One common argument as to why the music industry has experienced a decline in sales is that quality has decreased and albums overall just aren't as great as they used to be. Regardless of whether or not that statement is accurate, this does make sense from an economics perspective: the best prices are those where the seller and buyer both feel they are getting a good value. Currently, in music, this equation is off. So, is it possible that this is because consumers don't feel the value provided by the music is worth the asking price?
Most would agree that the reason they pay attention to the commercials during the Super Bowl is that they are particularly high in quality, entertainment value, and creativity. If people are willing to pay attention to something they usually might claim to be annoyed by, is it possible the same concept could be applied to music? Will people who generally don't buy music be willing to pay, in some form, for music they consider to be truly great? According to the RIAA and NPD, only 37% of music is acquired illegally. For argument's sake, imagine that there is one musician in the world who is unanimously loved by everyone. If this ideal artist were to release a new record, would that record see the same percent of illegal downloads as others do? Do you believe consumers aren't satisfied with the quality of most records and aren't willing to invest their money into them? Or at least that this was a catalyst for the success of Napster? Is there a way, like advertisers do at the Super Bowl, to use high quality content to make music fans more willing to pay?
What do you think?