Doesn't mean it is intelligent of them. Selling a product that kills your customers is a bad idea, didn't stop the cig companies from being very successful with it.
Success is not a good indicator of how much potential other methods might be.
For example. Vtech is successful with making all the Vsmile games themselves. Regardless of the fact that they could make a lot more money if they also sold devkits.
Again. The music industry could switch gears entirely and embrace an online selling plan that uses already stored content to automaticly promote popular songs and songs that a person might like. Effectivly eliminating marketing costs, enabling them to sell for less, which in turn lets them sell even more. Making far more profit.
In other words. Free to listen internet radio, where you just click the playing song and add to some kind of cart. Downloads in order and subtracts from a pre-paid amount. Say. 5-10 cents a song, could be even less. The radio is built off the database of songs and plays things 'like' what you already bought. No longer is it important that a band sells millions and millions, because the shared cost of hosting the files is small, and the recording costs are already tiny.
You would sell more, the music would be better, there is no marketing cost (outside of the cost to market the outlet, which could be solved if the RIAA ran the store) and everyone wins.
Bringing the albums to the stores is trivial too, all the stores could tap into the site with a store-account and play a store radio in the store, and also have terminals that let people try any album they want before they buy (off a list of what is in the store, of course, and it is up to the store owner to keep the inventory up to date on his store site).
(and you could still sell the albums for 10-15 a pop in the store because you get the full package. Only now you make a profit on all of them, not minus the marketing costs)
SO yeah. Obviously enough people suffer through buying the albums for 15-20$ a pop for the music industry to make money.
It would be CRAZY for them to impliment something relatively cheap which stands no chance of ruining their current infrastructure while they test the new system, with an obvious track to follow towards switching gears with little risk. That couldn't possibly be more successful.
Success is not a good indicator of how much potential other methods might be.
For example. Vtech is successful with making all the Vsmile games themselves. Regardless of the fact that they could make a lot more money if they also sold devkits.
Again. The music industry could switch gears entirely and embrace an online selling plan that uses already stored content to automaticly promote popular songs and songs that a person might like. Effectivly eliminating marketing costs, enabling them to sell for less, which in turn lets them sell even more. Making far more profit.
In other words. Free to listen internet radio, where you just click the playing song and add to some kind of cart. Downloads in order and subtracts from a pre-paid amount. Say. 5-10 cents a song, could be even less. The radio is built off the database of songs and plays things 'like' what you already bought. No longer is it important that a band sells millions and millions, because the shared cost of hosting the files is small, and the recording costs are already tiny.
You would sell more, the music would be better, there is no marketing cost (outside of the cost to market the outlet, which could be solved if the RIAA ran the store) and everyone wins.
Bringing the albums to the stores is trivial too, all the stores could tap into the site with a store-account and play a store radio in the store, and also have terminals that let people try any album they want before they buy (off a list of what is in the store, of course, and it is up to the store owner to keep the inventory up to date on his store site).
(and you could still sell the albums for 10-15 a pop in the store because you get the full package. Only now you make a profit on all of them, not minus the marketing costs)
SO yeah. Obviously enough people suffer through buying the albums for 15-20$ a pop for the music industry to make money.
It would be CRAZY for them to impliment something relatively cheap which stands no chance of ruining their current infrastructure while they test the new system, with an obvious track to follow towards switching gears with little risk. That couldn't possibly be more successful.