Unlimited music downloads
According to John Timmer, the best way for the record labels to fight piracy is to offer unlimited-download subscriptions:
The survey shows that users are ready to pay a monthly fee for the equivalent of what they can get via piracy: unlimited downloads of music that they permanently own. A full 85 percent of those surveyed said they’re willing to pay for this, and over half said they would stop pirating.
It used to be that physical distribution limited how much music you could practically have. Now, people carry thousands of tracks with them, running their own private radio stations. The article talks about unlimited downloads, but surely this isn’t necessary. A high limit, say 100 downloads a month, would satisfy the majority of music fans — even the pirates. Would you pay, for example, $25/month for up to 100 DRM-free iTunes or Amazon downloads?
Aug 11 2009
11:13 pm
I doubt there are even 100 songs I would legitimately want to have a month after I sorted out the first wave of things I wanted – say a year tops. Heck, I can’t think of more than say, 5 albums a year I’d be interested in buying, as far as new releases go. I could seriously get behind this. With piracy, I tend to go bananas – full albums at every chance because that’s how Torrents roll, and discographies when the artist is superlative.
Aug 12 2009
12:29 am
Yeah, I think the “unlimited” thing is overboard, but with a consequence-free and high-quality way to own new tracks every month, more people would keep an interest in new music. It would also encourage people to research the existing catalog. If you know you can get 100 songs this month, maybe you dig a bit deeper into Blues music this month, find a new favourite artist, and spread the word.
Aug 12 2009
2:37 am
If I actually wanted anywhere near 100 songs a month, then $0.25 a song seems reasonable. Just as long as they don’t take away the a la carte option or raise the price.
Aug 19 2009
10:03 am
I think this would work – however it would have to be some nominal amount that people could forget about and not want to cancel just because they stopped downloading. Imagine 9.95 a month for unlimited music downloads. Firstly, you’d get a ton of subscribers because it’s on the cheap, and second, you arent going to have subscribers dropping off just because they didn’t download anything that month. To improve profitability, bill 1 month at a time, but do 3 month minimums at any time. I think you could reasonably keep people hooked forever, and have a hand in the pocket of every music listener..
I should start charging for my ideas…
Aug 19 2009
10:03 am
I should add.. by “unlimited” I totally meant to say like.. 100. This fake unlimited crap has taken over my psyche.
Aug 19 2009
1:34 pm
Whether $10/mo would be reasonable depends what the average subscriber would otherwise be paying for music. For the labels to be interested, it would have to provide them with at least above-average revenue per user, since it’s kind of the nuclear option. They’d be giving users as much music as they want, for keeps. I know I pay well more than $10/mo for music, but I’m unusual.
Aug 27 2009
1:54 pm
No. At $1/song, I already consider iTunes to be “unlimited downloads.” Well, as long as I stick to songs instead of albums.