Forrester Plan For 'Saving' The Music Industry: Annoying Windowed Releases?

from the copying-bad-movie-industry-ideas? dept

Last year, we wrote about a claim from Mark Mulligan, a VP and director of research at Forrester (the big analyst firm), who argued that music can’t be free — even as a bunch of musicians were proving him wrong. His argument was based on a faulty understanding of both the industry and economics. Mulligan is also the guy who wrote the Forrester report (funded by the recording industry) that involved some nifty guesswork and totally made up numbers that the UK government is now relying on to describe the “piracy problem” in that country.

His latest effort is to release a report on how “to save the music industry from the current Media Meltdown it finds itself in.” Funny, I thought we were just seeing multiple studies — including one from the music industry itself — noting that the music industry is getting bigger, not smaller. Not quite a media meltdown. What’s been getting smaller is one increasingly obsolete portion of the industry: selling songs (or, really, selling physical media with songs on it, and a weak attempt at replicating that online).

First, the good news: somewhere in the last ten months or so, Mulligan has recognized that free music can exist. That’s progress! The second part of his theory is also a big step forward, claiming that the key to “saving” the industry (that doesn’t need saving) is to create “a continual artist-fan relationship.” Yes, exactly. Some of us have been saying that for years. There’s more in there too about how much of the industry needs to change and innovate to keep up with the times. Good stuff and great to see Forrester finally catching up and catching on to where the market is headed.

But, of course, parts of the plan are a bit of a headscratcher. It still seems very much focused on getting people back into “buying music” rather than coming up with actual scarcities to buy. Instead, it tries to invent new artificial scarcities, mostly by copying an awful idea from the movie industry: windowed releases. The idea is that “premium club” members would pay to get access to music before others, and could get some sort of bundle of content. Two weeks later, the regular “release” would happen, with CDs, download stores and radio. Then, three weeks later, there would be a “free” component that actually is more “feels like free” using either ad-supported downloads or streaming.

Of course, like the movie industry, this ignores both reality and what people want. Those timelines won’t make much sense, because as soon as the music’s out, it’ll be widely available. There’s just no stopping that. Artificially holding it back doesn’t do much good and doesn’t give anyone a reason to buy. If anything, it actively drives people to unauthorized copies. Those who don’t want that “premium club” offering won’t wait six weeks for the official “free” streaming version with ads. They’ll just go out and get an unauthorized copy.

So, while I’m glad that Forrester and Mulligan seem to be trending in the right direction with this report, it still seems to come up a bit short in terms of reasonable concepts for the industry.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: forrester

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Forrester Plan For 'Saving' The Music Industry: Annoying Windowed Releases?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

People release free music under CC licenses all the time, much of which is good. See

So what are you talking about? We have a solution and it works great. Ignore the RIAA, ignore artists who are signed, and download music that people release for free (and there is PLENTY of it) and people can donate to the artists they like.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There are things wrong with the system, but you need to come up with a viable alternative.

First off… why? If the economics say the industry is going to flop, why should we ignore that if there isn’t a response that explains the alternatives?

Second… I have come up with viable alternatives and have explained them for years, both with theory and examples of those putting them in practice.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I agree with Mike about 70% of the time. “the economics say the industry is going to flop,” is one of the things we agree on.

AC where you state “you need to come up with a viable alternative” the question you are asking is, how do you keep big media (music, video, newspapers) going at it current profit levels? The answer is you can not. The reasons are simple.

1) competition from people outside the big 5 music companies. There are around 300,000 artists/bands (most of them suck but there are some gems) not contracted to them. (need a ref for the 300k number)

2) with the the internet, there is no need for the middle men any more.

3) The big media industry is slow to adapt and fearful of change. The fear of loss of quarterly profits is the main concern.

4) The use of fear and intimidation tactics tend to back fire and cause revolts.

5) Nothing happening outside the music industry makes financial sense for them, or isn’t scalable.

Because of these reason and more, the industry can not be saved.

If you want to discuss what to replace it with, I do have a very detailed plan with check lists, timelines, contacts, costs, etc. In this plan the profits for the middle men drop substantially, the profits for the artists rise substantially. To misquote Hamlet … “therin lies the rub” for the recording industry. In a digital age they are not needed.

mass comm major says:

dont wait.

The problem stems from a middle man [the record label] trying to maintain his service while technology [the internet] has already made what he offers obsolete. We are dealing with an old media framework fighting to survive against a cheaper, more efficient, neutral framework that has already shown its ability to spread the highest quality – not the most advertised – content currently available in today’s media pool.

Media as a whole needs to move forward and fully take advantage of its new medium [the internet]. Its amazing to see such a promising market being turned to shit by companies who underestimate it, especially when they try to control it. The internet cannot be controlled and you cannot control the path a piece of media follows once its been uploaded to the net. Piracy is a prime example. I’m not waiting for mike to give me his solution to this “problem”. It doesn’t really exist yet, at least not on the financial scale of present day media companies. I am being an entrepreneur in this still fresh media market, as we all should.

PaulT (profile) says:

Amusingly, in my experience at least, such windowed releases were often the driver for people getting into piracy in the first place. Songs would play for weeks, or even months, on the radio before the public were granted the option to buy them. Singles were over-priced, and the song that’s now been played to death was often the only decent track on the album.

People realised that they could download a copy of the song well before the official release, making the official release date obsolete. It’s no accident that the ridiculously overpriced singles market was the first to feel the pinch when the sea change started (in the UK, I remember £3-4 (US$6-8) being the norm for a chart CD single during the late 90s).

Fast forward to today, and release dates are still a primary driver for piracy. Fans of an artist looking forward to their new album will often download the leak first, rather than waiting another 3 weeks for their pre-order to arrive. People stuck in markets treated poorly will often not bother waiting the months or years it takes for their market to be sold to.

This is the same for movie fans as it is for music fans. Take for example the recent Ponyo, an animated feature from the legendary Japanese animator Hiyao Miyazaki. Japanese cinema release: July 2008. Japanese DVD release: July 2009. US cinema release: August 2009. UK cinema release: February 2010. Guess what a lot of UK Miyazaki fans are doing instead of waiting the utterly pointless extra 6 months, even if they were willing to wait for an English dub in the first place? Not everyone will download illegally – many will import the Japanese or other region’s DVD, despite the movie industry’s best attempts from stopping people from doing that – but many others will.

Forcing people to wait needlessly will inevitably backfire. It’s part of the cause of their current situation, and digging further downwards isn’t going to get them out of that hole. Whether you agree with the morality of bypassing release schedules in such a way, it’s hard to argue the point that such schedules encourage people to do so. offer people what they actually want, instead of attempting to force things to work in a way that’s best for you, and you’ll reap the rewards.

Daniel Tunkelang (profile) says:

market segmentation

Mike, it’s easy to see why this approach might not work–as you point out, unauthorized distribution happens extremely quickly, making it near-impossible to implement windowed releases. That said, the fact that people still buy music despite most of it being available for free tells me that we shouldn’t be quick to assume it won’t work just based on the unauthorized distribution channels.

Regardless, your opposition to creating artificial scarcities as a means of maximizing rents strikes me as more about ideology than logic. You talk about “what people want” but ignore that different people want different things. An approach like windowed releases at least recognizes the reality that some people place more value on immediate access to the music than others. Are you opposed to market segmentation in general?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: market segmentation

Regardless, your opposition to creating artificial scarcities as a means of maximizing rents strikes me as more about ideology than logic.

Not at all. It’s based on economic fact. You can’t build a successful long-term model by leaving the more efficient option off the table. It’s too tempting for others to take — whether via legitimate means or not.

It’s got nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with basic economics.

You’re free to try the inefficient solution. You’re also free to fail at it.

Ben (profile) says:

We use meltdown a lot and seem to fail to understand the connotations. A “meltdown” is actually a rapid EXPANSION. In nuclear physics the end result is a lack of the original resource. This problem is not really an issue in this case because we have no end of the original resource. Let it meltdown, thats the fastest way I know of to make something grow and since we have nearly an infinite supply there shouldn’t really be an issue. It will grow, stabilize, and thrive.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...