How much would you pay for a digital album?
When you hear about the music industry these days, there are often figures claiming that digital music downloads--led by new initiatives from the likes of Amazon, Nokia, MySpace, and, of course, Apple--are up year-over-year by more than 25 percent, and now account for about 20 percent of overall music sales. But let's get the numbers straight. Despite some bright spots, the vast majority of digital downloads are unauthorized and cost nothing. In fact, a recent report by IFPI, a body that promotes and "safeguards" digital music, says that in 2008 a whopping 95 percent of all music downloads were illegal. Sure, IFPI has an interest in perhaps inflating that stat a bit, but judging from what I've seen out there, I'd say it's still a very high percentage.
No difference: U2's upcoming album No Line on the Horizon will likely cost the same as a CD or digital download--and that doesn't make sense.
(Credit: Wikipedia)All that said, let's pretend for a moment that in some highly improbable scenario, someone or something manages to get pirating totally under control and people are left having to pay for their music. Would sales suddenly take off? Would all be well again in the music industry?
Probably not. The problem is--and has always been ever since digital downloads emerged--that the digital stuff is way too expensive, and that's made a lot of folks feel the music industry is out to rip them off (in other words, there isn't a whole lot of sympathy for music companies). It certainly doesn't help matters that the economy today is in the crapper and the prices are largely unchanged. (Just look at Apple's recent announcement on price changes for its iTunes Store).
Now, I'm not saying anything new here. Plenty of pundits have said the music industry is broken and is just trying to eke out the last bit of good revenue from a few star artists in a shattered business model that ultimately needs to be completely blown up.
In the past, I've argued for a subscription service for iTunes and a number of we editors here at CNET are fans of Rhapsody, which charges a relatively affordable $12.99 a month to rent all the music you want (2 bucks more to move it on and off your Rhapsody-compatible portable music player). But there are still plenty of people who want to own their music. Some still buy it legally and a lot of so-called purists still buy CDs. (Call me old-school, but I have to admit that if the price is equal or close, which it often is, I prefer to pick up the physical disc over the digital album. Then I convert it to digital and throw the CD into my 400-disc CD changer).
I'm not going to get into a full-blown discussion of what will turn dishonest downloaders into honest buyers. As many of you are already aware, a lot of people don't think downloading music amounts to stealing. I've seen plenty of message-board posts from users saying that downloading free tunes isn't thievery, since it's just bits and bytes you're grabbing; and besides, they wouldn't have paid for the thing anyway, so it's better for the artist that they were exposed to their music. This column isn't about that (feel free to add your own comments, however).
What I'm asking is simply this: Those of you who rarely buy music--what would you be willing to pay for a digital album (or single)? In other words, what price would make you change your view of the music industry and make you want to open your wallet a little more?
I'd be a lot happier with $4.99 for a download of a new release and anywhere from $1.99 to $2.99 for older releases. Singles should be $.49.
Now, if you're an Amazon user, you may have noticed that it's recently had some special "Daily Deals" on digital albums such as $4.99 for Coldplay's Viva La Vida and $1.99 for its older albums and Prince's Purple Rain. Meanwhile, Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts I-IV is permanently priced at $5.
Word is that some of these specials are loss-leaders for Amazon that are simply designed to get people buying digital music. But that's not the way it should be. U2's upcoming No Line on the Horizon is available for preorder on CD for $9.99. The digital version will likely be priced within a dollar. (Some $9.99 CDs cost $8.99 as an MP3 download on Amazon). Instead, I think it should be $4.99 to download at launch. I mean, an eco-friendly band like U2 should want its fans to go digital and not buy any sort of physical disc and paper and plastic packaging. To encourage that, Bono should tell the band's label, Interscope Records, to price the digital version significantly lower. Am I wrong?
What do you guys think?
Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
Good article and hit the nail on the head.
<font color="red">>"I'd be a lot happier with $4.99 for a download of a new release and anywhere from $1.99 to $2.99 for older releases. Singles should be $.49."</font
I like the idea of less expensive digital media (music).
I am a musician and I'm currently "shopping" for the cheapest download site available. Seems like companies like Wallmart and Amazon have good deals. I just want to download and burn to cd. I don't need all the other options. I don't like renting music.
People may be spoiled by the Radio. Music has always been available to the public for free. That's where this whole problem of buying music comes in. They don't realize how much advertisments pay for the free music we listen to on the radio.
...so, when a buddy says... here is a copy of the cd I just bought at bestbuy. Nobody thinks twice that they are commiting a crime.
I understand technically, what is going on between the differences of CD quality audio, and the quality of an MP3 file. Based on the fact that the general public doesn't care or really hear the difference in quality makes me angry! MP3's are inferior and should be priced lower!
There is a lot of time in the studio to perfect and make the music sound the best it can.
People don't understand the entire process of the creation of music. I understand this... from the time of conception of the piece imagined between the ears of the musician, all the way through each step of recording process, and into the consumers ears. It's a long process. People don't care. They just want to experience the song.... at any cost. Cost! It cost the artist who is making the music a decent amount of money. I don't care if they are self producing it in their basement. It still cost the musician money to purchase the equipment to record the music. So, keep that in mind when you're "stealing" the "iintellectual property" of the musician.
Danny Knight ~ Vocalist
www.myspace.com/1800rock
1) It's hard to pull out a $20 and be happy with getting $1.75 in change after taxes for an album that may suck or not.. even if you want to support your artist.
2) Reasonable. I think most of us want to pay for things.. we just want to pay a fair price.. I know I do.
3) The artists and record companies are over paid.... don't get me wrong.. i think they should get paid good.. but really.. when an artist like Britney gets paid 100 mill for a couple albums.. well thats why we are getting charged too much.. 10 mill would still be more money than most of us will make in a life time and would be plenty..
4) I think our mind set has become that if I charge more.. I will make my money.. instead of charging reasonable and getting return customers. This is everywhere.. Movies, Sports, Music, Cars, Gas,..etc.. people are finally getting tried of it.. and it's showing..
Point.. I think 4.99 is reasonable.
Also CD's have never followed the normal progression of a technology/product that is at a high cost when it previews but drops in price as it endures. Pretty much the same price now as when CD's first arrived on the scene.
I too am tired of hearing the in your face I make more money than I could ever need and waste it flauntingly attitude of music artists. I don't care anymore if I buy their CD or not. There was a time when every Tuesday I went out and bought every new country music release as the CD usually cost 8.99 - 9.99 then. No longer. But I still prefer with any music I buy to have the disc in hand over downloading music.
Some of our biggest country "stars" have recently groaned and moaned that they wouldn't appear at CMA Music Festival unless they are paid. For you who are not acquainted with CMA Music Festival, formerly called Fan Fair, it is a once a year 4 day fan fest in Nashville, TN where you used to get to actually meet and greet with most of the top and also the up and coming country artists and hear day long up close concerts. Now it is mostly just concerts, with the main nightly concert at a huge stadium now where you need binoculars to see well. Long ago the BIG stars have left the halls of the autograph booths. This festival has been a tradition, one no other genre of music has or had. Our "stars" are now telling the fans ... tough what we really want is money not fan support and contact. Garth Brooks reached his status as a super star charging $20.00 a concert seat. It didn't matter whether you were in the front row or somewhere in the nose bleed seats. He sold out concerts, he signed autographs at Fan Fair for close to 24hrs straight one year , he prospered monetarily (and continues to), he retired, he endures. It can be done.
I don't advocate theft in any way. Give me better music at a better price and make the effort to give me that warm and fuzzy feeling about being a fan again. Maybe then I'll go back to buying music in any form.
Steve Purdham
CEO - We7
http://www.we7.com
The problem is everyone is trying to sell "digital water" meaning the same thing consumers are expected to pay for, they can get the exact same product for free. When consumers are given the option to pay for digital products at the right price, for the right amount of professional retail quality content, they will pay.
You see Hollywood supports new formats such as Blu-ray and before it DVD. In the music industry, they have stuck with the CD for so long only because of the retail revenues made up front with wholesale, never because it was in the best interest of music fans.
Now what's needed are new ways of delivering bigger and better content that is not easily tradable, with the ability to attach music to other products (and concerts) as a accessory. What people want are releases with MP3, HQ Wav, ringtones, lyrics, pictures, and hi-def videos (or a burnable DVD) for $5. How about delivering 4GB worth of data in a release for $5? This is what people will pay for!
We have released our new technology that can profitably deliver 4GB for $5 and deliver the music world the revolution it needs to satisfy consumers and retailers shrinking floor space.
We are happy to work with any company or artists interested in moving forward to deliver what people want to buy.
William G. Blanchard
CEO and Inventor - Retail Zip - Kordor Electronics
http://www.retailzip.com
I don't even like buying CDs anymore. It lacks the same kind of experience and excitement I had when I bought albums; it even lacks the short-lived cardbox sleeves of CD distributions circa 1989. Where's the art? Where's the total experience tying me to the band and its community?
That's gone, and with it any compunction of stealing the songs or acquiring/buying them in a grey market. The sheer arrogance and lack of respect presented to the consumer almost certainly guarantees continual acts of corporate disobedience.
Add some value to these tracks and preserve your cash flow. Otherwise, price your songs at 25 cents per and get on with it.
-R
Older- basic/stripped down versions of albums- should be priced by the artist's choice.
I think there would also be a big market for a standard lyrics/album art/ description system that would support remixes and alternate purposes- like a web video license- by offering the un-edited components of the tracks in their full glory.
1. MP3 new = 49 cents Lossless=99 cents
2. MP3 old = 25 cents Lossless=50 cents
3. If you are renting them(DRM), drop the price by 20 percent.
4. Open up the vaults, we are looking for the older CDs. Hell, you've already made them, why are we waiting?
5. Link similiar sounding tracks as suggestions. Pandora does this nicely sometimes. We may have missed something. I has almost given up on music if I hadn't have found "My Morning Jacket".
Yep, a bunch of disjointed thoughts here, but it is lunch time at a job that may not exist in a month or two. You would think the industry would realize that the cat is out of the bag. Their choice is should be on what level of creativity they should engage, not what level of vinidictivness they should follow.
What do I think is a fair price?
CD = $10
DA = $6
Singles = 20-60 cents
1. Product. Give me music I like and I will buy it (if I know about it and I can find it).
2. Advertising. I have to hear it to know I will like it. Radio doesn't work anymore.
3. Distribution. Music stores. Yuck. Only serve a few segments of the market.
4. Musicians. Too much focus on superstars. Bring back the one-hit-wonders.
5. RIAA. That Grinch image needs work.
1. I have almost no money to spend on music
2. $.99 per song and I have 11,000 songs. Do the math.
3. I hate iTunes, and that is where the majority of music downloads come from.
4. Zune ain't much better but I do like Zune over iPod.
Music labels probably can't convert me and I get most of my music from bands of independent labels. A lot of them usually release a few songs for free and then the whole album. I have no guilt downloading illegally. $10,000 is money I don't have.
Then 11,000 songs is music you shouldn't have.
and if you want my overall opinion on the music industry as a whole, here it is. music should be born from a passion to create music, not a desire to make money. to all artists out there, start loving what you do, not loving the paycheck. asking people to pay for the music you create and play is like asking people to pay to look at the clothing you coordinated for yourself. it's expression. do it for the love, not the money. get a real job to pay the bills, then write and record music in your free time. maybe then it will actually be good.
civilization has kind of come full-circle with music distribution now. when cavemen beat on drums, you didn't make a physical copy of the song to distribute, people were either there to hear it or didn't come. then technology advanced to the point where we could record music, but with no (or under-developed) method of spreading it digitally, it had to be distributed on physical items. they cost money to make, package, and ship. since it wouldn't be fair for the company who makes the physical object to keep all of the money, some is given to the artists (it's their music after all). but now we have high speed internet, and gigantic hard drives capable of storing large libraries of lossless music. why do we still care about paying for this? since we already pay the isp for the bandwidth and infrastructure, we've basically eliminated the point of paying for the actual music.
the damage was done, though. artists were being paid for cd sales. (hardly any!, shout the artist symphathizers). they were paid. but like i said earlier, you don't charge people to look at your clothes. you don't charge people when you make a witty joke. you don't charge people when you offer your opinion. and now me asking you to pay 99¢ if you read through all of that makes about as much sense as paying 99¢ for the latest #1 pop song. i mean, i DID have to buy expensive equipment to be able to make this post, after all. and it's about as substantial as any avril lavigne song.
The beauty of an Album is it is mine, I can take it anywhere and play it.
The beauty of a CD is the same, and I can carry more in a smaller space.
The problem with Digital anything is 'THEY' keep trying to tell "ME" where I can play MY music that I bought and paid for. I paid for it, it is mine, I am going to play it in the Office, the Library, out by the Pool, maybe even in the Car...... And maybe all at the same time.
So, having said all that..... in answer to your question as to how much would I pay? If it is DRM Free then I would be willing to pay the $1 a track for just about any artists. I actually have no interest in buying a complete album in digital format because it has been a real long time since I have liked every track on any album.
I also agree that I?m reluctant to pay even 4.99 for an album because these days I have not found a single album from a single artist that I have enjoyed the entire album. My music tastes being somewhat eclectic, I tend to pick and choose my music to fit a specific mood or day, etc.
That all being said, I have lately purchased an iPod after years of stonewalling and I have been reasonably pleased with the device and iTunes in general although I?m still chagrined by their definition of my ownership of the titles. Perhaps my .99 purchase price for these songs wasn?t enough for lifelong ownership and rights to burn CDs? That does gall me a bit.
Ok, I?ll answer the question: I suppose 4.99 isn?t that much to pay for a digital album download and I have definitely shelled out $1 to $2 for downloaded singles. But times are changing (such as iTunes prices) and the price for downloadable albums is a?rising. Consumers are ?irrational? and have this ?heady? notion that they want a value for what they are purchasing and if the music industry can?t come to terms with that then digital pirating of music will be with us for a long time to come.
For lossy encodings, I'm only interested in a subscription or trial model. If I like something enough that I'm interested in listening to it more than a couple times, I want better quality.
I don't think any of this is in our future, though.
I bet if more people tried the zune with its new software and zune channels it would take a huge share of the market from the iPod.
-
by julyonaftermath
January 22, 2009 7:03 AM PST
- I think that figure from IFPI, the 95% of all downloads are illegal fact, doesn't take into account non-copyrighted music that is given away...I could be wrong, but I think it is more "95% of music downloads are not paid for" rather than "stolen", and we know that a lot of unsigned bands give their music away. And radiohead. Cuz dey cool.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (84 Comments)It's funny that this guy thinks singles should be 49 cents, and maybe they should ultimately be that low when the record industry shifts its infrastructure to support the digital business completely. However, think about the single...they've been 99 cents since I've been buying them which is back to 1970!!! Of course then you got the following:
1. something physical
2. a b side
3. perhaps a picture sleeve if you were lucky
Now you get just 1's and 0's. Arguably, these 1's and 0's are of better quality than the old vinyl 7 inch platters were...and indeed are for most people....the digital files are also a lot more versatile and portable, adding value.... So in 40 years of inflation the single should be half the price it was? Maybe....just seems odd. Advancements in technology drive the cost down of electronics items but musis is intellectual property and publishers, songwriters, artists, and labels need to get paid. One day the music biz will have right-sized itself and positioned itself in the new music space with the correct infrastructure and will be able to profit on sales of a few 49 cent singles but in the meantime they need to support CD sales as that's still where some revenue is coming!
Peter Jenner's largely opposed idea of an annual tax on iPods and things that goes to the labels in exchange for all the music you want is another option - but seems to unfair, even tho very cheap, cause everyone would be paying...