This blog post is written in response to yesterday's Ars Technica article: A brave new world: the music biz at the dawn of 2008.
Phonographs, records, 8-tracks, cassette tapes, and now - CDs; all going the way of the dodo. Good riddance, I say. I can remember going to the store with my mom when she bought our family's first CD player. At the time we were willing to pay an arm and a leg for CDs because they were new technology. Who could have guessed that almost 20 years later we would still be paying the same high price? DVDs, on the other hand, have been around for less than half as long, cost far more to produce, and can regularly be found in five-dollar bins.
Why is the cost of music decreasing so much now that it can be purchased digitally? Is it because a CD costs so much to print and distribute? That is part of the equation, but it doesn't explain how DVDs can be shipped profitably for five dollars. Rather, CDs are monopolistic in nature, while digital music cannot sustain a monopoly. Sure, there are many music labels, but CDs are monopolistic because there is only one Radiohead. If you want to buy Radiohead, there is only one company that sells it, you have no alternative but to buy from them. However, digital music has competition in the form of file sharing networks. There is now more than one source of Radiohead. Music companies are forced to lower their prices to a level at which users are willing to pay for the new product of the music industry: legality and a clean conscience.
6 comments:
The reviews are in! Critics are raving about We, Robot's impeccable awesomeness, circuit-shorting high quality content, and ridonkulous style. Rock, rock on.
Amen!!! I agree! CDs have not changed price since they were out. it's ridiculous beyond belief!!!
I have always thought that the reason CD purchases went down a few years ago was that people at the store would see a CD and a DVD in the same section of the store and pick the DVD instead. I know piracy did hurt the CD sales too, but I think there would have been much less of it if CD's were competetively priced. I've seen $5 CD bins, but there has never ever been a good CD in them. I have many good $5 DVDs though, like GODZILLA!
I concur. Musicians have long struggled against the strictures of recording labels (cf Prince[or the artist temporarily so known], Metallica, Radiohead) and it is only fitting to see musicians taking that same monopolistic tack and applying it for their own benefit. Furthermore, I appreciate Radiohead's particular approach, which seems to be the way of the world in terms of entertainment; that is, providing a free product as a marketing tool to sell other products. Musicians make the real money on shirts, concerts, and other salables, whereas recording labels make scads on CDs. Why not adopt the same methods that have been working for television programming, movies, and more recently, web comics and cartoons? Provide a free (or cheap as free) product and merchandize (v.t. - permit me my neologism). If that model happens to kill a format because delivery models change, well, I'm sorry newspapers. Oh, wait. I mean CDs.
You know, on a side note, not only Radiohead but also Nine Inch Nails apparently tried to go without the "BIG BAD record agency" and only 18% of their fans paid for their cd. Maybe its just because NIN is kinda creepy. Just me.
18% is more than they make from the label.
Post a Comment