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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.)