View Single Post
Old 9th September 2012
Lives for gear
That's not what I claimed at all. It goes beyond that. Before the internet existed there were albums that I played at in-store listening stations and decided to buy but ultimately only listened to once or twice. I've bought music on iTunes on the strength of the short preview and then never really gotten into it later.

Under a purchase model there's a certain threshold that the buyer needs to pass. You hear it a certain number of times and decide that it's worth paying for, then what happens after that nobody knows or cares.

But a streaming model is entirely different. The whole lifespan of the music is what matters, not getting the listener to pass that initial threshold that convinces them to buy. So it's really unknown territory.

My claim is that in the pre-internet music consumer landscape, most people had no idea how many times they listened to things, and therefore how much on average they were paying per listen. I think it was a lot higher than people realize. Therefore getting people to pay the proper amount for streaming may be difficult because "ownership" seems more attractive even if it doesn't really work out that way financially. Witness the guy in the article who thinks he's listened to Dark Side of the Moon enough times that his spotify royalties would make his purchase price "trivial."