Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Bye, bye, Miss American Pie (chart)

By Trajce Cvetkovski - posted Tuesday, 4 April 2006


New release CD singles are all but dead, and CD albums are dying. Yet the sale of chartable albums (the "Top 40" especially) forms the bulk of revenue in the pop music industry. The exclusive club of a few multinational major recording companies (majors) are very worried. They control most (80 per cent) of the revenue in this highly concentrated, well-organised mode of pop cultural production. But since 1998, the majors have posted unprecedented losses in profits from chart sales generally.

Why the sudden disruption to a well-established and extremely advanced form of commercial exploitation? And what does this great rock 'n' roll fire sale mean for the heavy weights of the music industry?

Eight years ago, albums retailed for up to $30.95. The small club of audience-targeting majors (Sony-BMG, EMI, Universal and Warner) were laughing all the way to the bank because, on average, CDs cost as little as one dollar to manufacture. The industry was valued at nearly $100 billion internationally.

Advertisement

The music business has a number of advantages in comparison to other modes of capitalist production. Generally speaking, there are such small interaction costs attached to producing pop music products and yet they have so much surplus value as they are capable of perpetual exploitation (via the copyrights attached to them). Rummage through your record collection and you will probably discover you have the same song recorded on more than one format. For all its sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, the music business is really quite clever.

In this well-established environment, sycophantic, music-obsessed, "pocket money" punks (teenagers) used to rock up to HMV, Sanity and other major stores to buy up big on the latest, over-priced CDs. This passion for music consumption has meant, historically, that music is the most popular form of en masse, "first-line" culture consumption for young people (products purchased primarily before another competing product, for example video or magazines). The pop music circus has been omnipotent in the minds of young ones. And the majors have masterfully maintained such consistent and spectacular returns throughout the 20th century.

But currently, chart CDs retail for as little as $20.95. On average, the price of Top 40 albums appears to be dropping at a rate of more than one dollar a year. (Who knows, in the year 2018, albums may have a zero sale sum dollar value.) Yet, paradoxically, there is a direct correlation between the downward spiral of prices and a downturn in traditional music consumption. This truly is a peculiar trend because, if anything, album sales should be increasing.

So why is the music industry in Australia, or in the rest of the Western world for that matter, in a "spin"? The majors' representatives would have us believe the answer to that question is based on a combination of unfavourable legislative change and emerging technologies which have caused a diminution in the value of music products.

They are partly right in identifying the obvious challenges; but they appear to have failed to recognise that the significance of other important pop cultural developments, such as a genuine lack of consumer interest (or perhaps boredom) in CDs as primary cultural products. This has largely stemmed from emerging but competing pop products (DVDs, music DVDs, ringtones, computer games, SMS services, and this list of cultural pleasures goes on).

Through an intriguing mix of illegitimate and legitimate technological challenges, and in conjunction with legislative reform and pop cultural developments, the Australian music scene has demonstrated how, internationally, a fistful of industry media moguls has had its closed-shop cage rattled.

Advertisement

So what happened eight years ago, when the current trends became apparent? First, in Australia, there were significant amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 that allowed for the parallel importation of locally licenced products. For example, a retailer was now free to purchase from Sony Indonesia rather than Sony Australia. Due to the significantly different economies of scale between the two regions, the price differences at the wholesale dealer price were stark.

Not surprisingly, strenuous lobbying by the majors' "keepers" followed, alleging the death of the industry due to a flood of inferior and possibly pirated copies. Resistance to change and acrimonious litigation appear to be fundamental tenets espoused by the majors.

Nevertheless, these legislative measures have been instrumental in setting new pricing standards. It might be fair to conclude, therefore, that imported CDs are capable of driving prices down, but ironically, cheap imports are seldom sourced by major retailers. That is, stores continue to order domestically manufactured albums from the majors. Legislative reform in Australia assisted in this process but the majors cannot blame parallel importation per se. Similarly, the legislature should not take the credit for the price drop. So what else happened some eight years ago?

Computer and Internet technologies have also been blamed for the drop in revenue, and the majors insist music piracy ("burning") is the core problem. Combined with Internet downloads, and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing ("ripping"), the industry's politico-legal representatives estimate music piracy now costs the industry in excess of $US5 billion. To some extent the representatives are correct (I do not know of too many people who have not dabbled in illegal music consumption).

To add final insult to injury, MP3s and related P2P technologies were not devised by the majors and neither were MP3 players. In the world of music evolution this break in the chain is very significant. The majors have always dictated the terms in which records are delivered. They invented vinyls, cassettes and CDs. The devices for these formats have also either been invented or produced en masse by the majors' sister manufacturing subsidiaries. The cause for concern is obvious.

To combat the issue of a slump in music consumption, the majors have implemented four main strategies:

  • drop in price of CDs to make them more attractive;
  • educate the public that it is wrong to "steal" (intellectual) property;
  • anti-piracy protection measures; and
  • police and prosecute copyright infringers (minors included).

The merits of these campaigns have been viewed with mixed results, and in any event, CD prices continue to drop. People continue to consume music at a significantly discounted or illegal rate.

So why is this "music for free" or "small fee" attitude so unprecedented and now so ingrained in modern popular culture and everyday life? I found some clues to the answer while representing an applicant spouse on a de facto property settlement. The respondent was a 72-year-old man who purported to itemise his MP3 music collection (which he had also backed up onto CDs) as part of the couple's joint assets pool. He had valued these downloads at $8,000 (which apparently was at a significantly reduced rate to what they would ordinarily retail, he opined.).

However, all the songs had been illegally downloaded from the original Napster website over several months. The absurdity of his proposition to value his illegal "record collection" highlighted three important issues to me. First, accessing music illegally is a relatively simple task open to all ages. Second, ignorance or flagrant disregard of copyright generally is probably quite prominent. Third, however, and equally significant, is that this person placed a quantifiable value on what these products ought to cost.

That is, had this man in fact purchased these products from a retailer, he would only have been prepared to pay a fraction of their retail price. There appears to be a widespread feeling that the majors have been exploiting consumers for too long. There is strong consensus between the "young" and "old" on this point (especially since, in the case of the former, most parents finance pop culture consumption).

It is this third consideration that, by and large, has been ignored by the majors. On this point, perhaps parents feel so exploited that they turn a blind eye to ripping and burning. And it is not as if illegal copying is a new phenomenon. I do not know of too many people who have not dabbled in illegal music consumption. The parents of teenagers copied cassettes, their older siblings copied CDs and now they compare the size of their iPods.

Technically it is illegal in Australia and the UK to make even back-up copies yet it was more or less tolerated by the majors during the reign of the cassette and to some extent the CD. But when Napster arrived and the first wave of decent Rio MP3 players hit the high streets in 1998, the issue became about control because these were external challenges to the status quo.

I believe the spending downturn in CDs will continue not necessarily because of legislative reform and or the proliferation of burning and ripping per se but because there is a genuine lack of interest in purchasing CDs as consumers spend money on these other more "exciting" goods. Consumer lack of interest (and or distraction) in the delivery of current music products as promoted by the majors is something which has been continually ignored.

What the majors are not prepared to concede is that CDs have simply become second-line cultural products. The ritual of rocking up to HMV and obsessively trawling through stacks of CDs has been substituted for MP3 downloading (ripping) and CD burning. Music consumption has become just another thing to do and the art of prioritising for the purchase of the latest chart music is dead. Consequently, if money can be spent elsewhere on other pleasures, then it will be.

Interestingly after several years of literally doing nothing, the majors have adopted the Internet in their business model in order to address the issues. It is now quite common to purchase music files from hundreds of legal websites. However two significant developments have occurred. First, albums are not necessarily being downloaded, but rather single songs - and some for as low as 10 cents (a far cry from the current $5 CD single price tag). Second, despite the proliferation of legal websites, P2P platforms such as Azureus which use "BitTorrent" software make it all too tempting for young and old alike to download whole albums illegally.

Illegal and legal technological challenges, combined, have caused traditional music products to become so diminished in value that it is doubtful whether commodified pop music as peddled by the majors will ever again become the leading mode of cultural consumption. More problematic for the majors is that the Internet has permitted new musical discoveries - truly independent music completely unfettered by the majors' control and the need for chart music.

If these trends continue, then it would be safe to assume that music products will become third-line cultural products or probably entirely "de-commodified" (that is, the consumption of music in any recorded form would always have intrinsic worth, but its ability to be sold as "units" may not have any commercial potential).

I do not suggest music will ever die. For example, concert attendance could not be better, and the proliferation of truly independently released music in recent years has had an almost emancipatory effect on the industry. Rather, the commodification of chartable pop music will be a thing of the past. Even if the sale of Top 40 chart music survives, its life will be meaningless in real commercial terms.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

First published in the Brisbane Line, on the Brisbane Institute website, on March 29, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Trajce Cvetkovski teaches law, policy and governance at the University of Queensland. He also practises as a Barrister. He is the author of Copyright and Popular Media (2013, Palgrave Macmillan)

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Trajce Cvetkovski

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Trajce Cvetkovski
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy