The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
What is the REAL cause of the music industry downturn?? Channel Strip Plugins
Old 31st December 2010
  #61
Jam
Lives for gear
 
Jam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
There is data, you just don't like it.
I've said this before but it bears repeating, from Levitt and Dubner's book Superfreakonomics

Quote:
Moreover, earlier research has shown that when people are surveyed about stigmatising behaviour, they either downplay or exaggerate their participation, depending on what's at stake and who is asking.
Levitt is an award winning economist who specialises in this kind of stuff, lot's of work on the Economics of Crime.

Without wishing to overly rely on the "argument from authority" there's a notable body of work on the difficulty of drawing conclusions from surveys, rather than observing the actual behaviours.

This idea was masterfully demonstrated in the 1980s British Sitcom "Yes Minister", so it's fair to say it's not a new idea.

Quote:
[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
You'll find the video if you Google "Yes Minister Survey Design" but it seemed inappropriate to post it here, especially in this context.

Finally, it seems unwise to dismiss indirect evidence out of hand as it's the basis for lots of very important and illuminating ideas, Dark Matter and the Big Bang spring to mind.

The repeated request for data that probably can't/won't exist could, in the worst case scenario, lead one to ask for eye witness accounts of evolution.

James

Last edited by Jam; 31st December 2010 at 10:23 AM.. Reason: Idiocy
Old 31st December 2010
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Laurend's Avatar
 

Here's a little hope in this desperate landscape:
French Biz Continues To Grow In 2010 | Billboard.biz
Happy New Year
Old 31st December 2010
  #63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Point accepted. To be fair, I should point out that psalad's "it isn't current, but it's the best we have" elicits the same response in me.
But we HAVE CURRENT FIGURES, we just don't have current sociological "studies" which are really meaningless anyway.

Why the HELL would you believe a sociological "study" when you have verifiable raw data that absolutely contradicts it?

The only answers to that question that make sense are that either you have a hidden agenda or you're utterly bone stupid.
Old 31st December 2010
  #64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrack View Post
Perhaps there's more people like me who find that "music" isn't important to their lives anymore.
If music isn't important to your life anymore, then WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING ON THIS FORUM?

Please butt out. You don't belong here. Go watch reality TV or something and stop trolling.

Your next trolling post will be reported.
Old 31st December 2010
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Everyone knows that koalas are decent, law-abiding creatures. But them shifty, no-good roos are a different story...
I don't know about you, but I'm off to get merry, sing "Auld Lang Syne" (badly) and wake up tomorrow to a blinding hangover and forget all my New Year's resolutions.
Don't forget to watch out for the drop bears!
Old 31st December 2010
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurend View Post
Here's a little hope in this desperate landscape:
French Biz Continues To Grow In 2010 | Billboard.biz
Happy New Year
I certainly hope so, although the 4% rise is an increase on 2009 sales.
2009 I read was the entry point into the worst recession France has had since 1947. Hardly surprising that sales might improve a year later.
Although another bureau in France found there was a 6.5% drop for the first half of 2010 (from your linked article).
Old 31st December 2010
  #67
Lives for gear
 

if you guys want the goods, something much more to the point, go pick up a copy of Brand New World and report back...

all this data bickering is akin to a dog chasing its tail
Old 31st December 2010
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
You are quoting data that shows the quantity of downloads. Those numbers aren't in question, as you know. Another smokescreen attempt. The only data in question is what is causing the downturn in the music industry.
no smoke screen - there are only actually two facts here, 1) the overwhelming amount of illegally free piracy, 2) the decline in paid sales at the same time as a result.

if you don't think that having the same product available for free, without consequence, is not going to reduce sales then you are the king of denial without a doubt and it's pointless to continue a conversation without at least a minimum of common sense.

if you look at all the historical variables that could effect sales, including a recession and competition from other consumer goods, by far and away Piracy is the #1 factor causing the current decline in paid sales.

to say otherwise is not just having a lack of common sense it's to be intellectually dishonest or intentionally obtuse or both.

by the way I read your paragraph, and here's the problem with it - it's written by your guy, the same guy who provided the data that the graph below is made from... problem is, what he says out of context in that paragraph doesn't size with his own data, see chart below:



and, again... the ultimate I'm backed into a corner, got not place to go, gonna ignore all common sense, with the big get of jail free card... nothing is provable - the ultimate cop out against commons sense...

the best data you have, for your OP contradicts itself when charted into a graph - bottom line, the recession has had little effect on music sales, if any.
Old 31st December 2010
  #69
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Lets see how much you can cut and paste the same misleading graph over and over. I'm not sure how you put it together but it doesn't represent the actual loss of lp sales over the period.


1977 - 898 million
1978 - 942 million
1979 - 896 million
1980 - 878 million
1981 - 1140 million

You probably did what you always whine about... put singles sales in with the full length lp. Nice work. The usual misleading BS from you.

BTW, is it really that difficult to go into photoshop and put years on your graph? Oh sorry, that would mean it actually is legible.
Old 31st December 2010
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Lets see how much you can cut and paste the same misleading graph over and over. I'm not sure how you put it together but it doesn't represent the actual loss of lp sales over the period.
you are being dishonest, truly. not very sportsman like. the graph is accurate to the data you posted, from the article you linked too, I'm sorry it doesn't actually support your OP.

nothing is misleading other than your OP, and your misguided posts.

here's your data:


mine are the same, with singles added as Track Equivalent Albums to be consistent over pre/post itunes reporting periods. if you'd like me to regaph the chart with NO SINGLES I'm happy to do that as well. However doing so will sku the data even more dramatically against your OP.

Nothing is hidden, read the lines, line by line the info is the same.



and this is the chart you get...



I'm not seeing a big dip in the 70s corresponding to a recession, are you? I'm seeing pretty steady growth with a few small peaks along the way until we get to the current century and rampant piracy. You like data, so you should like this, as this is data.

Once again, I can see I'm not the one being unreasonable.
Old 31st December 2010
  #71
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Yes, you are exactly right... we're not seeing a dip. Yet the numbers show a dip:

1977 - 898 million
1978 - 942 million
1979 - 896 million
1980 - 878 million
1981 - 1140 million

What is wrong with this picture??

What exactly is your "DLP album units column?"

It should be 1650 in 1981 if you are adding in cassettes. It is a simple formula that somehow you have screwed up.

Oh and can you make it a bit bigger? It hasn't screwed up the legibility of this thread completely, you could actually make it less legible.
Old 31st December 2010
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Yes, you are exactly right... we're not seeing a dip. Yet the numbers show a dip:

1977 - 898 million
1978 - 942 million
1979 - 896 million
1980 - 878 million
1981 - 1140 million

What is wrong with this picture??

What exactly is your "DLP album units column?"

It should be 1650 in 1981 if you are adding in cassettes. It is a simple formula that somehow you have screwed up.
DLP is "Digital LP"

EDIT: [ALL CHARTS ARE CORRECT - CHECK THE SPREAD SHEET MATH YOURSELF]
Old 31st December 2010
  #73
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Really great. Now I assume you will replace the graph everywhere you've posted it?

I'll resist the temptation to treat you with the condescension and distain that you would have leveled at me if the tables were reversed.

If you're going back in to replace the graph, please also make all the other images a reasonable size so they don't screw up pagination and legibility.
Old 31st December 2010
  #74
here's the spreadsheet - it doesn't really change much as the old graph was off by about the same amount in each equation...

all it shows is what we already know - there wasn't a DIP in sales in the 70's there was a small peak on the way up of building sales until the onset of rampant piracy.

there's really no way to run away from the facts.

Attachment 211833
Old 31st December 2010
  #75
here's the chart
Old 31st December 2010
  #76
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Singles are more attractive when people have less money to spend. For accuracy, remove singles from your equation, as they are essentially a different product at a different price point. A separate graph of singles is fine.
Old 31st December 2010
  #77
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
You probably did what you always whine about... put singles sales in with the full length lp. Nice work. The usual misleading BS from you.

BTW, is it really that difficult to go into photoshop and put years on your graph? Oh sorry, that would mean it actually is legible.
and... as inserted graphic so I can go back and replace them - no BS or photoshop - all data... and your data...



Old 31st December 2010
  #78
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

So the attached graph is US only, so it's not perfect. I would like a graph of world economic GDP, but I can't find it. However, let's analyze, even if it's not perfect...

The dip in the late 70s is reflected in GDP.

There is also a dip in sales in the 1990 area, that coincides with a dip in GDP.

It sure looks to ME like they coincide. Not completely conclusive of course, but enough to make you go hmm. What is clear is that the music economy is not always impacted by the economy at large.
Old 31st December 2010
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
So the attached graph is US only, so it's not perfect. I would like a graph of world economic GDP, but I can't find it. However, let's analyze, even if it's not perfect...

The dip in the late 70s is reflected in GDP.

There is also a dip in sales in the 1990 area, that coincides with a dip in GDP.

It sure looks to ME like they coincide. Not completely conclusive of course, but enough to make you go hmm. What is clear is that the music economy is not always impacted by the economy at large.
c,mon man...

your graph is off by about 20 years... it peaks about 1979, the music business peaks about 1999... you graph also ends at the year 2005 the record sales graph extends to 2008... they don't coincide AT ALL!

according to your chart the record industry would have been almost 4'x it's current size in the 70s!
Old 31st December 2010
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
You probably did what you always whine about... put singles sales in with the full length lp. Nice work. The usual misleading BS from you.
albums with singles removed as TEA doesn't make that much of a difference if anything.

Old 31st December 2010
  #81
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
according to your chart the record industry would have been almost 4'x it's current size in the 70s!
Sigh. You really think I'm suggesting the global music industry would exactly mirror the US GDP???

You can clearly see where the dips in GDP and the dips in the music industry sales coincide. As I said, I think the music industry is not always impacted by the economy it appears (though again, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt because the numbers are US vs. world).

What would be interesting is to do an apples to apples comparison of US economy vs. US record sales.

Anyway, I never expect that you would EVER give an inch... that's just your style. You have nothing to learn, since you are an "expert." Consider this something for others to read and make up their own minds.
Old 31st December 2010
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Darwin James's Avatar
 

Artists like me with real freaking talent go completely unnoticed. That's the cause.
Old 31st December 2010
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Sigh. You really think I'm suggesting the global music industry would exactly mirror the US GDP???
you must why else post something so meaningless?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
You can clearly see where the dips in GDP and the dips in the music industry sales coincide.
right and I can see where record sales in the 70's were 4'x what they are today? are you kidding? give it up already dude... nothing quite like selective reasoning huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
As I said, I think the music industry is not always impacted by the economy
right - except when you start a thread to prove that point, which we can now see if bonk... seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
it appears (though again, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt because the numbers are US vs. world).
right, a BIG grain of salt - so why even post it if it irrelevant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
What would be interesting is to do an apples to apples comparison of US economy vs. US record sales.
what we know for a FACT is that record sales in the USA were NOWHERE near proportional to the economy in your chart, if they were record sales in the 70s would have dwarfed anything we've ever seen. the irony is the data is working against you as it is showing that the US record industry actually GREW against a shrinking domestic GDP! Good lord man...

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Anyway, I never expect that you would EVER give an inch... that's just your style. You have nothing to learn, since you are an "expert." Consider this something for others to read and make up their own minds.
I gave you more than an inch in conceding the competing piracy estimates to arrive at an average, and you rejected it three times. I'm not the one being unreasonable or incapable of learning - I'd look in the mirror dude, seriously.

FWIW this would probably be a lot more fun over coffee than over the internet...
Old 31st December 2010
  #84
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
I gave you more than an inch in conceding the competing piracy estimates to arrive at an average, and you rejected it three times
All I can do is laugh... again, nevermind the actual accuracy of the data. Weight both opinions equally and slice it down the middle!

I think people should read this post of yours above, it will tell them all they need to know about you. heh
Old 31st December 2010
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
All I can do is laugh... again, nevermind the actual accuracy of the data. Weight both opinions equally and slice it down the middle!
ignoring the accuracy of the data is YOUR specialty!

when both sets are inconclusive, the reasonable thing to do would be to find an averaged meeting point so the conversation can move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I think people should read this post of yours above, it will tell them all they need to know about you. heh
same to you.
Old 31st December 2010
  #86
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
when both sets are inconclusive, the reasonable thing to do would be to find an averaged meeting point so the conversation can move on.
Exactly. You can't simply agree to disagree.
Old 31st December 2010
  #87
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Exactly. You can't simply agree to disagree.
apparently, neither can you... I just love the double standard at every turn...
Old 31st December 2010
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Yes, ignoring any data that doesn't come from the industry is working well for you then.
What other DATA is there?

Anecdotal sociological "studies" of small, specialized population samples with a strong motive to dissemble are NOT DATA.

Questionnaires are not "data".

If you discount the experiences of individuals involved in the industry YOU MUST ALSO DISCOUNT the experiences of the consumers who answered those questionnaires. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You can't have it both ways.
Old 31st December 2010
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Uh. Yea, you think?



Sure, it would be great to have that data... I like data.

But the pricing isn't based on usage, so your point doesn't really make sense to me.
Sure it is. Why would somebody pay a premium for a 10Mbps pipe if they're not moving lots of data? a 5Mbps pipe is cheaper and perfectly adequate for normal use, including streaming video.
Old 31st December 2010
  #90
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not claiming 1:1 and I haven't seen a person in these discussions do so either...
John has actually made that point, I believe.
Well then you believe wrong. I never claimed 1:1 - as usual you a misreading what's said to suit your own purposes.

What I said was that 100% (or possibly 95% or, being VERY charitable only 90%) of the industry's sales losses were due to piracy.

I never said that every pirated download was a lost sale. That would be stupid.

I've always acknowledged that there are some people - collectors, hoarders, whatever - who download stuff just to have it that they don't listen to. I have also said that I believe the percentage of these people is somewhat overestimated.

Any claims of 1:1 are figments of your imagination.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
smccarthy945 / Music Business
1
ecsound / So much gear, so little time
9

Forum Jump
Forum Jump