inefficient spending

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

"By buying singles instead of $16 albums, the groups said music buyers might have seen as much as $1 billion in "consumer surplus" (money newly available that would otherwise have been inefficiently spent) last year alone."

via http://blog.teledyn.com/node/2273

― phil jones (interstar), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't even understand.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

They're planning to take the recording industry to court for what?

By buying singles instead of $16 albums, the groups said music buyers might have seen as much as $1 billion in "consumer surplus" (money newly available that would otherwise have been inefficiently spent) last year alone.

"Singles" is equivalent to "single tracks off the iTunes music store or competitor" in this, yes? What was stopping them buying these singles that might be blamed on the recording industry?

This is a very confusing report, or at least the report of the report is - I'm not reading 80 pages.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Especially the part where he says "There were more tunes ipodically played today that were not played yesterday than all the tunes played both today and yesterday." I think there's some kind of set theory malfunction going on here.

crosspost

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:21 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.