A post at MediaMemo by Peter Kafka argues music sales are in the tank because it's so hard to buy music. Is that true? In short, yes and no.

It is true that the number of retailers selling music has declined over the last decade. When a retailer closes, it forces former customers to go elsewhere for music. I'm not convinced all that demand is absorbed by other retailers. A person will only drive so far to buy something. More difficult access to music means lower music sales.

But look at the stores that have closed. In large part they represent retail's inability to meet changes in demand. Upon the removal of labels' Minimum Advertised Price policies, mass merchants advertised low sale prices and whetted consumers' appetite for cheaper music. Concurrently, P2P and the emergence of digital music options put downward pressure on CD prices -- since people were becoming accustomed to acquiring individual songs instead of albums. Like it or not, few retailers can offer music as cheap as most people want it. Loss leaders get a lot of grief for their pricing strategies, but it's what many consumers expect. So fewer stores is not just a cause for lower sales, it is a symptom of changes in demand.

Do fewer retail options create a commensurate difficulty in acquiring music? Not necessarily. In the '90s, Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy sold the most music in the country. Today, they have been supplanted by iTunes but still remain the place most physical music is sold. The stores stock fewer copies of fewer titles, but the music most people want is within easy reach. And even though music inventory is down 30% at Borders, that doesn't mean the unique number of SKUs is down by the same margin.

Stocking less music sends all sorts of signals to consumers. One problem that comes with reduced inventories is the lower quality of the music section. It becomes far less pleasing to browse as the number of titles drops. Less emphasis is given to selling music and greater emphasis is placed on either higher margin products or growth categories. The music is still there, but less effort goes into selling it. Rather than actively push music, retailers have become more passive. The results are predictable.

Today consumers have a wealth of options. Take eBay as an example. There site's user base and offering of items is staggering. CDs are available on the cheap. Nobody could possibly argue eBay presents an inordinate level of difficulty in buying music or practically anything else (except for the argument that cash-only buyers are shut out of the market). The same goes for Amazon.com. Just about any title is available at Amazon.com, and its CD prices are well below suggested list prices. For a society so well adapted to buying online, it would be hard to argue that buying a CD at either eBay or Amazon.com presents a substantial hurdle.

Then you've got iTunes, Amazon.com MP3, eMusic, Rhapsody, Napster, Beatport, Amie Street, Bleep, Hot Topic, Wal-Mart, Insound and other online retailers selling MP3 downloads. Consumers have never had more ways to choose from more songs.

So why are sales so low? There are many reasons, the main one being that labels and retail have not properly engaged the new music consumer. Part of the problem, I have no doubt, is that fewer retailers and their reduced emphasis on music has lead to fewer sales.

There is still a demand for music -- even for CDs -- but it is not being properly captured. The "premium package" is a good example. The trend picked up with Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails. Now Topspin Media has done it with Eno & Byrne and The Firemen. There is low demand for expensive versions of albums, but demand does exist. Tiered product offerings capture more of the value in the demand for a particular album. More artists will do this (it might not show up on SoundScan since it's outside of traditional channels) but there are two issues. First, retail won't be involved. Artists (and sometimes their labels) will sell directly to fans. Second, this type of product offering is in its infancy. As the kinks get worked out and fans get used to buying these items online, sales will improve.

Another problem is the passive nature of most music buyers. Only a small percentage of people actively seek out new music and will go out of their way to browse, discover and buy it. The typical person will buy something they like if it's not difficult to find (which is why the hits are placed near the door). Impulse purchases are a large part of music sales -- so you have to actually get a person in front of music in order to capture that impulse sale. I know that's a hard concept for people in the industry to swallow. Most of us would crawl on our hands and knees through miles of snow to purchase used cassettes if that's all that were available. But the typical music consumer isn't like us. He will buy from a limited number of stores and won't spend hours rummaging through the bins at Amoeba Music. He will buy music when it's easy to find, well priced and well merchandised.

Retail's lackadaisical attitude about selling music presents opportunities. Smart indie retailers have embraced music lovers and the culture they live in. Every time I go into Grimey's in Nashville, for example, there's a good crowd of people. They have in-store performances, a great weekly email and outdoor events with live bands, food and lots of bargain bins. They tell you what bands are coming to town and what local bands you should see. Like many other smaller stores, Grimey's is a part of its community and has made itself a viable alternative to getting music online. Before the Tower Records in my neighborhood closed, I rarely saw a single person inside. The f.y.e. now in its place does better, but the carpet in the music section isn't exactly worn down.

Again, it's both a yes and no, kind of an "it depends" explanation and not at all an easy one to answer.