There was a curious note on the front page of the "L.A. Times" Business section at the end of last week.\u00c2\u00a0 They were dropping stock tables from the paper.<\/p>\n
It never made sense to me as a kid.\u00c2\u00a0 All those pages wasted with information that held no interest for me.<\/p>\n
And then, as I grew older and knew more about stocks, it occurred to me that the information was OLD!<\/p>\n
But now it appears it’s not only old, nobody even looks at these pages anymore, because those owning shares are checking the prices on the Web, the listings in the newspaper are IRRELEVANT!<\/p>\n
Oh, let’s look at the other side of the coin.\u00c2\u00a0 Not EVERYBODY has an Internet connection.\u00c2\u00a0 This is the way it’s been done FOREVER!\u00c2\u00a0 Why CHANGE?<\/p>\n
Well, first of all, to save money.\u00c2\u00a0 Yes, you can use fewer pages and those that remain you can fill with information more interesting to more readers and\/or ads.<\/p>\n
Does all this sound familiar?\u00c2\u00a0 Does all this remind you of the record business?<\/p>\n
Already this year we’ve experienced two bombshells.\u00c2\u00a0 The dropping of film cameras by Nikon and now this elimination of stock tables from newspapers (not only the L.A. "Times", but the "New York Times" and "Chicago Tribune").\u00c2\u00a0 It seems that the digital\/Internet revolution that was supposed to come in 2000, yet never quite arrived and was laughed at by old wave businessmen, has finally come to roost.\u00c2\u00a0 And it’s wreaking havoc.<\/p>\n
Oh, in the old days it was about being too early.\u00c2\u00a0 But now with 68% broadband penetration, the time is nigh.\u00c2\u00a0 Music is going to move to the Web almost overnight.\u00c2\u00a0 You’re going to see a DRAMATIC difference within twelve months.\u00c2\u00a0 One day CD sales are just gonna tank, and the record industry is just not ready for it.\u00c2\u00a0 (Hell, it could take up to two years, don’t hassle me on the exact time frame, but be SURE, it’s gonna be sooner rather than later, not five years, but IMMINENTLY!)<\/p>\n
Look at it from the consumer’s side.\u00c2\u00a0 He’s now inured to music on his computer.\u00c2\u00a0 It’s all over the Web.\u00c2\u00a0 More and more people will have iTunes on their machines.\u00c2\u00a0 More and more people will purchase iPods to carry said music with them everywhere.\u00c2\u00a0 Suddenly, the VAST MAJORITY of the public will see no need for the CD.<\/p>\n
Oh, I know you love the artwork.\u00c2\u00a0 And that the versions on the CD SOUND better.\u00c2\u00a0 But film has advantages over digital imagery, and it’s disappearing.\u00c2\u00a0 Who says that music must be sold with packaging?\u00c2\u00a0 Where is it written that there must be a cover photo?\u00c2\u00a0 Bands centuries back didn’t have liner notes.\u00c2\u00a0 Not that people won’t want information, hell, they’re getting a PLETHORA of it on bands’ Websites.\u00c2\u00a0 You COULD print it out if you wanted to, but why?<\/p>\n
That doesn’t mean you can’t have high quality files on your computer.\u00c2\u00a0 Hell, iTunes rips in lossless format if you so desire.\u00c2\u00a0 But it appears that most people are satisfied with 128 AACs.\u00c2\u00a0 At least for ripping.\u00c2\u00a0 As for purchase…<\/p>\n
Well, it’s less about quality than the price.\u00c2\u00a0 The price just isn’t low enough.\u00c2\u00a0 However you want to deliver the tracks, via individual purchase, subscription or P2P, people feel that the price is too high.\u00c2\u00a0 You’ve got to be able to get more for less.\u00c2\u00a0 Or else people will get tunes elsewhere.\u00c2\u00a0 Maybe even via the black market on Russian sites, where they’re about a dime a cut.<\/p>\n
It’s no use arguing.\u00c2\u00a0 This isn’t about philosophy.\u00c2\u00a0 This isn’t about purveyors establishing a price.\u00c2\u00a0 This is about what the market will bear.\u00c2\u00a0 The key is to make music so cheap and so easy to acquire it doesn’t PAY to steal.\u00c2\u00a0 Or, in the alternative, to monetize the stealing, at a LOW PRICE!<\/p>\n
The Web has changed the playing field.\u00c2\u00a0 Even Rupert Murdoch admits it.<\/p>\n
\nMurdoch tunes in to iPod generation<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Why\u00c2\u00a0 the record companies believe they’re immune is beyond me.<\/p>\n
They can whack off manufacturing costs immediately.\u00c2\u00a0 And most distribution expenses too.\u00c2\u00a0 They can SAVE\u00c2\u00a0 money.\u00c2\u00a0 There are ADVANTAGES to the new model.\u00c2\u00a0 Look how a hit single can sell on iTunes.\u00c2\u00a0 Just imagine, if price of acquisition were lower maybe TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE WOULD PAY FOR AND OWN THE TRACK!<\/p>\n
Granted, not for a buck.<\/p>\n
But, if price is cheap enough, maybe twenty million people will own THOUSANDS of tracks.<\/p>\n
The camera and newspaper companies woke up to reality.\u00c2\u00a0 And gave up holding on to the past and entered the future.\u00c2\u00a0 Every year CD sales go down.\u00c2\u00a0 Do the labels think they can retard this trend?\u00c2\u00a0 Do they think the miniscule sale of copy protected tracks for a buck will replace lost revenue?\u00c2\u00a0 A new business model is needed.\u00c2\u00a0 The labels can either jump ahead of the consumer and corral him into something in the future or keep running behind him, railing that he’s not buying the music in the format they want to sell it to him for at the price they desire.<\/p>\n
\nLA Times Trims Stock Tables, Expands Business Coverage<\/a><\/p>\n