Business Advice

is your arsenal for developing and maintaining sound financial plans and business strategy.

Inside: Budgeting | Compensation | Valuation

Free Trial: Intuit QuickBooks

Simple Start Free Edition 2009 for Windows

Departments

Fresh Inc.

Inc.com Featured Blogs

May 27, 2004

What Would You Do If...

Posted by Bobbie Gossage at 9:43 AM

People aren't buying as many CDs and the more you do to shut down file-sharing, the more your customers resent and defy you. How would you fix it if you were in charge? What would you do if you were the RIAA?

14 Comments

Posted by: Matt Quinn at May 27, 2004 1:10 PM

I sure as hell wouldn't charge $20 per CD when I promised to only charge $12. I'm looking in your direction, Universal.

Posted by: santiago at May 27, 2004 11:51 PM

I would:
a) Pay (unofficially) a group of hackers to distribute viruses over sharing networks, viruses that besides doing harm let the victim know where it comes from.
b) Make my music available not only by CD's but downloadable and at a price that really extract all the distribution costs I would be saving.

Posted by: Damion at May 27, 2004 11:55 PM

1. Slow the law suits down to a crawl. Don't open new ones

2. Do very public research groups to get feedback from users on such topics "Why do you use P2P for music?", "How do you consume music? i.e. MP3 Player ala iPod's, Radio, internet Radio, etc".

3. Take information from research groups, analyze trends and try creating services that target the big trends. Use that as a gateway to direct users to new and better plans.

4. Stop using the "Hit" formula. Sampling is Ok but people eventually get tired of hearing their favorite song 20 times, with different lyrics (and ossible even horrid singing).

Even if the above is only done for show, you still start winning back some users. Do it well and you will have less angry users who use file-sharing just out of spite.

Posted by: at May 28, 2004 12:00 AM

I would decide my music is just a hobby, and then tell the record company to get off my back, 'cause the ride is over. That may not fix it for them, but it sure straightens out my life. :)

Posted by: wote at May 28, 2004 8:27 AM

I wouldn't do anything, rather I would foster the P2P opportunity, using it as the great marketing tool that it is. People have been copying music since the advent of magnetic tape, I really don't see what the hoopla is all about. So go ahead, stop the P2P dead in its tracks, I'll copy my friends CD's and tapes, maybe I'll even record songs from the radio, (what a concept). As you can readily see, there's no stopping what can't be stopped.

Posted by: Brian Clancy at May 28, 2004 11:49 AM

Well for one thing, I'd recommend artists to stop sticking your 'Bling' in my face when your on 'Cribs' you not exactly winning me over with your 'Boy who cried wolf' routine...

Posted by: David Kim at May 28, 2004 1:58 PM

Here's my problem. $1.00 is too much to pay for downloading a song. Honestly I'd rather do without or only buy CDs that I REALLY like which will amount to maybe 1 CD a year. The price needs to be lower to attract the listeners to abandon illegal song swapping and give the legal way a try.

P2P is a BIG problem. Sure, copying music has been around for decades (cassette tapes), but with P2P, you're multiplying that by millions because it's easy to do and accessible with no physical barriers.

As with everything in life, the solution is compromise. The capalistic record companies have to realize that downloading a song is a different concept than buying a CD and must adjust their business and pricing models accordingly.

The freeloaders have to realize that record companies have a right to make money because they've invested their money on the artists to produce a profit.

Posted by: maby652 at May 31, 2004 4:11 PM

Well, hard enough as it is to imagine, the perceptions that lead to the idea that recorded media as the "end product that makes cash" should be dropped. The technological wave is moving in many directions, and with the collaborative attitudes of the technologist in the field and the communal work they build, it is hard to advocate price skyrockets as the only source of revenue (Can I really say "I hire a team of people to make sure only a certain group of people can access my materials after paying me." and not wonder of the money draining game I'm entering. I think those arguments makes better coffee shop talk than a business model.)

And the constant flood of hobbyist eager to play "cat and mouse of copy protection" doesn't really guarantee a serious production house to invest in it. Perhaps the monopoly of Micro$oft in the DRM arena will help, but then I doubt they have improved their image as end-consumer friendly enough to encourage cash. (I always thought the ticket-master penance fees were harsh, but I tremble in the shadow of Mr. Gates).

Bottom line, perhaps it's better to make cash off of an artist in a different way. Say, perhaps, a live performance? Getting a recording may be nice, and we are used to paying for it, but isn't that just some marketing idea in our minds? I don't buy recordings of someone else's vacation to Hawaii, why would I really care about someone else's production of my favorite artist? Isn't the real cash, the real draw, the true attraction in actually seeing the artist live? Maybe that's easier to copyright than a plastic disc, and maybe the artist would like it too.

I often hear that the artists enjoy the live performances more, and would always appreciate a wider audience to hear them. Why block the audience breadth through high prices for recorded media, which probably comes out of the same personal budget as concert tickets?

Or I could just be completely wrong.

Posted by: Chris Moore at June 1, 2004 7:26 PM

The truth is, those most hurt by file swapping is the songwriters, the production team, artist development team and assortment of other members who only get paid from the sale of a CD. The promotion of a single artist in only one city can run 10's of thousands of dollars. Money from live events doesn't pay these people. The industry must make enough money from product sales to cover the costs involved in promoting an artist. Many consumers do not realize the amount of money spent so that they can have the opportunity to hear a new artist. A record that goes "gold" hasn't even made any money yet for the record company or the artist. Product delivery is not the problem, making enough money for the average band to survive is.

Posted by: Daniel Shaw at June 2, 2004 12:37 PM

Fire all the lawyers and embrace the technology. If the record companies had spent as much time devising ways to use the technology, as they did trying to stop it, they would be much further ahead today.

Posted by: paul at September 16, 2004 12:55 PM

Isn't the real cash, the real draw, the true attraction in actually seeing the artist live? Maybe that's easier to copyright than a plastic disc, and maybe the artist would like it too

Posted by: vera at October 18, 2004 7:01 AM