2 ms·

What I don't understand is why the back catalog isn't more of a draw - in the music industry, but especially in the film industry. Instead of trying to push ne

What I don't understand is why the back catalog isn't more of a draw - in the music industry, but especially in the film industry. Instead of trying to push new releases, you could be flogging (selling) a raft of your back catalog for almost zero marginal cost. Aside from some perennial classics, this catalog must be earning nigh on zero. There is lots of obscure music and film that I'd happily buy/view/etc if the cost was low.

tjr 18y ago
There is a lot of obscure music I'd happily buy even if the cost was the same as the new stuff; I'd just like to be able to acquire it!
- jwilliams 18y ago
  Yup! This is key. The Internet is a new distribution channel - the marginal cost is very low compared to traditional methods... It's perfect for selling IP that can't beat the higher marginal cost for traditional distribution methods. There are probably orders of magnitude more people that would pay $1 to watch "They Live" than would fork out $10 to buy the DVD...
  - netcan 18y ago
    We'll see. I'd love to see a massive groundswell in music. But so far, we still have junkie 'hits'. Most peoples itunes playlists are essentially like the other guys' itunes playlist.
DenisM 18y ago
if the price was low? why would they release a n lower-cost product to compete with their higher-price poroducts for your attention and money?
- jwilliams 18y ago
  Yup - but I think this is a stronger case with traditional distribution methods. Where marginal costs are higher and there are other fundamental limits (e.g. your local music store can only hold so many CDs). The internet potentially has a significantly lower marginal cost. That channel is better suited to volume. (The expectation is that because you have n lower cost products, that people buy n rather than just one).
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    There's a limit as to how much users can buy/watch/listen to/afford though. That's the reason the whole long tail theory has been mostly evaporating anyway.

tjr 18y ago

There is a lot of obscure music I'd happily buy even if the cost was the same as the new stuff; I'd just like to be able to acquire it!

jwilliams 18y ago
Yup! This is key. The Internet is a new distribution channel - the marginal cost is very low compared to traditional methods... It's perfect for selling IP that can't beat the higher marginal cost for traditional distribution methods. There are probably orders of magnitude more people that would pay $1 to watch "They Live" than would fork out $10 to buy the DVD...
- netcan 18y ago
  We'll see. I'd love to see a massive groundswell in music. But so far, we still have junkie 'hits'. Most peoples itunes playlists are essentially like the other guys' itunes playlist.

DenisM 18y ago

if the price was low? why would they release a n lower-cost product to compete with their higher-price poroducts for your attention and money?

jwilliams 18y ago
Yup - but I think this is a stronger case with traditional distribution methods. Where marginal costs are higher and there are other fundamental limits (e.g. your local music store can only hold so many CDs). The internet potentially has a significantly lower marginal cost. That channel is better suited to volume. (The expectation is that because you have n lower cost products, that people buy n rather than just one).
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  There's a limit as to how much users can buy/watch/listen to/afford though. That's the reason the whole long tail theory has been mostly evaporating anyway.