TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- How much would you pay for music?

How much would you pay for music?

Ok, first off, this is NOT a thread about the evil corporate media empire, so let's try to keep it clean folks. This is just something I've been curious about recently.

Statistics have generally shown that at least until recently, the average person would pay for 6 CDs a year or $90 worth, which amounts to $7.50 a month. Some of us also pay for subscription access to live sets, or priority downloads on soulseek, etc. I believe that most people are willing to pay a certain amount of money for music, but knowing the actual distribution cost (which is nearly zero), most people also expect a lot more bang for their buck.

I also believe that sites like iTunes and beatport have missed the point entirely by charging a certain price per track - think about how much sense it makes to sell an iPod with 40 GB of storage, while simultaneously charging $7500 for that much content (assuming $0.99 per 4 minute, 192 kbps track - I realize that electronic music is longer and that the price is no longer 99 cents).

Now let's hypothetically say that there was a licensed online service, where you could legally download an unlimited amount of music for a certain price. And let's say that there were no restrictions on this music - you could burn it to CDs, share it with other users, and do anything else you want with it. What would you be willing to pay (if anything) per month to use that kind of a service?

This is just out of curiosity for now, I'm not actually planning anything.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Now let's hypothetically say that there was a licensed online service, where you could legally download an unlimited amount of music for a certain price.

There is nothing hypothetical about such a service.

It already exists (to US consumers). Pay a monthly fee for open access to entire label libraries.

All music labels are moving to this model - and soon it will be extended to other media (movies, syndicated television, etc).

Thus the end of the 500 channel universe. Enter the era of a single channel of content - YOUR channel, with YOUR customized, licensed content, 24/7.

Re: Re: How much would you pay for music?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker There is nothing hypothetical about such a service. It already exists (to US consumers). Pay a monthly fee for open access to entire label libraries.

I've never heard of this - what does it cost? Is it open to anyone? And why don't we have it here?

I do agree that that's basically the future of distribution, though... that's why I was asking.

Re: Re: Re: How much would you pay for music?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I've never heard of this - what does it cost? Is it open to anyone? And why don't we have it here?

Depending on the provider - it costs between $5 and $10 per month - and is open to anybody. SOCAN is the reason we don't have it in Canada.

Re: Re: Re: Re: How much would you pay for music?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker SOCAN is the reason we don't have it in Canada.

Bah, those self-righteous pigs... "we do what's right for music."

If the labels themselves wanted to set up this service in Canada, though, could SOCAN really stop them? Since the labels own the intellectual property to begin with...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much would you pay for music?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If the labels themselves wanted to set up this service in Canada, though, could SOCAN really stop them? Since the labels own the intellectual property to begin with...

I'm not certain of the mechanics. The labels manage the publishing rights, SOCAN manages performance rights - I suspect the artists don't make as much via a subscription model (whereas labels monetize more of their library via subscription) which is probably why they are throwing up roadblocks.

Is there anywhere I can read up on these services? I'm curious as to how they manage the downloads, how they compensate the artists, etc... most importantly I'm curious why you're the only person I've spoken to so far who actually knows they exist!

The question still stands though, I'm curious what people think.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much would you pay for music?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker I'm not certain of the mechanics. The labels manage the publishing rights, SOCAN manages performance rights - I suspect the artists don't make as much via a subscription model (whereas labels monetize more of their library via subscription) which is probably why they are throwing up roadblocks.

I wouldn't be surprised if it more to do with Canadian content than actual royalty percentages...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut you're the only person I've spoken to so far who actually knows

Come on now. Is that really such a mystery?

i would not pay per track .. i'd still buy the CD if i liked it enuff

what happens when there are no more CDs in circulation ? well i'll wait till then to see what happens

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Come on now. Is that really such a mystery?

I can't help noticing that you didn't answer the question, haha... is there some kind of secrecy at work here?

Interesting results so far though - the "free" and the $10 votes are even. Of course it's a pretty small sample size - hopefully the tally grows a bit over the next few days.

Jeff: I wonder how significantly the "Canadian Content" laws work into this. That may well be the side that SOCAN is playing toward, i.e. "sure, you can do business here, but you have to make sure that 80% of what's available on your server is Canadian Content!" (which we all know is impossible).

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL i would not pay per track .. i'd still buy the CD if i liked it enuff what happens when there are no more CDs in circulation ? well i'll wait till then to see what happens

I wasn't suggesting that they stop making CDs or other physical media - I know that some people like the idea of owning the thing, as well as the artwork, liner notes, etc... CDs are "collector's items" in a sense and will always have *some* market.

I guess the reason I didn't include that option in the poll is that it's not mutually exclusive of the others - people could use the service and still buy CDs, or vinyls if we're talking about DJs.

99 cents per song is dead cheap.

Its about the same or even less than what youd pay for the actual album in a store except here you get to actually choose which tracks u want. The sad part about online stores is that whereas most people would buy the album and discover songs on it that would never make it to the radio, now people only go for the forcefed junk that they know and usually bypass the unknown music.

I have no problem with paying 99 cents per song.

Re: How much would you pay for music?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ok, first off, this is NOT a thread about the evil corporate media empire, so let's try to keep it clean folks. This is just something I've been curious about recently. Statistics have generally shown that at least until recently, the average person would pay for 6 CDs a year or $90 worth, which amounts to $7.50 a month. Some of us also pay for subscription access to live sets, or priority downloads on soulseek, etc. I believe that most people are willing to pay a certain amount of money for music, but knowing the actual distribution cost (which is nearly zero), most people also expect a lot more bang for their buck. I also believe that sites like iTunes and beatport have missed the point entirely by charging a certain price per track - think about how much sense it makes to sell an iPod with 40 GB of storage, while simultaneously charging $7500 for that much content (assuming $0.99 per 4 minute, 192 kbps track - I realize that electronic music is longer and that the price is no longer 99 cents). Now let's hypothetically say that there was a licensed online service, where you could legally download an unlimited amount of music for a certain price. And let's say that there were no restrictions on this music - you could burn it to CDs, share it with other users, and do anything else you want with it. What would you be willing to pay (if anything) per month to use that kind of a service? This is just out of curiosity for now, I'm not actually planning anything.

If the content of such a service contains significant EDM content that I was interested in (meaning mostly trance, house, techno related and sub-genres... my interests don�t lie in D&B, jungle or breaks), I'd pay around 20$ a month or so to have such access.

My biggest quip is often buying CDs where I don�t like all the tracks on it, or don't feel the need to want to have those tracks - hence I don't end up spend the 20-25$ for the CD. Now, I oftentimes buy track singles through online services (Beatport, iTunes, and there's one other I use but forget its name). Though, even these services annoy me, since:

a) w/ the iTunes example, I am limited to only have it actually play on up to a max of 5 computers. That's just annoying for the most part. You gotta set up and authorize whatever comp you'll play it on to have it actually play in the first place - just an EXTRA pain in my ass I never had to concern myself with before.

b) Almost all of these tracks (in my experience) are fucking protected, which annoys the hell outta me to know end, esp. when I like customizing my ID3 tags to my preferences.

c) I have downloaded files before that will be in a WMA format, BUT it will ONLY play on WMP, NOT Winamp. This is fucking annoying as hell. I HATE WMP as an mp3 player. Winamp for life! If I'm going to listen to digital audio files on my comp, I want the availability to use WHATEVER program I wanna use to play it - not be forced into using a designated one.

The Phynn remix I recently downloaded from iTunes of Adagio for Strings came in a m4p format. Which CANNOT be fucking played in Winamp (nor WMP, not that I care) - I am forced to listen in iTunes (I have no issues w/ this program, I use it in addition to Winamp for playing sets and whatnot; I like it's search function far better than Winamp's, but I want the mobility to be able to use Winamp, as that's my most-used application.

When I download music, I want it in mp3 format (not .aif or .wmp or one of the many many millions of new audio forms out there). MP3's work for me, and I feel little reason to want to embrace a new digital media format at this time.

It's those hang-ups above that deter the extent to which I pay for track singles online. They become too much a hassle (from a personal perspective) to warrant me desiring to spend the money on them (yes, even though to be fair to labels and artists I should). Whereas as, if, say, I bought Armin's latest CD... I can listen to that in via the CD, and I can just rip it to my comp and listen to it in the program of my choosing and not be bothered with these protected file hassle/limitations.

A legalized service like Soulseek that contains the electronic content I want I would GLADLY pay into.

I currently pay 5-10$ a month to Slsk just to receive preferential download treatment and I don�t even think twice about it - it's the most worthwhile contribution I make EVERY MONTH!! Never regret it or even think twice about doing it - it's worth it simply put!


-Jem.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I wasn't suggesting that they stop making CDs or other physical media - I know that some people like the idea of owning the thing, as well as the artwork, liner notes, etc... CDs are "collector's items" in a sense and will always have *some* market.

I truly enjoy the idea of actually owing the physical media - it's why I still buy CDs of artists and producers I'm very fond of - ie. Armin (etc.), Blink182, Delta Goodrem, many other various trance mix CDs.

The artwork, the expression, the pride in owning it, these all factor in... same goes for me with movies. I have in the past at uni downloaded hordes of movies... but for the past many years I just will not download and watch on my computer any movie I have any real desire to see or own. I dont wanna degrade and taint that movie experience. That being said, if a friend has it ripped and really wants to watch it, I am not going to flat our refuse to watch it on principle... I am just referring to my own viewing experiences in my own home where I do control how I experience the flick!

I love the little bonuses and extras that CD bring to the table, and Jay has a very good point too. Often you discover gem tracks you'd not have heard before - how awesome is that. Just another potential positive of purchasing an entire CD.

-Jem.

I would gladly pay 5 bucks for a single CD, 10 for doubleCd compilation. That only applies to actual physical CDs though, for reasons stated before. I wouldn't pay a cent to be able to download music that I can download for free now anyway. Well, unless this music service you're talking about had a huge amount of releases (really old and brand new), and I could download them at my max download speed. Then I'd pay around a 10 per month. Possibly even a 20.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut you're the only person I've spoken to so far who actually knows

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Come on now. Is that really such a mystery?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut is there some kind of secrecy at work here?

No, no secret. I thought it was common knowledge (the fact that I -know-).

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker No, no secret. I thought it was common knowledge (the fact that I -know-).

RJ > Armin > God ?

Don't Yahoo and Real currently offer subscription services ? The only catch with those services is that you can only listen to that music while you are paying your subscription. As soon as you stop, you can no longer listen to whatever stuff you've downloaded already.

quote:

I also believe that sites like iTunes and beatport have missed the point entirely by charging a certain price per track.

Missed the point ?? What are you talking about? iPods sell very well, tunes from iTunes also sell very well. Consumers love it ! How is that missing the point ?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 99 cents per song is dead cheap.

Well, it is and it isn't, depending on what angle you approach it from. Recording technology is so advanced that almost anyone can produce a song/track, and the distribution cost is virtually nil; so I think what infuriates many customers is not the actual price tag but the profit margin. The wider the profit margin, the greater the perception of "greed".

A dealer never gives away his bottom line - but the recording industry had no choice. That's why I believe that a service-based business model would be more profitable to them in the long run.

If certain people are okay with the pay-per-track model then I think the actual price is irrelevant (in the sense of being outside the scope of this discussion - not irrelevant in the absolute sense). I'm more interested in how people feel about the subscription model.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Well, unless this music service you're talking about had a huge amount of releases (really old and brand new), and I could download them at my max download speed. Then I'd pay around a 10 per month. Possibly even a 20.

The idea is that the labels themselves set up seed servers with the new releases, so pretty much *everything* would be available on the servers. If you combined that AND regular P2P technology, I imagine it would be quite fast as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Durafei Don't Yahoo and Real currently offer subscription services ? The only catch with those services is that you can only listen to that music while you are paying your subscription. As soon as you stop, you can no longer listen to whatever stuff you've downloaded already.

That's not unrestricted content. Read the original post.

quote:

Missed the point ?? What are you talking about? iPods sell very well, tunes from iTunes also sell very well. Consumers love it ! How is that missing the point ?

I'm not particularly interested in debating this point. iPods sell well, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. iTunes and all the other pay-per-listen services have been a dismal failure economically, at least compared to the expectations for them. Again, read the original post - they simply don't address the real problem, which is that the actual distribution cost is zero and consumers therefore expect VOLUME.

If you're fine with the pay-per-play model then by all means, cast your vote - that's why I included the option. But rest assured that those services are not highly profitable for the industry.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.