Did they really need a Harvard study to figure out what we all knew all along?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Headache in a Suitcase

Site Team
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
75,799
Location
With the other morally corrupt bootlicking rubes.
from Rolling Stone.com

A controversial new study by economists at Harvard and the University of North Carolina has found that file-sharing is not the cause of declining CD sales. Researchers spent a year and a half analyzing downloads and sales figures for 680 albums -- and what they found contradicts the record industry's claim that online piracy has led to a fifteen percent decline in sales since 2000.

"No matter how we use our statistical models, we cannot find a connection between decreased sales and downloads," says Felix Oberholzer-Gee, co-author of the report and a professor at Harvard Business School. "If you want to understand why sales have changed as dramatically as they have, do not look to file-sharing."

The fifty-one-page study -- arriving six days after the record industry sued another 532 file sharers -- is the most rigorous economic analysis available. It tracks downloading spikes and declines that are caused by factors unrelated to a song's popularity and uses the ebbs and flows to analyze file-sharing's impact on CD sales. "If it were true that increases in downloads decrease sales, we should see that whenever we have fluctuations in downloads, we would have fluctuations in sales," Oberholzer-Gee says. "That's not what we've found." Sales of top-selling albums such as the 8 Mile soundtrack, for example, did not decrease after several downloading spikes caused by factors such as Internet congestion and increased uploading from German students on vacation, according to the report. (Fourteen percent of music downloads occur in Germany; more than half take place outside the U.S.)

The research also supports the idea that most people download music that they wouldn't buy anyway. And, says Oberholzer-Gee, "the Internet is more like radio than we thought. People listen to two or three songs, and if they like it, they go out and buy the CD."

The record industry rejected the report immediately. "It flies in the face of reality," says an anti-piracy lawyer at one of the major labels. "All you have to do is ask a few college students to find out that they're buying less music." College students, in fact, have become a prime industry target: Eighty-nine of the alleged violators in the most recent round of cases were caught on university networks. Twenty-one schools ranging in prestige from Georgetown and Stanford to California State, Northridge, were caught in the net. And according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the strategy will continue: Every few months, about 500 cases will be filed, with people randomly pulled from services such as Kazaa. "We're not necessarily targeting university networks, but we want to send a stronger message," says Stan Pierre-Louis, the RIAA's executive vice president of legal affairs. "Everyone will face consequences if they violate copyright."

Two of the researchers who have done their own studies on file-sharing also have criticized the report. Josh Bernoff, an analyst at Forrester, a technology research firm, and Stan Liebowitz, a University of Texas economist, say that the Harvard-UNC study is flawed partly because it focuses too narrowly on the holiday season. Gift-buying in late December skews sales upward, they argue, undermining the damage that downloading might do.

But, says Oberholzer-Gee, "we excluded the holiday season and didn't find a different result." And while critics continue to question the study's methodology, Oberholzer-Gee says that the conclusions are irrefutable. "We did all the tests we could to make sure it was robust, and it is," he says. "What I find bizarre is that this is five years after file-sharing started, and we're the first people to do a sensible study. Wouldn't most industries do this before starting lawsuits? This should have been done years ago."
 
Hey, if even academic studies are stating that downloading does have a direct influence on lower CD sales, then that's one less argument the music companies can use. :)

MrBrau1, you're right, that's one reason. And the economic downturn. And the competition with other forms of entertainment (DVD, mobile phones, etc.).

C ya!

Marty
 
The reason Tower and other CD chains are having trouble is because Best Buy. Circuit City and WalMart sell CDs for like 5 bucks less apiece and they can't compete with that because they don't sell other stuff. So all they ever sell is the rare stuff those places don't carry, and that's not enough to stay in business.
 
The Studies are clearly flawed. When people can get something for free instead of buying it, the result will be a decrease in sales of the product. The Average person does not buy something that they can get for free. Its as simple as that.

The decrease in album sales coincides with the increase in File Sharing and CD burning. As for those who explain the decrease in sales because of "shitty music", there was just as much of that "shitty music" if not more, when sales were going through the roof. Counting for inflation, CD prices have never been cheaper.
 
it has to be increasing them among smaller labels that aren't being polled in studies that show the record industry losing money. the way i see it, people who really care about music aren't going to stop buying it and stop supporting the bands they like just because they can get it for free. it's the people not purchasing mainstream music who are screwing it up for everyone else. that can be attributed to either side of the arguement: that the music being put out on major labels is shit, or the people listening to it happen to be the ones not chosing to support who they listen to. i feel a lot less guilty downloading music by a multi-millionare band on a major label than i do downloading stuff on a small label by a lesser-known band.
 
IWasBored said:
the way i see it, people who really care about music aren't going to stop buying it and stop supporting the bands they like just because they can get it for free.

Agreed. I download music, as do my dad and sister, and we still go out and buy CDs. Downloading is a good way to help me see if I want to hear more from an artist I may be getting into. If I like what I hear, I'll gladly go out and buy the CD. Besides, once again, smaller towns do not always have the CDs you would like to get available, which is what happened to me. Now it's not so hard for me, 'cause there's a couple bigger cities nearby where there's more access to this stuff, but in the last town I lived in, the stores barely sold squat in the way of CDs by artists I liked-it was basically greatest hits compilations and maybe one or two other CDs, all of which I'd already owned (and depending on the artists I was into, with some of them, when looking around, I didn't see a single one of their CDs in stores at all). There's many factors involved in why some people may not be buying CDs.

Angela
 
I heard an interesting theory about dropping CD sales in our local paper. He wondered if sales dropped because older people like himself had gone out, bought CD players and steadily bought all their favorite older albums on CD. Once they had them all, they quit buying...

We had a long discussion about downloading in one of my classes. Everyone said the same thing--they only downloaded stuff they couldn't get anywhere else, or to listen to more of the album before buying it. No one quit buying music as a result--the only reason they didn't buy an album was because they only liked one song off it. No one downloaded whole albums rather than buying them.

We download stuff all the time, but it's mostly older or obscure stuff we can't get anywhere else, or won't buy a whole CD for. If downloading really has affected music sales, that's probably why--the industry can't sucker anyone into buying crappy albums for one good song.
 
I'd say there are several reasons why sales drop: increase of CD prices (at least in my country, by 30% for the most popular bands/singers in the last two years or so), competing with DVD/internet, but maybe the most because the music industry (the major 5 labels that own 90% of the market) focuses on teens and pushes on rap/R&B/hip hop/num-metal music (and demands commercial succes or it will drop the artist from their bill), and so leaving out other audiences that do not care as much for this type of mainstream music. Music industry is way too short-term oriented ever since the 90's brought about the boy-band, produced bubble-gum pop music, and the Spice girls clones, and now all sorts of Pop Idol type of music.

The major bucks IMO these days is in touring, not as much as album sales (or even singles). It would be interesting to see how much money the labels are losing by the downloads, they suffer the most if you ask me. If younger bands can't get a deal because people download their music, it's the label's fault IMO because they won't be able to sell as much as they "should" to even get a record deal, much less stay with the label in the future.

The interesting part is not all bands have a problem with downloading, and CD burners/MP3 players are perfectly legit to buy - and go figure: consumers download popular music. (the biggest artists still sell huge amounts of albums anyway)
Luckily, several musicians realised the downloading is inevitable and that internet is something you just can't compete with, so they now offer live shows (like Pearl Jam), live MP3s (like Metallica), music on their website (George Michael plans to do that) or just plainly allow fans to tape their live shows (Dave Matthews band). Also I think services like itunes are a part of how to deal with the new technology, NOT sending out lawsuits to teens.

Personally, I only downloaded a few U2 songs I couldn't get anywhere else to see if I like them - otherwise I don't do it because I still buy all my CDs.
 
MrBrau1 said:
CD sales are dropping because music today is shit. Simple.

Agreed :up:

Mind you I noticed on Video Smash Shits on the weekend there were a few ugly bands so perhaps its the begining of a broadening of the music styles widely available at the moment. Heres hoping anyway. :hyper:
 
Flying FuManchu said:
LOL... I actually wonder if file sharing actually does increase CD sales more than it takes away from them... I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't....

I agree, because I know several people, especially young guys, who went on CD buying kicks because of the stuff they found online. It got them interested in songs and bands, found new and obscure bands, and went hog wild. Their CD collections grew to twice the size of pre napster. Also, most people like the liner notes, the covers, and the REAL CD better than a 'burned' one with magic marker writing on it. I usually lose those. I keep my CDs in cases, even if I take them in the car in those pocket things I still put their booklets with them. The only 'burned' CDs I have are a few bootlegs and compilations of things I liked 'okay' but never would have bought in the first place.

That's one thing that's overlooked in this, a lot of people burn things they kinda like but would never actually have paid for, like if you like one song and don't want to pay 15 bucks for it buying the whole CD, but burning or not, they didn't lose any money if it was never going to be bought anyway.
 
Exactly ^^^^.

U2girl said:
I'd say there are several reasons why sales drop: increase of CD prices (at least in my country, by 30% for the most popular bands/singers in the last two years or so), competing with DVD/internet, but maybe the most because the music industry (the major 5 labels that own 90% of the market) focuses on teens and pushes on rap/R&B/hip hop/num-metal music (and demands commercial succes or it will drop the artist from their bill), and so leaving out other audiences that do not care as much for this type of mainstream music. Music industry is way too short-term oriented ever since the 90's brought about the boy-band, produced bubble-gum pop music, and the Spice girls clones, and now all sorts of Pop Idol type of music.

The major bucks IMO these days is in touring, not as much as album sales (or even singles). It would be interesting to see how much money the labels are losing by the downloads, they suffer the most if you ask me. If younger bands can't get a deal because people download their music, it's the label's fault IMO because they won't be able to sell as much as they "should" to even get a record deal, much less stay with the label in the future.

The interesting part is not all bands have a problem with downloading, and CD burners/MP3 players are perfectly legit to buy - and go figure: consumers download popular music. (the biggest artists still sell huge amounts of albums anyway)
Luckily, several musicians realised the downloading is inevitable and that internet is something you just can't compete with, so they now offer live shows (like Pearl Jam), live MP3s (like Metallica), music on their website (George Michael plans to do that) or just plainly allow fans to tape their live shows (Dave Matthews band). Also I think services like itunes are a part of how to deal with the new technology, NOT sending out lawsuits to teens.

*Nods*

Another artist who has no problem with downloading is Tom Petty...a few months ago, I heard a story about him allowing a bunch of his albums to be availiable on Napster for people to download. :).

Seriously, all those who are upset with file-sharing...I wonder what they have to say about the artists who allow it to happen?

Angela
 
BINGO

Headache in a Suitcase said:
"the Internet is more like radio than we thought. People listen to two or three songs, and if they like it, they go out and buy the CD."


:yes:

IMO internet can be very handy at discovering new music; especially any non-mainstream MTV/radio stuff - I see it as a test for music, if you will - download a song or two, if you don't like the artist, fine. If you do, you will probably end up buying at least one album. I will also say bands/singers could, instead of racing for the No.1 spot on the chart with singles, put out a 30 second or so bits of their album songs on their website and let the people see how they like their music. They've got nothing to lose; the core fans will buy the album anyway, and they can only gain new fans IMO.

I don't think people download albums massively and it makes no sense to download something you were going to buy anyway. If you're a fan of a band, you will still buy their music, see them live etc...
 
STING2 said:
The Studies are clearly flawed. When people can get something for free instead of buying it, the result will be a decrease in sales of the product. The Average person does not buy something that they can get for free. Its as simple as that.

The decrease in album sales coincides with the increase in File Sharing and CD burning. As for those who explain the decrease in sales because of "shitty music", there was just as much of that "shitty music" if not more, when sales were going through the roof. Counting for inflation, CD prices have never been cheaper.

Yeah, I know tons of people who refused to buy albums cause they could just tape the songs off the radio for free.

They should also mention that CD sales are down because of several boycotts against buying music. ALOT of people are still upset the RIAA sued 13 yr olds. $18.99 for a cd is disgusting.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Agreed. I download music, as do my dad and sister, and we still go out and buy CDs. Downloading is a good way to help me see if I want to hear more from an artist I may be getting into. If I like what I hear, I'll gladly go out and buy the CD. Besides, once again, smaller towns do not always have the CDs you would like to get available, which is what happened to me. Now it's not so hard for me, 'cause there's a couple bigger cities nearby where there's more access to this stuff, but in the last town I lived in, the stores barely sold squat in the way of CDs by artists I liked-it was basically greatest hits compilations and maybe one or two other CDs, all of which I'd already owned (and depending on the artists I was into, with some of them, when looking around, I didn't see a single one of their CDs in stores at all). There's many factors involved in why some people may not be buying CDs.

Angela




u2kitten:
I agree, because I know several people, especially young guys, who went on CD buying kicks because of the stuff they found online.

i've been on one of those kicks since i first had an internet connection that allowed me to do that. despite the fact that my job sucks and i don't make a lot of money, i'm still doing that.




and i'd rather spend money on some albums i like, get the artwork with it, and everything, rather than spending a pile of cash on blank cds.

do i have burned music? hell yeah. a lot of it. but most of it is bootlegs and shit like that, or when i'm really into an album and can't wait until i have the money to buy it i'll burn a copy from someone, until i can buy my own.

i've done things like gone to 7 different record stores, even tried special ordering, in order to find an album. ok, so maybe i'm a little extreme, but there are always people out there who are like you or worse.
 
Originally posted by IWasBored
do i have burned music? hell yeah. a lot of it. but most of it is bootlegs and shit like that, or when i'm really into an album and can't wait until i have the money to buy it i'll burn a copy from someone, until i can buy my own.

Yeah, I don't think they understand some people can't afford to go out and buy everything they like. But we eventually do if we can!

My niece and nephews are really into online music, and have found a lot of bands that way. One of my nephews only likes indie and un-mainstream stuff he found online.

I am guilty of not doing exploring online music, but it's a different world for me. I'm not a teenager or a college student, I'm a 34 yr old mom and wife with 3 kids and a lot of problems. All my online time is spent here on Interference. So that's why I'm not into new and more obscure stuff, it's not something I have time for right now. So it's great for you who do that a lot, and I understand how you enjoy it but I hope you all won't think I'm backward or only for mainstream stuff because I'm not into a lot of indie stuff right now.

Speaking of indie, there are a lot of indie stores (like Plan 9 here, don't know what you guys have) that do well on the underground and harder to find stuff. People who want that stuff usually go there, which takes away the last customer places like Tower would have (looking for stuff big chains don't carry) which again hurts them. But it's NOT because of downloading, not mostly anyway.

Originally posted by MrBrau1
They should also mention that CD sales are down because of several boycotts against buying music. ALOT of people are still upset the RIAA sued 13 yr olds. $18.99 for a cd is disgusting.

Which is why when Best Buy, Circuit City and WalMart sell them for $12.99 it runs places like Tower out of business, but Tower's demise gets blamed on downloading :sigh:

Those places can afford to undercut prices because they make it up in washers, computers, etc. Tower can't do that, so they lose out.
 
Last edited:
Even though it goes against instinct, I'd have to agree that downloading music for free can't be what has the most impact on record sales.

Take me for example: when I was younger, before I was even a U2 fan, I rarely bought CDs. My family didn't have a CD player stereo until much later and I spent my early teens taping my favorites off the radio and playing them in a walkman (which I still do since the walkman is the only thing that works running/biking). I have hundreds of CDs (burned + bought) and less than 20 are ones I bought. CDs were NEVER affordable so I used them to fill my Christmas list or my friends gave me CDs for my birthday, etc. Now I download hours and hours of music, but it hasn't changed my CD buying habits at all. You can't work backwards and say "oh, she downloads a shitload of music and never buys CDs now so that must be the reason" b/c the truth is I've never been into spending over $10 for a little shiny disc. I prefer data discs of mp3s since I don't even have a stereo to play CDs with and play all my music from my desktop computer.

Downloading hasn't increased my CD buying either. I DO buy more CDs now that I'm a U2 fan (and by more I mean whenever something new comes out...once or twice a year). This has more to do with the internet and becoming a bigger fan in general, not downloading capabilities. I download U2 bootlegs that you can't buy anyway, but I don't download mp3s of studio songs (I rip my own mp3s at the quality I want).

If people want albums they will buy them, period.

If people want mp3s they will download them.

There's not as stong a correlation as people commonly assume.
 
MrBrau1 said:
CD sales are dropping because music today is shit. Simple.

So not true. There's so much good music being put out every week it's almost ridiculous. Of course the only way you'll find out about it is online because the radio and the media largely ignores it. I'm not really disagreeing with you, just being specific.

Also, I think the biggest hit to CD prices is less the fault of online file trading, and more DVDs. I never used to buy VHS at all.. but now my family has a ridiculously large DVD collection. Why? DVDs are worth the money. When a DVD (a whole movie + sometimes a hell of a lot of extra features) is the same price as a CD... what would you buy? Also because a DVD is something you sit down and physically watch, put time into, etc.. it seems more worthwhile, versus a CD that's just always kinda on in the background. You don't invite your friends over to listen to your new Nickelback CD (though you may play it in the background), but you DO invite all your friends over to sit down and watch a nice new DVD. CD's problem? they need to do more, or cost less.

I do believe that music is one of the most profound and important things in existence.. so... I do think it's worth a lot of money. but it's so hard to justify spending that much money on it, even though I spend most of my soul on it. I do go to concerts though, quite more than I can probably afford to. And my current problem is that I have a portable mp3 player now, so I don't even use all the CDs that I do have... they just sit on my shelf unopened and un looked at it, unless I want to leaf through the liner notes or something.

Just some thoughts.
 
the problem isn't crappy music... the problem is crappy set lists on the radio... someone mentioned tom petty already... his last album is great... the last dj... it's so true. today's jock isn't allowed to play what he wants to play... everything's a pre-determined list set by a program manager that sits in a corporate office somewhere taking what amounts to modern day payola. THAT is why people aren't buying CDs. there is good music out there... but if it's not readily accesable, how are people supposed to know about and thus buy it?

me, i have thousands of downloaded mp3s... but there's only one album that i've downloaded in it's entirety... the gray album... the jay-z beatles mix, which is next to impossiable to find in stores. other than that, i've done exactly what this report suggests... download a couple of songs, go out and buy the album if i like it. and when i was a kid... before this whole internet music craze started... i used to do the exact same thing... only i'd record the song on a tape off the radio rather than download it off the internet.

and fucking lars can beeeeelllloooow me... metallica's career started on fans trading tapes of the band... now people are doing the same damn thing, only with new technology, and all of a sudden it's a problem. bug off ya little shit.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:

and fucking lars can beeeeelllloooow me... metallica's career started on fans trading tapes of the band... now people are doing the same damn thing, only with new technology, and all of a sudden it's a problem. bug off ya little shit.


:up: :bow: :laugh:
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
the problem isn't crappy music... the problem is crappy set lists on the radio... someone mentioned tom petty already... his last album is great... the last dj... it's so true. today's jock isn't allowed to play what he wants to play... everything's a pre-determined list set by a program manager that sits in a corporate office somewhere taking what amounts to modern day payola. THAT is why people aren't buying CDs. there is good music out there... but if it's not readily accesable, how are people supposed to know about and thus buy it?


I have made this point to my friend?s countless times. Clear Channel should rot in hell. They have ruined the radio. Their play lists and the fact that each song has to be played a certain number of times everyday makes me ill. In my opinion this practice goes against everything creative that has to do with music. Especially at stations where the major market for the music is the teen market.

We all know that the majority of people (especially teens) are highly influenced and that most people will do what others do or or what someone pumps into them. So you have the two major companies? that own 90+% radio stations and the few big labels able to set what they want to be popular and make them money. As a result now (at lease in the US) you have little diversity presented to people at least on the stations I would listen to. Other than file sharing or another form of word of mouth there is no way for them to know about the artists. And the masses probably do not care to look outside of the 10 artists who are spoon fed to them day after day to find something new and interesting.

In my opinion the radio stations that play music should be in the job of introducing people to artists - all sorts of artists and not just the 10 on the Clear Channel heavy rotation play list - there of course would be those that are more requested than others, but imagine if DJ's were able to choose songs from a much wider pool of music. They would be exposing many more people to a vast array of musicians. I would actually listen to the radio if I did not hear Linkin Park every 5 mins on every channel. Imagine listening to the radio hearing a song you had never heard before and thinking "that ruled." Unfortunately I do not think that happens often anymore.

WHFS, which is a huge channel in the MD, DC, Northern VA area use to be so good. They were the "alternative channel" in the earyl 90's. They played all sorts of music, good music. Now they are owned by Infinity Radio Group, they still call themselves "The True Alternative" and they only play the same nonsense on every other station in the rock/alternative format does. '

In my opinion fixing the bane that is the radio right now should be what the music industry focuses on.

</endrant> which was slightly off topic of this thread.
 
STING2 said:
The Studies are clearly flawed.

What exactly about the methodology employed by the researchers leads you to the conclusion that the study is flawed? A study reaching conclusions which you dislike does not mean that the study is flawed, it means that you disagree with the conclusions.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
the problem isn't crappy music... the problem is crappy set lists on the radio... someone mentioned tom petty already... his last album is great... the last dj... it's so true. today's jock isn't allowed to play what he wants to play... everything's a pre-determined list set by a program manager that sits in a corporate office somewhere taking what amounts to modern day payola. THAT is why people aren't buying CDs. there is good music out there... but if it's not readily accesable, how are people supposed to know about and thus buy it?

:yes:. That album The Last DJ is awesome. My dad works in radio and he can totally relate to it. DiGi mentioned Clear Channel...heh, my dad's gone off on a few rants about them and others like them, too. Those kinds of groups have ruined many a station he's worked in.

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
me, i have thousands of downloaded mp3s... but there's only one album that i've downloaded in it's entirety... the gray album... the jay-z beatles mix, which is next to impossiable to find in stores. other than that, i've done exactly what this report suggests... download a couple of songs, go out and buy the album if i like it. and when i was a kid... before this whole internet music craze started... i used to do the exact same thing... only i'd record the song on a tape off the radio rather than download it off the internet.

and fucking lars can beeeeelllloooow me... metallica's career started on fans trading tapes of the band... now people are doing the same damn thing, only with new technology, and all of a sudden it's a problem. bug off ya little shit.

:up:.

Also, ditto the comments about CD prices being ridiculously high in some places.

Angela
 
I don't know.... I believe radio setlists play what is popular unless record companies do pay stations to play songs...

I mean music is so fractured in terms genre/ taste/ etc. that to be honest I don't begrudge radio stations for playing set setlists. Radio is a business.... they got to go with what is popular and play it over and over. I blame music snobbery for the way music is today.

People ignore the business apsects of radio, as if the models that people have brought up such as a DJ playing what he wants/ likes would be the best idea...

I think that would be money-losing situation.
 
CD prices are relatively low at Best Buy and Circuit City, however the fact that they will not carry some rare/ older CDs such as Pavement, Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, Eric Johnson, or Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs EPs is the negative aspect of that cheap price.

The music industry- I scratch my head....
 
Back
Top Bottom