I think the majors are finally realizing that it is, indeed, the more
mature segment of the market that is now a viable revenue stream. By
that I mean that there is an unbelievable wealth of recorded legacy that
is simply unavailable now and has been unavailable for some time now
that this segment of the population has been begging for. It's a trickle
of a stream, but a stream nonetheless.
The companies are finally seeing that this demand, through downloads
and/or on-demand processing models can now be satisfied. The cost to
provide such services has continually decreased and is becoming a
Prior to this, you'd need to be sure that a minimum number of copies
would be sold to cover the cost of manufacture. Now, digitization
eliminates the physical product outlay. The major cost now becomes 1)
remastering, if that is necessary, and even that has become far less
complicated than previously and 2) contract research to confirm
ownership. This last point is becoming the big bug-a-boo in costs.
Sony/RCA has started it and Warner Bros films and 20th Century Fox films
has also begun to provide this.
On 1/24/11 6:04 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> No sales information I have seen confirms this. All information I've
> seen indicates that the high-volume music buyers are young and that
> music consumption trails off steadily into adulthood (mortgage-holder
> years) and does not return in old age (due to lost interest and/or
> encroaching deafness, I always assumed). A niche market of wealthy older
> enthusiasts does exist, but it's not where the big bux are made.
> However, the last time I saw demographic info was early in this century.
> I can't imagine there was a huge consumption shift in the last decade
> but I might be wrong on that. And, if there was, why is the industry
> hurting so much from young people losing interest?
> Here's another scary proposition for the music companies -- if young
> people aren't buying what they're selling and older people aren't
> interested in the new-release stuff, how many times can the companies
> re-sell the same old stuff to the older people? I know in my case, at
> this point, I'm satisfied with the versions I have of almost all
> "back-catalog" music and new purchases are additions to the collection,
> usually from the "back catalog" but a few new releases are of interest
> each year. So, once I bought the round of CD's, that was it, they can't
> re-sell me. There's no format on the horizon that will change that.
> Anyone with half a brain can rip their CD's to their iPod so only fools
> go and re-buy stuff as lossy digital files. There were a certain percent
> of these fools for a while, and I think that inflated the download
> business for a brief time, and now they're done and have all the music
> they want so it's growing at about 6%, which is a logical expectation.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting discussion topic for a Monday
>> On 24/01/2011, Tom Fine wrote:
>>> I still think that if better new music, in general, was being offered
>>> for sale and better marketing was being done to sell it to younger
>>> folks, and there was more education about the benefits of own hard
>>> copies of music (liner notes, better sound quality, etc), it might
>>> help. It might not, though, since you have a generation of what used
>>> to be prime music buyers who look on music as background noise, have
>>> stronger affiliation with video games than music albums and are
>>> trained to view record companies as hostile entities who sue their
>> There is plenty of very good new music around, but it tends to be
>> labelled as "world music" or some other category that is not pop.
>> Remember that older people nowadays have a great deal of purchasing
>> power. Music (and films) are not just a youth market.
>> The non-buyers are those of mortgage age.
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]