iTunes UK pwns competition for artist pay

How sad that some people need to make themselves feel superior when presented with nothing more than a new vocabulary word. Why is that?

I just love esoteric gaming jargon. Is there a phrase for killing an underworld monster successfuly without staining one's tee-shirt with Mountain Dew & pizza sauce; or would that be considered a "pwn" as well?
Happy hunting y'all.

haha tod was "pwned"

@Tod

Even though I knew the answer from gaming myself, I Googled "pwned" and, as usual, Wikipedia had the most concise answer to present for Ogilvy's (and others') enlightenment. It took all of 3 seconds. Don't be distressed, and don't confuse me with the original author of either article.

It's not sensationalism. It's just another indication that music rentals is not a viable business model. The music rental outfits just cannot pay the record labels as much as Apple can because no matter how you slice and dice it music consumers exhibit a fundamental 'irrationality': They're willing to pay way more per song for the privilege of owning it out right even if they know they'll tire of it and stop listening to it later on.

On top of that, what would a music rental customer who is paying a fixed monthly fee do? Well, download as much music as he possibly can of course. So that monthly rental fee gets distributed across more songs, hence the lower per song payments to the labels.

#3: Good question.
#5: How the heck would we non-gamers know this, or even that we should go looking in WP. To me it simply looked like the author couldn't spell "owns," possibly because she was hitting the wrong key (the O and P are next to each other), and I left it at that.

-Tod

Sensationalism at its best, I'll call it shoddy reporting unless I see more information. A subscription service is different from purchasing. The comparison is so invalid that it's basically a beheaded quadriplegic. Anyone that assumes equivalence between the two types of services is flat fooling themselves.

The subscription services aren't selling tracks, it's track rental. So it is 0.70 for a purchase, or 0.005 for (probably) a month's rental. That said, it would take nearly 12 years of renting to make it equivalent to a sale on iTunes, assuming the numbers are correct.

Personally, I would love to see a subscription service that allows affordable music sampling, some iTunes competitors even allow three plays of a given track for free, any more and they ask you to subscribe or buy the track. I'd use it but it didn't work on my computer.

No artist should expect to get rich on album sells alone. Songs are just a vehicle for ascertaining where you are hot and where to tour (where the real money is). However, all things considered, having more money per song doesn't hurt. :)

Well, they'd be marketing pounds, not dollars...

@Ogilvy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn