AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts |  Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 21:43:40 
| I was reading an article over at CNet News today and it mentioned that several studios wanted to "graduate" from the more-or-less "standard" price of $0.99 per download. Instead they wanted to introduce a variable pricing scheme "like in the retail stores" where some songs are worth (read 'sold for') more and some are worth less (read that one literally).
For starters, the reason so many people flocked to the online stores was because some of the albums that were "worth more" weren't really worth what was being asked. Why pay $14.95 for a 12 song disk when I can pay $0.99 per track for the ones that I like? Tired of not selling entire albums? Then make an entire album worth buying.
Having said that, I don't want to see a continuation of the trend to focus on what "sells". I'd rather see the artists work more on making music for the sake of the 'song that resonates inside them' as opposed to the 'song that resonates inside the register'. Its a fine line to be sure, but I've noticed that the people with any kind of longevity tend to lean more toward the former of the two.
On a different angle, while I don't have any numbers to support this, I suspect that the level pricing gives lesser-known artists a chance to compete on a more level playing field. Its not just the price of something, but the value implied by that price.
"Oh, look. A startup. Can't be all that good, they're only worth $0.99 a track when all the big names are at least $1.25."
Maybe I'll rant a little more on this later...
Any thoughts?
Not the original article, but a related one... |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers |
|
Media
