Music execs set that expectation, and artists just have to live with it. http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/branding/1559631/...
"During those meetings it was Warner executives, not Jobs as is commonly thought, who suggested tracks be sold for 99 cents. At the time, many labels wanted to price tracks at $3.49 each. But not Warner.
“When we told Steve, he looked at us like we just gave him a gift,” Vidich recalls. “We knew we needed to alter consumer behavior in a big way. Below $1 was an emotional threshold for people. It became an acceptable impulse purchase.”
Re:Who's doing this to my internet?
by sillygeese on Tuesday July 28, 2015 @10:16AM
(#9961605)
> I don't think it's a problem with $1.50 in absolute terms. It's $1.50 compared to $0.99 from other vendors.
Yes, but if you only have the $1.50 option for buying a song you supposedly love, it simply makes no sense to refuse because other places sell other songs for $0.99, especially considering the massive value for a measly amount of money you get either way.
Even when people would be strictly better off accepting a deal, they refuse it if they feel it is unfair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
FWIW, I don't buy a lot of music - I use free Pandora and put up with the ads.