Streaming Wars

[Botch]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/31/technology/streaming-music-wars/index.html

I looked to see if Frank Ocean's new album is available on CD, it doesn't appear on Amazon. I guess this just follows many other commodities, only being available from "select" retailers, but dammit I hate it when the lawyers and the money-grubbers have to keep twisting the system to get "more for me".

 

[Haywood]

I agree. The consumer is the one getting screwed here and I'm not sure the musicians are coming out much better.

 

[Towen7]

Music is a product. The artist wants to be paid for his product. So he sells it under the terms that he believes are best for him.

I want to buy new John Deer tractor but I'm pissed off that I can't get it at the 7-11 across the street or at the lawn mower shop down the road.

 

[Haywood]

Music is a product. The artist wants to be paid for his product. So he sells it under the terms that he believes are best for him.

I want to buy new John Deer tractor but I'm pissed off that I can't get it at the 7-11 across the street or at the lawn mower shop down the road.

No. I think the complaint is more like wanting to watch television and having to get service from three different cable companies because ESPN has an exclusive with Comcast, Disney-owned channels are only available on U-Verse and HBO is only available on Time Warner.

 

[Flint]

I am flabbergasted that people think we have a right to everything we want through whatever means we choose to use. Since the dawn of paid entertainment access has been limited to whatever the performer and producer allowed. You cannot see the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra in their home concert hall if you don't go to Vienna. You cannot watch Stranger Things unless you subscribe to Netflix. For a decade you couldn't get a Beatles recording on iTunes. This is normal. We are not owed anything and we are NOT getting screwed for not having easy access to entertainment.

 

[Haywood]

Allow me to rephrase. This is disadvantageous to the consumer, being both inconvenient and more costly. I am not arguing that the consumer has rights that are being violated. I am arguing that these exclusivity deals are not in the consumer's best interest. Personally, I just use Google Play Music and buy anything I want that isn't included. Problem solved.

 

[Towen7]

No. I think the complaint is more like wanting to watch television and having to get service from three different cable companies because ESPN has an exclusive with Comcast, Disney-owned channels are only available on U-Verse and HBO is only available on Time Warner.

Exactly.

You want all similar products available from a single distributor and feel screwed if that's not what you get.

 

[Botch]

If I'm willing to spend $12 or so on someone's CD, but they won't offer the CD but I can join Spotify or iTunes or whatever to do so, well, I'll just move along. That disappoints me, and hurts the artist financially.
But if that's what the artist wants to do, fine. I certainly don't have a right to their music in my chosen format.

 

[Haywood]

Exactly.

You want all similar products available from a single distributor and feel screwed if that's not what you get.

So what your are saying is that it is not inappropriate to occasionally feel frustrated because the number of services one has to subscribe to in order to get the same level of content is exploding? My comment expressed frustration. That's not okay?

I understand why this particular situation is happening. It is a crowded playing field of competitors (which is a good thing) competing for consumer dollars (also a good thing) and they are trying to do so through differentiation. This is a sign of a healthy market (unlike healthcare). I don't have a problem with it, but I do not have to enjoy the fact that I may need to spend 3X the money and deal with a much more fragmented system in order to listen to music. It is okay to be frustrated.

 

[Flint]

The music industry is just that, an industry. Everyone in it is there to make money, some do it as a business career, others as artists who want to get paid to make their art. Calling anyone "money-grubbing" isn't fair because you have to do some amount of that just to survive, pay the bills, and support the work. And without the rest of the industry to market, promote, distribute and sell the art you'd never get it at all.

Since the massive restructuring of the music business after the birth of Napster, artists make more money from licensing as songwriters than selling to individuals. With radio, clubs, advertisers, TV/Film, and even sources like YouTube and other video streaming services paying for the right to use your music, a popular artist will earn significantly more from sources other than individual unit sales. Many artists make most of the money from performing and selling merchandise at shows. The idea that a gold record is all that matters is gone.

So, when a service like Google Music, iTunes, Amazon, or whomever offers an artist a few million dollars to be an exclusive to promote their store, why wouldn't an artist do that? They will still earn more from live performance and reproduction of the music rather than unit sales, so take the money and run so you can do a better show, have a larger tour, and potentially make a better product next time.

 

[Towen7]

So what your are saying is that it is not inappropriate to occasionally feel frustrated because the number of services one has to subscribe to in order to get the same level of content is exploding? My comment expressed frustration. That's not okay?

I understand why this particular situation is happening. It is a crowded playing field of competitors (which is a good thing) competing for consumer dollars (also a good thing) and they are trying to do so through differentiation. This is a sign of a healthy market (unlike healthcare). I don't have a problem with it, but I do not have to enjoy the fact that I may need to spend 3X the money and deal with a much more fragmented system in order to listen to music. It is okay to be frustrated.

I get it. I just find it interesting that we don't get as frustrated about other products. We don't bitch about Burger King selling only Pepsi products when we want a Coke. We don't call Kohl's a bunch or money grubbing bastards because they don't sell Armani suits. We don't get angry about URC or RTI remote controls being sold by boutique dealers and not at Best Buy.

 

[Akula]

I get it. I just find it interesting that we don't get as frustrated about other products. We don't bitch about Burger King selling only Pepsi products when we want a Coke. We don't call Kohl's a bunch or money grubbing bastards because they don't sell Armani suits. We don't get angry about URC or RTI remote controls being sold by boutique dealers and not at Best Buy.

That's not really the same, though. Streaming services are ongoing subscriptions... if you want them, you have to pay a regular fee no matter how much you use them. If I'm sucking down a Pepsi at a Pizza Hut, I'm not still paying Coke for a drink for that meal. And that's how it feels with these services. Sure, with some things we could buy/rent the media, but the prices for those tend to be comparatively high... renting a single movie from Amazon or iTunes ends up costing a significant fraction of the monthly subscription fee, so it feels like a really poor deal.

Media rights were easier to keep track of when they were linked to a physical media (like renting VHS tapes). In this brave new digital world it's become a real mishmash. Honestly, I've finally done what we will end up having to do- realizing there's just some stuff I won't be watching because I am not willing to pay what it would cost to see it (either through rental, ownership, or subscription). No different from me coming to terms with not owning a Porsche 911 Turbo... I can't cover the cost for the thing. It just ultimately isn't worth it for me to do what it would take to have one. Well, I got along fine before I ever heard about some of these shows and movies, I'll survive without seeing them. We have to get over this idea what just because it exists doesn't mean we will get to see it without a corresponding financial outlay.