RSSMost Music Subscriptions Too Pricey
By Ed Oswald | Published August 26, 2005, 11:54 AM
If companies expect consumers to get excited about subscription-based music, then the monthly fees are going to need to fall below $10 a month. Research firm Parks Associates said on Thursday it found that 41 percent of people with digital music players in the U.S. said $10 was the maximum they would pay for such a service.
It gets worse in other countries. When presented with the equivalent price in their own currency, 49 percent in France, 52 percent in Germany, 56 percent in China, and 62 percent in the United Kingdom said $10 USD per month was their maximum.
Not surprisingly, based on the success of peer-to-peer music programs, a third of respondents said music services should be free.
So far, only one company offers a subscription service below that price: Yahoo. At either $4.99 USD per month for a yearly subscription or $6.99 USD monthly, Yahoo! Music Unlimited is the cheapest of any of the music services.
"Companies like Yahoo can afford to keep the price low because they have other revenue streams to subsidize their music services," Harry Wang, research analyst at Parks Associates said.
In comparison, Napster and Real's Rhapsody charge $14.95 USD per month. Given the results of the Parks Associates study, Yahoo could be opening the doors to a much larger market than its competitors.
"JupiterResearch U.S. surveys show greater interest among consumers under 24 years old in $10/monthly music subscriptions than 99-cent single purchases," notes Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox.
"There are several reasons why subscriptions might appeal to younger consumers. For one, they may not have amassed CD collections and so not feel the same kind of ownership sensibility as GenXers or Baby Boomers," Wilcox added. "For another, many may be familiar with file trading. Music subscriptions offer the same kind of grab-it and download-it experience, but with a low-cost subscription fee, better discoverability and virtually no risk of viruses or spyware."
First of all, Napster charges $10 a month unless you want to take it with you on your mp3 player. Otherwise, its $10 and you can play your music (or stream it like i do) on up to 3 machines. And all for the price of 1 CD a month, I can listen to over a million songs.
This generation seems to think it is their right to get something for nothing.
Score: 0
|This generation seems to think that music artists are going poor. That there not making enought money to live. They make millions every year. Let rich people like Bill Gates pay for there music, the rest of us have to use are money to eat. I only have one other word for everyone....Gnutella.
Score: 0
|Since when do you need music, like food, to subsist? Oh, that's right-- you're too stressed out over life's everyday challenges-- and you need music & videos to maintain your sanity.
Well, there's plenty of free/bargain content available-- but no-- you have to be a lemming & get what's in fashion(let's not even mention radio-- it won't do because, besides fidelity considerations, you want to listen to the song you want at the moment you want), as well as one-up the Joneses.
Hey, you have every right to all that-- same like if you want the $500 + jeans, shoes, coats, etc. instead of $5.99 specials-- just find the money.
What, your job doesn't pay enough? Then get a second sidejob, or start your own business. After all, this is the land of opportunity: plenty of immigrants arrive with zero money & even less language skills-- yet in no time, they're well-off entrepreneurs.
And anyhow, most pop music is so mindless-- just read the lyrics of most songs, or worse: listen to the inane political/social proclamations of most artists.
Same like software or any other commodity-- for instance: Word. You can get free AbiWord, Star Office, etc. or for some money earlier Word versions, all compatible w/ 2k3 & even the next release. But if you want the latest & greatest 2k3, pony up the money instead of demanding it for free/cheap. That is self-embarassing: like barging up to a high-class restaurant & demanding McDonald's prices- basically announcing to everyone in the process, that one is not successful / does not have the means.
Score: 0
|A very select minority make millions every year, otherwise why play at clubs or other small venues? MTV cribs, right? I tell my kids (12 and 15) that the ride won't last forever for 99% of these artists. He**, most of these artists don't even have books in their houses!! I have several friends who will say otherwise about the millions. Many, many artists are waiting to be "discovered." IMHO, if the current trend of "free" music as a RIGHT continues, how many artists will make any money? "Something for nothing" seems to be the mindset for this generation. Yahoo is a great deal and I am considering it. Off-topic: why do most of the forums turn into an anti-Microsoft rant?
Score: 0
|Yahoo charges $5-$7 for unlimited streaming on up to 3 machines and free transfer to your mp3 player...and if you want to burn cd's it's $.79/songg...that's half what napster charges, with more content, AND they let you put it on an mp3 player with no additional cost...
Score: 0
|Wait a sec, you pay 6-15$ a month for a subscription to listen to streaming music, but to download the actual mp3 or whichever in order to burn, it still costs around $1 per song, is that right? I had been under the impression that 6-15$ a month meant you download whatever you want. Forgive my ignorance, I haven't bought into the music subscription service just yet.
Score: 0
|No, you pay 6-15 to download and/or stream unlimited music, which you can play offline or on portable players (until the subscription expires). What you pay the ~$1 per song for, is the ability to keep it forever and to burn it to cds/whatnot.
Score: 0
|it's actually $0.79/song for subscribers. And you're right, the only time you need to pay for the individual songs (or cd's) is if you want to keep it forever or burn to CD. The subscription allows you to copy songs to mp3 players and listen any song any time as many time as you like, on up to 3 computers.
Score: 0
|At $5, I may try Yahoo. Now we're talking.
Score: 0
|Yeah. Personally I prefer this to paying for music. Music tastes change, and we only really need to 'own' something if it's something we KNOW we'll want to listen to for the forseeable future.....like maybe a favorite artist or song. Subscription based music fills the gap of the stuff we want for this and maybe next year. I was with Napster for 2 months then Yahoo went beta and I proptly dropped them for Yahoo. Very good service, LOTS of songs.
Score: 0
|I can stream audio from any source and make analog "real time" recordings with a media player plugin. No DRM! You know the rest of this game. Ha Ha the RIAA sucks again...
Score: 0
|Yahoo is a great deal, my better half has used iTunes to make a "workout" CD. Sorry, you are not hurting the RIAA at all; the actions are hurting the undiscovered artists that another poster thinks makes millions.
Score: 0
|