Apple ’s two advertizing were n’t peculiarly interesting , although the first ( sport various people enjoing Pepsi bottles that broadcast songs ) was much good than last year ’s “ I fight the Law ” ad . The 2d ad , have Gwen Stefani and Eve , was a perplexing celebrity oddments .
But Napster ’s ad was the stink - turkey of the effect . Do n’t take my word for it — askUSA Today ’s annual ad - meter .
In a Super Bowl that tried desperately to be inoffensive ( give thanks you , Janet Jackson ) , Napster ’s advert offended — by being boring and seem cheap . With Super Bowl advertising , we expect panache , we expect … well , honestly , we carry an actualbudget . The Napster advertizing expect like it cost about 15 bucks to grow .
In any upshot , the ad was n’t about the nonsensical cat . It was about the sign the cat was holding , which sport this equation :
Apple + iPod = $ 10,000
Napster + “ Compatible Music Player ” = $ 15 / month
I was at the Music 2.0 conference last class , and the iPod - iTunes Music Store combo was the elephant in the room nobody wanted to talk about . Apple ’s dominance clearly generate a level of respect — but of course of instruction , there was even more fear , uncertainness , and doubt . One speaker managed to move from a hearty congratulations for Apple ’s online music efforts to asking the question , “ Can Apple survive ? ” in less than a minute . He was lucky he did n’t get whiplash .
No , the reason they ’re advertise subscription is because they’remore profitablethan Apple ’s 99 - penny download operation . Because these companies recognise that most people who pay $ 180 a year wo n’t consume $ 180 worth of music , or anything snug to it . Sort of how the local health nightspot can make a whole circle of money by charge monthly fees to people who seldom , if ever , practice its facilities . Or how HBO makes $ 130 a year from people who only really watch HBO during the three months when “ The Sopranos ” are on , but never get around to cancelling their subscription .
In any event , I do n’t scrap that subscription services are a valid concept . In fact , I ’d probably lay money on Apple innovate its own subscription service within the next 18 calendar month , and maybe a lot sooner .
But that ’s a issue for another , longer entry . Let me get back to the Napster ad and its unsound call that you ’d need $ 10,000 to satisfy up an iPod . I suppose if you bought a Sung at a time on the iTunes Music Store , that ’d be true . But multitude also purchase medicine by the record album at the iTunes Music Store . And they corrupt CDs . And they have an existing cadmium aggregation that ’s waiting to be ripped onto their iPods . Yes , I spent a mass of money on those CDs over the eld , but they’remine — that means they wo n’t expire if I stop pay up the euphony companionship a monthly fee — and I can move them over to my iPod with comfort .
Now let ’s shape the second equation . My wife , who does not follow these matter as closely as I do , said that Napster ’s suggestion seemed sane . The idea of pay $ 15 a month to listen to whatever you wanted is n’t that unlike from give for satellite radio , for example — and on-line music subscriptions give you far more control than any radio station can .
But the mathematics begins to demote down once you realise that the $ 15 per calendar month bill to Napster go on evermore , and if you need tokeepyour music forever and a day , you ’ve got to bear for it again . And the equivalence bursts into flames once my wife and the other 90 pct of the digital - euphony - consuming public realize that their beloved iPods are completely and utterlyincompatiblewith Napster .
Did Napster go out of its style to note that most of the digital euphony players currently in habit wo n’t work with its help ? Of naturally not .
Depending on how you listen to music , a subscription help might make a circumstances of horse sense . If Apple can combine its 99 cent tracks and $ 9.99 album with a monthly servicing that hold you access to everything in the iTunes euphony store , I will be one of the first to climb alongside and give it a endeavor .
But Napster ’s math still does n’t add up . Then again , who say computed axial tomography could do maths ?
