Music At Your Own Price

When wanting to listen to a song today, one no longer has to buy or download a physical copy. In today’s world, streaming has become one of the top ways of retrieving music content. This major change has led to a profound shift for the music industry and its artists. It has developed a continuous conflict that affects the way music is distributed and how artists make a living. Listeners stream music electronically through their computers, phones, cars, and more. Most of these streaming platforms allow for the content to be free, which directs to the question of whether music should be free or not. Streaming is a topic that has presented itself to be a valid issue on whether it ultimately hurts or helps artists and their careers. Streaming has both pros and cons, but in order to aim to figure a possible solution there needs to an examination of the history of the issue, a proper analysis of both sides, and evaluating its importance.

Pricing is one of the important elements in within the marketing industry, it is also among one of the key elements of the marketing mix. This is a report briefing about a case study about Radiohead, an English rock band from Abingdon in Oxfordshire. The aim of this briefing report is to discuss, using the case study as a source, about pricing strategy in the music industry, which includes defining and talking about the online value chain of Radiohead, to compare online value chain and the traditional value chain, to critically analyze the online value chain’s impact on Radiohead pricing strategy and its implications for customers. Furthermore, the report will talk about ethical access to free online content and also will give a recommendation of how Radiohead’s next album pricing strategy would be.

3-4). While these statistics provide a look into the numerical growth of the streaming industry, it is also important to discuss the power that these streaming services have generated—over both the music industry and over established/aspiring artists. Subscriptions are on the rise, having increased significantly over the past ten years, but as is the amount of users streaming music on a free-trial or ad-supported basis—ultimately undercutting the music industry and artists alike. Blewett and Gollogly (2017) elaborate on this point, stating that, by the end of 2016, paid music streaming subscriptions drove a revenue growth of 60.4%—this growth more than offsetting a “20.5% decline in downloads” and a “7.6% decline in physical revenue” (Blewett & Gollogly, 2017, para. 4). Moreover, Borja and Dieringer (2016) explore the concept of streaming even further in their academic article, positing that the decline in paid digital downloads may be a direct result of streaming—as, music streaming can be perceived as a “complement” for music piracy, in which listeners can freely sample music to pirate later on (Borja & Dieringer, 2016, p. 1). The authors also suggest that streaming can provide a “venue for discovering and listening to new releases”; and after completing their 1052 surveys, conclude that streaming increased the likelihood of piracy by

2. In 2009 Apple transition to using a strategy call the three-tier-system (variable pricing). In order to increase revenue by charging more for newer release songs, and lesser for older songs, and even lesser for not so popular songs

When creativity is restrained or promoted by the music industry, choices of bands and artists can be questioned when commercialism choices effect audiences opinions towards a band, and other artists opinions of one another. My Chemical Romance wrote the song ‘Vampire Money’ specifically to target the band Muse when their song ‘Supermassive Black Hole’ was used in the commercially successful franchise Twilight. Believing that Muse were ‘sell outs’, this attack from one band to another created a ripple through the music industry that wasn’t often seen in the Rock music industry. Another example, came from Trent Reznor the front man of Nine Inch Nails, when Reznor became the ambassador for Beats Music, despite years of voicing his intense hatred

In 2000 the digital music was the next big thing in how consumers listen to music. The technological shift in music changed how the relationship is between the artists, recording companies, promoters and music stores on how they operate today. In the late 90’s and early 2000’s Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks allowed free exchange of music files with companies like Napster and Kazaa was a big step that allowed consumers to store large libraries of music. With the cost of hard drive space going down; it allowed for pocket-sized computers to store more information in a smaller space that open the door for apple to step in with the unveiling of the iPod and iTunes. These systems made it possible for storage and playback that gave consumers the

Since the iTunes music store was introduced on April 28, 2003, gross music sales have plummeted in the United States - from $11.8 billion in 2003 to $7.1 billion in 2012, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (Covert). Counterintuitively, during that time consumers were buying more music than ever. How is that possible? It 's because iTunes had made digital singles popular and was selling them cheap. This would change the music industry forever. In 2000, Americans bought 943 million CD albums (Covert), and digital sales didn’t even make a dent in comparison. But by 2007, those inexpensive singles overtook CDs by a wide margin, generating 819 million sales compared to just 500 million for the CD.

“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.

The music industry is an oligopoly. Since the late 1800’s people like Thomas Edison have been buying up patents in communication technology, forming monopolies, leading to a non-competitive entertainment industry. With only a handful of corporations controlling all aspects of acquisition, distribution and marketing of music, harsh business principles create an exploitative industry that takes the best of what artists have to offer and leaves many of them unable to support themselves. Beginning in the 1950’s with payola and white cover music and ultimately evolving into iTunes and Spotify, the music industry has grown into a billion dollar industry with far-reaching influence and control. Contracts rarely serve the artists’ best interest and many are left out to dry when their usefulness has expired.

Over the past decade, the use of CDs has been replaced with online streaming and retailing. This has eliminated much of the record companies revenues as they were used to making most of their profit off of distribution and promotion of physical copies of artists albums (Niemen). This has caused for a major shift and remodeling of major players in the music industries business models. Companies such Sony, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group have started to completely rethink the way they conduct business (Forbes). In the past record labels were not only responsible for production, distribution and promotion of an artist and his/her music, but they also acted as a bank (Forbes), funding the artists tours and recording sessions. Recently, these music giants have been moving towards becoming more of a modular network organization. What this means is that they are less occupied with the nitty gritty, and more focused on what they do best which is distribution and promotion. This also allows for more freedom of creativity for the artist as well as fairer split of profits (Forbes). This adaption of new business models clearly shows the versatility of the music industry in adapting to new times and technologies.

When speaking economically, the digital music sector of the international music industry is undoubtably the most important sector in the industry. Within the last decade, music has seen cardinal changes in the way both major and independent labels distribute their products. An industry that once relied on Payola 's and mass distribution of physical records and CD 's now relies heavily on the power of the internet. The first instance of mass distribution of music through the internet was by the service Ritmoteca.com in 1998 [1]. Ritmoteca had a library of over 300,000 songs, offering individual songs for 99 cents each and albums for $9.99. After signing distribution deals with many major music labels such as Warner

Today’s highly competitive business world forces companies to create different tactics and relatively rely on multiple pricing strategies to conduct business.

In the midst of the United States’ “dot com bubble” (years 1997-2000), there was a surge in technology that brought about file sharing and digital downloads. Threatening the survival of the music industry and introducing a unique set of challenges for the industry to overcome. To remain relevant in the new global market of digital music online, the music industry would have to evolve and change with the introduction of each new facet technology had to offer. The introduction of digitally compressed music files, so easily attainable for a small fee or downloaded legally (pirated) for free, made the music industry reevaluate how to make a profit and protect copyrights. Social media created a visible opportunity for both consumers and artists to maintain digital relationships while providing a platform for consumers to follow and discover new musicians and bands, naturally, making the internet a promotional medium for artists. As the corner record shops closed to make way for virtual storefronts and instant downloads; the internet, digital downloading, and social media made an enormous impact on the music industry that has changed the way consumers purchase, source, listen to, and produce music today.

The evolution of the music industry follows the familiar pattern of digitization. Innovation began with the introduction of the vinyl record, transitioned from the cassette tape to the compact disc and landed us in an era of digital downloads. The emergence of music streaming services like Spotify has progressed the industry even further, giving consumers the ability to access music on demand using download-free online platforms. Spotify faces criticism from artists as a result of the overlap of creativity and commerce. They argue that business activities corrupt creativity, transforming it into a tool for profitability rather than an outlet for expression. Artists insist that Spotify deters album sales, favors established artists and fails to support them financially. However, Spotify was created for consumers. It delivers an accessible alternative to purchasing and downloading music. The interplay between creativity and commerce is changing the nature of the music industry. Spotify has adapted to this change, providing a platform that supports both artists and consumers. Through analysis of the market, artist’s revenue, record labels and consumers, I will argue that artists should accept the evolution of the industry and support Spotify.

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.