“Price Sensitivity”
Based on several fresh topics about copyright:
habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/124063
habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/124011
habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/123879
and, especially, their comments, I decided to write a topic about the high cost or low cost protected by copyright.
Actually, during the disputes two positions were expressed:
1. A person is an amoral cattle, he cannot find “few baxes” for a film / music / book, and therefore they are tyrit.
2. Copirasts are immoral livestock, which, using various draconian measures, force housewives to pay rabid compensations for karaoke tracks uploaded to file-sharing networks.
I will say right away that I am not a supporter of either the first or the second point of view. But a decade of experience in studying consumer behavior seems to hint to me that buying is not a question of morality or morality, but a matter of price and motivation.
')
But the problem is that these two things are considered separately. Although, in fact, these are two sides of the same coin. The question is not whether the price is high or low, the question is how well this price corresponds to the person’s expectations of the goods.
Mentioned in the comments to the topic of copyright "loaf of bread for 1500 rubles," of course, will lead to a revolution. For one simple reason - most people are simply not ready to pay that kind of money for such a product. This does not mean that they have no money. This means that in their coordinate system this product is prohibitively expensive.
Let me explain: I have enough money for some goods (for example, I have been thinking for a long time to buy a backlit keyboard). Buying it doesn’t harm my budget. But I don’t buy it because its price is excessive relative to the amenities it provides. Roughly speaking, the letters will glow, but it’s not worth 100 bucks, and ophthalmologists recommend not working in complete darkness. Therefore, the purchase is not made.
Actually, the product is not expensive or cheap, regardless of everything. He is always expensive or cheap compared to something and for someone. Moreover, the presence of a large amount of available funds in a person does not guarantee that his price threshold is higher. Sometimes even the opposite.
We always deal with a fork: “expensive, I will not buy” - “cheap, and, therefore, poor quality”. When buying any product. Agree, buying photoshop for 150 rubles is difficult to hope for its licensing and manufacturer support?
It was a preamble. And now - the plot.
Yes, yes, I'm talking about computer games, movies, music and books. True, I would venture to suggest that with regard to "Photoshop" and other things, the situation is about the same, but here it is more complicated with the data.
So, the proof of the thesis.
Back in 2009, Gabe Newell cited the following data:
Reducing the price of the game by 75% leads to an increase in income by 1470% (no typing errors, here's the source ). By the way, I recommend to go by reference, there are a lot of interesting figures.
Here's another link to the developer's blog, where he is happy with the results of sales on Steam.
And here is a whole scientific article, where the authors say that one of the factors affecting the perception of the quality of the game is its price. By the way, I add from myself, exactly the same thing works for any product, without difference, intellectual or material.
If someone needs arguments in favor of lowering the price of music or movies, then it is worth looking at the number of pirated trays, add torrents here and be horrified. But it really cannot be considered a lost profit, as pirates customers will never buy the product for the original price .
What does this mean? And that's what. As soon as the cost of a game / book / film falls below a certain limit, sales growth becomes avalanche-like. And, once again I will note, not only sales, but also profits.
Obviously, these people wanted to buy the game. But did not buy. Because the price was outside the "comfort zone". As soon as the price falls - the profit grows. Moreover, it grows like an avalanche. Here is such a paradox. Naturally, this can only work in the case of a normal content delivery system, which is Steam.
As far as I know, Western publishers of games faced about the same when, in the era of thin Internet, they brought jewel-packaging to our market. They cost, if you remember, a bit more expensive than pirated editions, but they were completely licensed, allowed to play on the network and saved the player from problems with cracks and keygens. They were surprised that, at relatively low prices, they had unexpectedly high profits.
But there is one more thing: the user must receive the desired product in the desired quality. For example, Battlefield Bad Company 2 in the English localization is worth every dollar spent. And in Russian, I would prefer not to see it at all.
What does Newell's statistics prove? Two things:
1. The low price of an entertainment product leads to a rise in profits (I hope it is clear that it is beneficial for the authors, the publisher, and the buyers?). This happens, not least thanks to the copy restriction systems, they are also content delivery systems in the case of Steam.
2. There is a huge number of potential consumers who are ready to buy high-quality content, but abstain because the price seems too high to them (look again at the average statistics). This does not mean that they are beggars. They just don’t want to spend $ 60 on a game, it happens.
With movies and books - about the same situation. Multiplied by the absence of convenient distribution systems. All hope for the service and analogues known on Habré, and the arrival of the iTunes store in Russia.
Actually, with the music - exactly the same story. Why are people listening to music from Contact? Yes, simply because no one offered anything more convenient. Let even for money.
At the same time, I emphasize once again, the question of copyright is not at all a question of “protecting the rights of the author” or “publisher . This is a matter of pricing and logistics. Well, the correct definition of the audience, of course.
habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/124063
habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/124011
habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/123879
and, especially, their comments, I decided to write a topic about the high cost or low cost protected by copyright.
Actually, during the disputes two positions were expressed:
1. A person is an amoral cattle, he cannot find “few baxes” for a film / music / book, and therefore they are tyrit.
2. Copirasts are immoral livestock, which, using various draconian measures, force housewives to pay rabid compensations for karaoke tracks uploaded to file-sharing networks.
I will say right away that I am not a supporter of either the first or the second point of view. But a decade of experience in studying consumer behavior seems to hint to me that buying is not a question of morality or morality, but a matter of price and motivation.
')
But the problem is that these two things are considered separately. Although, in fact, these are two sides of the same coin. The question is not whether the price is high or low, the question is how well this price corresponds to the person’s expectations of the goods.
Mentioned in the comments to the topic of copyright "loaf of bread for 1500 rubles," of course, will lead to a revolution. For one simple reason - most people are simply not ready to pay that kind of money for such a product. This does not mean that they have no money. This means that in their coordinate system this product is prohibitively expensive.
Let me explain: I have enough money for some goods (for example, I have been thinking for a long time to buy a backlit keyboard). Buying it doesn’t harm my budget. But I don’t buy it because its price is excessive relative to the amenities it provides. Roughly speaking, the letters will glow, but it’s not worth 100 bucks, and ophthalmologists recommend not working in complete darkness. Therefore, the purchase is not made.
Actually, the product is not expensive or cheap, regardless of everything. He is always expensive or cheap compared to something and for someone. Moreover, the presence of a large amount of available funds in a person does not guarantee that his price threshold is higher. Sometimes even the opposite.
We always deal with a fork: “expensive, I will not buy” - “cheap, and, therefore, poor quality”. When buying any product. Agree, buying photoshop for 150 rubles is difficult to hope for its licensing and manufacturer support?
It was a preamble. And now - the plot.
Products of intellectual work, made for fun, are monstrously overpriced.
Yes, yes, I'm talking about computer games, movies, music and books. True, I would venture to suggest that with regard to "Photoshop" and other things, the situation is about the same, but here it is more complicated with the data.
So, the proof of the thesis.
Back in 2009, Gabe Newell cited the following data:
Reducing the price of the game by 75% leads to an increase in income by 1470% (no typing errors, here's the source ). By the way, I recommend to go by reference, there are a lot of interesting figures.
Here's another link to the developer's blog, where he is happy with the results of sales on Steam.
And here is a whole scientific article, where the authors say that one of the factors affecting the perception of the quality of the game is its price. By the way, I add from myself, exactly the same thing works for any product, without difference, intellectual or material.
If someone needs arguments in favor of lowering the price of music or movies, then it is worth looking at the number of pirated trays, add torrents here and be horrified. But it really cannot be considered a lost profit, as pirates customers will never buy the product for the original price .
What does this mean? And that's what. As soon as the cost of a game / book / film falls below a certain limit, sales growth becomes avalanche-like. And, once again I will note, not only sales, but also profits.
Obviously, these people wanted to buy the game. But did not buy. Because the price was outside the "comfort zone". As soon as the price falls - the profit grows. Moreover, it grows like an avalanche. Here is such a paradox. Naturally, this can only work in the case of a normal content delivery system, which is Steam.
As far as I know, Western publishers of games faced about the same when, in the era of thin Internet, they brought jewel-packaging to our market. They cost, if you remember, a bit more expensive than pirated editions, but they were completely licensed, allowed to play on the network and saved the player from problems with cracks and keygens. They were surprised that, at relatively low prices, they had unexpectedly high profits.
But there is one more thing: the user must receive the desired product in the desired quality. For example, Battlefield Bad Company 2 in the English localization is worth every dollar spent. And in Russian, I would prefer not to see it at all.
What does Newell's statistics prove? Two things:
1. The low price of an entertainment product leads to a rise in profits (I hope it is clear that it is beneficial for the authors, the publisher, and the buyers?). This happens, not least thanks to the copy restriction systems, they are also content delivery systems in the case of Steam.
2. There is a huge number of potential consumers who are ready to buy high-quality content, but abstain because the price seems too high to them (look again at the average statistics). This does not mean that they are beggars. They just don’t want to spend $ 60 on a game, it happens.
With movies and books - about the same situation. Multiplied by the absence of convenient distribution systems. All hope for the service and analogues known on Habré, and the arrival of the iTunes store in Russia.
Actually, with the music - exactly the same story. Why are people listening to music from Contact? Yes, simply because no one offered anything more convenient. Let even for money.
At the same time, I emphasize once again, the question of copyright is not at all a question of “protecting the rights of the author” or “publisher . This is a matter of pricing and logistics. Well, the correct definition of the audience, of course.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/124133/
All Articles