1 / 0

Reluctant Pirates

Reluctant Pirates. 101. Research Objectives. Develop an in-depth understanding of the profile, and relevant behaviour and rationales of digital content consumers (primarily Australian) who: Have never distributed or received “stolen” digital content (non-pirates), and

lalasa
Download Presentation

Reluctant Pirates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Reluctant Pirates

    101
  2. Research Objectives Develop an in-depth understanding of the profile, and relevant behaviour and rationales of digital content consumers (primarily Australian) who: Have never distributed or received “stolen” digital content (non-pirates), and Have distributed and/or received “stolen” content (pirates). Develop a set of considerations, which could be used by the industry to facilitate discussion about the management of piracy in the industry.
  3. Summary of Key Findings The types of digital content included in this study fall into three tiers): Tier 1: Music Tier 2: TV shows and movies Tier 3: Games and eBooks Solutions to piracy may need to be prioritised accordingly. Music has the greatest rate of piracy and thus is the obvious target, though piracy rates for movies and TV shows suggest that these may also warrant attention
  4. Summary of Key Findings The large range of sites allowing sharing of content suggests that “pirate” activity has become an embedded behaviour, especially among avid digital content consumers. Eliminating such behaviours is often difficult and time-consuming. Efforts may be better directed at exploring a legal and acceptable framework, such as the proposed business costing models explored in the survey. Young singles, couples and typically those with access to high disposable income were more likely to access pirated content. Financial standing, alone, however, is not the only determinant of pirate activity. The average percentage that respondents ended up purchasing the content they pirated, ranged from 29% for music to 12% for eBooks. Almost all respondents (83%) were willing to pay some monthly fee to be able to freely download and own unlimited movies, music, eBooks and games.
  5. Frequency of Downloading Content Overall, in the last month: Music was downloaded the most frequently by respondents (78%). TV shows (59%) and Movies (52%)were a distant second and third. Games (43%) and eBooks (35%) followed representing the third tier of downloaded content. In terms of frequency of downloads in the last month: Among those that downloaded there was a similar pattern of frequency across all content types. Overall, music had the highest frequency with 26% of respondents downloading a minimum of once every few days. The above graph shows the proportion of respondents downloading by media type, while the graph below provides more detail about the frequency of download activity.
  6. Frequency of Uploading Content Not surprisingly, substantially more respondents download than upload all types of content. In the last month, between 15% and a third of respondents had uploaded music, movies, TV shows, games and/or eBooks. Although the percentages of respondents uploading was much lower compared to those downloading, the pattern across the content types was similar; music was uploaded the most frequently (tier one), followed by movies and TV shows (tier 2). Games and eBooks, again represented the third tier of content accessed. Overall, music had the highest frequency with 12% of respondents uploading a minimum of once every few days, followed by movies (10%) and TV shows (9%). The above graph shows the proportion of respondents uploading by media type, while the graph below provides more detail about the frequency of upload activity.
  7. Reasons To Download Content for Free That Might Otherwise Be Paid For Those respondents (40%) that had downloaded content that might otherwise be paid for (pirates), were asked how important a range of reasons were in the decision to download pirated content. There was no single standout reason for downloading this content. Around 70% of these respondents said the following factors were very important or important in their decision to download content that might otherwise be paid for: It’s free (76%) Convenience (74%) Easy to do (73%) Can’t get hold of it (70%) Sense of community and belonging was the least important factor in their decision. Only 25% said it was important or very important in their decision, while 34% said it was unimportant.
  8. Perceived Impact of Piracy on the Industry Respondents appear to understand the impact of piracy! 59% indicating agreement that digital piracy negatively affects the industry (music label, studios etc) and individuals (musicians, actors etc). Around 20% of respondents “did not know” if they agreed or disagreed with each of the 5 statements. This suggests there are a group of respondents that although downloading content, do not give much thought to their behaviour in this space. Only 15% of respondents strongly agreed that all digital content should be available to download for free. A further 25% agreed with this statement. Thus, the majority of people (60%) either agree or can be persuaded (i.e., the don’t knows) that payment for content is appropriate.
  9. Current Spend and Response to Monthly Fees Introduction of a fee for unlimited download of digital media would result in the 80:20 rule being met – subject to the sensitivities around price being considered. Based upon the survey responses, revenue from fees would appear to be maximised when $20 per month is charged. However, at this level of fee only slightly more than 40% of users are paying the fee. A lower fee may be warranted on the grounds that more people would pay and the cost of enforcement would outweigh the benefit of charging a higher fee. Strategies to tackle the residual 17% of non-fee payers (assuming a $5 per month fee) are still required.
More Related