Sept. 22, 2007–Used to be a lot of tape and record stores. Now few survive. Hot CDs and DVDs are now sold in sections of discount supermarkets (the hip-hop CDs du jour are 50 cent and Kanye). For a full selection one must go to quasi-museums in bookstores or computer stores that retail classic albums to older listeners without the technology to search for and download music from the internet. The reason for the decline of the old record stores is, in a word, file-sharing.
The Recording Industry Association of America has tried to fight back against people–especially younger people, who grew up finding free music–using Napster-like peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks. Reportedly the RIAA has filed 30,000 lawsuits against downloaders. But the tape and record stores still languish. Should the government be intervening more strenuously on behalf of the intellectual property of music recordings? Or is this a victimless crime? Evidence of victims includes the shortage of opportunities for younger wannabe musicians with many fewer record-company agents ready to sign them up for big bucks.
The clothing industry has an analogous problem–knockoffs, i.e., items of clothing that are copied from well-advertised brand-name items. Some argue that knockoffs, like Napster devices, are harmless and have no victims. Possibly some knockoffs are "complements" to brand-name goods, i.e., they don't compete with them (Mom buys the real thing from Bergdorf's and as she emerges from the store she buys a copy for her teenage daughter on the street outside). But some knockoffs are substitutes, i.e., they interfere with sales. Also, the supply chain for knockoffs is unknown, raising safety and sweatshop questions, not to mention evasion of taxes for goods sold on the street or in stores that don't collect or pass on sales taxes. Any comments?
Early alerts on longer-term business, economic and public policy issues. Successor to the web site www.cityeconomist.com. Maintained by John Tepper Marlin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some thoughts on clothing industry knockoffs:
ReplyDeleteI personally hate knockoffs. For those who make knockoffs are just like stealing. Instead of stealing physical stuff, they steal the ideas from designers. And it won't be a good way to develop business for THE long-term. If they cannot afford to hire top designers, why not hire those young students
from design schools, who may have a bunch of great ideas but need some platform to put their ideas into production. And those companies may be able to develop their own design line later. The reason they're making knockoffs, I guess, is that they just want to get easy money Quickly.
Also, when knockoffs are flowing around the market, buyers for
designer-brands are also hurt as they paid much more for those items
may look like the same as knockoffs at first glance.
And knockoff buyers are most likely going to stick to the cheap knockoffs. Year after year, they have got used to buying the similar stuff with much less money. Why do you think they would like to pay more for original designer brands eventually? They would even think themselves quite silly if they do so. Knockoffs may improve people's tastes, but will not increase designers' potential sales.
I think knockoffs have harmed many industries such as clothing, bags, music recordings and so on. Why knockoffs are so marketable? An important reason is that knockoffs are very cheaper than the similar brand products. So knockoffs decrease the potential sales of brand products. At the same time, some knockoffs retailers won't pay sales taxes. It hurts the government revenues. So I think government should take more lawful action on prohibiting knockoffs. For example, government can set a great penalty fee on manufacturing and selling knockoffs.
ReplyDeleteThis is Zhuobei (Phoebe) Deng. I've read this article in this week's New Yorker. I pretty much agree your opinion.
ReplyDeleteJames Surowieck emphasized In the fashion industry, knockoffs are harmless if they are targeted to a different segment of the market. For example, a $100 perfume is sold on Canal St.for only $20. But the people who buy the $20 perfume would never spend $100 for the brand name. In this situation, knockoffs are truly complements and do not harm the brand-name manufacturers.
However, knockoffs are not harmless for the whole economy and they undermine social morality. Saying imitation is the sincerest form of flattery is like encouraging plagiarism.
This is Zhuobei (Phoebe) Deng. I've read this article in this week's New Yorker. I pretty much agree your opinion.
ReplyDeleteJames Surowieck emphasized In the fashion industry, knockoffs are harmless if they are targeted to a different segment of the market. For example, a $100 perfume is sold on Canal St.for only $20. But the people who buy the $20 perfume would never spend $100 for the brand name. In this situation, knockoffs are truly complements and do not harm the brand-name manufacturers.
However, knockoffs are not harmless for the whole economy and they undermine social morality. Saying imitation is the sincerest form of flattery is like encouraging plagiarism.
While the record industry has been declining in the past couple of years, the music industry has been at its peak. Given the technology advancements, now any artist can record his/her hit and share it with music lovers. As a result of this, mp3 related industries have benefited greatly. Looking at the record industry in particular, I believe file sharing has negatively impacted it; however looking at the opportunities technology advancements have given people, the decline in the record industry is NOT harmful. To know how the decline in the record industry has affected the economy, we'd need to gather some statistics to see the economic contribution of the record vs. mp3 related industries.
ReplyDelete