File Swapping Helping Sales? It’s More Than Possible - P2P-Zone

JackSpratts · 26-10-02, 12:54 PM

From Knowledge@Wharton
Special to CNET News.com

Advance publicity is key to a record albums' success, according to Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader, and by trying to stamp out peer-to-peer music trading, record companies are shooting themselves in the foot.

In a new report, Fader proposes a statistical model for using advance orders to predict future sales of albums. His results lead to a clear conclusion: "The more buzz you generate, the more you sell," he says.

Fader’s thinking is controversial. Many people, including the record companies, disagree with the idea that peer-to-peer music networks such as Kazaa, Gnutella and the now-departed Napster have done more to boost record sales through creating buzz than have done to depress them by replacing buying with downloading. Fader says music downloading is a "form of advertising"--and that music companies should shift from making an album just a "collection of songs" into making it a gateway to a complex, multilayered entertainment experience.
http://news.com.com/2009-12-963196.html

Smoketoomuch · 27-10-02, 01:40 AM

Makes a lot of sense - but problem is they say: ok so p2p helps music sales, well than, we want to control it ... that's plain stupid. An analogy: most of the books I bought I read before (or parts of it) in the institute library - moreover, some of them were available only as photocopies (well, there was an original for each, but usually a teacher or a phd student set on it for months). p2p is essentially the same thing - a huge library, and yes, some people would not buy the music they download as some people go to library because they don't have the money - but they won't buy CDs even if p2p would be stomped out of existence anyway...

I wonder when would they realize this - the new 'terrible' generation - they are criminalizing something that is just natural. To continue the analogy: I read something in photocopy: the words are exactly the same (so a photocopy is not even a lossy format in the sense that mp3 is) - yet those texts I like I want to have as books - why? I don't know, there is no rationale for this, it is simple that I like to hold a book in my hand, I like their smell (I like the smell of CDs as well), their touch. And both are copyrighted material - and as far as value goes, I won't consider Britney as an Intellectual Property. Moreover, this whole 'war' against p2p has another connotation - as laws begin to be more strict in case of music and digital content, it suggests that there is more value here than in literature or whatever - the more locks you see on a chest, to more valuable you think its content is. Bullcake.

Mazer · 27-10-02, 09:43 AM

Well there's something to be said of owning an original eddition of a book or CD, because at some point it will become public domain and the rarity alone will add value (especially since it won't become public domain for more than a century). I always get the idea that the original publisher will pay more attention to detail and accuracy than a third party reproducer will, and that is important too. You can't fault the music industry for creating quality packaging, even when the contents do not fulfill the promises the package makes.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of consumers who take responsibility for their purchases, so they do research and they shop around. A new CD might be advertized in every magazine and on every radio station, and it might be downloaded on the net a lot too, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has any inherent value. That can only be determined by actually hearing the CD. Those kind of consumers buy a lot more CD's then they get credit for.

And there's the people who don't buy many CD's anyway. They get a few albums on the net and then pick one or two that they want on a hardcopy, so they buy the CD. If they hadn't downloaded the music first they never would have considered buying it. Finickey people like these buy more CD's as a group then they get credit for as well. To shut them out is to shut out an entire market.

I think the music industry has missed the boat on using MP3's as promotional samples. There was a time when they could have done it that way, but now people know they can get a free full-length high-quality rip instead of paying for a sample. It's odd to be demonized by the RIAA for promoting music in a way they can't (or won't) try.

26-10-02, 12:54 PM	#1
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,018	File Swapping Helping Sales? It’s More Than Possible From Knowledge@Wharton Special to CNET News.com Advance publicity is key to a record albums' success, according to Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader, and by trying to stamp out peer-to-peer music trading, record companies are shooting themselves in the foot. In a new report, Fader proposes a statistical model for using advance orders to predict future sales of albums. His results lead to a clear conclusion: "The more buzz you generate, the more you sell," he says. Fader’s thinking is controversial. Many people, including the record companies, disagree with the idea that peer-to-peer music networks such as Kazaa, Gnutella and the now-departed Napster have done more to boost record sales through creating buzz than have done to depress them by replacing buying with downloading. Fader says music downloading is a "form of advertising"--and that music companies should shift from making an album just a "collection of songs" into making it a gateway to a complex, multilayered entertainment experience. http://news.com.com/2009-12-963196.html

27-10-02, 01:40 AM	#2
Smoketoomuch freak Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hungary Posts: 906	Makes a lot of sense - but problem is they say: ok so p2p helps music sales, well than, we want to control it ... that's plain stupid. An analogy: most of the books I bought I read before (or parts of it) in the institute library - moreover, some of them were available only as photocopies (well, there was an original for each, but usually a teacher or a phd student set on it for months). p2p is essentially the same thing - a huge library, and yes, some people would not buy the music they download as some people go to library because they don't have the money - but they won't buy CDs even if p2p would be stomped out of existence anyway... I wonder when would they realize this - the new 'terrible' generation - they are criminalizing something that is just natural. To continue the analogy: I read something in photocopy: the words are exactly the same (so a photocopy is not even a lossy format in the sense that mp3 is) - yet those texts I like I want to have as books - why? I don't know, there is no rationale for this, it is simple that I like to hold a book in my hand, I like their smell (I like the smell of CDs as well), their touch. And both are copyrighted material - and as far as value goes, I won't consider Britney as an Intellectual Property. Moreover, this whole 'war' against p2p has another connotation - as laws begin to be more strict in case of music and digital content, it suggests that there is more value here than in literature or whatever - the more locks you see on a chest, to more valuable you think its content is. Bullcake. __________________ "If you open your mind too wide, people would throw trash in it"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-10-02, 09:43 AM	#3
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	Well there's something to be said of owning an original eddition of a book or CD, because at some point it will become public domain and the rarity alone will add value (especially since it won't become public domain for more than a century). I always get the idea that the original publisher will pay more attention to detail and accuracy than a third party reproducer will, and that is important too. You can't fault the music industry for creating quality packaging, even when the contents do not fulfill the promises the package makes. The simple fact is that there are a lot of consumers who take responsibility for their purchases, so they do research and they shop around. A new CD might be advertized in every magazine and on every radio station, and it might be downloaded on the net a lot too, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has any inherent value. That can only be determined by actually hearing the CD. Those kind of consumers buy a lot more CD's then they get credit for. And there's the people who don't buy many CD's anyway. They get a few albums on the net and then pick one or two that they want on a hardcopy, so they buy the CD. If they hadn't downloaded the music first they never would have considered buying it. Finickey people like these buy more CD's as a group then they get credit for as well. To shut them out is to shut out an entire market. I think the music industry has missed the boat on using MP3's as promotional samples. There was a time when they could have done it that way, but now people know they can get a free full-length high-quality rip instead of paying for a sample. It's odd to be demonized by the RIAA for promoting music in a way they can't (or won't) try.