Music Industry Gets It Halfway
In all the hubbub about Apple's battle with the music industry over the pricing of songs in the iTMS, people are all guns and grenades over rumors of prices going up to $1.49. Well, I'm with them. Higher prices are no fun for consumers, even consumers like me who don't need the hottest hit while it's still hot. Not to mention there's a decent argument to make that keeping the prices down will let online distribution of music grow, although I'm less than convinced that $1.49 is the price point where the infant industry will be stunted. Anyway, to the extent that this brujaja keeps a $0.99 cap on music downloads, rock on.
However, has anyone noticed that the music industry wants to lower some prices too? In our big rush to battle over higher prices, we're forgetting that flexibility might actually lead to some lower prices as well. And that I'm all for, especially since I tend to like music that might not be the most popular among the downloads, like oldies. I'd probably be buying more doo wop if I was only paying $0.49 cents.
Why might a price decrease be unlikely? Apple might see more profit for itself with the $0.99 (almost) universal price. John Koetsier has already covered how the rumblings between Apple and the music industry may very well be due to Apple trying to weasel a bigger slice of the pie. I'm not sure how the numbers work out, but if Apple similarly thinks that it might make more profits by selling songs with less demand at a higher price (and perhaps taking a larger slice of the pie on those songs?) then it might just be reluctant to see any change.
Oh, and lets not forget Apple's patented simplicity: if it's all $0.99, it's so easy! Sure people couldn't handle it if songs were priced at $0.49, $0.79, and $0.99! Uncle Steve knows best, right? Although I have to say that that rings much like Apple's previous qualms with the single-button mouse...
So let me make a modest proposal. Let's see a cap of $0.99 cents but still allow pricing of songs below that as well, at, say, any price endings with $0.09. I think people will do just fine with songs at $0.99, $0.89, $0.79, $0.69, etc. And the labels are certainly right in that more of these less popular songs will move if they're cheaper.
However, has anyone noticed that the music industry wants to lower some prices too? In our big rush to battle over higher prices, we're forgetting that flexibility might actually lead to some lower prices as well. And that I'm all for, especially since I tend to like music that might not be the most popular among the downloads, like oldies. I'd probably be buying more doo wop if I was only paying $0.49 cents.
Why might a price decrease be unlikely? Apple might see more profit for itself with the $0.99 (almost) universal price. John Koetsier has already covered how the rumblings between Apple and the music industry may very well be due to Apple trying to weasel a bigger slice of the pie. I'm not sure how the numbers work out, but if Apple similarly thinks that it might make more profits by selling songs with less demand at a higher price (and perhaps taking a larger slice of the pie on those songs?) then it might just be reluctant to see any change.
Oh, and lets not forget Apple's patented simplicity: if it's all $0.99, it's so easy! Sure people couldn't handle it if songs were priced at $0.49, $0.79, and $0.99! Uncle Steve knows best, right? Although I have to say that that rings much like Apple's previous qualms with the single-button mouse...
So let me make a modest proposal. Let's see a cap of $0.99 cents but still allow pricing of songs below that as well, at, say, any price endings with $0.09. I think people will do just fine with songs at $0.99, $0.89, $0.79, $0.69, etc. And the labels are certainly right in that more of these less popular songs will move if they're cheaper.
posted by Vincent at 4:34 AM
links to this post
,
