Music for the 9-Year-Old Generation

A lot of people, including the “executives” that work at the major labels, have said that downloading music without paying is part of a generational shift. The older generations that grew up with vinyl and later saw the transition to other mediums have always paid, and will continue to pay for music, as they feel as if it is their responsibility to pay. They have trouble understanding how the younger generations can justify downloading music for free without paying the artists and the companies behind the artist their dues. But when it comes to the younger generations’ point of view, this logic is reversed: “Why would I pay for music when I can download it for free? Sure, I don’t pay for the music I download, but then I go to see my favorite artist play shows, so I pay for a ticket and a T-shirt.” Or even more discouraging for the businesses behind the music, “Why would I pay for the recordings when only a small portion actually goes to the artist anyway?” As the industry stands right now, both points of view, the simple logic of the older generations as well as the ever-prevailing self-righteousness of the younger generations must be reconciled in a way that makes sense for both sides. Or, the labels could just act as the airlines do, and charge their customers on a variable pricing scale that would depend on the use of the music or where the music is being purchased from (shh, I don’t want them to illegally download my idea). Either way, there is a clear disconnect between the mentality of not only the different generations of consumers, but between the younger consumers and the labels, and instead of complaining about the loss of sales do to illegal downloading, or whatever the RIAA would like to claim next, there are ways that the labels can continue to profit while allowing the consumers to obtain music in any way they choose.

More often than I’d care to hear, I’ve read about how CD sales are plummeting, as people no longer feel it’s necessary to pay for music. While this may be true, I tend to feel as if the suffering much of industry is experiencing is as much, if not more so their own fault than it is the consumers’. In any industry, the tastes and preferences of the consumers change, and it is the job of the firms, or at least the ones that plan to survive, to adapt quickly and find new ways to continue to make a profit. As CBS and Viacom Executive Chairman Sumner Redstone put it in a keynote address at the Media and Money Conference, “The more platforms our content is on, the more numerous our revenue streams,” and as more forms of distribution begin to take shape, “professionally produced content only increases in value as digital platforms multiply” (Weisenthal par 2). By this standard, labels and content providers should not and can no longer depend on just a few forms of revenue, especially forms that are outdated, but must begin to expand their business models to more and newer revenue sources. As many have suggested before, it has become increasingly evident that content providers alone can no longer monetize what they offer, but will need to enlist the help of other businesses. The most commonly suggested strategy would be to enlist the help of ISPs and media device makers. In other words, allow the companies that provide the access to charge additional “media fees” included in the consumer subscriptions fees, collect this money in a large pot, and distribute it to the content providers. Though this idea is not original, it has become one of the more popular solutions as writers like Dave Kusek and Gerd Leonhard continue to preach the “music like water” solution: or paying for music as if it were a free flowing utility that everyone assumes must be paid on a monthly basis.

Another model that has been explored, and is currently being embraced by many of the up and coming independent labels and social networking sites, is the ad-supported music model. Though there are many creative and new ways to allow advertising to pay for the use of music so that users can listen to it for free, the more current issue at hand is how the larger companies will begin to embrace this new model. As the smaller labels continue to find new ways to reach their listeners through either as supported tours, ad supported websites, or user-filtered social networking sites, their content will be more noticed simply because of how often users will be interacting with the music. A great example of this increased interaction was demonstrated in a recent article in which a 9-year-old file sharer was interview for the popular digital media blog, TorrentFreak. In the article, when she was asked if it was okay if to copy music for free she cited a specific example involving her cousin. In this case she decided that “yes it’s ok because she only does it to make her [MySpace] page better” (Enigmax). The major labels continue to miss out on these opportunities as they only seek ways to sell their music online that are traditional in the sense that it is still a music store, just available on the computer. Instead of embracing these new outlets, they often shun them and refuse to take part with the assumption that they are just a passing fad. As Sumner put it, “It seems fairly clear that advertising will for the most part pay the way on the Internet, just as it has on traditional media platforms. [...] I think in all the public clamor in all the doomed fortunes of traditional media, people miss the greater trends at work” (Weisenthal par 3). The reality is that people will never again revisit the traditional forms of acquiring music, and in order continue to monetize the use of music, record companies will have to expand their horizons and find new ways to derive value from their content.

In the same article that Hannah was interviewed in, it was made obvious that a split between generations exists. But it also seems to be obvious that if a 9 year old can reveal a similar business model as stated above, then record labels should be ashamed of being so far behind. As the young girl, named Hannah, described how she obtains music from places like LimeWire and YouTube, the article’s author asked her simply, “what was cool about it [downloading music from the internet]? Her response: “Because you can put anything in and it will come up and you don’t actually pay for it. Well you have to pay for the Internet and LimeWire comes with the Internet but you have to pay for that so LimeWire isn’t really free.” Not only did she put it together that if she paid for access to the Internet, than by right, she should be allowed to download music, but she even went as far as claiming that by paying for the Internet, the music wasn’t “really free” after all! Smart girl. But the reality is that record companies “need to make it easy for consumers to attain our content in a legal manner” (Weisenthal par 4). In order to be successful at monetizing use, the consumers must have access where and when they want it: a freedom that was first explored with the use of free downloading, and a value that many avid listeners feel is their legal right. After all, as Hannah put it, “Why would they put [music] on the Internet and invent mp3 players if it was against the law?” Amen.

Enigmax, "Inside the Mind of a 9 Year Old File-Sharer." Torrent Freak 21 Oct 2007 30 Oct 2007 .

Weisenthal, Joseph. "CBS and Viacom Executive Chairman Hip to Digital Trends." nytimes.com 08 Nov 2007 08 Nov 2007 .