here " Water plays a very essential role in our lives--nothing happens without water. Hundreds of thousands of people around the globe work on supplying water to everyone else, billions are spent on ensuring a steady water supply, and armies of researchers and workers deal with water-related projects. Along with air, water is an absolute essential of life. We do not pay for air--yet--but we do pay for water, and consequently some water utility companies are among the richest companies on the planet.
Despite the huge economic significance of water, and the clout that these "utility" companies have, how do we pay for it? Do we feel that water companies have undue monopolistic powers, and do we consider water to be a "product?" We more or less voluntarily pay for water, yes, but we hardly notice it anymore; the expense has become a fact of life. The payments are woven into the fabric of nearly everyone's monetary routines; no individual fees are charged if you shower at the gym, if you wash your hands in a public restroom, if you use a drinking fountain, or if you fill up your car radiator.
Interestingly enough, despite the ubiquity of water in most of the developed world, there is a vast market for "premium water"--bottled drinking water that appears to be better or different than tap water. Today, people may pay more for a bottle of Pellegrino or Evian than for a pint of Budweiser or even a gallon of gasoline! They pay for the ability to get "special" water that it is guaranteed to be free of bacteria, for the packaging that makes it convenient to carry, for the refrigeration that keeps it cool, and, in some cases, for added carbonation or flavoring. Could this model apply to the music business? Can we conceive of some kind of public utility model for music that would make any and all music available on a flat-fee basis, or on a very low "by-the-gallon" fee schedule? Could music be acceptable as a part of the cost of living, a nominal expenditure that we plan for?
It wasn't too long ago that a l eadi ng water company, France's Society General de L'Eau, morphed into a global media and entertainment company (Vi vendi-Universal), and tried to dominate the music space. Its CEO at the time, the now-infamous Jean-Marie Messier, embarked on a mission that was based on a very simi lar "content uti li ty" concept. His approach may now seem financially risky and badly timed, but the future may at least partially vindicate it .If we zoom back to the days before water was ubiquitously available (and ubiquitously paid for), some people did have to pay right then and t here to obtai n their water, on a case-by-case basis. Fights broke out over access to water, and in Africa and the Mi ddle East, many wars were fought over access to water. In the Europe of t he Middle Ages, access to water was often subj ect to complex negotiations and fee payments. When pipi ng and plumbing became so omni-present t hat al most everyone could si mply turn on a faucet and, voilá, the wat er would flow freely and magically, the entire pricing system changed very quickly into a public utility structure. New companies and service providers emerged, and the user benefited. Is this same process now beginning to take shape in the music business? Let's take a look at a utility model i n the broadcast televisi on i ndustry. In some European countries, such as Germany and Aust ria, all resi dents that have televi sions or radios in their homes, regardless of how or whether they use them, must pay a yearly flat fee to t he government. The government then uses the funds t o pay for public television and radi o producti ons. This model , which resembles t he "media like water" concept, is by and large accepted by mill ions of people. People pay an average of $100-150 per year in return for what feels li ke a free, unlimi ted, and unmonitored supply of media programming. In contrast, the U.S. system of television broadcasting relies entirely on advertising revenues.
This system certainly has its own merits and encumbrances, but, like the European system, it creates what music futurist Jim Griffin of Cherry Lane Digital calls a "pool of money" that pays for the production and the dissemination of television programs. The basic trade of "you watch the ads and we will give you the programs for free" also offers an interesting contribution for our "music like water" mantra: could it be that, a few years down the road, I will be able listen to music on a digital network if I also accept some advertising? Or, will I be able to pay a fairly low yearly fee for all-I-can-eat access on digital networks, and subject myself to some targeted advertising to get additional access to some premium content? Cable television in Europe has shown the way here, as well. Most residents pay both for the public broadcasts and for their cable television providers--and, they rent videos and DVDs, as well....."
Comments