Apple reportedly pressing labels for exclusive content as digital music sales dip
Sources within the music industry say Apple is pushing major record labels to offer exclusive content on iTunes, which would be sold using windowing strategies to boost slumping track and album sales.
Apple's iTunes music store as seen on the release of Beyonce's latest album.
According to Billboard, people familiar with Apple's recent moves said iTunes director Robert Kondrk has been aggressively going after labels to release exclusive content. The model would be similar to that of Beyonce's highly successful "visual album" released late last year.
In December, Beyonce dropped her self-titled album on iTunes and kept it an Apple exclusive for one week. Sold as a full album with 14 songs and 17 accompanying videos, "BEYONCE" moved over 800,000 copies worldwide in just three days, a record for Apple.
Key to the so-called "visual album's" success was the windowed sales strategy employed by Beyonce's Parkwood Entertainment and Columbia Records, which kept single tracks off streaming services until the second week of availability. The singer even kept YouTube videos to a minimum and only offered 30-second teasers at launch.
Windowing is used in a number of consumable content industries as a means to spur sales. A good example of the strategy is the sale of hardcover books, which bring in more money for publishers than the cheaper softcover versions released a few weeks later.
Sources claim Kondrk engaged in discussions during Grammy Week in January to push major labels to release new albums under similar sales models. The executive even suggested that new albums did not have to be iTunes exclusives as long as streaming services were shut out, the people said.
"The iTunes theory was that because of the easy availability to access albums on YouTube it has punctured sales globally for track and albums," said an unnamed executive from a major record label.
Kondrk also asked that individual tracks be windowed for a certain period before being sold separately from the full album and before being made available to streaming services. This is counter to the original iTunes model that sought to disrupt the space by breaking up albums and selling tracks individually.
Apple's iTunes music store as seen on the release of Beyonce's latest album.
According to Billboard, people familiar with Apple's recent moves said iTunes director Robert Kondrk has been aggressively going after labels to release exclusive content. The model would be similar to that of Beyonce's highly successful "visual album" released late last year.
In December, Beyonce dropped her self-titled album on iTunes and kept it an Apple exclusive for one week. Sold as a full album with 14 songs and 17 accompanying videos, "BEYONCE" moved over 800,000 copies worldwide in just three days, a record for Apple.
Key to the so-called "visual album's" success was the windowed sales strategy employed by Beyonce's Parkwood Entertainment and Columbia Records, which kept single tracks off streaming services until the second week of availability. The singer even kept YouTube videos to a minimum and only offered 30-second teasers at launch.
Windowing is used in a number of consumable content industries as a means to spur sales. A good example of the strategy is the sale of hardcover books, which bring in more money for publishers than the cheaper softcover versions released a few weeks later.
Sources claim Kondrk engaged in discussions during Grammy Week in January to push major labels to release new albums under similar sales models. The executive even suggested that new albums did not have to be iTunes exclusives as long as streaming services were shut out, the people said.
"The iTunes theory was that because of the easy availability to access albums on YouTube it has punctured sales globally for track and albums," said an unnamed executive from a major record label.
Kondrk also asked that individual tracks be windowed for a certain period before being sold separately from the full album and before being made available to streaming services. This is counter to the original iTunes model that sought to disrupt the space by breaking up albums and selling tracks individually.
Comments
I know why I don't buy as much music as I used to from iTunes and it's got nothing to do with Apple:
As for Apple, they were just late to the streaming game, and when they finally joined the party, they didn't show up with anything that distinguished them from the established competition. They honestly think "exclusive content" is going to bring consumers back? Hardly. The labels can pull a Beyoncé only so often before they piss off the other distributors to the point of losing their business entirely. Target is still fuming over that little debacle that cost them millions in album sales. If Tim keeps trying to play this game of "our way or the highway," he's going to be looking down the barrel of another anti-trust lawsuit. What one calls "windowing," another would describe as "anti-competitive." Your hardcover analogy is way off, btw, as hardcovers are available at multiple outlets at once, and they add value to collectors. What value does a "digital extra" add, when it's neither tangible nor exclusive, as they all find their way to YouTube etc eventually?
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/39003/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Here's a wild idea. Lower the prices.
Here's a wild idea. Get a job.
I was going to comment more on the fact that the song seems to be a “XXX tweaker mix”, but then I remembered it’s “twerking” and that a tweaker has a valid use in society.
Drops in sales have little do with Apple and iTunes and more to do with shifts in 1) consumer consumption and 2) overall demand. Many are quite happy, especially in younger generations to stream on demand through Spotify or even iTunes Radio. I don't buy the YouTube argument. The second part is how many times can people build/buy their music libraries to begin with?
Drops in sales have little do with Apple and iTunes and more to do with shifts in 1) consumer consumption and 2) overall demand. Many are quite happy, especially in younger generations to stream on demand through Spotify or even iTunes Radio. I don't buy the YouTube argument. The second part is how many times can people build/buy their music libraries to begin with?
Since my kids have started using Google music streaming, they haven't bought a single song, nor have we had to gift them cards for purchasing music. That's been over 6 months now. We used to spend easily $200/year on both kids.
I have a nice one. Hate much?
Those lawsuits against Apple Corps were a long and winding road.
First I would apple to fix the iOS :\safari crash bug. It has crashed 5 times trying to post this!
But to the benefit of both they found a way to come together
And now they both have a ticket to ride. (this will all end with someone else saying let it be.)
This topic is so yesterday.
Can you guys just let it be already?
Apple needs a good Spotify competitor, not just Radio.
An on-demand streaming service for music and video is meant to happen somewhen. A 15-20$ a month for unlimited everything would be amazing!
This would be great for Apple because then everyone would have to buy an Apple product to listen to their music.
Not for long.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/01/op-ed-disney-takes-a-chainsaw-to-the-star-wars-expanded-universe/
Pretty soon, the Star Wars Ewok Holiday Special will be more canon than Thrawn and Friends.