When media products—books, records, movies—were expensive to produce and distribute, it was a safe bet that sales volume was a predictor of quality, and therefore worthy of purchase or attention because so many other people had paid “good money” for it. Price was never considered a factor in determining a best seller.
But what happens when the costs to produce and distribute approach zero? How does it change the nature of media products and their consumption?
Media can be used for marketing—as a thank you gift, to promote a performance, or to promote a business.
Media is now collected (how many $0 or $.99 eBooks do you have on your eReader?).
That’s why I found it interesting that Billboard no longer counts albums selling for less than $3.49 when computing their Billboard 200 chart. Executive editor Bill Werde explains that “free or almost-free albums don’t represent a marketplace.”
In other words, the only fan that counts is one that’s paid at least $3.49.
In light of the race to digital media this seems like a rather antiquated and presumptive view. One thing is clear, all of these external measuring services will need to be reinvented to remain relevant once artists start selling direct to their fans.
Should best-sellers be qualified by price, or volume?
But what happens when the costs to produce and distribute approach zero? How does it change the nature of media products and their consumption?
That’s why I found it interesting that Billboard no longer counts albums selling for less than $3.49 when computing their Billboard 200 chart. Executive editor Bill Werde explains that “free or almost-free albums don’t represent a marketplace.”
In other words, the only fan that counts is one that’s paid at least $3.49.
In light of the race to digital media this seems like a rather antiquated and presumptive view. One thing is clear, all of these external measuring services will need to be reinvented to remain relevant once artists start selling direct to their fans.