stelian wrote:
> I think the whole issue of file sharing increasing the CD sales is a little like a
> MLM advertisement: it ignores the saturation of the market.
> The people have a relative constant desire to listen to music. Today, this desire is
> satisfied by commercial suppliers. The percent of people who use p2p to satisfy a
> significant part of this desire, is totally negligible.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
the United States, projected to 10/6/2003 at 10:24:34 AM EDT is
292,264,516
According to the EFF, over 57,000,000 Americans engage in filesharing
over p2p networks.
The saturation point in marketting is estimated to be ~2%.
Hmmmm...
> In this, and only in this
> situation, sharing can lead to a small increase in sales ( or a big increase for a
> minority of artists without media coverage - Janis Ian springs to mind).
I would expect the market to be doing a bit worse based on these
predictions. After all, filesharing passed the saturation point a long
time ago.
> It is
> normal that a freer environment stimulate the desire to acquire music, including from
> commercial channels. As file sharing intensifies, it will tend to replace the
> commercial channels, and not augment them, because, as I said, the potential of the
> market is limited, and there is a point of saturation, at which the subjects will not
> buy *or* download music.
I think you're confusing product saturation with market saturation. In
other words, filesharing would help a song or an album, or a band until
THEY reach the saturation point (2% of the total market size). Once a
band/song/album hits that point, filesharing may no longer give their
music/merchandise/ticket sales a big boost.
All this is saying is that filesharing is good for smaller bands, and
not as great for big bands. This is not news.
> The only thing that could sustain the sales in such a situation would be that fans
> will continue to buy CDs just to compensate their favorite artists, even if they
> don't listen them - as some of the pro-p2p folks say. I refrain from speculating if
> this is a likely scenario, because I lack data, but I must say it would be a
> difficult position for the music industry - being at the mercy of the best fans.
Those bands that ever reach the saturation point are already enjoying a
fanbase of almost 6 MILLION fans (not to mention fans outside the US).
That's a LOT of customers to market to. I don't think they're at
anybody's mercy. They have ample opportunity to make a decent living.
> As a
> side fact, I don't think the technical quality of the CDs will sustain the sales for
> much longer - more and more high quality tracks (256, 320 kpbs) make their way into
> p2p networks, and this should satisfy even the most demanding listeners.
Those may not, but the .flacs will, for sure. =)
IMO, that's a good thing.
> Of curse, I think we are very, very far from the said saturation point, and that the
> sale drop proclaimed by the RIAA is pure smoke.
The "saturation point" for P2P has come and gone. The saturation point
for most bands is a GOAL, not a nightmare.
> But broad band internet is growing
> fast, and with it p2p. So I can understand the fear the music industry has of
> technology - the only way for them is down, from having all control to having less
> control. Copyright infringement and p2p are unstoppable, and the industry must either
> adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs. There are many other ways to make money from
> music and support the artists, but the industry only highlights direct sales.
> After all, the software community confronted unauthorized copying for years and they
> are doing pretty well. And just like in the software industry, freedom can lead to
> very nice things, such as an equivalent to open source in the music world.
Now you're making more sense.
- Eric
--
~
<http://www.dilvie.com/>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|