Music Survey Request

[iamnaeth]

So I hate doing this but I need data points for a market research class I'm taking and I feel this is a educated crowd ask. 

My group and I have put together a very quick survey, literaly 1-2 minutes, and we need people to fill it out for data points.  If you don't mind, could you pop over to this link and fills it out.  Thanks all. 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=fSULqhDtdyxkRXsgCH74EA_3d_3d

To the moderators: If this frowned upon or against the rules, please remove this post and accept my apologies.

[DaveMMR]

Done.  I was finished in about 45 seconds - even with taking the time to answer questions honestly.

[iamnaeth]

Thank you, it is intended to be very short!

[CheffoJeffo]

Done ... being 17% complete for just clicking on the survey link is pretty quick!

Interesting that the most important question, IMO, wasn't asked with respect to "most important aspect of new music to you".

Specific format-related quality is important. Download speed is of some importance (but, really, how long does it take to download a song ?). DRM can be annoying, but isn't really make or break for me as I can bypass iTunes DRM to put stuff onto my Blackberry. Packaging was important back in the day of LPs.

What I really look for is a decent artist with something decent to offer. It's not just that I am a grumpy old man -- I still buy a dozen or so tracks each month (and would buy more if I could find stuff that was interesting or more hard-to-find classic stuff). It's just that so much of the stuff out there seems to be overly-contrived and manufactured.

 

[Paul Olson]

I responded to the price question with $.75 - $1, but I also had to say that I wouldn't buy it at that price. I won't buy music again until it is offered without restrictions. I should be able to listen to it on any device I want, and the licence should be permanent. For those of you who buy music on itunes, read the agreement. If itunes ever shuts down, all of those licenses are gone. Brutal.

[Encryptor]

Done!


Encryptor

[DaveMMR]

I responded to the price question with $.75 - $1, but I also had to say that I wouldn't buy it at that price. I won't buy music again until it is offered without restrictions. I should be able to listen to it on any device I want, and the licence should be permanent. For those of you who buy music on itunes, read the agreement. If itunes ever shuts down, all of those licenses are gone. Brutal.

Anything I buy from the iTunes store gets burned to a CD-RW and re-imported into iTunes.  I'm not trying to "steal" or "give away" the songs, but the DRM has consequences for honest users  (e.g. - I can't play the track in AudioSurf). 

[CheffoJeffo]

I responded to the price question with $.75 - $1, but I also had to say that I wouldn't buy it at that price. I won't buy music again until it is offered without restrictions. I should be able to listen to it on any device I want, and the licence should be permanent. For those of you who buy music on itunes, read the agreement. If itunes ever shuts down, all of those licenses are gone. Brutal.

Anything I buy from the iTunes store gets burned to a CD-RW and re-imported into iTunes.  I'm not trying to "steal" or "give away" the songs, but the DRM has consequences for honest users  (e.g. - I can't play the track in AudioSurf). 

+1 ...

I use my BB as my MP3 player and Apple's DRM gets in the way (although it is not a deal-breaker since it is easy to bypass). At the same time, iTunes is bloody convenient and my wife makes significant use of it. Sure is better than anything else out there right now.

The interesting question in this is -- you wouldn't buy at that price, but would you obtain a non-licensed copy by alternate means ?

I am not trying to impose a moral judgement on that decision (I have been known to, on occasion, impinge on the intellectual proprety rights of others), but rather to properly gauge the economic impact. In my world, failing to make a sale is not the same as losing a sale to an alternative.

[RayB]

Cheffo, it's absolutely not the same, but corporations will always claim whatever helps prop up their side of the argument.

<offtopic>
Cheffo, how's the sound quality of using a BlackBerry as a music player? I've tried using various devices in the past (Dell Axim PDA, Sony Palm OS PDA, Samsung cell phone, etc) and in side by side tests none of them could hold a candle to the sound rendering of an Ipod.
</offtopic>

I filled out the survey, but I must say it's a little flawed. For one, it doesn't take into account free music. I listen to a heck of a lot of LAST.fm instead of purchasing music. Also I don't think it made a clear distinction between music as a physical tangible product and music as a digital download.

[CheffoJeffo]

<offtopic>
Cheffo, how's the sound quality of using a BlackBerry as a music player? I've tried using various devices in the past (Dell Axim PDA, Sony Palm OS PDA, Samsung cell phone, etc) and in side by side tests none of them could hold a candle to the sound rendering of an Ipod.
</offtopic>

I've got a Bold and it's pretty decent -- I can't tell the difference between Mrs. Cheffo's iPod and my Bold (even when run through a decent amplifier as we did at Mrs. Cheffo's  birthday party).

It's the first phone/PDA that I have had that I actually use for media playback.

I ADORE the screen ... I watched The Mission on it when I first got it and was totally blown away by both the audio and video performance.

[chopps]

done...

[Paul Olson]

I used to download a lot of music, but there isn't a whole lot out there worth the trouble anymore. I don't find it morally wrong at all anymore. They are lobbying successfully to kill fair use and the public domain, there is no way I could ever steal that much from them.I read that the movie or music industry is trying to charge universities a flat fee to pay for all of the people downloading. If that ever happens, I will download everything just to get my money's worth.


Before they got crazy with DRM and fighting downloading, I bought a lot of music (and movies). At least one tape or CD a month for over 20 years, and VHS or DVDs for about 10 years. When the technology became available for me to download replacement copies of music and movies that I owned licenses to, I expected to be able to do it. Then they started claiming that I was a thief because of it. I also downloaded music to try, and if I liked it I bought it. Not anymore.

In my case, I can actually claim that downloading from the internet didn't cost them money. Their reaction to it certainly did.

[DaveMMR]

When the technology became available for me to download replacement copies of music and movies that I owned licenses to, I expected to be able to do it. Then they started claiming that I was a thief because of it. I also downloaded music to try, and if I liked it I bought it. Not anymore.

In my case, I can actually claim that downloading from the internet didn't cost them money. Their reaction to it certainly did.

You're charging head first into gray territory.   I don't wholly disagree with you (I've, on occasion, downloaded albums for free because I didn't feel like recording my vinyl copy), but buying a copy of something doesn't suddenly give you unrestricted freedom to all subsequent formats or releases of the material.  You can make "backups", certainly - but if you owned it there'd be no reason to go and download it, thus the RIAA's reaction to such things.

Secondly, there's no "try it before you buy it" rule in place.  That's made up by websites dealing with pirated goods to pretend they're abiding by some obscure law that never existed.   I assume that the only person who can authorize a demo of the work is the copyright holder.   

Lastly, to say that downloading doesn't cost the record companies money is entirely wrong.   It's Business 101.  I'm definitely not siding with the RIAA here (if you ask me, their gouging caught up with them).  However, someone NOT buying a product is lost income.  They still need to pay the bills.  So yeah, it cost them money.   

[Paul Olson]

The riaa claims that you are not buying a physical object, you are buying a license. If I break or lose a cd, I should not lose that license. I wasn't even talking about rebuying licenses that you already own when a new format comes out. I think a license should include that, but I wasn't going into that. How many times should we have to pay for the same thing?

I was saying that I downloaded music to try it, then I bought it if I liked it. Back then, when all of this was new, most sites claimed that you could keep it for up to 24 hours. I went by that rule at the time, as I wasn't really familiar with the RIAA back then.

I wasn't claiming that they don't lose money from downloading, I was claiming that I stopped buying because of their stance on it, not because it was available. I wasn't making a general statement about everyone.

You are right that there is no try before you buy rule, but it is standard practice with any product outside of music, movies, and software. I can't think of a single other product that I can't return if I don't like it. Now we know that before we buy, but it didn't use to be widely known. I have bought copyrighted material that sucked, and I didn't know until after the fact that I couldn't return it like I could everything else in the store.

I don't try to make legal justifications for downloading, it is illegal. I do think that the music industry would lose a lot of cases if they actually went to trial, but I don't know of anyone who could afford to make a legal stand against them. I lot of people ask me how to find stuff online, and I usually tell them it is not worth the risk.

[Xiaou2]

 When I was starting to buy music on a regular basis as a teen... I started to see the prices climb higher and higher.   $10-$12 wasnt too bad... but when titles were $15-$20.. that was the last time Id buy regularly.

 Today, you can get a DVD for $7 with a decent movie... yet you cant get a decent CD
for that!  How pathetic is that overpricing?  A DVD holds 10x the data, and is much more
entertaining.

 Not only that... but the Record companies have been reducing the sound
quality with horrific levels of digital compression.   Its made the music sound flat,
undetailed, and it even distorts in spots!   Why did they do this?  To make the cds
sound louder!   I will NEVER pay for music again because of this downgrade in quality.

 Even many compressed Mp3s I have sound better than some of the latests cds!

 Pretty funny, that people who bought the new Metallica Cd,  found that the
Guitar Hero tracks sounded 50x better than their overpriced cds!

 
 Even in my teens.. when CDs were first coming into heavy popularity...  They started
to change over from AAD,  to ADD... and finally to complete Digital   DDD.    They said that
DDD was supposed to be the best... and yet my AAD  cd was easily noticbly better
by MILES!   The pure DDD was again, Flat, distorted, awful.   And I was far from being called an Audiofile!  I was horrified back then... but thought that maybe things would get better. Boy was I wrong!


 Not only that... but after sound quality left... shortly after came the cookie cutter
formula.   No more use of synths to create original sounds in music.  Heck, even
typical instrumentation became all Samples instead of real... which made every song
sound exactly the same.   And then finally, the Singers all sung the same way.. and
were not even good singers.   Music became a corporate exercise instead of a
wonderful creative process... and they ruined the entire industry, much like they ruined
just about every other area in life.

 
 And now... they want to make you pay $1 or more for a single compressed to hell,
track?  lol.   I dont think so.


 Its bad enough when your CD which was supposed to last forever... wont play
and you get no discount for your previous investment.   (They have long had the technology to cheaply make CDs last 100x as long)    But now,  when your PC and or
music player dies.. all your hard earned cash is Gone.   Proof of purchase?  Sorry,
dont mean squat to them.   There is no foundation for that, intentionally.
 

 Its very shameful and sad.   I actually was looking forward to buying the latest
Megadeth cd.  However, after hearing how brutally bad they butchered the sound
quality on it...  Ive passed.   And as much as I Love their music.. .I REFUSE to pay for
that garbage.   And NO,  Im NOT going to pay $20 for some new format if/when it
kicks in.

 Im not made of gold.  +$20 for a Blueray disc?!  Yeah right!  Aint gona happen.
They can make billions more if they drop prices.  The mass media costs them pennies to
make.

 People should stop buying all media for a year or two.  Let the entire industry fall to pieces. Then maybe when people try to rebuild it... it will have some actual Value to it again.

[mr_doles]

You should absolutely be able to try before you buy.  Ever go to a car dealership and buy a car without test driving it.  I can't count the number of tapes that I have bought as a kid because I heard 1 song on the radio and found the real reason there was only 1 song on the radio.  With that being said most stores like Walmart and Amazon will let you listen to samples of each song before you buy it.

Well that's just my 2 cents anyway, which would not even buy 2 seconds of 1 song. 

[Hoopz]

When I was starting to buy music on a regular basis as a teen... I started to see the prices climb higher and higher.   $10-$12 wasnt too bad... but when titles were $15-$20.. that was the last time Id buy regularly.

 Today, you can get a DVD for $7 with a decent movie... yet you cant get a decent CD
for that!  How pathetic is that overpricing?  A DVD holds 10x the data, and is much more
entertaining.

I agree.  Heck, you can't even get a CD for TWICE that sometimes.  It's pathetic.  Artists need to be compensated for their work; record companies don't.  Radiohead and Trent Reznor are pioneers in that area and I hope people support them as much as possible for that. 

From buying cassette tapes to CDs and now DVDs, the record industry hasn't come to terms with technology that appeals to various groups of people.

Stop and look at the fact that NBC offers webisodes of shows online like The Office.  Not just the show you forgot to DVR the other night.  Rather, they have new material that's available only online.  No fee, no bs.  Sure they may show an ad, but who cares.  That's why we have tabbed browsing.  They understand how to offer a quality product that meets a need (or creates a need).  The RIAA can suck it.

[Hoopz]

Oh yeah, took the survey!   

[saint]

Took the survey. I won't buy anything with DRM unless I know it's removable. Once I buy music, I want to be able to play it on my ipod, my computer at home, my computer at work, my Blackberry, and the widget I haven't purchased yet. Restrict my legitimate use, lose my business.

[(+_+)]

I feel the same way about overpricing Xiaou2.

I have a Blueray player and have only bought one blueray disk in 6 months. I find most of the media prices rediculously expensive. The ones that are cheaper (but still expensive IMO) are either crappy movies or are already a part of my DVD collection. I would rather never, every buy a BR disk and have my player rot and take the loss than give in to their flagrant prices.

[Neverending Project]

Done.

I was a little confused on your question asking about the most important aspect of new music to me. If I selected the answer "Digital Rights Management / Authenticity," was I saying that it is important for my music to have DRM, or it is important that my music does NOT have DRM?

I believe in the latter, and since I was unsure I picked Sound Quality. But in reality, the most important aspect to me is that it be unprotected. The music industry (next to the movies industry) giants can suck it with their DRM and all that crapola.

[emerica]

Done...

[RayB]

However, someone NOT buying a product is lost income.  They still need to pay the bills.  So yeah, it cost them money.

It's not lost income unless the customer would have otherwise bought it! A digital download is an instant copy of something. There is no cost in creating that copy (while a physical product that gets stolen has a cost associated with it!).  I really hate this argument (game publishers use it too to inflate their piracy statistics). It assumes every illegal download is a lost sale when in reality only a % of them are lost sales. The rest are just freeloaders taking what doesn't cost them anything, and were it impossible to get for free they wouldn't be buying them all!

[Visitor Q]

I started to take it but then I did not like the direction of the questions.

<---Player Hater. 

[Xiaou2]

 VisitorQ,

  I didnt bother to take it... cause I had a feeling that it was a "Loaded"  game.

Thanks for re-affirming it.

[Xiaou2]

(+_+) ,    (<--- interesting reply name!?   heh)

 
  I agree.   I also think its very wrong that they try to make people buy the
same media again and again because of format changes.   

 If we bought Indy once... then we should never have to buy him again.   If there is
a format change... then we should only have to pay a very small upgrade fee... and not
the Full retail rape.


 You know... if they charged about $3 a movie... they would make like 20 Trillion
dollars in a single week of sales.  They wouldnt even know what to do with all of that
money.   Even at a loss of typical profit levels,  the shear number of discs sold would give them more profit than they have ever seen in the history of selling discs.
 

[DaveMMR]

You should absolutely be able to try before you buy.  Ever go to a car dealership and buy a car without test driving it.  I can't count the number of tapes that I have bought as a kid because I heard 1 song on the radio and found the real reason there was only 1 song on the radio.  With that being said most stores like Walmart and Amazon will let you listen to samples of each song before you buy it.

Well that's just my 2 cents anyway, which would not even buy 2 seconds of 1 song. 

You can do that in most record stores nowadays - as well as iTunes.  But if you find yourself at the receiving end of the RIAA's madcap dash to sue their customers, downloading a full song with an intent of just "trying it out" is probably a weak defense.   Of course, IANAL (heh, heh "I Anal!").   

However, someone NOT buying a product is lost income.  They still need to pay the bills.  So yeah, it cost them money.

It's not lost income unless the customer would have otherwise bought it!

As far as the RIAA, software distributors, etc. are concerned - anyone who went through the trouble of obtaining it (no matter the difficulty, or lack thereof) wants it. 

A "lost sale" is essentially a "lost opportunity".  How could you accurately prove that someone "wasn't going to buy it anyway"?  On top of that, there are cheap people who will always go for the free over paying for something, despite quality, even if they want it. 

[RayB]

As far as the RIAA, software distributors, etc. are concerned - anyone who went through the trouble of obtaining it (no matter the difficulty, or lack thereof) wants it.

I want a Ferrari. But I can't afford one. Companies spend billions of dollars on marketing to creating "want" desires in people. Wanting something is not the same as a sale.

A "lost sale" is essentially a "lost opportunity".  How could you accurately prove that someone "wasn't going to buy it anyway"?

Back to the Ferrari again, a quick look at my net worth would easily show I couldn't buy one even if I sold everything I own.

So the solution: Hire skilled and impartial statisticians to figure out the % that likely would have spent some dough on what they otherwise got for free, scale it to the disposable income of those people and that estimate will be close to the actual losses. Internally I'm sure companies already do this, but they will never publicly use those more modest estimates since it doesn't help their agenda.

On top of that, there are cheap people who will always go for the free over paying for something, despite quality, even if they want it.

Agreed. But again, if that person has 1 million mp3s, but a disposable income of only $400 a month, can $1 million in losses be claimed? You can say the MP3s represent a retail value of $1 million, but they are not 1 million lost sales. At most you could claim he might have otherwise been able to buy $400 worth per month for X number of months (over 10 years he still would only have spent $48000). That's the distinction that's not usually made in the news media when companies talk about piracy (or when lobbying government), in order to make their side seem worse than it is.

*Note, I would never argue this same position when talking about physical goods. A theft of a physical item takes it away from the possibility of being sold to another customer, thus an actual lost sale. But if the company went to its insurance company and made a claim to replace the stolen item, the cost of the loss is not the retail price, but the wholesale price. However, you can bet that if the company were to announce news of a theft in the media, they would state its retail value, not wholesale.