If you're a widget maker, one of the trickier parts of your business is pricing your widget: too high, and they won't sell; too low, and there's no profit. When you're just starting out, this can be nerve-racking, and there's a chance you'll turn to market studies that use polling data. But there's a catch: when it comes to pricing, you'll rarely hear consumers say "wow, you should charge more for that."

So, at first glance one might not be surprised that a recent Ipsos study indicates that 75 percent of users polled believe that music simply costs too much. However, when we pause to look at the situation, we see that this kind of data is more than significant. It's essential reading for the music industry. Will they pay attention?

The poll, conducted for The Associated Press and Rolling Stone magazine, called up 1,000 people and asked them about their preferences in music, their views on the legality of file sharing, and more. 80 percent of respondents said that they believed that the unauthorized download of music was "stealing," and 92 percent claimed to have never engaged in such shenanigans.

These are the kinds of numbers the music industry wants to see: a high awareness of the legal issues, and an even higher rate of (purported) abstinence. But the smiles end there, because as the movie industry has also learned, the quality of your product does matter. 58 percent of respondents said that music is getting worse, so can it be any wonder that these are tumultuous times for the industry? While the RIAA is worried that the radio is going to become a replacement for download services, they have to fear something even worse: the growing wash of apathy among would-be consumers. How does a business battle that?

I can tell you how it doesn't. Like a greedy king who risks ruining it all for the smallest of victories, the music industry wants to exploit the booming digital business without thinking about what raising prices might do to its growth. While digital music sales tripled in 2005, the year was also dominated by infighting between Apple and the music labels over the cost of those downloads. Like star-crossed protagonists, the 99 cent download and the consumer seem locked into an ill fate: 71 percent of people polled thought that 99 cents was a good price for digital downloadsonly four percent lower than the number of people who think that music is generally too expensive. This happy little sweet-spot is doomed, however, because of where it sits: at the crossroads of album sales and the singles factory.

The Ipsos study lends credence to our view that choice is what the consumer wants, and the music industry loathes. Times were good when Rick Springfield could sell an entire album just because he had it bad for some other dude's girlfriend. Now, however, people are generally displeased with the cost of music, although the digital download price is seen as being acceptable. This speaks volumes to the way that per-song pricing speaks to the average consumer. And yet perception doesn't match reality, yet. According to the same poll, only 15 percent had actually purchased a song online.

To a well seasoned marketer (hey, I know a few), this suggests that the current market has not reached its potential, and that something other than price is holding people back. Without more data, it would be hard to speculate (I still maintain that there is a perception that digital downloads are inferior to hard CDs), but one thing is exceedingly clear: the disparity between those who find the pricing of online music to be acceptable and those engaging in purchasing said music will not decrease with a price increase. It's just simple market dynamics.

Finally, it must be noted for the umpteenth time that this is yet another data point that suggests that casual piracy is not the problem that the labels face. It's apathy on the part of consumers coupled with unrealistic views on the part of the industry. When I was covering the recent broadcast flag hearing on Capitol Hill, the RIAA's Mitch Bainwol surprised me when he insisted on one of the big differences between music and TV/movies being replayability. Bainwol believes that music needs more legal protection and more favorable copyright terms than video entertainment needs because people will listen to a song or an album repeatedly. Given the data here, and given Bainwol's argument, I'm inclined to say that the RIAA knows exactly what is happening: music has largely become a commodity, and the public would rather trade in singles than in albums. But when the latter doesn't sell, we all know what will be blamed now, don't we?