Slashdot Mirror
CDs Want To Be Free
Dotnaught writes: "An article that I wrote about a new music promotion service called fightcloud.com and CD pricing in general has just gone up on Salon. And heeding the advice of Dave Winer, I also posted the full transcript of the interview on my Web log, Lot 49, for those curious about what got left on the cutting room floor." Rather than complaining that Big Recording's CDs are overpriced, it sounds like this company is simply demonstrating that music (even on physical media) just don't have to cost that much.
Hear me out here, I think I have a valid point. Lots of people here are programmers. Lots of people think CD's are overpriced. Well a CD is about 15 bucks give or take a few. How much is a video game these days? 40 or 50 bucks, a DRASTICALLY different number than 15. But guess what? You get a game , it comes on a CD. You get an album, it comes on a CD. What can we conclude from this? You're not paying for the CD at all, you're paying for what's on it! So why should we tolerate 50 dollar games without batting an eye, but a 15 dollar music collection is "way too much"?? I don't see the difference. Programmers put in tons of effort to create a game. Musicians put in tons of effort to create a CD. The time schedules are roughly similiar, no artist is cranking out CD's weekly or anything. So is there any reason we complain about music being too much, while games we don't? I think its because most people here are programmers, and think that because video games involve programming, they are inherently worth more.
From the Salon article:
Scalfani sells CDs for free. That is, if you don't count the $4.95 "shipping" charge
So, if I turn up at their offices in person, with a box, these CDs really will be free. As in free.
If I were the word free, I'd be feeling pretty raw and abused these days.
People hate hearing "free" when it means $4.95 shipping for something that's cheap to make and ship.
Instead, they should've said that the CDs were $4.95 with free shipping. Then we wouldn't feel like we're being lured in by "free", it'd just be a good deal.
It's just wording, I know, but it makes or breaks this company's "image".
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
OK, so that all costs some money, right? Well, that's NOTHING compared with the cost of food, travel, housing that many recording labels provide their artists while they are recording.
You know jack shit about the music industry, my friend. All those things are what are called RECOUPABLE EXPENSES.
When a record label advances money to an artist, or spends money in certain areas, to make, market or promote a record, the artist must pay back that money before the label begins to split the profits with the artist. Paying back that money out of record sales is called "recouping." If the record stiffs, even at the fault of the label, the artist of course owes nothing. But if the record sells some units, and the label decides to put out another record, the debt is NOT wiped clean if the artist is unrecouped. This nasty little fact is called "cross collateralization" and what that means is that if the artist makes Record Number Two for the label, but hasn't recouped from Record Number One yet, the back owed funds come out of the sales from the new record before the artist ever sees a dime from the new record. So you can see how difficult it is to get ahead...which is how a label (meaning Def Jam) would explain why Slick Rick is unrecouped after all these years and 5 albums later.
As an example, let's say the artist has an unrecouped balance of $200,000 on the day his record drops (his advance and recording budget were $150,000 and $100,000 was spent on the video for the first single, half of which is recoupable--that's $200,000). Let's say the label did its job properly and had a good four month set up on the album (set up is the amount of work that goes into a project to build awareness prior to its release), and the artist has a strong buzz in the marketplace. So pre-orders are looking good (the amount of records the retail stores ask for, based on the anticipation of sales for the release) and the label decides to ship 300,000 units initially. If the label is in the Universal family, for example, and offers a sales discount because it's a new artist, a $16.98 anticipated retail price will position this CD at $10.78 wholesale. So the label can anticipate an income initially of $3,234,000 (300,000 x $10.78). And by the way, the label feels as though it has already lost $189,000, because the full retail selling price of $17.98 would have brought the label $3,423,000 (300,000 x $11.41) and since they discounted the record one dollar, they're already losing money. Here's the ugly side of label accounting and recouping: the artist's contract stipulates that the artist's share of the back end is 12 points, which really means 12% of the retail price (less a whole bunch of stupid provisions for breakage, free goods, return reserves, and container charges, producer royalties, etc) which leaves the artist about $1 a record. That means that the artist's share of the income from one record sold at $16.98 is roughly $1. Recouping means that the artist has to pay back the money spent out of his share (which is $1 a record sold). So in order to pay back that $200,000 spent prior to the record even coming out, 200,000 units must sell.
After the initial order is shipped, the artist incurs promotional costs which the label advances to him. The independent radio promoters, video promoters, tour support, remixes, etc, are all shared expenses that come out of the artist's money. So you can see how easy it is for an artist to remain unrecouped. If he finishes his project two or three singles deep, it's easy to come into the next project already at a high negative balance. The artist is artificially unrecouped, however, because the label has made back the money it spent off the top. Let's look at our above example. Let's say the label gets paid (meaning every retail store sells every copy with no returns) for every copy of the initial 300,000 units it shipped at $10.78 a copy. And let's also assume they did not spend any additional money to sell those records (also highly unlikely). The label has made $3,234,000. The label has also recouped $200,000 from the artist for the expenses, so that $3,234,000 is almost pure profit (except for the unrecouped costs of running their business and the overhead of running their business). Meanwhile, the artist has made only $100,000 (less the artist's overhead costs). According to my calculator, that's only 3% of the share.
And the massive screwjob doesn't stop there, not by far. Labels pay royalties on 90% of sales which assumes 10% breakage, a holdover from the vinyl days. From that amount is deducted the advances and recoupable expenses such as studio time, engineers, producer, etc. However, a distributer is often given 15-30% of his albums free on which there is no royalty. Overseas sales and sales to military stores are at a greatly reduced royalty. Some Talent may be more popular overseas than in America which means they see very little royalties. If albums are returned and then sold at discount, Talent receives virtually no royalty on those sales.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Assimilation would be the better of the two choices, although I don't think they'll do that either.
The majors have become less and less interested in artist development, and more and more interested in risk management. You need someone to wade through all the crap, and believe me, there's a whole lot of crap out there.
Labels are banks that loan money at really high interest rates. The benefit to the artist is that if you default on the loan (walk away from the deal or get dropped) there's not really any financial penalty - the label has taken all of the financial risk. You probably won't ever get another deal on any major, but you don't owe anybody any money. They've given you money in return for you signing away your copyrights, name, likeness, etc. For some people this is a good deal.
Unless you've been groomed by the Disney machine for stardom, you can't really even get a foot in the door unless you've already self-released at least one or two CDs, have an established fan base, and are more or less self-sufficient. An independent artist who has achieved this doesn't really need a label deal anymore unless they want a more widespread audience/fame and are willing to take a paycut (for 90% of them anyway) to get it.
So if there's a company willing to wade through the crap and can provide the labels with some hard numbers on sales, it makes the label's job that much easier and less risky. It also provides talented independents with a potentially good source of exposure and distribution which is, after the creation of quality works, probably the hardest part of any artist's job.
Remember that the majors no longer as interested in long-term sales as in increasing quarterly profits - they have stockholders and parent companies to keep happy, and let's face it - the majority of the top selling music today is disposable. There are a few standout tracks that might be popular 10 years from now, but those are getting fewer and farther between.
Assuming that this company can stay afloat, I think the majors will treat it as a semi-weeded flower bed. I know for a fact that mp3.com is surfed by several major A&R reps - think how happy they'll be if they can deal with a company that actually has some quality control going on.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Um, then why do tapes cost half as much. All the mumbo jumbo you mentioned is in the prep costs. CDs cost less than $1 each to make; tapes cost more than that. Now if tapes cost $20 when CDs cost $18, then your theory would make sense.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
This article explains to HER that:
> $16 of the $18 she's spends on a CD is record company profit.
Prices on CDs should be going down, not up.
A $5 CD sold direct to the consumer makes almost double the profit for the artist.
The positions of the RIAA on P2P and DRM are likely motivated by greed, not survival.
In my view, it's a LOT more important *where* this article is than *what* it actually says.
I'd love to see a big name (Madonna, U2, N'Sync, etc.) use the net to direct-market a low cost original CD just to confirm for everyone that the RIAA is obsolete. Likely, however, it'll go the other way - one of these 'unknowns' is going to hit it big and promote the hell out of this approach.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
The thing, I think, that makes me maddest about the record industry is that I want to be sympathetic. I really do.
I understand that hiring the best engineers and studio musicians cost money
Honest, I understand that.
I understand that promoting new acts entails risk and that established acts help to buffer that.
I understand that marketing and distribution cost money.
I don't begrudge somebody turning an honest dollar doing all this stuff. Not one bit.
But $18.99 per CD?
Can you say exploitation?
$18.99 per CD then trying to make it so that I can't play it on my pc?
Can you say outrage?
$18.99 per CD to help you lobby to take away my rights with a little help from your friends Hollings and Feinstein?
Can you say I don't need your stinkin' CDs?
When you want to make an honest dollar, I may stop back by the store.
On the Web Log (lot 49), he said, "Here is the biggest mistake of them all: two good songs on a CD. How many times do we have that? Remember that girl who sang "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone"? Vaguely. She was a kind of folksy singer. That was the only good song on that CD."
That was Paula Cole, and for that albumn she got nominations for Best New Artist, Best Album of the Year, Best Pop Albumn, Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, and Producer of the Year.
If this guy didn't know that, how would you feel about his business acumen? And if his musical taste is that bad (Paula Cole's This Fire is one of my top 10 CDs of all time), then I don't want to listen to what ever else he's selling (Kid Rock ripoffs?).
You can charge whatever the market will bear. So, game producers charge $50 (at least for a few months) for a new game.
How is that different from CDs? Well, the game producers didn't have to settle with the FTC because they were conspiring to inflate the price of CDs. Retailers wanted to sell them cheaper, but the middle-men wouldn't let them!
Even with the antitrust allegations settled, I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of crap still goes on. The RIAA members are effectively a monopoly on the music industry. As a result, the market isn't dictating what price a CD will go for, they are.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.