Skip to main content

Digital Distribution Models Reviewed: The Content Provider’s Perspective (book chapter)

Citation (APA): Peltz, P. (2013). Digital Distribution Models Reviewed: The Content Provider’s Perspective. In Music Business and the Experience Economy (pp. 99-117). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Abstract

Digital distribution has surpassed physical distribution in key markets and will soon be the dominant music distribution model in Australia. Four different business models (free, ad-funded, pay-per-use and subscription-based) and two different music delivery methods (downloading and streaming) currently compete in the market place. The author analyses each distribution model available in Australia and evaluates advantages and disadvantages from the content provider’s perspective. The most striking development is the blurring line between promotion and distribution. Content providers can either lower the barriers to access music in order to facilitate rapid music circulation and create a strong promotional effect to support various revenue streams; or heighten the barriers to access music in order to install an artificial scarcity through excludability, which is essential to implement a business model based on selling musical recordings. In this regard, the variety of different digital distribution models provides a flexible toolbox for content providers to coordinate their overall marketing strategy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bibliography of my thesis 'Artist Entrepreneurship In The Music Industry'

Ackerman-Haywood, J. (2010). Artist follows inner drive toward full-time art career. The Grand Rapids Press.  Retrieved January 3, 2012, from http://blog.mlive.com/runningwithneedles/2010/10/artist_follows_inner_drive_tow.html Adler, M. (2006). Stardom and talent. Handbook on the Economics of Art and Culture, 1, 895-906.   Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586.   Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1977). The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Mass Communication and Society (pp. 349-389). London: Edward Arnold in association with The Open University Press.   Adorno, T. W. (1941). On popular music. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 9(1), 17–48.   Ahlkvist, J. A., & Fisher, G. (2000). And the hits

Some thoughts about where we are regarding digital distribution in 2012 (excerpt of an upcoming book chapter)

Digital distribution has surpassed physical distribution in key markets like the USA or UK and, thus, established as the dominant distribution practice. While the media often speaks of the next killer app that will revolutionize music consumption and dominate music distribution, the analysis of the current situation suggests that different forms of distribution will coexist. The reason is that consumers value music differently, prefer different formats and expect different experiences from consumption. The same applies to content providers. Each artist or record label is in a specific situation pursuing different goals. As a result, a variety of different distribution models have emerged, each with pros and cons for a certain situation. For content providers it is important to choose the appropriate distribution model that supports the overall strategy. The most striking development in digital distribution is the blurring line between promotion and