So what’s wrong with these so-called consumers anyway? Do they really make any effort to actually consume anything? And why blame the labels? They only provided them with a much wider spectrum of pricing options, undertaking an exceptionally noble cause to simplify the entire buying process and simultaneously fix a flimsy business model. It may have worked for the 99 Cent Store chain, but in this variable world of what-ifs and maybes, it just doesn’t work the same for music downloads. Think of it this way: on iTunes, the songs you don’t really want are $.69 to a dollar; the songs you can find anywhere else on the internet for free are $1.29; and full albums range anywhere from $9.99 to $20,000 dollars. It’s that simple.
I totally don’t buy the notion that music labels have added variable pricing in an effort to gain more income, so that they can pay for their money suits, Michaelangelo sculptures, boat parties, and neck ties that look like they are made out of 100 bills. This is far from the truth. It’s to provide a reasonable option for the average poverty stricken consumer with a $.69 deal on music, as well as their fellow wealthy consumers with a more suitable $1.29 price tag to feed their lecherous hunger for vanity purchases.
I wish for new consumers, with new tastes and views that align with the music labels. And while we’re at it, new artists. The kind that will work under the labels for a low salary in exchange for musical ideas that are radio friendly, and can be produced for under $50. Not counting promotional costs, which would be withdrawn from their salaries.
