View Single Post
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #25
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
I don't think that's true at all. With anything album there are going to be people who love it and fanatically listen to the whole thing over and over. There are going to be people who are curious and listen to the whole thing once. There are going to be people who listen to two tracks and decide they hate it. And there will even be people who are obsessively fanatic about only a couple of songs on the album which they listen to a bunch of times while ignoring the other tracks. So all of that averages out. The problem is that traditionally all of those people would have paid the same price for the full L.P. and now they don't have to.
yes, I'm not suggesting that 2.5 listens per track (is) a proper way to accertain a general context.
I'm suggesting that it's a danger if this is taken as a superficial reading by marketing people.
because it suggests massive fragmentation into superficial listening experiences.

so aids undermining music which is made to be in depth. it's an example of what you get
if you let the add industry dictate value by making superficial statistical assumptions about listening patterns.
to me Spotify is built on these assumed consumption patterns, but promises scale in the future
to make up for the shortfall in price per listen.

it's an add driven model, not an Artist and listener driven model imo. whatever they try to say.
they would say it's a consumer driven model. I say it amplifies the superficial because
of the sales marketing driven motives and generalised naive assumptions. Then they would say
it's what the consumer wants.

no kid will pay 50 per month. if you assume 5 cents per play to be within some normal bound,
then 0.04 is a what % reduction. ? 125% reduction ?