I definitely thought this article was interesting because it
shows how powerful the Internet is in seeing our buying and spending habits. It
doesn’t take long after searching for a new product on Google that an ad pops
up on my Facebook sideline attempting to sell the same, or a similar, product.
For instance, before Christmas I was looking at purchasing a Nike windbreaker
jacket for myself. Low and behold not a week later, I saw the same jacket on my
timeline. While part of me thinks it’s cool that the Internet can find good
deals for products I like without me having to ask, it’s also scary to think
that something is tracking our every spending habit without our consent.
Something I found to be cool was that retailers will carry only content
that can generate sufficient demand to earn its keep. I thought this was
interesting because how would a retailer determine what has market potential
and what doesn’t? We know that no retailer is 100% when they make these
assumptions (or else most shelves would be empty with a high-demanded product
and theatres would be sold out) so who decided what movie will be screened or
what product a store will have, etc.? And what happens to the products that are
left out? Well…oddly enough they’re getting the most money (i.e. The Long Tail.)
The
article also talked about how ITunes sells each song for $0.99, which they
thought was “too low,” meaning they must be happy that most music is now $1.29.
My thoughts are, since many people download music illegally
anyways, why raise the prices? I’m interested to see how much revenue Apple
brings in now since raising the music prices, and I’m also curious to know if
music piracy sites have had increased downloads as well. In my opinion, the
argument that buying cheaper or pirated music has a cost of time is ridiculous.
It doesn’t take long to download music that way, and saving a few dollars is
well worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment