Will the long tail of the internet be docked by the fastidious imposition of GST to online purchases?
Australian retailers have been lobbying the federal government to up the ante on online GST by lowering the tax-free limit so that it would apply to transactions under $1000 AUD. Some have argued that the so-called low value threshold on online transactions should be as minuscule as $30. But will an unintended consequence of this penny-pinching obsession of the moment be the death-knell of one potential killer application of electronic commerce?
Chris Anderson of Wired magazine popularised the notion of the “long tail” as a nascent retailing strategy in an October 2004 article which he then spun out into the book, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. The sub-title of the book gives away the gist — namely that Anderson’s idea of the long tail is a type of consumer demographic in which business profits could be made by selling small volumes of rare items to many patrons over a longer period of time.
Anderson argues that niche products or those that have an insubstantial sales volume can consolidate a market share through aggregation that matches or outperforms the somewhat sparse array of current bestsellers and blockbusters in the entertainment arena, provided that the store or distribution mechanism is big enough to handle the ebb and flow. While runaway hits such as Fifty Shades of Grey can be purchased even in some enlightened supermarkets, alongside cartons of milk and other mundane essentials, obscurities such as the out-of-print 1992 novel Demogorgon by British horror author Brian Lumley can still be bought via Amazon for as little as a cent (with its current ranking in the Books category being 1,997,167.)
The demand curve of the long tail in retailing can literally go on forever as new consumers emerge to desire niche products, particularly those emanating from popular culture. What could attract these prospective customers? The blogosphere and other social media forums in their own unique way support the long tail of knowledge, creating a networked infrastructure with a distribution power that can disseminate a greater number of otherwise hard-to-find nuggets of wisdom in small quantities than more popular chunks of knowledge that are available en masse.
Digital word-of-mouth about non-mainstream pop culture treasures can then inspire the curious to wander in search through Amazon, eBay or other specialty online stores. However, the thrill of the hunt could be dampened or even extinguished with the burden of an online GST. (Incidentally, is the purpose of this tax chiefly to add to government coffers and thereby increase the greater good down the track, or is it really designed to be a behavioural speed-bump encouraging people to buy local while trying to think global?)
Let’s examine the pop culture phenomenon of film music and how it could be marginalised even further as result of an online GST. Film music in this context applies to orchestral or instrumental soundtracks such as those produced by the likes of Bernard Herrmann, Jerry Goldsmith or John Williams. Film score appreciation currently enjoys a steadfast cult following amongst a small community of enthusiasts who are more often than not both a listener with an eclectic knowledge of particular genres of film, as well as being a die-hard collector of CDs or LPs. (Cult here implies a certain kind of studied exclusivity, the hallmark of which is usually exaggerated zeal in its devotees for something that is cool specifically because it may not have mass appeal.)
Because of the narrow demand for this artistic product, the major recorded music companies tend not to release these on compact disc for mass consumption. Indeed, film music suffered from a de facto music “apartheid” system in the retail game and it would have been segregated out of existence if it wasn’t for the saving grace of the internet’s long tail.
Though currently distributed through digital media platforms such as iTunes, the range of soundtracks, once again, is tailored for mass market tastes. To cater for the clientele of genuine film music aficionados, specialist music labels emerged in the 1970s to release rare soundtracks, primarily in the US. These companies, such as Perseverance Records and Buysoundtrax, often release limited edition CD releases of soundtracks, in quantities as low as 500 units per pressing or as high as 5000.
One would assume that the latter number is a good estimate for the global population of die-hard soundtrack collectors. If it wasn’t for the love of the craft on display by both these small companies and the dwindling film music fanbase, then the art form of listening to soundtracks in their own right could possibly vanish into oblivion. These limited edition CD soundtracks are only available via online retail stores and would never see the light of day in any of their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. Burt Bacharach’s classic score to the 1967 cinematic misfire Casino Royale was given the limited edition treatment recently to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the film, as well as the 50th anniversary of the 007 franchise itself. Limited to 1500 units at a cost of €24.95 (AUD$31) per 2CD set, Quartet Records , acting both as music producer, distributor and online retailer, promptly sold out of their stock and the item has been traded on eBay in recent times for more than double its selling price.
Given current exchange rates, the original retail price of the collector’s edition of Casino Royale would be just over the $30 mark that some retailers are saying the new GST low value threshold should be for online purchases here in Australia. But is it fair to be taxed on an item that would never be available on the shelf of any Melbourne store?
One could also argue that the GST whack could also be another “moral” tipping point for some to seek such items via pirated downloads as an act of defiance. Similar arguments could also be applied to other kinds of pop culture merchandise that don’t necessarily have broad public appeal, such as graphic novels – once available at news-stands across the country and now solely the domain of specialty stores, both physical and online.
The long tail of retail could very well be the goldmine of the internet to those with the patience (and capital) to wait and allow for treasures to be discovered. Doing the equivalent of a virtual limbo dance with an online GST threshold as low as $30 could be perceived by some as an act of injustice to dampen the discerning passions of the silent majority for the niggardly concerns of those merchants who should be improving their own business models in the here and now.
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
The government shouldn't tax something we like? Well, I might write an article advocating 0% tax on chardonnay and potato chips.
But hang on, doesn't the government need tax revenue for public health interventions, increased education spending and subsidising green energy? Conversation readers must be outraged.
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
James,
I'd prefer the government not levy a tax that will cost more to collect than it yields (the rationale behind the current $1,000 limit, I believe). If the retailers can show that their prices are not greater that 10% more than those online, and if they're willing to pay the cost of collecting uneconomic GST, I might reconsider.
Richard Powell
logged in via Facebook
If that rationale was applied more broadly, how many other things should simply not be charged/collected because of the cost of process?
Tax returns under $80,000 gross. Cheaper to just give a $300 refund & sack the public servants.
How about facilities & services? Roads, hospitals, policing, telephony, water, sewerage etc. Too costly to run versus a cost/benefit analysis? let them eat cake!
Charge GST on all sales or charge none.
Such a silly test you propose. Give retailers the same option to cut the GST, warranty, service & consumer obligations. No need to comply with Australian Standards, avoid legal liability for product & personal injury etc.
There's a lot more than just the GST missing in the equation.
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
Richard, do you honestly think government doesn't take cost into account?
Richard Powell
logged in via Facebook
Haha, numerous examples of no consideration of cost spring to mind...
But can you name any other tax, levy or other Gov imposed fee that enjoys such an exemption?
Time after time we are told it would make no difference but the mere mention of improving the system to efficiently impose this lawful tax and likely tax dodgers everywhere are hammering their keyboards with rage.
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
Richard Powell: "... numerous examples of no consideration of cost spring to mind...". List them.
Richard Powell: "... improving the system to efficiently impose this lawful tax ...". How can a tax be efficiently imposed in circumstances where it would cost more to collect than it yields?
The reason given for the $1000 limit on imposition of GST on imported goods is that, below that level, the net taxation yield is negative. Do you have evidence to the contrary or do you think that the cost is worth paying?
By the way, I used to work in the tax office. I know first hand that regulation and enforcement are subject to economic constraints.
Richard Powell
logged in via Facebook
OK firstly, I'm not going to go off subject to list every example until you decide one is valid to you.
That said here's a great one - Barry O'Farrell's proposed widening of the motorways & M4 extension. Anticipated to cost $100,000,000,000. (Likely on history's track record to cost double that). Cost be damned - it can't possibly show a cost benefit analysis in favour.
OK - we have already have electronic (read low cost) systems for pre-clearing all items for entry into Australia. There is no…
Read moreDavid Boxall
logged in via Facebook
Richard Powell: "... it can't possibly show a cost benefit analysis in favour." Cost-benefit analysis is a political furphy. The outcome depends on the assumptions and the assumptions depend on politics.
Richard Powell: "There is plenty of volume (all agree) and with volume comes efficiency. All that is needed is the will to impose it." Wrong, wrong, wrong. By the way, who are the "all" who "agree"?
What matters is transaction cost. Below a certain level, the cost of the transaction exceeds revenue potential. That's what the $1,000 minimum is all about. That figure was chosen by people who have studied the problem and know what they're doing.
Richard Powell
logged in via Facebook
Can I expect any evidence from you?
Not only is the volume overwhelming Australia Post, local business is in fact subsidising Australia Post's parcel problems!
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/transport-and-logistics/049878-auspost-losing-70-million-a-year-on-international-pricing-structure.html
Many other countries are doing the work that you say can't be done:
(read the executive summary)
http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/LowValueParcelProcessingTaskforceInterimReport30Mar12.pdf
Who are these learned people that studied the problem?
http://www.retail.org.au/ArticleDetails/tabid/232/ArticleID/96/Customs-admits-no-proof-to-back-up-GST-threshold-advice-Up-to-700-million-in-Commonwealth-revenue-down-the-drain.aspx
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
In 1871, in the introduction to 'The Descent of Man', Charles Darwin wrote "... ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge ...". You evidently believe that you know better than those charged with ensuring the efficiency of Australia's taxation system.
Richard Powell: "... the work that you say can't be done ..." Did I say that, or did I say that those who legislated the system had decided that it's uneconomic?
I presume you have retail interests. I might be more impressed if the whingeing retailers weren't generally so much more expensive than overseas prices plus GST.
Richard Powell
logged in via Facebook
I note with disappointment that you have not engaged in answering any of the points raised. This is not a "Conversation" or even a spirited debate.
Low Value Parcel Processing Taskforce (LVPPT)
The Australian Government released the LVPPT report into improving efficiencies of Australian importation processes on 6 September 2012. This taskforce was implemented after the original productivity commission report indicated that the threshold should be lowered to achieve tax neutrality but only if the income generated would be greater than the cost in generating this income.
The report identified a process which would enable the Low Value Import Threshold to be lowered by 2014.
I present evidence & you run for cover. I call TROLL.
Continue your tax dodging justifications at your leisure.
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
David Boxall: "I presume you have retail interests." In response; Richard Powell: "... you have not engaged ...". I'll take that as confirmation.
Richard Powell: "Continue your tax dodging ...". As there's no tax to dodge, that's nothing short of onanism on your part. Please don't continue your efforts to increase our taxes, solely to support your failed business model.
Recently, I bought a power tool from New Zealand. It was 35% cheaper than an inferior tool available locally. While relativities like that abound, you'll struggle to attract support for extending the GST.
alfred venison
records manager (public sector)
from cliché to archetype.
today, the rate of innovation & change is such as to propel our consciousness, in the period of a decade, through what seems like a century.
in these circumstances, unique or limited artifacts of recent popular culture, for myriad reasons, will become collectibles & will increasingly be sought out, by a growing pool of connoisseurs, intent on harvesting the various furrows in the field of retro, for feeding their personal collector satisfactions.
it would be unfair to tax the low value trade in popular culture artifacts, such as the author describes, in order to take pressure off the businesses of gerry harvey & david jones and their superannuated business models. -a.v.
Jamie Anderson
logged in via Facebook
It aint gonna happen.
Collecting GST on items as low as $30 would cost too much to administer. Australia post and Customs would soon get sick of dealing with all the angry people having to go out to the Clyde mail centre (if in Sydney) to pay a lousy three bucks in sales tax.
To be able to walk into a shop and buy what I want in Australia I'd gladly pay 10% over what people in the US pay but the difference is more like 50% and for some things it's over 100%. This sales tax issue is just a distraction.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
There are books and music that is not available in Australia, (I'm sure there are many items not previously available to those unable to travel) - how mean to tax items under $1000? Those on a limited income get shafted yet again. What would be the cost of setting up yet more bureaucracy to administer this petty idea?
Huge industries and the independently wealthy set-up a plethora of systems designed to limit, if not outright evade, paying tax, yet the average schmo who is already ready paying GST on every day items (GST never was a "luxury" tax) and is powerless to do anything other than pay as we go.
BTW James Jenkin, why don't you have a chat with Gina et al? They would love to hear your ideas on responsible taxation.
Bob Buick
Retired medical consultant
Three changes would be needed in order to reduce on-line shopping:
Read more1. The GST would have to be well over 30% to reduce the price gap significantly.
2. Articles easily found overseas would have to become available locally.
3. Personal shopping would have to become much easier and faster.
The last item would require attention to:
a. Parking problems, distance walked and ease of finding a retailer.
b. Convenient layout and assistance in obtaining the required item in the shop.
c. Far faster and…