This is a guest post from Matt Hickey.
Lick my back.
We’ve known for a while that record labels would rather lose a mile than give music pirates an inch, but now apparently Amazon is in on the game too.
Amazon are an online only (one of the first and biggest) retail outlet for both physical and digital copies of albums (and heaps of other product) so you think they’d know better than to fight alternative online distribution services. Right?
Recently, however, Amazon forced Coda.fm to remove the option of purchasing albums legitimately through the Amazon store after torrents are downloaded. Essentially, this makes it less streamlined for a consumer to purchase legitimate product, and thus reduces the number of consumers who are likely to do so.
Logo.
Amazon are probably correct in their assumption that most people downloading torrents are unlikely to follow through and purchase the same content legitimately; however, Coda.fm claim responsibility for several hundred Amazon purchases since launching (not bad for a relatively new site) and, regardless of whether consumers actually purchase that same album, removing the link also damages potential traffic to the Amazon (which sells a lot of product beyond digital music. You know, stuff that can’t be torrented).
Can I download the Amazon on to my Ext.HD?
Yes, that’s corret - Amazon are actually making the process of obtaining and buying product from their own store more obtuse. Instead of clicking a link that’s presented to them, a consumer now has to consciously decide to go to Amazon, start a new tab, open Amazon and then search for that product. As a consumer, especially one who enjoys downloading music, which is the more likely path that will result in legitimate purchasing? It’s not hard to do good internets, guys - it’s about making it easier and faster for the consumer.
Pls?
Why are Amazon reacting this way? Presumably this is because they don’t want to recognise or validate torrent sites that suck initial business away from legitimate outlets such as themselves. Fair enough that they would be annoyed, however, Coda.fm is still online despite this debacle and so is likely still sucking that same initial business away - the only thing that’s changed is the decreased chances of Amazon scoring secondary business or directing traffic to their site. Have they damaged Coda.fm in the process? Is it a kamikaze mission? It’s unlikely that any damage this has caused Coda.fm will offset the loss of potential traffic and customers to Amazon. Not to mention the coverage this is starting to get the Coda.fm, it’s likely that this is going to drive further traffic there whilst continuing to demarcate themselves on the side of the industry dinosaurs they were once so far ahead of.
That’s a big mp3 player you’re holding Sir…
In summary: Coda.fm = unchanged, bar removed links to Amazon (ie. unlikely to be significantly effected); Amazon = lost traffic and coverage whilst gaining nothing and imposing minimal damage on the competition.
Amazon’s Music Marketing Department.
Congratulations.
***
Nick’s View: While I agree with Matt’s sentiment, I can’t help but think Amazon had no choice in the matter. The risk to Amazon of coming across as lenient on piracy is too high and the potential value of Coda.FM sales too low. There’s a commercial imperative at work here, one which would seem to me to be unavoidable.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Stephen 05.19.09 at 5:53 pm
Yeah I agree with Nick. The damage to their relationships with their suppliers in being seen NOT to be on the front foot with this isn’t worth the couple of hundred claimed sales from a Torrent site. You only have to look at how Amazon was given the right to sell unprotected MP3 so much earlier than iTunes to see the potential weight the labels have to a digital music business model, and while that probably didn’t have as big an impact on iTunes as they would have liked, the bigger the supplier the bigger the threat to the business model. As majors amalgamate and 80% of sales come from 4 (soon 3) major companies, you don’t screw around with ideological arguments, no matter how well thought out and accurate they may be.
Matt Hickey 05.21.09 at 10:39 am
“As majors amalgamate and 80% of sales come from 4 (soon 3) major companies, you don’t screw around with ideological arguments, no matter how well thought out and accurate they may be.”
I completely understand what you’re saying. My point was more to highlight that companies like Amazon would rather take a hit than indirectly give slight validation to pirates, which is evident in their reactions and is indicative of the approach to piracy pretty much forever. In hindsight I was perhaps too harsh on Amazon.
Still, I think it’s more understandable that iTunes or Beatport or something would react like this since pirates trade in much the same product, but considering that Amazon sell physical (CD and Vinyl) counterparts, band merch, and then other non-music related product they were missing out on connecting with consumers or stealing traffic.
To me, it wasn’t a deal that Amazon actively brokered but, rather, a minor one that they actively sought to dismantle and, along with it, any accompanying benefits. And in the process they raised Coda.fm’s profile. So perhaps just leaving it alone would’ve served their interests better.