I may not be an economist, but it recently occurred to me that something seems to have gone awry in the modern, mass-production-oriented marketplace.
As we all know, the principles of supply and demand are considered to be of fundamental importance in the workings of a healthy free market economy. The greater the demand for a good or service, so one crucial thread of the idea goes, the higher the fair market price of that good or service on the open market, particularly if the means to produce the good or service are in short supply. On the other hand, the price of a particular good or service might still be kept relatively low despite high demand if the good or service can be cheaply made available. In this way, supply and demand in classical economics act as counterweights to one another, theoretically, and ultimately work to bring consumer prices, producer costs, and everything else into a kind of optimal equilibrium.
But consider this: In modern, industrialized, mass-production-oriented economies, goods and services that aren’t in great demand actually cost more to produce than those that are in greater demand because the costs associated with large-scale manufacturing technology and infrastructure make it cost-prohibitive to produce smaller quantities of most goods.
Suppose, for example, that I wanted to buy a left-handed patio chair. What’s a left-handed patio chair? It doesn’t really matter, but let’s just say it’s a variation on the common household plastic patio chair.
So I drive down to the local patio furniture outlet and ask them how much it would cost me to buy a left-handed patio chair. Naturally, the salesman looks at me as if I’m crazy. I reassure him that I’m not, and I go on to explain exactly how a left-handed patio chair differs from a typical patio chair. After some back and forth, he tells me he can’t help me but directs me to the chair factory downtown that produces all the chairs sold in his shop. I thank him and continue along my way.
When I arrive at the factory, I tell the factory boss what I’m looking for, and he apologetically says that there just isn’t enough demand to merit producing left-handed patio chairs in his factory, but he knows a craftsman up in the Catskills who can whittle such a chair for me for about $500. I tell him I need it in plastic, like an ordinary patio chair. “Then you’re out of luck, “he replies, because he doesn’t even know if that’s possible.
As this rhetorical example illustrates, in a mass-production oriented economy, goods for which little or no demand exists are nevertheless significantly more expensive on the open market than goods that are in higher demand even when the raw materials needed to produce them are abundantly and cheaply available!
Doesn’t it stand to reason, then, that mass-production oriented industries are fundamentally incompatible with the most basic axioms of a healthy free marketplace?
Mass-Market Music Burnout
If the latest CD sales figures reported in the Wall Street Journal (available via Slashdot here) are any indication, the future of the American music industry is starting to look a lot different than its recent past. With CD sales continuing to drop precipitously (another 20% according to the latest figures), the major labels are probably doing a collective spit-take right about now.
Which raises the obvious questions: What's behind these plummeting sales figures? Can the fall-off in sales be attributed solely to the Internet effect--i.e., are digital music sales and on-line piracy to blame--or are there other factors involved in these recent trends?
Just venturing a wild guess here, I'd say it's a combination of the Internet effect, and another, as yet largely unquantified factor: Mass-market music burnout. Although I don't know of any systematic attempts to quantify the effect of mass-market music burnout, anecdotal evidence and intuition suggest to me that increasing numbers of ordinary people simply find mass-market music boring.
Over the years, mainstream music industry A&R has drifted further and further in the direction of prioritizing commercial sales potential over artistic merit. The mainstream pop music industry long ago swapped any residual notions of artistic integrity in return for the cruel calculus of the consumer marketplace, because marketing spin-offs and product tie-in deals are often the only way to make the numbers add up in such a way as to both keep the bills paid and satisfy shareholders' and executives' demands for constant revenue growth.
The reality is, the hard numbers often just don't add up. And when they don't, its the artists who end up getting shafted first (for an excellent discussion of just how artists often get shafted by the majors, see Steve Albini's classic article The Problem with Music that originally ran in the now defunct Maximum Rock and Roll), and then it's the music consumers who indirectly end up getting shafted next.
Corporate demands for stable and consistent profit growth increase pressure on major label A&R departments to produce predictable and repeatable results--meaning, ultimately, that the end product coming out of most A&R shops will be a formulaic rehashing of the music of whatever act has most recently shown the highest revenue-generating potential, music that fits well into the major label parent company's broader marketing strategy. Frequently absent is music that genuinely innovates, that furthers music as an artform, or that doesn't bore more discriminating music consumers to tears. After all, that's not where the real money is.
Which raises the obvious questions: What's behind these plummeting sales figures? Can the fall-off in sales be attributed solely to the Internet effect--i.e., are digital music sales and on-line piracy to blame--or are there other factors involved in these recent trends?
Just venturing a wild guess here, I'd say it's a combination of the Internet effect, and another, as yet largely unquantified factor: Mass-market music burnout. Although I don't know of any systematic attempts to quantify the effect of mass-market music burnout, anecdotal evidence and intuition suggest to me that increasing numbers of ordinary people simply find mass-market music boring.
Over the years, mainstream music industry A&R has drifted further and further in the direction of prioritizing commercial sales potential over artistic merit. The mainstream pop music industry long ago swapped any residual notions of artistic integrity in return for the cruel calculus of the consumer marketplace, because marketing spin-offs and product tie-in deals are often the only way to make the numbers add up in such a way as to both keep the bills paid and satisfy shareholders' and executives' demands for constant revenue growth.
The reality is, the hard numbers often just don't add up. And when they don't, its the artists who end up getting shafted first (for an excellent discussion of just how artists often get shafted by the majors, see Steve Albini's classic article The Problem with Music that originally ran in the now defunct Maximum Rock and Roll), and then it's the music consumers who indirectly end up getting shafted next.
Corporate demands for stable and consistent profit growth increase pressure on major label A&R departments to produce predictable and repeatable results--meaning, ultimately, that the end product coming out of most A&R shops will be a formulaic rehashing of the music of whatever act has most recently shown the highest revenue-generating potential, music that fits well into the major label parent company's broader marketing strategy. Frequently absent is music that genuinely innovates, that furthers music as an artform, or that doesn't bore more discriminating music consumers to tears. After all, that's not where the real money is.
Does it suck?
The All-Knowing Internet has spoken, and I'm happy to announce that according to it, at least three of my most cherished causes don't in fact suck. The results are in and it appears that "Cloud 13 Records", "Pocket Novel Mystery", and "Tangemeenie" definitely don't suck; rather, they rock.
Find out if you've been wasting your time on things that suck, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
