Warner Music CEO Says War With Consumers Was Wrong

l2718 writes "Edgar Bronfman, CEO of the Warner Music Group, has publicly framed the music industry's failure to accommodate file-sharing as an 'inadvertent' war on consumers. I'm left wondering how you can file a series of lawsuits inadvertently. 'We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding ... By ... moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and as a result of course, consumers won.'"

Comments

Put your money where your mouth is, Ed.

[croddy]

Put you money where your mouth is, Eddie boy. If these lawsuits offend you as you claim, dissolve your membership in the conspiracy that organizes them. As long as you're still a member of the RIAA, and as long as the lawsuits keep coming, your comments are just as dishonest as your corrput business model.

So please... don't beat me with both fists while apologizing between blows. The beating still hurts and your "apology" just adds insult to injury.

Re: Put your money where your mouth is, Ed.

[sm62704]

Is this Eddie the Shipboard Computer, or Eddie Munster? At any rate, here's a message to Eddie:

Look, dude, you're glass. We see right through you and we're going to break you if you don't get the hell out of our way, and if you don't break yourself first.

We know you know that MP3s should be advertising for CDs. We also know that what you're afraid of isn't people downloading Lars and Gene's stuff, it's downloading your independant competitors' stuff. You control the FREE radio and you know it. You can't control the internet and you know it.

You're shaking in your boots over Radiohead. I'm afraid it's too late; you're cracked. It's too late, but I'll tell you what you should have done.

When Napster, the old Napster you bozos sued out of existance came along, you should have embraced it. You should have flooded it with 56k samples of every tune in your inventory, and gone on a PR blitz telling everyone how superior the CD was to MP3. It worked against vinyl when the CD first came out, despite the fact that there are pros and cons to CD and vinyl (each has its shortcomings), it would surely work with CD vs. MP3 and CD's vastly superior sound.

You blew it.

You no longer matter. A musician no longer needs an expensive studio and even more expensive factory, he can rent a studio even in a small city like Springfield, which has several. He can get his CD professionally mastered and copied with insert and jewell case for a couple thousand bucks, less than the price of a decent drum kit.

Now your only recourse to stay alive is to be a hitmaker.

You're stupid, Eddie, and I'll be glad when your twitching corpse stops kicking over the china and bleeding all over my government. Die, damn you, die, you worthles scumbag!

-mcgrew

Disposable income not piracy is behind falls.

[Ckwop]

How can you ever win a war against your own customers? If you fight them, they don't pay you and you die. How did they ever expect to win?

I think the reason they haven't made as much money recently has little to do with piracy and everything to do with the changing perception of value. Personally, I think that the value per pound spent on an album compared to something like Halo 3 is vastly different. Halo 3 at the £40 it costs is at least ten times the value to me than the equivalent number of albums I could buy for that price.

There is only a limited number of areas I can spend my disposable income. Between, Halo, the X-box 360 to play it, the iPod, iPhone there just isn't room for such an overpriced product.

And that's why I haven't bought a single CD since 1999 - and I imagine I'm not alone. That's why the music industry is shrinking. They expect to be paid rather than realising they're competing for our money just like everyone else.

Simon.

Re:Disposable income not piracy is behind falls.

[MightyMartian]

I agree. I think, in part, the record industry has so saturated the popular music market with crap that the talented new artists simply sink into a sea of unmitigated mediocrity. People get upset when I wax nostalgic about the 1960s and the 1970s, but let's face it, a very large part of the music we consider classic rock and pop was recorded during that period. Even into the 1980s you had hit makers like Michael Jackson who had real talent. Compare that with the vaguely homoerotic boy bands and way-too-sexualized teen female acts like Britney Spears that started showing up in the late 1990s, and you have to conclude that somewhere in that period the music industry lost its way, and become a classic economics widget manufacturer, run by people who didn't care about music, bet everything on marketing deals and focus groups (isn't the various Idol shows to be found in North America and abroad the ultimate expression of that). You get the feeling that these guys don't listen to the music they're foisting on the public.

As to Gene Simmons bitching on another /. article today, well, he's one of the creators of the music marketing machine we see now. His descendants aren't guys like Metallica or Nirvana, but Hillary Duff and the Spice Girls.

Re:Disposable income not piracy is behind falls.

[Chosen Reject]

When you watch a movie, that is usually all you are doing (and if not, please don't watch it with me). When you play a game, that is usually all you are doing. However, music is typically background stuff. So you might have played that song 20x, but did you play it 20x doing nothing but pondering its beats and rhythms, mulling over the meaning of the message? Probably not. Most likely it just made your drive to the store not so quiet, or it blocked the noise of your computer while you surfed the web. Perhaps it enhanced the mode during your dinner. As an example, iTunes says that I've listened to Still Alive (from Portal) over 200 times, but I was really paying attention to the code I was writing. Unless at a concert, music is rarely on the center stage of what you are doing.

But even that is missing the underlying point. Time is a really lousy measure of enjoyment. That's saying that any 2 hour movie is just as enjoyable as any other 2 hour movie. If I listen to music for three hours, is that exactly as enjoyable as three hours of a Lord of the Rings movie? Is that as enjoyable as playing through Portal? Maybe, depends on what you find enjoyable. But that is a big dependency.

But even that is missing the underlying point. You pay the amount that both you and the seller agree to. If the seller is smart, he takes into consideration how much of the market is willing to pay what amount and maximizes his profits. If the buyer is smart, he considers how much the seller is selling it and how much it is worth it to him. The music industry in general might not be selling at maximum customers, or even maximum profit, but they've picked a price. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.

It's not just the overlap

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm sure there is some considerable overlap between people who (to some degree) pay for music and people who (to some degree) rip it illegally. But I don't think that's the root cause of the problem (or at least, not the only root cause).

The basic problem is that by attacking the pirates, the megacorps have made their products worse even for 100% legitimate users. I am sick and tired of having to sit through unskippable ads at the start of legally purchased DVDs. I am sick and tired of having to wait several seconds while my legally downloaded music track is checked out by some DRM-checking engine. I'm sick and tired of having to jump through hoops to "activate" my legally installed software. I'm not even going near various new toys (I'm looking at you, HD discs and Windows Vista), in large part because I don't trust them not to break and the companies who took my money to leave me hanging after all the horror stories.

Now, sure, part of their problem is that by doing this they make their legal products relatively worse than the illegally ripped versions, rather than equivalent except in price and legality. This no doubt motivates a significant number of people to rip things just to avoid the crap.

But they also make their products worse in absolute terms. Why on earth would I pay the same amount of my money for something that is less pleasant to use than what I used to get? In fact, why would I pay my money at all, when I can use numerous legal alternatives that come without the headaches, even without resorting to copyright infringement? I have a finite budget, and I can find entertainment from perfectly legal sources that don't line the pockets of big media: live music or recordings by independent artists, OSS for software, etc. Does it really matter that I haven't seen the latest blockbuster movie on HD-DVD, or played the latest DirectX 10-enabled game, as long as I'm entertained by what I spend my leisure budget on?

The short answer is no, it doesn't. If the megacorps want me to spend my hard-earned money on their products rather than someone else's, they need to make the better products. This argument has nothing to do with ripped versions of the same products, and everything to do with more pleasant alternative products becoming more widely available.