Do illegal downloads affect Hayley's album sales?

[Martin]

It is reported these days that over 90% of music downloads are illegal with music companies and internet service providers still trying to cope with the situation. This is partly due to an acute lack of foresight by these companies in planning for this eventuality many years ago.

Six million broadband users are estimated to download files illegally every year in the UK in a practice that music and film companies claim is costing them billions of pounds in lost revenue annually.

I therefore wonder what impact, if any it has had on sales of Hayley's albums over the last five years. (A question also for Dave here - does the Classical chart include sales of legal downloads?)

My own opinion is that any impact would have been negligible simply because you have to consider the core Hayley fan base and buying market age band which I would expect is less likely to participate in this illegal practice.

Martin

[Dave]

Hi Martin,

Yes... both the main and classical charts include legal downloads but for Hayley and the other classical crossover acts, I think the percentage is rather low, no more than 5% of the UK total for Treasure, if my memory serves me right. It could be more though, in Japan and the US.

I think everyone suffers because of illegal music downloads although because of her demographic, I'd agree that Hayley probably suffers from it less than average. But falling music sales as a whole do mean that Hayley's record of having the biggest selling UK "classical" album of the 21st Century may never be broken... nothing "classical" has even come close to "Pure", since it was released - although there is an ever present risk that one of Russell Watson's earlier "classical" albums could be re-released/re-promoted and it might then catch up.

Cheers, Dave

[martindn]

Hi Dave,

But Pure is still selling, five years on. It was in the Classic FM chart last week. Yes I agree, the music industry needs to get its collective brain around this.
I take the view that if I want a copy of a piece of music, I should be prepared to pay (a reasonable price) for it. That is only fair to the artist, and record company who have taken the trouble to record it. Much as I dislike the idea of regulation and control, and hate things like DRM, I want to see those who create great music rewarded for it. If that doesn't happen, in the end there will be no new music. That would be another nail in the coffin of our quality of life.As a lifelong music lover I would hate to see that happen.
But I can understand that there are people who perhaps don't have the money, and would like to enjoy the music.
I don't know what the answer is, but I feel that the present situation needs to be addressed. I don't like the idea of more restrictive copy protection, or of any sort of restrictions on internet downloading. Or anything that prevents "try before you buy". In view of the present troubles, perhaps the whole concept of money and how it is used needs to be rethought.

Martin

[postscript]

Your last post Martin seems to say, 'back to the old Repertory tour and forget the recording!

But then it is a long hard slog building to that and look what artists have gained through the electronic medium--and the world is a better place for it. If we want an improved world (which much modern entertainment gives us) then perhaps we need to accept tighter restrictions. After all, in the early days it was only technical afficianados who had the equipment to tape reasonable quality from the radio or borrowed LPs from the mail order library.

Peter S.

[socalboy]

This is a huge problem that was unnecessarily escalated at the outset when, as Martin says, rather than anticipating and preparing for the new reaility the music industry decided to start a war with their best customers. What we have now is a vindictive (and shortsighted) generation of downloaders for whom finding ways to avoid paying for music is a way of life.

Yes Hayley is affected less than some, but the whole industry is at risk, and thus so are all of its artists. Illegal downloading takes place through file sharing software, torrent programs, newsgroups and even more exotic methods. It will not easily be undone.

There are partial technical solutions, but the hackers will always have an answer. The industry is going to have to find ways of adding value to legal purchases. One interesting development is that the sale of LP’s actually doubled last year compared to the previous year – the first time this has happened in ages. There is still an audience for classic sound and tangible products. Whether such folks can help sustain an industry remains to be seen.

[nicola]

Six million broadband users are estimated to download files illegally every year in the UK in a practice that music and film companies claim is costing them billions of pounds in lost revenue annually

No way. Simply not true. What record companies are failing to see (or they do see, they just don't want to say anything) is that people that are downloading illegally would have very unlikely paid for the product in the first place. Yes, a lot of music is being stolen, but only because it is so readily available.

A few months ago, I accepted a copy of a CD from a friend who said I would like the music. I gave it a listen, and I liked it. And so I bought it. The key here is that I would have never PAID for that CD without knowing what it was. With it so readily available, you think, 'Why not?' And why not indeed? If it's there, you might as well try it. People are not willing to TRY music if they have to pay to try it.

In many cases, illegal downloading/youtube etc, is what you call free promotion. Indeed, there are a lot of people that only download music illegally, but would they be buying the music if they had to pay? They would pay for what they know they like, and that would be that.

What would be great is if record companies didn't overcharge in the first place. They have improved over the past five years, but HMV are still selling 10 track albums for £17. What do you expect? and in the current financial climate?

I was unemployed for nine months. I couldn't buy music. I couldn't listen to the artists I loved. Did I download illegally? Yes, I did. But it was a matter of trying on the clothes. Albums I didn't like, I didn't bother with and deleted - I wouldn't have bought them either way - nows not the time to throw money away on risks. Albums I did? I bought as soon as I got the money - only because I already knew I liked them, and so I was willing to pay and support the artist.

I don't think illegal downloads are a cause for concern. Of course it would be better if people paid, but it's like anything really; there's a black market for everything and there always has been. Record companies are crying wolf. There are still SO many people that like their good old CDs (like me). People with iPods mostly pay for their music, and iPods only support iTune downloads.

My humble opinion. It is certainly not affecting Hayley, in any case. Unless you blame illegal downloads for the downfall of Decca, but that's part of a wider problem.

[socalboy]

Hi Nicola:

You make some interesting points about the general habits of people who download illegally. I think some of it can be disputed with actual statistics - there is just no question that the arc of illegal downloading corresponds directly with the dramatic collapse of in-store sales. And there simply has not been enough legal downloading to explain it. You also say:

People with iPods mostly pay for their music, and iPods only support iTune downloads.

The fact is that people with iPods are among the most active illegal downloaders. Any downloaded music from any source - illegal or otherwise - can be imported into iTunes and then uploaded to your iPod. In fact, Apple was so concerned with illegal downloads that they finally caved and stopped encoding their files with copyright protection. They were a late holdout and contributed as much as anyone to the fix we now find ourselves in.

[nicola]

The fact is that people with iPods are among the most active illegal downloaders. Any downloaded music from any source - illegal or otherwise - can be imported into iTunes and then uploaded to your iPod. In fact, Apple was so concerned with illegal downloads that they finally caved and stopped encoding their files with copyright protection. They were a late holdout and contributed as much as anyone to the fix we now find ourselves in.

I was not aware of that at time of writing. I was shopping for a new MP3 Player a few weeks ago and had a look at the iPods. I called the shop assistant over and asked if it accepted only iTunes and he said yes. In light of that, I bought a normal MP3 Player (which was a great a purchase in the end). I downloaded iTunes the other day out of curiosity, and did find that I could transfer any MP3s into iTune format. It took forever to do just two though... I don't really like the software, and will stick with my WMP, I think.

I think some of it can be disputed with actual statistics - there is just no question that the arc of illegal downloading corresponds directly with the dramatic collapse of in-store sales.

Statistics are easily distorted, and I think it is questionable, simply because there is more going on in the music industry than illegal downloads. There are, of course, legal downloads to consider, but on top of that, people do not have the money these days. Surely an uprise in illegal downloads went up as unemployment increased? I know that's the situation I found myself in. Most downloaders are young people like myself, many university graduates who have no money when we graduate because we have no jobs to go to. I'm on a 6K job at the moment and it took me nine months to find. I think you'll find just about any industry moaning about a downfall in sales.