way it does because supply is fixed and demand is the only variable. With digital music, the supply is infinite, and the demand is variable. Theoretically, that should mean that the songs could be free, except that the creation of the media has fixed up-front costs. That means that after a fixed amount of revenue is generated by a song, all additional revenue is going to be 100% profit. In order to make the maximum amount of money off any particular song, you want to increase it's appeal as much as you can through price lowering, while at the same time making sure you charge enough to recoup your costs before you break even, and as much as you can without pushing away customers after you break even. If there is a lot of demand for a song, you're going to make a profit on it, but you could potentially make even more money by lowering the price, because the drop in price could attract more than enough customers to make up for the loss in revenue. For songs without a wide acceptance, it doesn't work that way. You probably don't have many people out there who like the song but have price holding them back from a purchase, and the people that are buying the song are probably the ones that really like it and would be willing to pay a bit extra to have access to music that would otherwise be unprofitable to publish.
The only way charging more for popular songs is a good idea is if your goal is to punish your customers for being mainstream music listners, or if you have a complete lack of understanding of supply and demand. If the goal is to actually make money, they've got this plan completely backwards.
I don't see a problem with flat rate pricing. Why should what the song is worth to other people matter to how much it's worth to you? If I like a song, it's worth the same to me no matter how popular it is.
"Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
I don't think so - as long as the music appeals to YOU, why should you expect to pay any different?
That view is shared by millions of consumers who believe the record companies have been gouging them for years
Records cost $6, tapes were $8, CDs which cost even less to produce cost $15, and now an 18-song album will cost you $18 to download. How come the less it costs to produce the media, physical or virtual, the more it costs? If anything, music shoulc cost less, not more. It's not like the artists will actually see any extra revenue anyway...
2) These can also be traded again in the stock market.
3) You cannot get free stocks from a P2P stock market.
Hence the mathematics and economics for stock isn't applicable to songs
" Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
No, it's too little. If you put demand and supply as 2 linear equations on a graph, you'll see they're related.
Let's go through a simple situation: demand is x, and supply is y. Now since we have infinite supply (since this is a digital work), we're going to say that y is not supply, but rather money supply (since the money is the only limited part as far as the markets are concerened). As demand goes up, price goes down. If we were at the far-right, with maximum demand, price would tend to zero. If we were at the far-left, with only 1 person wanting the work in question, the price would tend to the total production cost! For 0, infinity (which is why if no one wants it, it won't get made).
You're not going to get a perfect relation due to effects outside the market's control (such as non-market copying), but you'll see that 99 cents is too little for something this is in low demand, and 25 cents is too much for something that is in high demand.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Make Apple tie their prices to inflation or something. At least then you'd have a reasonable excuse to raise prices, as opposed to what you have now, which is... nothing.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Maybe it's time for the music industry to drop iTunes and find a proper online music store that is set up to maximize its profit, then the supplier and retailer will have the same goal.
If they did that they may have to come to the realization that in order to make the most money they may actually have to lower their prices. Since they're acting as if their real goal is to piss off and inconvienience their customers, and not to make money, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Not to mention that the idea of having songs go down in price as demand goes up will appeal well to peoples' egos. There will be people who will buy the early copies of a song for $2.50 each (I'm considering that an upper limit because I saw it as a proposed upper price somewhere) and consider themselves to be the "trendsetting elite." There will be those who will buy obscure songs that don't sell well for $2.50 each and feel it inflates their indy cred. People like me will hang around and see what seems good, then buy it for $0.99 or whatever the lower price is, and feel good about being thrifty in our patience. The music industry gets its extra money and most of the smart people will still be paying the low prices for their music.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
One problem with this idea is that it increases the winner-take-all effect. That is, it encourages producers to chase big hits while ignoring niches (the "long tail" mentioned in the article). It used to be selling a million was worth 100 times as much as selling ten thousand. Now it will be worth 400 times as much or more.
But that's a sociological objection. From a technical standpoint, I think it's neat!
Another weird line from the article:
But each obscure indie rock or klezmer song that gets sold for a quarter is almost pure profit...
How is that true? Seems like the profit margin would be much lower for these tracks.
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
Basically, he suggests that song prices be determined by market forces, just like stock and commodities markets.
While an interesting idea, I think this premise is flawed. Gold is not priced based upon how many people have bought it over the years, or even in a given year, but by how much people are willing to pay for it. Here's an extreme example. Suppose some very fringe singer produces a song called, "If you're not rich you're a stupid pussy" that appeals to to very wealthy elite and basically no one else. Perhaps this song names a dozen particular wealthy people and extolls their virtues. Say the total market for this song consists of about 500 people, but among those 500 people are individuals who would be willing to pay upwards of a thousand dollars a copy for the song and may buy a copies for relatives, friends, and even enemies they wish to taunt. According to a free market we could estimate the value of the market as 500 times and average of two copies per person times an average price of say $500. That gives us half a million dollars on a truly free market. Now consider the same market valued based solely on popularity and you get a song that is so unpopular the market is only worth a few dollars.
This same principal applies to the opposite end of the spectrum as well. What is someone makes a funny, six second long song that billions would like to own, but no one wants to pay more than a quarter for. The market price may be 25 cents for optimal sales, but based on popularity would price this song at $10, which no one would want to pay, especially as the price would continually rise.
I just don't think this is workable or desirable.
The reason prices rice and fall on the stock market is because people buy and sell certain stocks causing the prices to either rise or fall respectively. If a stock is not bought or sold it could maintain its price point (though this doesn't happen too often since people are almost always buying and selling listed stocks). Without a "sell" model, how would you lower the price on music? You would have to implement a sort of timed decline in pricing, which would have to lower prices not on some hard constant but at a good variable rate to maintain interest before the one hit wonder becomes worthless, again.
There are also cases of insider trading which occur on Wall Street. In order to regulate this the SEC monitors the trades and activities of stocks. This means that someone at Apple would have to do a similar job on a model based like this. If no one was monitoring the purchases properly then I am sure you would see big labels paying individuals to purchase songs in order to raise the price. If a song were popular enough they could quickly drive up the price forcing people to pay $1.59 a song instead of getting the lucky starting price of $0.99 a song, or whatever it might be.
Let us not forget that the industry is already fairly well dependent on a supply and demand style. Obviously some people are willing to pay $0.99 for less popular songs, while others might be willing to pay more. The true magic here is that Apple found the perfect price point to appeal to both side, which keeps the pricing and market simple for the users to follow.
Tiered pricing schemes make a bit more sense because they would not be affected by spikes in song purchases or by the temporary decline of a song or by the aforementioned conspiracy. However, they also have their own set of problems. You would quite effectively remove some purchases by raising the songs price. Fewer people would be willing to pay $1.49 or more for the song they were willing to pay $0.99 for. At the same time you might find a few people who are more willing to pay $0.79 or $0.49 for a song then they were to pay $0.99, but I highly doubt the $1.49 songs could outpace the $0.79 or $0.49 songs.
Let us trust Steve's decision for now. I am sure the folks at Apple had enough sense to ask some economists to look at the system and analyze the effects that a tiered system would have. Going on this assumption, it would be safe to say that $0.99 songs are here to stay (so long as the RIAA continues to play nice).
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
If such a model were applied to Operating Systems, Windows would cost $200 and Linux would be free... Oh wait, it is. And like the music distribution model, the higher priced stuff is crap.
The more a song gets downloaded, the more it would cost.
Right, because supply and demand dictates that... oh, but this is digital media. There will never be a physical shortage of that song.
From the buyer's perspective, however, Apple's 99-cents-for-everything model isn't perfect. Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?
Right, because rarity typically dictates that something should cost more, so... oh, but this is digital media. There will never be a shortage of that song.
Yes, you have to pay for the bandwidth, the infrastructure, the yadda yadda and et cetera. It costs money to provide the media. Granted. And I personally think that $1 for a copy-protected, sampled audio file in a proprietary file format is ridiculous, but that's another can of worms. The point is that pricing by popularity when supply is not an issue reeks of greed, just as Jobs says.
Wow every single post here is redundant except one!
Not only is there no scarcity in this model, as several comments have already made clear, but there is also no way for a consumer to enter the market as a seller. If it were a true, market driven exchange, I would be able to take the track I bought for 25 cents when I liked Indie Band X, and sell it on the exchange for $3.00 when it becomes popular. I could then compete with the recording studio, who might be offering the track at $3.25.
But this won't work, again because of the fact that there is NO REASON for the price to go up as demand increases.
So, to review, we have a market for a commodity that isn't scarce, with a single seller, artificially fixing prices based on volume alone. Where's the market force in this?
Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?
I like listening to classic Yes. It appeals to a few people. Due to the average Yes track length, at 99 cents a track, whole albums only cost me about $2 or $3 each.
> Commodity pricing is based on the idea that supplies are limited.
Exactly. Which is why comparisons to a stock market, supply and demand, etc are all daft. Listen up people, copyright is all about providing the producer of a work an explicit MONOPOLY on reproducing (and public performance, not at issue here) the work. So anything other than seeking the absolute maximum return by picking a pricepoint to generate maximum profits is doomed longterm.
That IS the market functioning correctly as it is currently designed. Of course when one realizes the negative implication of this for society in general it leads to the notion that, just perhaps, we are granting a little too much in the social contract called copyright and that we might need to rethink it. Specifically I'd propose a drastic reduction in the time to ten years renewable with a non-trivial fee for a second ten year term and am open to discussing mandatory licensing of recordings as in done for composers now.
Democrat delenda est
I agree with much of your reasoning, but I think you're leaving out a factor. There are two different things that make a song worth more:
1. Many people want it
2. Few people want it, but they want it a lot.
That's why you'll end up with a U-shaped curve: very popular music will sell for a lot because so many people want it that you can raise the price until listeners squeal. And some unpopular songs will have higher prices because they appeal to a market with few people willing to spend a lot of money (say, "rare" jazz recordings or concert bootlegs).
In other words, "demand" is measured in terms of dollars, not in terms of people. The low price is for stuff in the middle, where some people want it but there isn't massive demand, either in terms of people or in terms of dollars.
By "rare" above I mean that they can try to artificially keep rare things rare with DRM. If they decide that DRM really, truly, genuinely doesn't work and everything sells a single copy and is instantly available for free, then everything changes. (I'm not taking a position for or against it, just talking about the economics of it and explaining a technical assumption.) This artificial scarcity corresponds to a completely flexible market, where they can make as many copies as are necessary but will make only as many copies as necessary.
The price to produce sets a floor on how much they can charge (and that price incorporates a company's total expenses, including overhead and the expense of producing records that flop), but that only affects how low the price can go before the company just goes out of business. It doesn't set the top of anything, and there's no economic reason for them to charge less just because they don't need the extra profit.
And for the unpopular stuff there's no particular need to take the floor into account because any sale is worth more than no sale; the expenses are sunk costs. The only floor is the management overhead needed to keep it on the web site, and in fact that may be so low as to be zero compared to the sex appeal of being able to make EVERYTHING available.
Actually, this is a good idea. The optimum pricing for any product creates a balance between how much you charge and how much you sell. You are trying to maximize your profit using the equation: [cost] * [sales] = [profit] The optimum solution is the Nash equilibrium point (The A Beautiful Mind guy...not Russel Crowe). If you sell 10 items at $.50, you make 5 times the profit you would selling 1 object at $1. The point of decreasing the price is that you generate more sales...would you buy the new [insert band name here] album for $20? How about $15? Or even $3? If you're interested in the album, there is a price point where it's worth it (to you) to buy the album. For popular acts, a high price point is the Nash equilibrium, for less popular acts and cult bands, a lower price point will generate the most profit. Supply is irrelevant because the commodity isn't lost if it isn't sold. If you flood the market with oranges, they have to be sold at some point, or they will spoil. A music distributor can sit on a song essentially forever without losing money on it, since it's an electronic copy. Brick and mortar stores are still subject to the 'orange' issue because they have a limited space for physical CDs, so it's in their interest to get rid of the low-priced ones which don't generate any profit (or generate larger losses if the disks are primarily loss-leaders). Market-based song pricing is the theoretically most efficient pricing scheme, especially if the pricing is updated close to real time (on the scale of days or weeks).
I read the article but the author doesn't really understand basic economic theory very well.
The general thrust is 99 cents is not the right price for all music to maximize profit. This we can all agree upon. But the formula of "less popular" + "cheaper price" = "more profit" is not correct.
Yes, if you price things lower, you do get more buyers. But this does not mean that pricing unpopular music means you make more money. It's possible that music that fits a certain "niche" such as, say JPop tunes, the optimal profit point is $2.50 per song not $.99. (Plug: http://gomorning.com/scene/itunes )
In addition, companies need to consider strategicly in deciding optimal pricing -- meaning, if all pre-1990s Jazz music is priced low, it impacts the profits made in new Jazz release. People may not buy any new Jazz music, and instead collect only older Jazz music. In some respects, it affects all music purchased, regardless of genre.
What record companies want to do is price older music fairly high to encourage the purchase of newer music. Which is why old music then is priced similarly to new music, though the demand is apparently much lower. (This is also one reason why retaining effectively indefinite copyright is in the interests of record companies. A large public domain does remove incentive to buy new work.)
There are a couple of issues you'll have to consider too; as the recording industry sets prices from their position of monopoly supplier of each specific product they are already exacting more or less the maximum available amount of capital from their market. Increase the variety and they compete with their own products for more or less the same money, so increased variety is not necessarily in their interest.
Right now, the channel producers charge the cable operators $0.50 per package subscriber for each channel (for example). I receive both Comedy Central and SciFi, but I only ever watch Comedy Central. So could I save $0.50 on my cable bill by subscribing specifically to that and cutting SciFi? Well all the people who watch SciFi but not Comedy Central would try to do the same thing. Then Comedy Central would say to the cable operator: "You're claiming that you have half as many subscribers as a year ago so we should charge you half the total. But that $0.50 rate was based on the knowledge that only half of your subscribers were watching our channel. Now we know that *all* of the subscribers want our channel, so we're raising the price to $1.00." Since extra channels cost nothing to deliver, an a la carte model just creates overhead that can only add expense.
I agree that cable prices are high and I'd like to see some downward pressure through competition. My Comcast bill is $80/month whereas my DSL (which provides comparable entertainment and utility) is $20/month. I live in an apartment building, so satellite TV is not an option. But if I could get TV through my phone line (like shows on iTunes) then maybe there'd be hope.
If you think you'll get music for less than $0.99 per song, you're dreaming. And if your scheme makes some of the songs I want cost more than $0.99 than you're giving me nightmares.
AlpineR
Seems to me that the balloon is being floated from many directions, getting more so each coming month.
I still think that the studios will get a third party to write software to put DRM songs on iPods without requiring iTunes. They will then market songs to iPod users that Apple no longer carries or is allowed to carry. In fact they may just seek to portray Apple as "the problem".
Remember, the buying public isn't filled with millions of the brightest people. Many believe that big portions of their dollars go to the artist. So its not beyond reason to see the studios do and end-run or attempt one to force Apple to comply.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"Digital song prices is determined by market forces, and with unlimited supply and limited demand, the price can only fall, because for every demand, there is a supply (and more) to match."
Umm, no, not really. There are two big reasons why you can't apply supply and demand here, and why the prices are not determined solely by supply and demand.
1) Music is not a commodity good. You don't want to download the song from iTunes? You can't replace that song with any other song out there; it has intrinsic qualities that make it more or less desirable to the market.
2) Limited suppliers. You don't want to pay $0.99 at iTunes? Fine, but where are all the other suppliers who could come in and offer you the song for $0.96? Or $0.92? There are not a potentially infinite number of suppliers who are capable of setting their own price on the songs they sell.
Also, people assume that given infinite supply, prices will fall to zero. Not true. Not all supply/demand curves will intersect at P = zero when supply approaches infinity.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Regarding "supply and demand", the thing that makes this situation somewhat unique, as others have pointed out, is that the supply is virtually unlimited. To put this is economic terms, the marginal cost to the supplier of providing one additional unit is effectively zero. The only thing that really matters is demand.
Specifically, what's known in economics as demand elasticity. This is a measure of how responsive consumers are(in terms of quantity purchased) to a change in the price of an item. Simply put, how much of a change in quantity sold will there be in response to a change in price? This is what a seller needs to know when he is thinking about chaning the price of something. Gasoline is the classic example of an inelastic good. Remember when Katrina hit and gas prices spiked? You probably still had to get to work, school, etc, and probably bought about the same amount of gas as before. Plasma/lcd televisions are an example of a good with elastic demand. Not many people have them now but when the price falls by half you'll start to see a lot more people buying them.
Count on the fact that as we speak, there are economists being paid six figure sums by the record labels to do *nothing else* but try to analyze and predict demand elasticity for online music purchases. There's nothing magical about the number 99(cents). I'm not up on current popular music, but when Kanye West's latest album came out, if iTunes had charged $1.00 per track I doubt if they would have sold significantly less copies. Conversely, is there any artist who would sell a lot *more* songs at 98 cents? Probably not. But is there an artist who could sell a lot more songs at 75 cents? Would the increased sales make up for the reduction in price? The answer to both questions might be yes. Is there an artist who might sell less songs at $1.25, but the increased revenue per sale would offset the lost sales vs. a $1.00 price? Quite possibly yes.
Simply put, there's an optimal price for any good. If demand elasticity is known(I explained it conceptually above, but it's something that can be numerically quantified for the purpose of performing calculations) then one can use calculus to easily determine the optimal price for a good. The optimal price is the price which yields the highest revenue. Anyone who's taken even basic calculus has probably done problems like this. You're given the formula, you make the calculation, and then put the result on a graph. Vertical axis is revenue, horizontal axis is price, and your result looks like a parabola in the shape of an upside down U, indicating there is an optimal price to sell the good at. Price it too high and you lose revnue, price it too low and you lose revenue.
Fairness doesn't matter, there's nothing special about the number 99. It's all about how to maximize revenue. My own gut feeling is that some songs are underpriced and others overpriced at 99 cents.
Bah. Just auction off each song ebay-style.
.95+ tax or something like that)
First day available, only allow 10,000 downloads, priced based on bids.
Two days later, release another 10,000.
A month later, release another 10,000 of an album-rejected REMIX!!!
Yes, I'm trolling. I just think the whole idea's stupid.
It's like why I make my own coffee now. Dunkin' Donuts used to charge a dollar for a medium. Sure, it was cheaper to brew at home, but a dollar was *so* convenient and simple. (actually, it was
I surrendered my money *every damn morning* without thinking!
Well, now... coffee's between 1.70 and 1.95 depending on where I go. I always think about stopping... but I don't anymore. The coffee in the office tastes just as good and it's free.
And one more thing to wrap up my point: Let's hypothesize that DD ups the price to $3... and the coffee at work becomes $2 a cup... and the coffee at home is, um, poisoned. Guess what I'll do?
I'll stop drinking coffee.
Assuming mountain dew remains affordable.
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
There have been a lot of economic-related comments already; I have my own, but want to break new ground. I also disagree with the "popular->expensive, not popular->cheap" strategy, but for different reasons than I've seen listed.
Generally, much of "low volume" music can be thought of as filling a particular niche. There might not be a lot of people who like The Decemberists (well, there used to not...), but those who like them tend to really like them. If I'm a Decemberists fan, I'm going to buy their new album when it comes out; there won't be a lot of folks like me, but there are some. Us Decemberist fans are relatively insensitive to price (in economic terms, we have low price elasticity of demand). Therefore, it makes sense to charge more for music like this - few listeners, inelastic demand.
On the other hand, popular music is very fad-driven. The "new" song is only new for a little while. Some folks who have to have every new song they here on the radio will pay four bucks for the new 50 Cent single, but I imagine that most people would be turned off at that price. The "hits" are more price sensitive.
I imagine that price elasticity of demand in the music business is hard to measure, because each "firm" is a monopoly - only 50 Cent sells 50 Cent records, e.g. As a monopolist of "iTunes Downloads" with essentially zero marginal production costs, Apple should charge prices such that price * quantity is maximized for every song. How to find those prices? Demographic listener data, maybe? Try messing with the price charged and see how quantity demanded changes as a result?
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?
Actually I pay 0.99 GBP (or ~$1.72) for a lot of music online. Why? Because I get it off of Warp Records' Bleep.com website where I can find extremely rare tracks and the money is mostly going right to the artist. And while most of Bleep's big stuff (Boards of Canada, AFX) can be found in many places, none of these artists are cracking out gold records. The fact you can find out of print Detroit electro vinyl (say Dataphysix stuff) is a real boon.
Why would I pay this? Because I've paid $50 bucks for an album that I can now find on there for $15. Sure, for connoisseurs half the fun is the hunt for new albums but in the end you just want to have it sooner so you can listen to it more. So $1.72 per track is a great deal.
What I can't understand is have some sort of adaptive cost. The cost of a single track could fluctuate every day and they could track to see what affect it has on sales. Sales drop: reduce price. Sales rise: increase it. As with simulated annealing have the delta decrease with time. Why does there need to be a static price? A six cent song that sells a million copies is just as good as a sixty cent song that sells 100k.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Short Selling - Think that Britney Spears is overpriced? Then sell first while it costs $5/song and then buy it when it devalues to 99 cents! (Note: will cause loss of ability to listen to sample)
Buying Music on Margin - Really want that new Sum41 CD, but don't have the bread? Just mark some old Nickelback tracks as 'margin' songs and then rock out! (Warning: will lose ability to listen to Nickelback until Sum41 increases in value enough to cover margin call)
Song Options - As a reward for working more than two years for EMI, you'll be able to purchase 1,000 songs at $0.25 each, regardless of their listed price! (Warning: Insider Trading is prohibited)
> I wouldn't mind a 10 year perpetually renewable.
Nope, that falls into the trap of believing in "Intellectual Property". Copyright is strictly a bargain between society and creators, we give you a TEMPORARY monopoly in exchange for you releasing the work (and originally you had to deposit a copy at the Library of Congress, ensuring that when the limit expired a known good copy would exist) because we believe it results in a greater good. A permanent monopoly must, almost by definition, be a net negative for society. Beyond a fairly short duration the argument that continuing the monopoly grant generates more net benefit in new creations than it costs in the inability for anyone else to make use of the material gets very weak. The current century limit is already way over the cost/benefit line in my humble opinion.
The key point being that Copyright MUST encourage new creation or it should be eliminated. Especially here in the US the only authority for it is in the phrase "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" That means if it doesn't promote progress it shouldn't be granted. And nothing in that implies that the author or inventor 'owns' it.
Democrat delenda est
The more a song gets downloaded, the more it would cost.
Why? What market force drives the price up? Is there a limited supply of this song that can't meet the current demand? What extra cost is there to the company that isn't covered by 99 cents per song?
There's no reason. There are a theoretically infinite number of copies of that song. Charging more for a song that is in higher demand is a direct money making ploy by the companies to take advantage of people. Why should I pay more for a song because a few other thousand morons downloaded it to?
This was my first reaction to the article as well. However after thinking about it, maybe "supply" isn't physical supply. Perhaps the model works if supply is related to percieved quality. For instance songs I really like are in short supply.
Anyways, just playing devil's advocate against my own and your thoughts.
No, You're on to something important. Ebay auctions is the best way to sell entertainment products. However it is impossible to get the market controllers to think in that way (possibly because people who make their living in the entertainment industry rarely have to actually buy entertainment products, they always get comp'ed).
Consider movies. Theaters are full on Friday and Saturday nights and empty every other night. But the admission price is exactly the same. Suppose a theater owner decides to auction tickets to Kong or Munich. They could get $30+ for tickets for 8pm on opening Friday and still get $3 for tickets to the 9:30pm show on Tuesday night. Instead the price is $8.50 for every evening show. Weeknight shows after 9pm are empty while opening night has people waiting in the rain that can't get in regardless of what they are willing to pay.
But theater owners and managers have absolutely no control of ticket pricing. So nothing can change.
I used to go to movies at least once a week. But for the past two years I haven't gone to a single one in a theater. I get DVDs from the public library for free or rent them from the supermarket for $1 12-hour weeknight rentals.
Hollywood doesn't have a clue that their former audience is gone. And they're too inflexible to do anything if they did realize it.
And, no, I don't go to Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks anymore. There was a trip point price and when they went over it, I just seemed to stop buying coffee there. It wasn't a gradual dropoff of visits.
So, no, you're not trolling.
"Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
Why should I care how few or many people the music I pay for appeals to? It either has 99 cents of appeal for me or it does not. I am sure a lot of people like whatever the Currently Over-Hyped Boy Band is, but I wouldn't pay 99 cents for one of their songs and I don't.
But I'd pay 99 cents to have some songs of which I'm sure fans of the C.O.H.B.B. have never heard.
Tiered pricing makes sense when there is scarcity--it is a kind of rationing. If more people want houses in Boston than there are houses, then the prices of houses in Boston rises until enough people decide to live in Natick and take the train. (Or someone builds new houses.) Perfect for a limited resource.
But with something like ITMS, there is no scarcity. Every purchase results in a download, every download produces a new copy of the work in question.
IMHO, The is not Greed but Vanity--I think Mr. Jobs is being too kind. Look at the quote--99 cents isn't the problem, it is that the record companies want smaller name artists to get less. This stresses the importance of having a record company promoting you. What frightens these people most is for someone to write, record and sell music without their "help."