So Much For The Mobility Premium In Music Downloads
from the bling-ring dept
When Sprint launched its mobile music download service last month, much of the attention focused on the $2.50 per song price. There were various justifications made for the $1.50 per track premium over the going rate for wired internet downloads, but the most common one was that the ability to get music anytime, anywhere made it worth it. It’s a questionable assertion, and one that’s derived from media companies’ and mobile operators’ misunderstanding that there are multiple separate and distinct markets for the same content that dictate multiple prices. But that’s not the case, and people won’t pay $2.50 for a “phone song” and a buck for an “iPod song”. Virtual operator Amp’d seems to grasp this, saying its over-the-air downloads will cost just 99 cents, since that’s the going rate in the music download market, as established by its leader, Apple. Amp’d reportedly pays $1.25 to the record labels for each download it sells, so like Apple, it will be selling its tracks at a loss, but sees them as important enough to its target market to use them as a loss leader. A further twist to the story is that Sony BMG hasn’t licensed its music to Amp’d because of its pricing — which is odd, given that they get paid the wholesale price, regardless of Amp’d selling price. After all, the retailer sets the retail price, unless the labels are advocating price fixing (again).
Comments on “So Much For The Mobility Premium In Music Downloads”
Crazy Prices
People in Ireland are actually paying up to ?5 for a ringtone download. I dont get it… 5 euros! For 12 poorly ripped seconds of a pop song. Same equivelant pricing in the UK. And don’t get me started on that “crazy frog”…
…I wonder how long before networks stop subsidising phones with motorola phonetools-esque PC interface software.
the longer this fiasco goes...
…the angrier I get. What the Hell is the music industry thinking? Someone should tell them that the SOLE PURPOSE OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS TO SERVE THE CONSUMER. Apparently they think that the consumer exists to support their business, and that if the environment changes then consumers need to adapt so that the business model doesn’t have to.
I actually like some music that comes out from major record labels (and I don’t believe in downloading songs illegally) but listening to some of my favorite bands is starting to not be worth the cost of being the recording industy’s b@!*!$. That’s just no good for my self-esteem.
But one thing makes me smile: “The bigger they are…” If they keep this up it’s just a matter of time.
Re: the longer this fiasco goes...
“What the Hell is the music industry thinking? Someone should tell them that the SOLE PURPOSE OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS TO SERVE THE CONSUMER. Apparently they think that the consumer exists to support their business, and that if the environment changes then consumers need to adapt so that the business model doesn’t have to.”
Well, it could be argued more accuratly that the sole purpose of a music company is to secure a profit for it’s investors.
Serving the customer is just one way to do that. The better way, in the long run.
Hilarious...
I find it highly amusing that people are getting all torqued up over such a trivial thing. If I had my choice between keeping all the music written before 1900 and all the music written after 1900, it wouldn’t take me a whole heartbeat to forget about modern “music”. The stuff I really want to hear has been copyright-free for centuries.
In particular, I have no interest in paying any amount of money for ringtones of any kind. Get real, people — if it’s worth it to you, buy it and pay the price. If it’s not worth the price, then DON’T BUY IT. Sheesh.
—
The Celtic Fiddler
Re: Hilarious...
In particular, I have no interest in paying any amount of money for ringtones of any kind. Get real, people — if it’s worth it to you, buy it and pay the price. If it’s not worth the price, then DON’T BUY IT. Sheesh.
I presume that was directed at my comment. Frankly they can charge ?50 per ring tone… i dont really care – i’m just shocked that people do pay that much.
But you missed my point – if people pay that much for 12 secs of a song, they will pay $2.50 for the whole thing, no problem. i won’t… i’m guessing that since everything from cole porter to miles davis to maria callis to the beatles is rubbish to you (being from 1900’s) you won’t buy them either!
oh, and by the way – it doesnt matter how old a song is, if the recording of the performance of it is still under copywright… just the sheet music / the right to perform it is opened up, Howard!
Music pricing
I think Joel Spolsky nailed it with his theory: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/11/18.html. The record companies want variable pricing so they can market some songs as being more valuable than others.
No Subject Given
The whole MPAA and RIAA thing has really become anticlimatic. I am intelligent enough to always find a way to download music, I’m not such a slave to fashion that I need to have over-priced crippleware like an iPod, and I’m not stupid enough to expose my online activity to anyone.
So, from here on out the RIAA can sue whoever they want, the labels and studios can come up with whatever moronic pricing model they think they can cram down the throats of consumers, and simple minded consumers can keep buying the absolute dreck that the majors dump into the market.
I will be listening to music, watching video in the format of my choice on the device of my choice at the time and place of my choice and there is absolutely nothing the RIAA and/or MPAA can do.
If, at some point in the future, these organizations become enlightened and recognize that 1.) consumers pay their salaries, 2.) OUR satisfaction is their primary concern, and 3.) that technology development is not inherently evil, I will happily pay a reasonable price for the same content and services that I am currently forced to access thru alternative means.