Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 26, 2018

The Rise of Streaming Music and Implications for Music Production

  • R. Scott Hiller EMAIL logo and Jason M. Walter

Abstract

In this paper, we model the potential for streaming music, a non-durable product, to upend and displace durable music sales. As the popularity of streaming music increases producers will adjust their production to focus on the non-durable channel. We identify conditions under which the changes in music delivery will encourage musicians to release fewer songs, but at a higher quality, leading to market deepening and increased engagement. This change will complete the unbundling process in music production making the traditional bundled album of little importance. This tendency toward unbundling for individual musicians depends on a robust bundle from a delivery platform to provide value for consumer subscriptions. Beyond a model of consumer utility and producer profit, we analyze the most played songs of the large streaming music platform, Spotify, and compare those results to traditional album sales using Nielsen data.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Fairfield University for a grant allowing for the purchase of data.

Appendix 1: Derivations

(QDS)τ=F(A)(PSPMP3)NPMP32τ2(N+IF(A))<0(QDS)N=F(A)PS2τ(N+IF(A))2>0(QDS)A=PSFA(A)N2τ(N+F(A))2<0(QDS)AN=FA(A)PS(NF(A))2τ(N+F(A))3>0(QDMP3)τ=F(A)(PMP3PS)+NPMP32τ2(N+AH)>0(QDMP3)N=PSF(A)2τ(F(A)+N)2<0(QDMP3)A=NPSFA(A)2τ(F(A)+N)2>0(QDMP3)AN=FA(A)PS(F(A)N)2τ(F(A)+N)3<0(QDS)τ=F(A)(PSF(A)N)τ2(F(A)+N)<0(QDS)N=PSF(A)τ(F(A)+N)2>0(QDS)A=(N+F(A))F(A)+(NFA(A)PSNτ(F(A)+N)2>0(QDS)AN=FA(A)PS(NF(A))τ(F(A)+N)3>0(QDMP3)τ=(PMP3F(A))τ2<0(QDMP3)N=0(QDMP3)A=FA(A)>0(QDMP3)AN=0(π)τ=I(PMP3F(A)r)(IF(A)PMP3+NPMP3F(A)PS)(IF(A)+N)2τ2  <or>Note: if rF(A)>PMP3  (π)τ<0(π)N=IPSF(A)(rF(A)PMP3)2τ(IF(A)+N)2  <or>Note: if rF(A)>PMP3  (π)τ>0(π)A=rIFA(A)2τ(PMP3+τPSF(A)N+IF(A))IFA(A)PS(rF(A)PMP3)2τ(IF(A)+N)2>0(π)AN=IFA(A)PS((F(A)N)PMP3+2NrF(A))2τ(F(A)+N)3  <or>(π)τ=(IF(A)+NPS)r(F(A))2+PMP3(F(A)PMP3)(IF(A)+N)τ2(IF(A)+N)<or>Note: if F(A)>PMP3  (π)τ<0(π)N=rIPS(F(A))2τ(IF(A)+N)2>0(π)A=IFA(A)(PMP3+2r)τ+rIFA(A)PSF(A)(2N+IF(A))τ(F(A)+N)2>0(π)AN=2IrFA(A)PSNF(A)τ(IF(A)+N)3>0

Appendix 2: Album Option

Our paper assumes a user’s decision is between MP3 purchases and streaming music. In this appendix, we explore the additional value that can come from albums. We first consider the consumer’s decision to purchase a bundle or individual MP3s in an unbundled form, without a streaming service option. We begin by examining the relevance of extras in the bundled form, which implies that L > 0. Assume that the number of songs to be sold as singles (with utility greater than zero) is D. In order for digital singles to strictly dominate bundled sales it must be that:

Σi=1I(F(Aij)xτ)PW<Σi=1D(F(Aij)xτPMP3)

Or that Σi=1I(F(Aij))PW>Σi=1D(F(Aij))DPMP3, which implies that if D = I and PW<IPMP3 then the bundle will be preferred. Intuitively, if every song is good enough to be sold as a single, then the relative price of a bundle versus MP3s will determine the format. However, if any song has low or no utility, then purchasing a bundle requires that PW<DPMP3, which becomes less likely as the number of high quality songs diminishes in a bundle. Since the strategy employed by the artist has implications even in the absence of a streaming option, we examine the effects of extras on album sales using differing strategies. We start by employing the medium strategy in a fully-served market. A consumer that prefers the bundled option relative to purchasing MP3s is represented by:

Σi=1I(FMxτ)PW+Ly>Σi=1I(FMxτPMP3)

Solving for the level of appreciation of extras included in a bundle, we see that the bundle must satisfy Ly>(PWIPMP3), or the consumer’s level of appreciation for the added value of the bundle must exceed the price difference to sell albums. Similarly, considering an album with one high value song and the remainder low, a consumer prefers the bundled option if:

FHxτIPW+Ly>FHxτPMP3

Implying that the bundle must satisfy y>1L(PW+xτ(I1)PMP3). Since PMP3>xτ for all x, it is clear that PWIPMP3<PW+xτ(I1)PMP3. As this property will always hold, we can conclude that the threshold is higher for a user to prefer purchasing an album from an artist that used the “hits” strategy relative to the “medium” strategy. For that reason, we state the following:

Proposition 3

Given a sufficient level of utility for extras (L), artists can sustain some bundled sales in the presence of unbundling, but the hits strategy reduces the sales of bundles compared to the medium strategy. With the hits strategy, purchasing individual songs is strictly preferred to a bundle in the absence of extras.

Our approach provides a theoretical reason for the empirical findings of Elberse (2010) that demand for bundles of songs with similar appeal is less impacted by alternative formats. Albums composed of similar songs (medium strategy) fare better than albums with songs of differing appeal (hits strategy), due to the value of the songs included. The advantage of purchasing an MP3 single is that it allows users to avoid the tying of bad songs to good ones, an effect magnified as artists incorporate additional lower appeal songs in an album. The removal of this effect makes users indifferent to bundled albums and buying every song individually. This indifference and the inclusion of extras that have utility within the bundle will therefore tip the users preference to purchasing the bundle.

Our result indicates that the dedication of fans may lead to different strategies. An artist with a dedicated fan base may find bundles more profitable, whereas a new or struggling artist may aim for a hit to derive profit. Moreover, in the absence of extras a bundle’s price under the hits strategy will certainly exceed the price of an individual MP3. Owning the remaining low value songs adds some utility, but the bundled premium will surpass any additional benefit.

As shown by Boluk (2015), the only music formats to increase in spending in the last 15 years are digital download and digital streaming, therefore we assume that when an artist identifies an optimal strategy they concern themselves less with the implications for bundled sales with extras.[43] Obviously, the dedication of fans plays an important role in the demand for music. Since our focus is the digital market, we proceed with the assumption that L = 0, to illustrate the potential for streaming to affect the digital market for music. We have shown that for the medium strategy, purchasing all singles is strictly preferred if PW>IPMP3 in the absence of extras, which we assume in our analysis. This allows us to focus on the comparison between (durable) digital songs and (non-durable) streaming.[44]

References

Adams, W. J. and J. L. Yellen (1976) “Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(3):475–498.10.2307/1886045Search in Google Scholar

Aguiar, Luis (2017) “Let the Music Play? Free Streaming and its Effects on Digital Music Consumption,” Information Economics and Policy, 41:1–14.10.1016/j.infoecopol.2017.06.002Search in Google Scholar

Aguiar, Luis and Joel Waldfogel (2018) “As Streaming Reaches Flood Stage, does it Stimulate or Depress Music Sales?” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 57:278–307.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2017.06.004Search in Google Scholar

Bakos, Y. and E. Brynjolfsson (1999) “Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency,” Management Science, 45(12):1613–1630.10.1287/mnsc.45.12.1613Search in Google Scholar

Berry, S. and J. Waldfogel (2010) “Product Quality and Market Size,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58:1–31.10.1111/j.1467-6451.2010.00404.xSearch in Google Scholar

Boluk, L. (2015) “Less Money, Mo’ Music & lots of Problems: A Look at the Music Biz,” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/less-money-mo-music-lots-problems-look-biz-jason-hirschhorn.Search in Google Scholar

Bran, S. and J. Matula (2014) “Music Talk: Streaming Vs Owning,” http://blog.ourvinyl.tv/music-talk-streaming-vs-owning/.Search in Google Scholar

Bulow, J. I. (1982) “Durable-Goods Monopolists,” Journal of Political Economy, 90(2):314–332.10.1086/261058Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Y. and J. Walter (2015) “Digital Piracy: Price-Quality Competition between Legal Firms and P2P Network Hosts,” Information Economics and Policy, 31:22–32.10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.04.002Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Y. and M. H. Riordan (2013) “Profitability Of Product Bundling,” International Economic Review, 54:35–57.10.1111/j.1468-2354.2012.00725.xSearch in Google Scholar

Christman, E. (2017) “Spotify’s Losses More Than Double To $581M, Revenues Rise to $3B,” https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7833686/spotify-2016-losses-financial-results-revenue.Search in Google Scholar

Chu, C. S., P. Leslie and A. Sorensen (2011) “Bundle-Size Pricing as an Approximation to Mixed Bundling,” The American Economic Review, 101:263–303.10.1257/aer.101.1.263Search in Google Scholar

Coase, R. H. (1972) “Durability and Monopoly,” The Journal of Law & Economics, 15:143.10.1086/466731Search in Google Scholar

Connolly, M. and A. Krueger (2006) “Rockonomics: The Economics of Popular Music,” Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, 1:667–719.10.1016/S1574-0676(06)01020-9Search in Google Scholar

Danaher, B., Y. Huang, M. D. Smith and R. Telang (2014) “An Empirical Analysis of Digital Music Bundling Strategies,” Management Science, 60(6):1413–1433.10.1287/mnsc.2014.1958Search in Google Scholar

Elberse, A. (2010) “Bye-Bye Bundles: The Unbundling of Music in Digital Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 74(3):107–123.10.1509/jmkg.74.3.107Search in Google Scholar

Essling, Christian, Johannes Koenen, and Christian Peukert (2017) “Competition for Attention in the Digital Age: The Case of Single Releases in the Recorded Music Industry,” Information Economics and Policy, 40:26–40.10.1016/j.infoecopol.2017.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Hiller, R. S. (2016) “Sales Displacement and Streaming Music: Evidence from YouTube,” Information Economics and Policy, 34:16–26.10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.12.002Search in Google Scholar

Kretschmer, Tobias and Christian Peukert (2014) “Video Killed the Radio Star? Online Music Videos and Digital Music Sales”. CEP Discussion Paper No 1265. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2425386 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2425386. Accessed on June 12, 2017.10.2139/ssrn.2425386Search in Google Scholar

McAfee, R., J. McMillan and M. Whinston (1989) “Multiproduct Monopoly, Commodity Bundling, and Correlation of Values,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104:371.10.2307/2937852Search in Google Scholar

Schmalensee, R. (1984) “Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling,” Journal of Business, S211–S230.10.1086/296250Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, Gary and Todd Green (2016) “Download or Stream? Steal or Buy? Developing a Typology of Today’s Music Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(1):3–14.10.1002/cb.1526Search in Google Scholar

Stigler, G. (1963) “United States v. Loew’s Inc.: A Note on Block-Booking,” The Supreme Court Reveiw, 1963:152–157.10.1086/scr.1963.3108731Search in Google Scholar

Thomes, Tim Paul (2013) “An Economic Analysis of Online Streaming Music Services,” Information Economics and Policy, 25(2):81–91.10.1016/j.infoecopol.2013.04.001Search in Google Scholar

Varian, H. R. (2000) “Buying, Sharing and Renting Information Goods,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 48(4):473–488.10.1111/1467-6451.00133Search in Google Scholar

Walter, J. M. and J. M. Peterson (2017) “Strategic R&D and the Innovation of Products: Understanding the Role of Time Preferences and Product Differentiation,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26(7):575–595.10.1080/10438599.2016.1249063Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-09-26
Published in Print: 2017-12-20

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 25.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rne-2017-0064/html
Scroll to top button