Research: music piracy doesn't affect legal digital music revenues

vbimport

#1

Research: music piracy doesn’t affect legal digital music revenues.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2013/03/Uh3q6S.jpg[/newsimage]


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/research-music-piracy-doesnt-affect-legal-digital-music-revenues-66522/](http://www.myce.com/news/research-music-piracy-doesnt-affect-legal-digital-music-revenues-66522/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually increases revenues. If a person becomes a fan from listening to a pirated album then they are much more likely to buy concert tickets and other items relating to that artist/group. Also, pirating could lead to an increase in popularity which leads to better endorsement deals and corporate sponsorship of tours etc. Heck, if an artist I was promoting was heavily pirated, I would use that as a marketing tool in other areas of revenue generation. If an artist had 2 million album sales and 2 million illegal downloads then they have a potential 4 million fans.


#3

^UTR,
In a world full of lawsuits against small children, what you say makes all too much sense.


#4

I really don’t understand the wisdom of the RIAA strategy that revolves around suing children, grandmothers and single parents. They are chasing after nickels while letting $100 bills lay on the ground. Why the record companies don’t pool their content and offer unfettered access to it for $5 per month is a mystery to me. Considering all the people that have access to the Internet, the potential revenue stream could be massive. The key to success, IMO, is they make access inexpensive and easy. If they get just 100 million subscribers world wide it generates a revenue stream of HALF A BILLION DOLLARS a month! If done right they could probably get several hundred million subscribers.


#5

[QUOTE=UTR;2681572]I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually increases revenues. If a person becomes a fan from listening to a pirated album then they are much more likely to buy concert tickets and other items relating to that artist/group. Also, pirating could lead to an increase in popularity which leads to better endorsement deals and corporate sponsorship of tours etc. Heck, if an artist I was promoting was heavily pirated, I would use that as a marketing tool in other areas of revenue generation. If an artist had 2 million album sales and 2 million illegal downloads then they have a potential 4 million fans.[/QUOTE]

There have been several studies that have shown that people who pirate music buy more legal music than those that don’t:
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/file-sharers-buy-more-music-non-file-sharers-says-study-1C6496069

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music


#6

[QUOTE=UTR;2681689]I really don’t understand the wisdom of the RIAA strategy that revolves around suing children, grandmothers and single parents. They are chasing after nickels while letting $100 bills lay on the ground. Why the record companies don’t pool their content and offer unfettered access to it for $5 per month is a mystery to me. Considering all the people that have access to the Internet, the potential revenue stream could be massive. The key to success, IMO, is they make access inexpensive and easy. If they get just 100 million subscribers world wide it generates a revenue stream of HALF A BILLION DOLLARS a month! If done right they could probably get several hundred million subscribers.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that in the eyes of the music industry is that they already had a profitable scheme. They think that if they can just get rid of the pirates then everything will be allright. They ignore the way in which most people consume music. Also they ignore the biggest problem, that its the very crap music they are pushing that is the problem.

Starting a streaming business would involve them chucking their proven working model and investing in a new system that hasn’t proven itself as of it. Also, there is the question, at least in their eyes, that people will pirate the streamed music and eventually stop subscribing once they have their fill.


#7

One would think that with the success of iTunes and other online music sites they would get a clue. They don’t even have to be innovative at this point. Just copy iTunes and slightly tweak their business model.

The new music is crap. Even the young people in my family admit it and they mostly listen to what they consider oldies from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. There are a few newer artists/groups like Train, Grace Potter, Jason Mraz, Joss Stone etc. that are extremely talented, IMO, but they don’t seem to be widely appreciated by the young people of today. Instead they idolize Gaga, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus etc. who are more manufactured than anything else. It seems like today the artists that have real talent are the ones the record companies ignore when in the past it was those type of artists they flocked toward.