[CORRECTION: My assertion about NPD's unit sales data below is incorrect: The tracking service counts 12 digital download singles as the equivalent of one CD. That makes Apple's share of the market that much more impressive, since singles make up the majority of iTunes sales.]

Ready to toss dirt on the old, unloved CD? You’re going to have to wait a while. Compact discs are increasingly hard to find (at least in physical stores), but someone out there keeps buying them: The ancient format still makes up the majority of music sales in the U.S.

Here are the data for the first half of the year, via the NPD Group consumer-tracking outfit: CDs made up 65 percent of the music market, while paid digital downloads accounted for 35 percent. The digital share has increased from 20 percent two years ago, and Apple’s iTunes (AAPL) alone makes up 25 percent of overall sales*, so you’re going to hear lots of proclamations about Steve Jobs’s ascent to the to top of the music industry.

But hold off on that, just a bit. Because those numbers are skewed even more in favor of the CD than they appear at first glance: They’re measuring unit sales, not dollars. And given that the majority of digital sales are in the single format (i.e., a dollar or so a pop), that means CDs (at $10 or so a pop) still account for the vast majority of music revenue.

Which is why the industry is still tied to CDs, even though no one you know buys them anymore. And it explains why the industry is working on two separate digital formats (dubbed “Cocktail” when sold by Apple, and CMX when sold by anyone else) designed to induce buyers to pay for CD-like bundles.

It won’t work. At best, they’ll convince some digital album buyers to upgrade, but the music business is once again a singles business, and it’s going to remain that way. But you can’t blame the industry for trying.

By the way, there are decent odds you’ll hear about Cocktail at Apple’s September event, which Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski says is scheduled for Sept. 9. Mark your calendar.

*If you’re keeping track: Wal-Mart (WMT) and Target (TGT) trail Apple in the overall market. And iTunes still dominates the digital download market with a 69 percent share, while Amazon (AMZN) is a distant second with eight percent.

Some sites, like Discovery’s Planet Green, have already been playing around with the new OPA ads, but if you haven’t seen them yet, you can do it with a little bit of imagination. Think of a traditional Web ad as the equivalent of a yard sign. The new ones are billboards.

Like your descriptions more literal? Here’s the technical description of the new formats. By way of comparison, the column of text you’re reading now is 350 pixels wide.

The Fixed Panel: 336 wide x 700 tall, remains constant as the user scrolls to the top and bottom of the page.
The XXL Box: 468 wide x 648 tall, opens for seven seconds to 936 wide x 648 tall with 1/24x frequency.
The Pushdown: 970 wide x 418 tall, opens to display the advertisement and then after seven seconds, rolls up to 970 wide x 66 tall, with 1/24x frequency.

And um, here’s what a really big ad might look like on your desktop (click to enlarge).

If you’re knee-deep in the online advertising business, you’ll be interested in why these ad formats are being pushed by the Online Publishers Association instead of the better-known Interactive Advertising Bureau. I have heard some baroque/petty descriptions of squabbling between the two groups, whose membership overlaps but isn’t identical. But maybe we’ll come back to that some other time.

For now, let’s see if these deliver as advertised–that is, whether they get marketers to spend more money on the Web, without just plowing the money into Google (GOOG).

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090522/the-amazon-kindle-youll-never-see/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20081210/now-not-showing-at-itunes-and-netflix-some-of-your-favorite-movies/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20081210/now-not-showing-at-itunes-and-netflix-some-of-your-favorite-movies/#comments Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:55:52 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=1958 Want to watch nerd-favorite “The Fifth Element” via Netflix’s awesome streaming service? OK, but hurry up–the movie will disappear from the service on New Year’s Day. Want to rent the excellent George Clooney corporate thriller “Michael Clayton” via iTunes? Too late! The movie was there, but now it’s not.

Wait a minute: Hadn’t big media finally gotten religion and agreed to give us, the demanding consumers, everything we want, whenever we want it? Nope.

Hollywood in particular–which still has a big, if declining, business showing movies in theaters and then in other formats–is still interested in protecting its big analog revenue streams for as long as it can.

Translation: Netflix (NFLX) will show you just a slice of the of the 100,000+ movies it has in its regular catalog on its streaming service, because the studios aren’t eager to cut into their DVD sales and rental businesses. Which are way, way bigger than what they’re getting from digital outlets. And even movies that are available for free rental may disappear after a certain period, because the studios have other revenue “windows” to protect, as CNET explains.

The same thing goes for Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes: Even the mighty Steve Jobs can’t force the studios to give his customers unlimited access to their catalogs. This applies to multiple studios, by the way, and both new and old movies. “The Fifth Element” belongs to Time Warner’s (TWX) Warner Bros. studio, and came out way back in 1997, back when Netscape was a big deal. “Michael Clayton” is a Sony (SNE) movie that came out last year.

And by the way, that George Clooney movie really is good–like the excellent 1970s paranoia films brushed up a bit for modern times. And even more poignant after the past few months. I recommend seeing it even if you have to watch it on a screen other than your laptop. Which is exactly what Sony wants.

The details, from MusicWeek (via Coolfer): You give the company 100 British pounds, and for the next year you can download all the music you want. And because you’re downloading the files in the unencrypted MP3 format, they are yours to keep, and yours to do whatever you want with: Play them on any Apple (AAPL) iPod or iPhone, make copies, burn them to CDs, etc.

Are there catches? Of course: The offer is only available to U.K. residents, who have to use a special USB dongle to make the Datz software work, and it only works on PCs running Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows, for now. Most crucially, the company only has music from two of the big four music labels–EMI and Warner Music Group (WMG)–and it doesn’t even have all of those companies’ new releases, but a “wide selection of new music released in 2009.”

But play along, for just a minute. Say Datz does end up striking deals with Sony (SNE) and Universal Music Group (and the other big indies), and does end up getting most of the majors’ catalogs. And say Datz is still able to keep the price point about the same: Something in the $15 a month range for unlimited music to own. Could that work, from both a consumer and industry perspective?

Yes. It could.

That’s around the same price point as music subscription services offered by RealNetworks’ (RNWK) Rhapsody and Napster’s (NAPS)/Best Buy’s (BBY) Napster.com. The big difference: Those services only give you access to music, not ownership. And while I’m not hung up on owning music as long as I can get what I want when I want, I’m in the minority on this one.

But if you could hang on to your music–and not have to worry about what format you’re using, since MP3s will work on all formats–then that seems like a compelling offer. The thought of shelling out $162 in advance will likely give people pause, but presumably Datz could figure out a way to extract the payments, à la the mobile carriers, over a one-year period.

Meanwhile, $162 a year is much, much more than most people were ever spending on CDs, even during the format’s boom years. And those, obviously, are long gone. Today the industry would be pleased if the average consumer spent $20 a year on music, no matter what format it’s in.

And yes, we know what many of you are going to say: Why pay for music at all when I can steal whatever I want? Or the faux-sophisticated alternate version: Music should be free! Because it can be replicated for no marginal cost!

Well, can’t argue with that–unless you’re in favor of compensating people who create intellectual property for their work. And I’m one of those old-fashioned types who still thinks that’s a good idea. Hope Datz can pull this off.