Let me begin by letting you know that this post is not about Justin Bieber, it is simply a clever title. The post is about the streaming industry.

With the development of the internet, consumers are now able to access a variety of media content such as movies and songs for free. But there is a catch! Most “now playing” Hollywood movies or recently released soundtracks can be downloaded but it is illegal. It is my belief that this development has caused singers and movie producers to understand that the willingness to pay of consumers is greatly reduced. When a consumer can illegally download a song or movie with ease, they are not likely to pay upwards of 25$ for a CD or movie ticket/DVD.

This is where streaming services come in. Specifically in the music industry, services such as YouTube, Pandora, and Spotify have become popular and have been embraced by the singers and song writers. why? Because they know that they should settle for less revenue per song, but a greater volume of legal purchases. The industry is transformed into a model that matches the willingness to pay of the consumers.

Highlighted by The Economist article “Beliebing in Streaming”, streaming has its upsides and downsides but is a good transition into a popular legal commerce. Specifically, it mentions that for the singers and song writers it is not a bad deal at all. Pay-per-month streaming services such as Spotify are extremely popular and pay close to $150 annually to song owners annually per subscriber, which is more than the average American spends on music.

In conclusion, I think the streaming of music as well as movies (Netflix) is going to be the only way to develop a legal market that respects copyright laws. As technology evolves, industries must change to accommodate for the loss of value to consumers. In the case of CD albums, it may have been valued at $25+ a few years ago but today when any song is available on Youtube for free, it is no longer worth that much to consumers.

Follow

This post is my opinion of “Good News: GlaxoSmithKline Will Stop Paying Doctors To Promote Drugs” written by Jia Ling’s in her Blog.

Background: As described by Jia Ling, GlaxoSmithKline is the sixth largest pharmaceutical company globally. For years it has been paying doctors to promote its products to their patients. Recently the Company announced it has decided to stop using this promotion technique. It is unclear why this decision was made but it is known that the company was forced to pay billions in the past for drug marketing fines.

In her blog, Jia Ling expresses her opinion that it is unethical because consumers are not given a choice. In my opinion, the core issue is that consumers may be sold a drug that is not the best fit to their condition. When it comes to health, I believe marketing practices must differ from regular marketing. Drug companies should not target consumers but instead they should advertise what their products (medications) can offer compared to others. In this way, consumers will have many options no matter what doctor they visit.

I agree with Jia Ling that the company is making a huge step towards becoming a more ethically conscious company. Moreover, I believe that they have presented a huge commitment to doing the right thing by giving up an effective but unethical marketing practice that is based on the authority principle. Where people will most likely accept what a doctor promotes because it is the doctor, and not because the drug is the best for their situation.

Follow