http://www.cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=1264

I think the point is that the digital versions of the music are always going to be available…regarding the vinyl being ripped to digital…and that the conepts behind the creative packaging and presentation are the future for being able to sell music as a product.

It is about adding that extra value to the “music as product” concept. I can’t seem to say this enough: Recorded music in digital form has little to no value unless it is tied into some other kind of incentive…Because we all know that if you want just an mp3, you can find it for free almost every time.

The mp3 or digital audio file is a promotional tool best used for exposure and any income from the digital file by itself is a lucky break for the artist. Sure iTunes and Amazon are still selling them…and yes, even I am still buying…but for how much longer? 5 years? 10 years?

I myself would rather spend the money on the piece of mind I get from knowing I am getting exactly what I want (when I buy from iTunes) rather than take the chance on littering my computers with fake songs, viruses, etc. etc.

For that reason alone I am sure the digital audio sales environment will continue for quite some time…But more people are going to continue to torrent their tunes from who knows where for free. That is why artists need to create new ways to add value to their music through creative packaging and incentives to purchase.

With that being said, I really like radiohead’s model of letting fans pick what they want to pay for it. This way, the fan is empowered with deciding how much he wants to pay. While we are talking about radiohead, they did make a pretty penny off it.

Another issue, though, is why must all digital recorded music be the same price? Perhaps a different price could be charged for the purchase of a track that can be infinitely copied/shared (a la Creative Commons)? Or perhaps if someone wanted to purchase a stem/layer of a song, why not have a different price for that (much like radiohead sold stems for its remixable release contest). The notion of one size fits all pricing is seemingly ridic in this digital age!

It’s easy to underestimate the desire of people who want something NOW, and to second guess this marketing approach of controlling scarcity. But many profit from it.

Think of this another way… this morning on the news an individual installed a “personal” oil well in their back yard in Indiana that pumps out three barrels a day. How long will it be before oil wells are affordable technology like home recording studios? And what will happen to oil prices then when everyone can manufacture it?

I think you’re getting closer to defining the problem here. Defining that production and distribution were not the barriers to entry but the actual linchpins to scarcity is perhaps a critical insight into the soul of music economics.

Is the cult of personality actually the cult of scarcity? Good post! -Charlie

I had just written a little something about this last night. Of course my commentary is not nearly as detailed or precise…But I offer it regardless.

I also kind of agree with Terra. I am a little weary of blanket subscribtion services. It kind of reminds me of my old “DJ Pool” and all the crap records that I never used.

I totally disagree. Anything that can be reproduced for no cost, by anyone is essentially free – it may cost £1000s to make one, but it costs nothing to make two. So, music is free.

As far as a subscription service goes, the fans simply won’t take it. Charged regardless of usage for a service that (gaurenteed) won’t have all the songs you want. I’d pay but I know there’s no chance in hell that any company could provide me the songs of a band that are supporting bandXXX at the bar academy. Unless the service is perfect the discerning consumer will not pay.