|
The music industry has been declared dead. CD sales experienced the steepest plunge in recent memory, according to the RIAA, with a double-digit decline of 12.8%. Artist management now view CD sales as supplementary to the core business of concerts and merchandising, much like dishing out single servings to passers by at Costco.
When you look at the data, it's interesting to see that digital downloading from iTunes and others represents a very small percentage -- less than 10% -- of total revenue. The numbers from RIAA point out that in 2006, the reporting members racked up $9.6 billion in CD sales versus $878 million in downloads. Mobile downloads, from ringtunes to full downloads, are almost as large in revenue as music dowloads to iPods, at $774 million.
A rational person might conclude that CDs, while down double digits and facing the hippest of hip alternatives in the iPod, still represent the mainstream of music mindshare by virtue of their 9:1 advantage in tonnage. Fluff versus substance. Case closed.
However, let's take our label glasses off for a moment and look at it from a consumer's point of view. (We're marketers, after all, and this is something we're supposed to do at times, right?)
If we put ourselves into the average day in the life of a music consumer, how many music interactions did we all have in 2006? Well, 642 million CDs were bought. Compare this figure to 625 million digital downloads and 315 million mobile downloads and the balance shifts to the other side, with a ratio of 1:1.5 or so. We're experiencing more music downloads on average.
Sure, we can argue about how many downloads happen at the same time just as we can discuss how many CDs an average person buys on Amazon (or even how many are bought used, which won't show up here), or even the number of non-RIAA shipments are taking place. All true. Let's focus on what we know for now and keep our eyes open for more data as it comes.
* * *
Key Takeaways:
> How your consumer sees things is probably more important to you than how your peers in industry see them. You can usually count on them not readily acknowledging this, too. So use it to your advantage.
> Experience has more emotional impact than shipments, which means it will mean more to your brand.
> Any time you're handed a sheet full of numbers, don't stop at the summary. Do your own analysis and dig out what's relevant to you, not the intern who put it together.
* * *
What's interesting in all of this is that music isn't dead at all. The labels may be in dire straits but people -- consumers, you know, the ones beyond the footlights -- have re-discovered music in a semi-renaissance over the past few years through new ways to connect or re-connect with music. And venerable CDs are far from dead. They do, as we've seen above, represent the lion's share of the market share in total revenue and oddly, it seems that most heavy iTunes consumers sample online and buy in physical form.
But you don't need me to tell you that how we get our hands on all this music has been going though changes.
|
Comments
Not to mention the wink that's as good as a nod to the dead horse the industry will keep beating: those downlaods-- regardless of the source-- are passed along through all manner of channels legal and "questionable" via tools that engage listeners and devices in ways that aren't currently tracked. More than just word of mouth or guerilla marketing, smart artists and labels are actually bypassing traditional distribution and production channels, forgoing quicker high-volume sales to limited targets in favor of greater reach, longer exposure, and loyalty.
Ironically, increased consumer capacity and loosened constraints seems mght actually have improved overall product quality since the RIAA's major labels (which control, what, 80% of the copyrighted music in the marketplace?) are forced to compete for ears and $$$ wth a greater range of styles and genres.
Posted by: Ryan Turner | 07.09.07
Interesting item overall. And your third key takeaway is profound in any context. You really have to "get dirty with the data" to know the whole story the numbers are trying to tell you.
Posted by: Claire F. Kuhl | 07.09.07
Ryan: an interesting aside is the Starbucks factor in all of this -- as major artists are bypassing the major labels (Sir Paul is still a major, isn't he?), none of this is reported. And yes, that nasty p2p thing isn't going away any time soon.
Claire: true enough. We all need to remember that it's "us" that needs to rely on the data. There is nothing so shaky as an assumption built on someone else's preconception. Look at the data yourself and then draw your own conclusions. Enough said.
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 07.09.07
Interesting topic...
Another interesting thing to arise regarding all this change in the music industry, is because the pre-recorded material (cd's, album and song downloads are relatively cheap – in value and price to consumers), other products are becoming more valuable in comparison.
Music experiences are becoming more important - concerts, live concert streaming and instant live-cd sales from concerts are satisfying this broader demand for music, interactiveness and music experiences from consumers.
Cheers
Posted by: Nat_Nudge | 07.10.07
Emotion means more to your brand than shipments? At Prism we say to clients: No way.
For marketers, this the Age of Metrics. Big Time. Emotions are fuzzy and subjective Shipments are measurable. The CEO's and investors we work for are measuring our ability to generate sales, not "feelings". A S Prisant, COO, Prism Ltd.
Posted by: Alexander S. Prisant | 07.19.07
Alexander:
Sorry, I think you misunderstood my point: "Experience has more emotional impact than shipments, which means it will mean more to your brand" means a consumer will likely have more brand loyalty after interacting positively with your brand 100 times (buying 1 widget each time) than having one transaction for 100 widgits. There is an ample body of research on this topic, as you probably know, with the formation of 'buying habits' in the minds of your key customers being central to their long term 'stickiness.'
Sorry for the confusion -- on second reading, it looks a bit less clear than it should have!
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 07.19.07