accountability with a DRM-free iTunes?

give me accountability or give me Amazon.

i speak as a very loyal iTunes user/purchaser. i rack up bills in the iTunes store like you would not believe. that 4-day mix tape i made over holiday? that cost me a pretty penny there, like $40, give or take, for one day of downloads. of DRM material. [if you aren't aware, DRM--digital rights management--is an encoding on music that limits distribution, including what players it can be played on].

Amazon has had DRM-free music for some time. but i am lazy. i use iTunes to play my music, so i use iTunes to buy my music. a committed .99 per song made it painlessly easy. what's one more song? it's only a buck, right? [to the point where paying 1.99 for Rock Band 2 song downloads seemed like 'too much,' which is illogical.] so DRM-free music on iTunes should be wicked awesome for me, queen of mix tapes, right?

...right.

and it is. but i'm very skeptical of this tiered music iTunes now offers. i want to see a PLAN. in order to give up a little rights management control, the labels want kick-back. so we get DRM-free, while per-song-pricing changes. Yanni can go for .69, while the new Beyonce can go for 1.29. it's said that more songs will be .99 and .69 than 1.29, but let's look at the theoretical math.

[i say theoretical cos it's not really math. i suck at math.]

obviously the combined amount of (nearly) ancient stuff that (nearly) no one listens to, combined with slightly dated material going for .99 would account for more catalogue space than the 1.29 songs. DUH. so you're not selling me on that promise. i am concerned. labels want kick-back because not everyone is as brave as Nettwerk.

so how long before any song i actually give a shit about is 1.29?

i get they want money. in a weird way, i MAY be persuaded out of laziness to spend 1.29 on a song because, as i said, iTunes just flat out 'does it for me.' but i want something that is going to say to me that in 6 months, or 3 months, or some short TIME ALLOTMENT that this 1.29 song is going to become .99. if any of you can find me this, i will be happy. i haven't yet.

i want to see a plan, a promise, something, that says we're not still getting it up the ass from the labels. you give me DRM-free, but pardon me if i look a gift horse in the mouth. pps. it's too much to ask, but i want to trade in my 100+ purchased songs for DRM-free ones. otherwise i just feel penalized/gypped for supporting before.

proof that dove really does suck at life.

as if you needed more evidence, here's why Dove is still guilty of failure. now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

by request! a rant on dove.

the post. the culprit: dove. the question: relevancy. the verdict: fail.

but you knew that already.
the question is truly, Why exactly does Dove fail at life?

it's not that it was a flawed campaign concept, as some believe.
i think that a campaign for real beauty, and expanding definitions of beauty, is admirable, useful, and, moreover, achievable through marketing if done well. MultiCultClassics recaps and quotes Adbusters, "In this case the message is right on—it’s time to end the propagation of unrealistic ideals. But the intention—to somehow bolster women’s self-esteem while selling them firming lotion—is the problem."

i am not sure this is entirely true.
all women--and i'd argue all humans--want to feel beautiful.
beautiful means confident, which in turn leads to desirability and acceptance, which leads to the ultimate goal of communication and connection.

widening the standards to include more people into that circle of beauty is important to raise confidence in a culture which places so much emphasis on appearance. rather than change the body to fit the mold, shift the mold. that much we can agree our culture is due for.

there are a number of ways people are doing this.
for a long time, i supported--though no, i didn't model for ;)--Suicide Girls for their political stance in their own alternative industry. i then stopped supporting them because of their legal practices, but that's beside the point right now.

if Dove wanted to expand definitions of beauty and sell body lotion, i think it's possible. if you want to tell me that my body type and my facial structure fits into a new definition of beauty--and you make me believe it--i may just support you enough to buy that lotion that consequently makes my skin silky smooth (i actually do purchase one Dove product, namely this). point being? sell me on the new beauty concept, if that's what the campaign is about, and you'll sell me on the product because you'll be something i believe in.

that means depict in your ads: large girls, multiethnic girls, tattooed and pierced girls, nerdfabulous girls, feminine girls, girls with hard bodies, girls with legs for days, girls with big hips, girls with broad shoulders, girls with 'masculine' faces, girls like flowers, girls like linebackers--oh wait, i mean, ALL KINDS OF GIRLS. hey, all of them may buy lotion. especially if they play rugby. ;)

do not show me, as you are, these girls who still look like models and who don't resemble anyone i've ever met before in my life. give me girls i want to take a second look at. give me online profiles for my favourite dove girls. let me get to know her style, her hardships, and her personal beauty.

bottom line is you can't campaign for real beauty unless you actually embrace it.
through embracing it, i do think there is product support and monetization.
but if your concept and campaign don't match up--as they currently don't--that's what's causing the distrust.

because ultimately, Dove is more concerned with pushing product than pushing the importance of pluralizing beauty--and that's the failure.