Title: Pirates, streamers, mixed tapes and non-downloaders: A typology of contemporary digital music consumption (legal and illegal) Authors: Gary Sinclair (University of Stirling, Scotland) and Todd Green (Brock University, Canada) Introduction The Napster-led revolution of music consumption and the subsequent emergence of a variety of P2P (Peer-to-peer) file-sharing networks and platforms has created havoc in the recording music industry since the turn of the century. The enabling of wide-scale music piracy has according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) led to a 47% decline in American sales, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) argue that piracy has led to a 31% decline in recorded music sales between 2004 and 2010 and a potential retail loss of 240 billion Euro from 2008 to 2015 in Europe (IFPI, 2012). Although the scale of the decline that can be attributed to piracy is questionable, considering it is in the industry’s interests to blame illegal downloaders, the impact that it has had on the recording music industry is inarguable, considering the level of uncertainty that such new technologies have created. Not surprisingly, the academic literature has focused on how to stop the illegal consumption of music with the potential impact of fear/legal appeals (see Fisher, 2004; Chiou et al., 2005) and guilt appeals (see Chiou et al. 2005; Levin et al. 2007) featuring prominently. Despite marketing communications appeals that reflect this research, guilt and fear appeals have done little to reverse the decline. Additionally prosecuting websites and consumers through graduated response systems have had mixed results at best (see Danaher et al., 2012; LeLoup and Baruch, 2012). A policy of participation rather than policing has been recommended by some scholars (e.g. Rojek, 2005; Gray, 2012) as an alternative approach, suggesting that the industry needs to embrace technological transformations and changes in consumer demands, rather than fight back against it. This argument would seem to have traction considering the impact that legal alternatives such as music streaming websites (e.g. Spotify) have had in changing the habits of consumers recently (see Gray, 2012. IFPI, 2014). However, there is very little research on contemporary music consumption that incorporates these new legal forms of digital consumption and hence the changing dynamic of music consumption. Previous research has tended to frame contemporary music consumption as a dichotomy in terms of free as illegal/immoral and paid as legal/moral. Consequently, this calls for research that not only illuminates our understanding of digital music consumption during a period in which migration from illegal to legal platforms is increasingly becoming the norm, but also research that provides greater knowledge of the actual consumer and the variety of relating factors that influence their relationship with illegal forms of music consumption, whether they are pro/anti-downloading, ex-downloaders or consumers who are conflicted. This paper, following 37 in-depth qualitative interviews, identifies four specific segments of consumers (steadfast pirates, ex-downloaders, mixed tapes and nondownloaders) that allow for the exploration of a number key factors (e.g. morals/ethics, utilitarian values and identity investment). The identification of these typologies permits us to make greater sense of what is becoming an increasingly complex music consumption market. In particular, the most significant contribution of the paper is the identification and discussion of ex-downloaders, a segment of consumers which has never been researched before, and the mixed tapes, a large segment of consumers which do not fit conveniently into the black and white categories of previous piracy research because of the complexity of the consumer’s rationalisations and the emphasis they place on identity investment. The implications of the data are discussed following the analysis. Summary of literature Stopping the rot Record labels, promoters and artists alike have all laid responsibility for piracy and the decline of record sales at the feet of the consumer. Consequently, focus at a business and management level, and by proxy the academic research, has concerned itself with how to stop consumers from pirating music. Gray (2012) describes how pirates have been framed as deviants with research focusing specifically on developing psychological, demographic and moral profiles of these consumers. Accordingly, research has considered the potential impact of fear and guilt appeals as well as legislative action on both the websites which provide the illegal content as well as the consumer. Fisher (2004) suggests that promoting the ‘property’ features of the music product and highlighting the illegality of piracy could diminish the attraction of consuming music this way. Although Chiou et al. (2005) maintain that perceived prosecution risk will put consumers off illegal downloading, LaRose (2005) and Wang and McClung (2011) argue that legal punishments are a negative predictor of piracy intentions. This research may indicate that consumers do not fear current legal/fear appeals but if the perceived risk was higher they would change their behaviour. Accordingly, it could be argued (see Chiou et al., 2005; Robertson et al., 2012) that the industry needs to do more to publicise the potential legal consequences of illegal downloading. The recording industry (in addition to other media industries) has also been strongly behind a graduated response system whereby those who pirate material online are given a number of warnings by their internet service provider that increase in severity for each transgression. This has taken different forms in different countries, dependent on the laws of that specific country. The success of such strategies are consequently unclear but the difficulty in implementing such a strategy, and the research that indicates consumers see little risk of prosecution, would indicate that this is not the most conducive approach. Chiou et al. (2005) also advise using guilt appeals, informing consumers of the damage that is done to artists and the industry as a consequence of piracy. However, the impact of such appeals is questioned with Levin et al. (2007) and Lysonski and Durvasula (2008) arguing that this has no influence on consumer behaviour. Furthermore, Wang and McClung (2011) argue that more needs to be done on the part of the recording industry to make harm attribution a key aspect of the music consumption decision-making process. This emphasis on the issue of guilt relates to a wider problem concerning the labelling of consumers who download illegally as morally inferior to consumers who source their music legally (see Robertson et al., 2012). This is the inherent assumption that music piracy is wrong of which much of the piracy research is based upon. Consequently the question that should be asked is not if the pirates’ morals can be changed but whether they are wrong in the first place? Justifications The literature that focuses on how to ‘stop’ illegal downloading suffers from a lack of understanding of why consumers do it in the first place. Yes it can be attributed to the utilitarian benefits of getting something for free as well as the convenience and storage capabilities (see Kinnally et al., 2008) but not necessarily the quality of the product (see Weijters et al., 2013). Additionally, Ceinite et al. (2009) argue that consumers want to sample music before they pay the high prices required to buy it. Furthermore, Ang et al. (2001) and Garcia-Bardidia et al. (2011) posit more complex justifications related to the consumer’s relationship with artists and the industry. Rojek (2005), in defence of the pirates, argues that illegal file-sharing is a positive trend as it allows for greater choice and access to music and fosters social inclusion. Rojek also blames the recording industry for their ‘harsh’ response, maintaining that they should have embraced P2P technology instead of treating it as a menace. Giesler (2008) avoids making moral judgments and focuses on how a compromise can be attained between those who think that music should be free for all (the social utilitarians) and those who argue that the economic interest of the producers of music must come first (possessive individualists). The compromise in this case is a viable digital alternative, supporting research (see Sinha and Mandel, 2009; Taylor et al. 2009) that implies individuals are willing to consume digital music legally if the quality and price are perceived as suitable. Giesler recommends i-Tunes as a potential compromise but one could argue that the success of i-Tunes has occurred at a time in which the music piracy problem has gotten worse. However, the recent growth in streaming services (51% in 2013) and the statistics that show a significant correlation between the introduction of Spotify, and the reduction in downloading amongst these users (89%), indicate potential significant movement in the fight against piracy (IFPI, 2014). This shows that perhaps a policy of participation rather than policing could represent the way forward. However, there has been very little consumer behaviour research on streaming. Cesareo and Pastore (2014: 515) argue that favourable attitudes towards online music piracy ‘negatively influences consumers’ willingness to try subscription-based music services’. This contradicts the initial research conducted by the IFPI as well as Weijters et al. (2014), which following the examination of consumers in both streaming and illegal downloading contexts, argues that consumers ‘clearly and consistently prefer legal and ethical options if available’ (2014: 538). However, more research is needed to explore a variety of other factors that influence the experiences and opinions of contemporary music consumers, in particular how they incorporate (or avoid) the use of pirate methods in their overall music consumption. Method The literature on music piracy consumption is dominated by statistical surveys and models that predict the likelihood of piracy based on attitudes, intentions and a number of factors including (but not limited to) age, education and moral obligation (e.g. Robertson et al., 2012). However, in consideration of the complexity of the issue of contemporary music consumption, the number of factors that are at play and the rapid pace at which consumer habits have changed as a consequence of technological development, this research needed a methodological framework that allowed for a deeper level of exploration (see Strauss and Corbin 1990). Consequently, data was collected via 37 qualitative interviews from a project concerning contemporary music consumption. The participants (22 male and 15 female) were recruited from cities from the United Kingdom (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, London and Bristol) and Ireland (Dublin) and came from a variety of employment sectors including for example education, media, healthcare and retail. A small number of students were interviewed but this represented a smaller proportion than previous research on piracy which has tended to focus disproportionately on them as a segment (Weijters et al., 2014). The interviewees ranged in age from 18 to 45, reflecting a broader age range than is typically depicted in music consumption studies, but still overlooking the experiences of older consumers, something future research must consider (see Bennett, 2006). A purposive sample was initially used where participants that were known to have a significant interest in music were targeted specifically by the researchers. This was followed by a snowball sampling approach with our initial participants introducing us to friends and colleagues who shared a similar level of passion about music. The names of the participants were changed to protect their anonymity. The interviewees were relatively unstructured to allow participants to share experiences of their music consumption comfortably and expand on any unanticipated themes that emerged. Each interview typically involved an initial set of questions (e.g. first CD, last purchase, favourite bands) which allowed for a general discussion of music that led into questions regarding the role of music consumption in their everyday lives. This also involved questions concerning music piracy and their opinions on the music industry overall. The transcripts were reviewed separately by two authors, following an iterative process (Spiggle, 1994). The data was then coded into a number of themes, sub-themes (e.g. moral and ethical views, utilitarian values and identity investment) and typologies that are described in the findings section, none of which were pre-subscribed. Findings Illegal downloading is used as a lens in which to understand the underlying behaviour of contemporary music consumers. The preference for illegal downloading as a format of consumption is used as a continuum in which to divide the different segments that are discussed (the steadfast pirates, ex/downloaders/streamers, mixed tapes and nondownloaders). A brief summary of the typologies, the key themes and snippets of data extracts produced in the main paper can be seen below. The steadfast pirates This segment illegally downloads music in high quantities and continues to do so despite fear/guilt appeals, threats of prosecution and the possibility of relatively cheap alternatives. I just checked my laptop today and I have a hundred megabytes of music so I think that is around 17,000 songs and I don’t think I have paid for one of them. (Male, 25). The participants in this segment are highly technologically literate and express little guilt for their actions. Whilst they refer mostly to the many utilitarian benefits of piracy, they also resist any suggestions that their consumption habits are morally questionable, suggesting that their actions are also motivated by resistance to the music industry. CD’s are overpriced, they truly are and the record company’s argument is that people are downloading our music and that is why our prices are high but they had to start off high and if they brought them down then people wouldn’t download. (Male, 19). The ex-downloaders/streamers This segment places a similar emphasis to the ‘pirates’ segment regarding the utilitarian motives for illegal downloading but have ceased downloading because they have found a more convenient and relatively inexpensive legal alternative in the form of streaming services. Now I use Spotify, I use premium, I don’t download anymore. I used to do it all the time but with Spotify Premium I can get my phone out for 4.99 and listen to what I want. (Female, 21). This segment indicated that it was the ease of use, the price and use of social networking and ‘recommend’ features that attracted them away from alternative illegal platforms. For them, price and convenience were the only reasons that they downloaded illegally in the first place and it was never about any moral justifications. This is consistent with their response to questions about the controversy regarding artist royalties on streaming platforms, which were met with a similar lack of sympathy to their opinions regarding the loss of artist earnings through illegal means. The mixed tapes This typology has been under-represented in previous piracy literature, reflecting the illegal/legal, moral/immoral dichotomy that has dominated discussion on the subject. However, the data suggests that for a large number of participants the issue of illegal downloading and contemporary music consumption is a lot less black and white than what has been depicted. The data indicates that whilst members of this group have previously downloaded illegally or continue to do so, they still buy physical music products and express a lot more guilt than the previous two segments. Yeah, I am ashamed to admit that I have pirated some stuff and I felt guilty [laughs]. So I feel, like good when I actually purchase it properly, like, legitimately. (Female, 33). Justifications for their actions are more complex than the other two segments. For example, they rationalise their behaviour through claiming they only sample the music before buying it or that they only download music from ‘big’ or commercially successful bands. I am actually kind of split on it [the piracy issue]. In one way I download myself but it is kind of if eh I was going to listen to a big band… if I download one CD it means they are not going to make another five dollars. It makes no difference to them but if it is a band that is kind of starting out and they need to be selling albums to make it to the next step I wouldn’t download their stuff. (Male, 19). In addition to the guilt the consumers feel regarding their sourcing of illegal downloads, they are further conflicted because of the lack of physical totems that digital consumption provides for their cultural identity (see Hall, 1996). This perhaps explains their reluctance to fully embrace legal alternatives such as streaming as the ‘ex-downloaders’ have. Whilst they emphasise their support for artists through purchasing concert tickets and merchandise, they miss the physical qualities that CDs and vinyl provide for music fans. Consequently, the fans in this segment use their support of small bands or local artists to reaffirm their music identity or subcultural capital (see Thornton, 1995). This data supports recent accounts of the reemergence of vinyl as a highly popular music product for example (see Bartmanski and Woodward, 2013). The non-downloaders This segment predominantly consumes music via physical platforms. This is a consequence of low technological literacy regarding all elements of digital consumption, not just piracy. I have never downloaded anything and to be honest I couldn’t even tell you how to do it. (Male, 45). Additionally, a small number of consumers suggest that they wouldn’t download illegally as they would be afraid of the legal consequences. However, the majority of this segment refused to download on the basis that they felt it was immoral and artists should be rewarded for their work. … if someone is spending money recording it they should get something back. It is the same as someone is making bread, you don’t go into the shop and steal it because you know you want bread. You have to pay for it. That argument is made around music people have to record it, buy their instruments, studio time, it costs money to press it and record it and package it. (Male, 45). This indicates that for some consumers, as Chiou et al. (2005) have argued, promoting harm attribution can be a successful strategy. However, this was not the case for the ‘steadfast pirates’, ‘ex-downloaders’ and for the ‘mixed tapes’ when it came to more commercially successful artists. Interestingly, the ‘non-downloaders’ were consistent in their moral justifications when it came to their opinion of streaming services with some participants arguing that they would feel guilty using these platforms as they are unsure of how artists are compensated. Discussion/Future Research The main theoretical contribution this paper makes is the identification and the description of the ‘ex-downloader/streaming’ and ‘mixed tape’ segments. These groups have been ignored in previous research which has tended to frame music piracy in dichotomous terms, not understanding that justifications for such illegal behaviour are perhaps more complex and inconsistent than expected. However, this is just an exploratory research and the identification of the ‘ex-downloaders’ segment is no doubt a consequence of the recent uptake in alternative legal platforms such as Spotify. Future research can look at quantifying characteristics of these segments at a more detailed level, testing further the relationships between morals, favoured platforms and rate of consumption for example. Additionally, a cohesive theoretical framework could be developed to make sense of these relationships at a higher synthesis. Such findings also have clear management implications. For example, this study already indicates that participating with the consumer and offering superior utilitarian values can attract consumers away from illegal platforms. This is not just due to the convenience but the quality of functions and the increasing movement geared towards social networking platforms. Although the ‘mixed tapes’ have yet to fully embrace streaming platforms, perhaps the visibility of playlists, unique member profiles and the ability to follow and display your music to others will be attractive to a segment that is conflicted by the lack of tangible totems in which to display their music identity. With regards the non-downloaders, they still have to be convinced that digital music represents an equal if not better product offering than physical forms of music. This seems to relate to the perceived difficulty in using the platform as well as the lack of trust regarding the moral integrity of the royalty scheme. This is a wider problem that Spotify for example have had to manage recently with artists (Szental, 2012). With regards the ‘steadfast pirates’, they have still yet to be convinced there are superior legal alternatives to how they consume music. This could possibly be a consequence of unfamiliarity or mistrust of streaming platforms but could also be a consequence of what the data indicates is a deeply-rooted and problematic relationship with an industry that is paying the price for how they have treated consumers in the past. Future research could explore this challenging relationship in greater detail. References Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A. & Tambyah, S.K. (2001). Spot the Difference: Consumer Responses Towards Counterfits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3), 219–235. Bartmanski, D. & Woodward, I. (May 31, 2013). The Vinyl: The Analogue Medium in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Journal of Consumer Culture. Retrieved from joc.sagepub.com. Bennett, A. (2006). Punk’s not dead: The Continuing Significance of Punk Rock for an Older Generation of Fans. Sociology, 40(2), 219–235. Cenite, M., Wang, M. W., Peiwen, C. & Chan, G. S. (2009). More than Just Free Content: Motivations of Peer-to-Peer File Sharers. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33(3), 206–221. Cesareo, L. & Pastore, A. (2014). Consumers’ Attitude and Behavior towards Online Music Piracy and Subscription-based Services. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), 515–525. Chiou, J. S., Huang, G. Y. & Lee, H. H. (2005). The Antecedents of Music Piracy Attitudes and Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 161–174. Danaher, B, M.D. Smith, R., Telang & Chen, S. (2012). The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from an Event Study in France. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989240 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1989240. (Consulted December, 2014). Fisher, W. (2004). Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Garcia-Bardidia, R., Nau, J. P. & Rémy, E. (2011). Consumer Resistance and AntiConsumption: Insights from the Deviant Careers of French Illegal Downloaders. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1789-1798. Giesler, M. (2008). Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 739–753. Gray, K. (2012). Stealing from the Rich to Entertain the Poor?: A Survey of Literature on the Ethics of Digital Piracy. The Serials Librarian, 63 (3-4), 288–95. Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’? In Hall, S, du Gay, P. (Eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity (pp. 1–17). London: Sage. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (2012). Digital Music Report 2012: Expanding Choice. Going Global. London. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (2014). Digital Music Report 2012: Expanding Choice. Going Global. London. Kinnally, W., Lacayo, A., McClung, S. & Sapolsky, B. (2008). Getting up on the Download: College Students’ Motivations for Acquiring Music via the Web. New Media and Society, 10(1), 93–113. LaRose, R., Lai, Y., Lange, R., Love, B. & Wu, Y (2005). Sharing or Piracy? An Exploration of Downloading Behaviour. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 11(1), Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/larose.html (consulted January 2015). LeLoup, D. & Baruch, J. (2012, January 24). Hadopi, Source de la Croissance d'iTunes. Le Monde. Retrieved from http://www.lemonde.fr. Levin, A. M., Dato-on, M.C. & Manolis, C. (2007). Dettering Illegal Downloading: the Effects of Threat Appeals, Past Behavior, Subjective Norms, and Attributions of Harm. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(2/3), 111–122. Lysonski, S. & Durvasula, S. (2008). Digital Piracy of MP3s: Consumer and ethical predispositions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 167–178. Robertson, K., McNeil, L., Green, J. & Roberts, C. (2012). Illegal Downloading, Ethical Concern, and Illegal Behavior. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 55(3), 379–395. Rojek, C. (2005). P2P Leisure Exchange: Net Banditry and the Policing of Intellectual Property. Leisure Studies, 24(4), 357–369. Sinha.R. K. & Mandel, N. (2009). Preventing Digital Music Piracy: “The Carrot or the Stick”. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 246–62. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 21(3), 491-503. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications: Szental, D. (2012). Music streaming services and licensing fees - how do artists fare? [online]. Art + Law, 3, 21-25. Availability:<http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=913433758758829;res=I ELHSS> ISSN: 1324-7271. [cited 18 Jan 15]. Taylor, S. A., Ishida, C. and Wallace D. W. (2009). Intention to Engage in Digital Piracy: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Test. Journal of Service Research, 11(3), 246–262. Thornton, S. (1995) Club cultures: Music, media and subcultural capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. Wang, X. & McClung, S. R. (2011). Toward a Detailed Understanding of Digital Downloading Intentions: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Approach. New Media and Society, 13(4), 663–677. Weijters, B., Goedertier, F. & Verstreken, S. (2014). Online Music Consumpion in Today’s Technological Context: Putting the Influence of Ethics in Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 537–550. View publication stats