Why do you think consumers are willing to pay $50/month+ for video streaming content, but no more than $10 for music?
what if you think about movies valued by their soundtrack? Every viewing of a movie is an entire album (or more). Assuming the original recordings initial costs, and are paying out recurring royalties per-viewing (not to mention everything else that goes into a movie) movies are just expensive. get what you pay for
I consume a order of magnitude more music than video, and I’d definitely pay $50/month for a music subscription.
Image + audio more hypnotic and stimulating than just audio (for most)
Perhaps it has something to do with how passive or active the consumption is; if the latter the perceived value is higher Video is often more active consumption than music
Folks had their own music library back in the day. No one had video libraries they owned. Therefore no price anchor as with music.
$50 is cheap compared to cable. $10 is expensive compared to Napster.
Video takes you out of your own life and puts you in someone else’s - music amplifies your own. Lots of people seem to want a standard break from life.
Novelty. I mean I watch a lot of Seinfeld, but there’s a steady stream of new series to check out. For music, you can discover new stuff, but imagine people’s “most played artists” have relatively low variance
Tbh I think pricing is driven by competition and costs, not consumer willingness to pay. Applies to music and video streaming services alike. Both are as cheap as possible and since video costs a lot more, the price is higher. If Spotify, Apple Music, etc were all 2x the price I think people would still pay.
TV is also very social. A lot of interaction with folks centered around “did you see X new show?”
People generally consumer more video that music audio, so that likely justifies higher price