Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog describes how some small-scale recording artists are succeeding on the web. One interesting bit mentions the “pay what you can policy” used by Jane Siberry. The result: People wind up paying more than they would at iTunes.
The Canadian folk-pop singer Jane Siberry has a clever system: she has a “pay what you can” policy with her downloadable songs, so fans can download them free — but her site also shows the average price her customers have paid for each track. This subtly creates a community standard, a generalized awareness of how much people think each track is really worth. The result? The average price is as much as $1.30 a track, more than her fans would pay at iTunes.
Choose an option and you see stats on what other customers chose:
Her store provides an open letter that explains the policy:
Like many, I’m restless and impatient with living in a world where people are made to feel like shoplifters rather than intelligent peoples with a good sense of balance. I want to treat people the way I’d like to be treated. ‘Dumbing UP’ (as opposed to ‘dumbing down’)....You decide what feels right to your gut. If you download for free, perhaps you’ll buy an extra CD at an indie band’s concert. Or if you don’t go with your gut feeling, you might sleep poorly, wake up grumpy, put your shoes on backwards and fall over. Whatever. You’ll know what to do…This is not a guilt trip. Feel no pressure. The most important thing is that the music flow out to where it could bring enjoyment. And THAT is the best thing you could give me.
The current pricing statistics listed at the site:
18% Gift from Artist
18% Standard
05% Pay Now
58% Pay Later
Avg Price/Song $1.17
07% Paid Below Suggested
80% Paid At Suggested
14% Paid Above Suggested
Karl N
on 18 May 07I like the idea, and think it would work well in places with a sense of community. I think in the larger impersonal world most people would take it for free because they can, but who knows?
I definitely like the idea of a “market value” of each track. Cause let’s face it, some are a lot better than others.
Erin
on 18 May 07The same thing exists in restaurant form (and it’s coming to NYC soon): www.oneworldeverybodyeats.com
Jared Christensen
on 18 May 07Juliana Hatfield did this a couple years back as an experiement. I believe it did well because of her insular, close-knit fanbase. This would never work for big-name artists, though. It’s the whole “music as commodity” vs. “music as experience” thing. It all comes down to how the fans treat the music.
Adam
on 18 May 07How can she display the average price people are paying for the track without calling it a guilt trip?
Imagine the bell-ringer during Christmas displaying a sign stating the average donation. How would you perceive this, honestly?
I dunno, maybe I am a pessimist.
Karl N
on 18 May 07Sometimes you just want to know what’s appropriate.
Is the 15% standard of tipping a guilt trip?
Mrad
on 18 May 07I agree with Jared. This wouldn’t fly with bigger artists. The underground guys have a different mindset of course. They’re dying to get their stuff out there – I’ve been to concerts where the band has said “Look us up on Limewire” with a wink.
This is a great way to build a loyal fan base, and to appear more accessible to the people that matter.
Adam
on 18 May 07Appropriate for who?
If you are asked to pay as much as you feel the product is worth, supplying any kind of number that measures you against a group is going to defeat this purpose.
What if I like the song better than you? I am getting more from the music than you are. Should you pay the same?
The point I am trying to make, is that worth and value are based off of one’s tastes, as well as income and the availability of money to spend. A $100 product will need to be perceived as more valuable to someone who makes $1500 a month, as opposed to someone who makes $15,000 a month. Therefore, I believe that providing any type of measuring stick defeats the purpose of asking the buyer to pay based on their own perception of value and worth.
I completely agree with her concept. I don’t agree with the ‘average price paid’, and that it is not a ‘guilt trip’.
Elliott
on 18 May 07I agree with Adam.
The ‘Average price paid’ Figure has two effects:
1) Bring price up due to guilt. 2) Bring price down due to not ‘overspending’
I believe 2 is more dominant that 1.
Mark A
on 18 May 07I like the feedback (not shown) when you make a selection from the list (screenshot in article above) telling you what percentage of people chose the option and for the ‘self-determined’ choice what the average spend is **.
I fear earlier comments are right that this is probably not going to work for the big players but I rejoice to see such an approach being used where it may.
Only problem the user is open to abuse if the site vendor makes occasional large seed payments to drive up the reported average to ‘encourage’ bigger payments – a bit like gratuitously recommending your friend’s book in Amazon, etc. I hasten to add I’m not imputing that’s happening here.Dan
on 18 May 07I think that the point of the article, as well as the example that 37 points out, is that this is something that’s working for smaller musicians who, frankly, have the most to lose as the world moves to digital downloads. Big-name artists will still get big-name contracts and the big-name labels will always exploit the fanbase to the highest amount possible. But for smaller artists who don’t just cultivate a fanbase, but cultivate a community around them, the possibilities of building that community into a supportive, paying, base is a wonderful idea. And it’s not going to happen from the pennies an arists makes off an iTunes sale. It’s going to happen when artists begin to deal directly with their fans.
Rabbit
on 18 May 07Magnatune does something similar whereby you can select from a set of predetermined amounts ($5 to $18) for the album you want to buy.
They also allow you to stream the albums, in full, for free. Forever.
I agree that showing what others have done can have an effect on what a song is worth to you, personally. (When I first heard this song I thought it was worth $10! But now that I see others are paying $2, I’ll just pay $3.)
On the flipside, I do like the transparency. Perhaps the data could initially be hidden from view, and then revealed upon clicking a link. I would also address the issue with some well written text, explaining that you should pay based on what the song is worth to you, and what you can afford. Then, if you either don’t know or are curious, you can see what others have done.
Josh
on 18 May 07@ Adam: I completely agree with her concept. I don’t agree with the ‘average price paid’, and that it is not a ‘guilt trip’.
I see average price paid as a way of displaying the community standard. This is certainly a way to influence behavior. A guilt trip? No, I wouldn’t call it that. Peer pressure? Yes.
Also: ”...worth and value are based off of one’s tastes, as well as income and the availability of money to spend.”
It’s oversimplifying to think that community perceptions don’t contribute to valuation.
Long TIme Listener - Repeat Caller
on 18 May 07Any chance we can get that with some 37S products? _
Long Time Listener - Repeat Caller
on 18 May 07Oops… My happy emoticon didn’t display at the end. Maybe this will do the trick… n___n
Adam
on 18 May 07@ Josh:”It’s oversimplifying to think that community perceptions don’t contribute to valuation.”
Good point. I definitely agree that community perceptions do play into an individual’s perception of value. Apple is a good example.
Yet, in this case, an artist who is making a living off of her music, asks the consumer to pay what they feel is “right”. I believe this moves past community pressure/values into guilt.
Mike
on 18 May 07I wish I could buy gasoline like this.
Alex Bunardzic
on 18 May 07Ah Canada… The land of beggars.
ronconnor
on 19 May 07great post thanks re: adams great comment starter [kudos]
people want guidance, very few want to re invent the wheel and do the research on what other peeps are paying. we learn from the herd. so, offering what others are doing stimulates more transactions. there is significant econo research on the web on this subject.
that said – this approach to marketing music on the web is in its infancy. many models need to run the course for this to shake out to the dom or standard practice. like many other ‘markets’ online.
i feel the online dist of music is special in that each artist/band and genre create different cultural and demographic profiles making the marketing and transaction science highly variable. eg. the buying behaviour of a 55yr old who likes jazz is not the same as an 17 yr old that buys dance. then add the label cartels and mr whats his name at apple’s influence (pos and neg) and you have the challenge we face.
i for one like her approach. i also like amie streets. but janes seems more honest which will connect w/ her listeners. no? i think the hook ( no pun intended) on amie st is they reward early adopters and that is crucial for unknown bands.
just a thought or 2. love the blog.
Jeff Woelker
on 21 May 07That’s a great pricing model. I’m waiting for the RIAA to step in and say “You can’t sell things that are your own. What is this America?”
Benjy Stanton
on 22 May 07Great.
Music taste should be very personal and therfore naturally part of a small community. I don’t believe that any one artist gains mass-appeal naturally (i.e it’s the marketing effect of the music industry).
All these shifts in distrubution models should undermine the big-names and support the more original, underground and arguably better acts.
This discussion is closed.