Comments on: Memo to eMusic: Surprise me! http://blog.hecker.org/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/ Mozilla, open source, and other random topics Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:07:37 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Swindleeeee!!!!! › Mental accounting costs and the eMusic model http://blog.hecker.org/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1110 Swindleeeee!!!!! › Mental accounting costs and the eMusic model Thu, 03 May 2007 05:38:06 +0000 http://swindleeeee.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1110 [...] However as I’ve previously commented, eMusic has at least some interest in relieving customers of this mental burden. The primary mechanism to do this is to provide the option to download an entire album at once, so the mental decision to download or not takes place at the level of the album and not at the level of the track. This is especially important for the types of music eMusic sells: Everybody knows what the hot single is on Justin Timberlake’s new album, but a customer would have to be pretty dedicated to know exactly which tracks are worth downloading from, e.g., Of Montreal’s latest. I don’t recall David Pakman or anyone else at eMusic ever providing hard data on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratio of whole album downloads to partial album downloads on eMusic is much higher than it is at the iTunes Store or similar mainstream digital music stores. [...] [...] However as I’ve previously commented, eMusic has at least some interest in relieving customers of this mental burden. The primary mechanism to do this is to provide the option to download an entire album at once, so the mental decision to download or not takes place at the level of the album and not at the level of the track. This is especially important for the types of music eMusic sells: Everybody knows what the hot single is on Justin Timberlake’s new album, but a customer would have to be pretty dedicated to know exactly which tracks are worth downloading from, e.g., Of Montreal’s latest. I don’t recall David Pakman or anyone else at eMusic ever providing hard data on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratio of whole album downloads to partial album downloads on eMusic is much higher than it is at the iTunes Store or similar mainstream digital music stores. [...]

]]> By: mrshl http://blog.hecker.org/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1108 mrshl Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:01:40 +0000 http://swindleeeee.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1108 Thanks for the heads up on the interviews with Pakman. There goes the rest of my morning. I started an Emusic group on Vox: http://emusic.groups.vox.com/ Check in occasionally. I'm going there now to post a link to your site. There's a ton of good information here for people into the Emusic. Even if you aren't updating so often, the back catalog is worth checking out. Thanks for the heads up on the interviews with Pakman. There goes the rest of my morning.

I started an Emusic group on Vox:

http://emusic.groups.vox.com/

Check in occasionally. I’m going there now to post a link to your site. There’s a ton of good information here for people into the Emusic. Even if you aren’t updating so often, the back catalog is worth checking out.

]]> By: Frank Hecker http://blog.hecker.org/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1109 Frank Hecker Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:36:59 +0000 http://swindleeeee.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1109 Thanks for the comment! Some quick points: David Pakman has quoted figures that imply that the average eMusic user downloads on the order of 20 tracks per month, or at best half their quota prior to the (US) price plan change. See my links to Pakman's interviews (which I need to update to reflect more recent articles). Re licensing difficulties in offering free tracks, I didn't state this explicitly, but my idea was eMusic simply pay labels for any free tracks offered, exactly as they would have been paid if such tracks had been downloaded by users in the regular course of affairs. Thanks for the link to your comments on eMusic; I'll take a look at them and may address them in a future post. Given my schedule it's hopeless to try and update the blog every day; however I will try to do a new post at least every week. Thanks for the comment! Some quick points:

David Pakman has quoted figures that imply that the average eMusic user downloads on the order of 20 tracks per month, or at best half their quota prior to the (US) price plan change. See my links to Pakman’s interviews (which I need to update to reflect more recent articles).

Re licensing difficulties in offering free tracks, I didn’t state this explicitly, but my idea was eMusic simply pay labels for any free tracks offered, exactly as they would have been paid if such tracks had been downloaded by users in the regular course of affairs.

Thanks for the link to your comments on eMusic; I’ll take a look at them and may address them in a future post.

Given my schedule it’s hopeless to try and update the blog every day; however I will try to do a new post at least every week.

]]> By: mrshl http://blog.hecker.org/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1107 mrshl Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:22:08 +0000 http://swindleeeee.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/memo-to-emusic-surprise-me/#comment-1107 Man I wish I had access to data on the point you raise: does Emusic really rely on lapsed downloads? To some extent, all subscriber models involve some measure of lapse and underutilization; so there must be some number of users who don't use all their downloads or use less than their allotment. But I wouldn't think this number would be great enough to form a reliable and significant profit center. Indeed, I think Emusic's latest subscription changes were addressing a very different problem: people who use up all their downloads fairly early in the month, but refuse to purchase the more expensive booster packs. The new plans reduced the number of downloads available for each tier (basic, plus, and premium). Obviously, that operated as a simple price increase. But the changes put some additional pressure on medium to high-utilization users. First, users who didn't have plus or premium accounts were encouraged to upgrade to take advantage of the grandfather clause that allowed users to keep the more generous limits if they upgraded before deadline. Users who had previously been happy with their 65 downloads may have rushed to get the 90 track/month deal before it vanished. This change might actually create more lapsed downloads. It suggests that one of Emusic's goals might actually have been to increase the number of lapsed downloads. But I think Emusic had a second goal in mind. The new limits put a second kind of pressure on our medium-to-high utilization users, especially subscribers who weren't able to lock in the more favorable limits. Users who want to download 75 or more tracks must now buy the more expensive booster packs. These packs are now smaller than they were, and they cost about twice as much per download a track purchased via a subscription. I suppose it's fair to say that Emusic's recent changes alter their price discrimination scheme to affect both kinds of users: those who lapse and those who use all their downloads every month. As someone who uses all 90 downloads I have, usually in the first week of the month, it's difficult to imagine that there are a significant number of users who allow their downloads to lapse. But I'd love to the see the numbers. I do like your idea, but I wonder whether it might be foreclosed by licensing difficulties. I've written about some other user-retention suggestions for Emusic here: http://mrshl.vox.com/library/post/the-future-of-emusic-what-id-like-to-see.html I like the blog. But I wish you'd update it more often. :) Man I wish I had access to data on the point you raise: does Emusic really rely on lapsed downloads? To some extent, all subscriber models involve some measure of lapse and underutilization; so there must be some number of users who don’t use all their downloads or use less than their allotment. But I wouldn’t think this number would be great enough to form a reliable and significant profit center.

Indeed, I think Emusic’s latest subscription changes were addressing a very different problem: people who use up all their downloads fairly early in the month, but refuse to purchase the more expensive booster packs. The new plans reduced the number of downloads available for each tier (basic, plus, and premium). Obviously, that operated as a simple price increase.

But the changes put some additional pressure on medium to high-utilization users. First, users who didn’t have plus or premium accounts were encouraged to upgrade to take advantage of the grandfather clause that allowed users to keep the more generous limits if they upgraded before deadline. Users who had previously been happy with their 65 downloads may have rushed to get the 90 track/month deal before it vanished. This change might actually create more lapsed downloads. It suggests that one of Emusic’s goals might actually have been to increase the number of lapsed downloads.

But I think Emusic had a second goal in mind. The new limits put a second kind of pressure on our medium-to-high utilization users, especially subscribers who weren’t able to lock in the more favorable limits. Users who want to download 75 or more tracks must now buy the more expensive booster packs. These packs are now smaller than they were, and they cost about twice as much per download a track purchased via a subscription.

I suppose it’s fair to say that Emusic’s recent changes alter their price discrimination scheme to affect both kinds of users: those who lapse and those who use all their downloads every month. As someone who uses all 90 downloads I have, usually in the first week of the month, it’s difficult to imagine that there are a significant number of users who allow their downloads to lapse. But I’d love to the see the numbers.

I do like your idea, but I wonder whether it might be foreclosed by licensing difficulties. I’ve written about some other user-retention suggestions for Emusic here:
http://mrshl.vox.com/library/post/the-future-of-emusic-what-id-like-to-see.html

I like the blog. But I wish you’d update it more often. :)

]]>