Slashdot Mirror
Universal Music To Cut CD Prices
phlack writes "CNN Money has an article about Universal Music Group's plans to slash their CD prices to $12.98 SRP, in an effort to combat piracy and bring consumers back into stores. It makes me hope the other giants will follow suit, and wonder if the music industry is finally listening to some of the consumer's complaints."
It's about time - CDs have been overpriced for years.
But when a large segment of the public is going to be comparing $12.98 with the $0.00 filesharing price, I have to wonder if it will have any effect at all.
I wonder what the artists think of this? This price reduction has to impact their bottom line...
It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
So they are finally going to match their competitors (Best Buy, etc.) in CD prices? I still don't understand how those big chain stores, who charge $17.95 for a CD, stay in business. Maybe they should take a survey from their consumers, about what they're actually willing to pay for a CD. $12 is about the tops for me, and it better be darn good for that much money.
Slash?.. I will wait till they have a homicide of the prices.. 2-3 bucks is just a joke.
They are finally listening to us!
How generous. Rather than making 90,000% profit on $0.02 worth of plastic, they're
taking it in the shorts with a measly 65,000% profit.
Give me a break. Like $12.98 is going to make me get excited about driving my car to a Brick and Mortar to purchase $0.02 of plastic. This is like Microsoft's strategy of settling lawsuits by selling software at a discount to schools.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
If you ask me, I think the right price for a CD is about $5. $12.98 is a bit much (and why 98? do they think consumers have gotten wise to the whole $n+.99 thing?) It'll eventualy happen.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You probably can't convince me that the move by Universal -- a unit of hard-luck French water utility Vivendi -- doesn't have anything to do with Universal's pending aquisition by GE's NBC unit.
I figure it's one of two things:
* Vivendi is looking to spoil the deal with a profit-killing "poison pill". This would be the strategy of former Vivendi chairman Jean-Marie Messier -- but it's also part of why he's the former chairman.
* GE has already given Universal marching orders -- this was planned months ago. According to this morning's NPR report, Vivendi has been shopping for a buyer for its entertainment units for months, but all previous deals have fallen through. They're likely to do whatever GE says at this point (unless we're back to the first option).
General Electric isn't in the business of filing baseless lawsuits -- they're in the business of making money. Maybe they'll be the ones to blow the lid off the CD price scam once and for all.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Most slashbots are probably familiar with price wars in computer hardware....perhaps we'll see some with regard to CD prices.
Would be an interesting situation where one could get an artist's release from two different labels, so there would be real competition between them.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Quality = good, price = high, result = Some people willing to pay.
Quality = bad, price = high, result = far fewer people willing to pay.
Quality = bad, price = low, result = Some people willing to pay.
Quality = good, price = low, result = maximum number of people willing to pay.
Simple economics. Price of normal goods go up, demand for inferrior goods goes up. Substitute CD's for "normal goods" and MP3's for "inferrior goods".
I hope this is amazing because they're willing to actually do it, not because they think it's a revolutionary idea.
~Will
sig?
You have already proven you wish to screw your customers at any given moment. You have been hostile to me, you know the guy that paid for your wares, for far too long.
I left and am not coming back.
Explain why Cassette is still going to be cheaper. No, really. I want to hear it.
Could it possibly be that CDs are way, way overpriced, even at $13?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Dude, there are a zillion bands that sound good, with CDs and everything. The problem is not getting new bands, the problem is getting their stuff on the airwaves for people to experience. Check out your local independent radio stations. There's a _fantastic_ morning show here in Seattle on KEXP (kexp.org - check out the online stream & playlist). The show is "John in the Morning". Flat out fantastic stuff that you won't hear anywhere else on the airwaves in Seattle. Listen and then buy their CDs from their own websites, whatever you have to do to support them, if you want good music.
"We strongly believe that when the prices are dramatically reduced on so many titles, we will drive consumers back to stores and significantly bolster music sales," said Universal Music Chief Executive Doug Morris in the release.
;)
------------
[sarcasm]
*GASP!* No? Really? Supply and demand works?
[/sarcasm]
Too bad some of your audience have decided to kill off a portion of your demand... okay, maybe not too bad.
Wonder what they'll learn in ECON 201 next year?
-Jellisky
(Manufacturer's) Suggested Retail Price. It reflects the price point that the manufacturer suggests the retailer offer to the end consumer, and includes the margin for that retailer.
The MSRP values are based on various fudges and calculations, with a good bit of over-the-thumb thrown in for good measure. In this age of Internet comparison shopping, I can't remember the last time I paid MSRP for any consumer goods (except software like PS2 games, where Sony has a very tight rein on the supply chain).
Come play at the only online poker room with a Mac-native client
Would be an interesting situation where one could get an artist's release from two different labels
None of the major labels' artist contracts would allow this. Most labels either take the copyright on the recording outright as a "work for hire" or (for the most established recording artists) demand an exclusive license for a long term.
Will I retire or break 10K?
We are fighting back. People are boycotting, people are buying used CDs, people are setting up sites like
http://www.downhillbattle.org/
And http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
The fight is just beginning! Its not even close to being over. This should prove that fighting back works more than begging politicians with emails and letters.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
how many of us are still in grade school and can't afford to buy anything but Pokemon cards with the lousy allowance our parents give us? Just you man... just you.
Explain why Cassette is still going to be cheaper.
Less demand among consumers for cassettes.
Some CDs have bonus tracks not available on cassette, and the songwriter and recording artist get paid only for the CDs.
A CD case typically has more space for liner notes than a cassette case does, and the graphic artist gets paid only for the copies included with CDs.
Some newer CDs come with promotional items such as DVDs containing music videos and glimpses into production.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You know you're old when all the new music coming out sucks.
Congratulations. You are officially old.
"Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit." --Oscar Wilde
I've been building my Classical and Jazz collections over the past couple years. (Let's hear it for Van Cliburn playing Tchaikovsky!Jazz at Massey Hall anyone?)I buy online, mostly at Amazon.
It's very rare I pay more than $12 a CD. Even two disc albums rarely cost more than $20.
When I do pick up a popular CD I haven't paid more than $14 that I can remember. (Can't wait for the new Seal album!)
I don't know where people are buying their popular music. In brick 'n' mortar stores? In the year 2003?
I mean, look at Amazon's top sellers list. Most albums are between $12 and $13 already. Shipping is free if you buy $25 worth of stuff. You only pay taxes if you live in Washington or North Dakota. Why would you not buy your music there?
If you do go to a physical store, Target has many chart topping albums for $10. Last time I browsed the racks there I didn't see anything over $14. No shipping charges, obviously, but state and local sales taxes apply.
If you have a job I don't know how you can seriously complain about the price of CDs. I really don't get what the story is here.
[Note: Say what you will, Amazon does everything right when it comes to buying stuff on the web.]
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The best solution is a build-to-order (BTO) CD. Specifically, the major music companies band together and set up a BTO booth at Target or Walmart. The consumer selects the songs that he or she wants, and the BTO booth burns the songs into the CD at the time of purchase. Each song would be individually priced. The neat thing about this approach is that it is essentially a just-in-time (JIT) system. Neither Target nor Walmart needs to maintain a huge floor space just to hold pre-recorded CDs. The store sells exactly what the consumer wants to buy, and the store manager never needs to worry about returning unsold CDs to the manufacturer. The financial savings to the store can be passed to the consumer in the form of even lower CD prices.
Furthermore, the songs themselves would be stored in a central database at the headquarters of Walmart or Target. They would be downloaded by a high-speed intranet to the computer burning the CDs in the BTO booth in each individual store.
An alternative to the BTO booth is a BTO web site. The consumer selects the songs that she wants. They are then burned into the CD, and the CD is shipped to the consumer.
Entire concept of how music is licensed is broken at this point anyway. CDs being more than $8.00 for most people is too high.
How many artists see much of anything in the form of royalties? The problem is that we have not just middlemen, but corporate middlemen, companies that have to pay staffs that are not particularly small, as well as satisfy shareholders, pay corporate executive bonuses, and maintain voluminous legal departments, all to distribute this small piece of plastic. How does this work?
It should not cost so incredibly much that even a full dollar per CD should come to be even $12 to sell it. Distribution should not be nearly that expensive.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
My ideal price for a cd is 7 bucks. That's as high as I'll go. A CD is 20 year old technology. Why haven't lower prices kicked in? The cost of a movie ticket is between 7 - 10 bucks. Have to make the price of a CD competitive with that if you want me to buy more CDs.
I wonder what the artists think of this?
Artists almost totally (with very few exceptions, as a percentage) support the studios which direct the RIAA in its campaign against music sharing
Very few artists leave the studio system, and new ones are signing up daily by the ton. If you look at the music press, there are very few dissenting voices, nothing that you could call a major movement against the old system.
That's where the problem lies. The vast majority of artists couldn't care less about the legal persecution of their fans, not enough to complain actively anyway, and many actively encourage that persecution. The few anti-studio activists are nice to see, but represent a drop in the ocean, and are not making significant headway among other artists.
So in many ways the wrong party is being blamed when people see the RIAA and studios as evil. The root cause of this problem is the artists.
I've never been to a concert in my life and don't understand why I should care to
Let me help you. You may want to see a concert if you think you'd enjoy:
- the feeling of 'never stepping in the same stream twice' -- go see artist X every year for 5 years, and each performance of any given song will 1) be different than the CD version, 2) be different than the previous year, 3) be different than the previous night!
- hearing unscripted improvisation between artists -- many musicians claim that the set they're most proud of playing was NOT the one recorded in the studio for the CD
- the little live mistakes and recoveries of talented artists -- you'll rarely get that on a CD
- experiencing the energy of dozens or hundreds or thousands of like-minded people simultaneously grooving or interpreting or dancing or just chilling to the same music you love
- to experience the artist -- 16 bit stereo samples @ 44.1kHz captures audio quite well -- but it doesn't capture dance, facial expressions, stage antics, synchronized light/lasers/visual effects, costumes, etc.
Recorded music is here to stay, obviously, but live performance is different. It's not necessarily better. If you like any given artist though, it's enriching. More times than not, if I've appreciated an artist before going to see them live, the live experience made me respect them even more.
Some (not all) artists are multidimensional. CD is great for the car or bus or office, but CD doesn't do many artists the justice that live performance can. And of course, some artists suck live. Explore.
Damn, dude, I have been buying CDs for $10-$13 for years. Are prices really that bad now at the chain record stores?
When I worked for a car dealership (doing computer stuff, not sales) Subaru decided that the prices on accessories were too high. To correct this they lowered the list price.
Not the cost mind you, but MSRP.
Now the dealers were force to take a paycut while Subaru kept the same profit margin.
I would not be suprised to find out that the cut in list price on the cds was much greater than the cost the stores pay.
I don't really mind double posts on
I'm talking about the majority here .. there will always be people who steal, but ....
In post-capitalist 17th century UK, people couldn't afford bread. Rather than storm the bakeries and steal the bread, they stormed the bakeries and demanded a fair price.
People are happy to pay a fair price. Thats the very definition of fair value. A value people will pay.
Between overpriced and free, people choose free. But when they sense that a fair price can be obtained, ie, when the bakers (ie, the RIAA) are actually willing to come to the table and discuss the price, people will choose fair price over free because we require our socialeconomic systems to exist in order to benifit from them.
If we can't benifit at all, we might as well get for free. When we can benifit, we're smart enough to support that system rather than torpedo it.
Its the survivalist instinct that makes us choose between not and all and illegally free, and the same instinct that makes us choose fair price over damaging suppliers by aquiring their goods in a way that will put them out of business.
"Old man yells at systemd"
OK, I admit it - I go into music stores once in a while. There's this song I like, and I don't really mind supporting the artist & other people who technically support the artist.
I've been buying CDs for the past 15 years or so. And before that I bought a whole bunch of LPs.
And there was always the $18 and the $12. I can say, with confidence, that I've never bought an $18 CD.
I'd always retract from the $18 CDs. Why does album XYZ deserve $6 a pop? It certainly isn't quality.
In contrast, I've never had a problem buying a $12 CD. Sometimes I buy a $12 CD on a whim. But $18? Never. No freakin' way. I'll just wait for radio airplay.
The only exception to my rule would be a multi-CD set. I can see paying $18 for a couple quality CDs.
And there we have it. From my sample of one person, $18 CDs simply don't sell. On the other hand, people readily buy $12 CDs, and they'll even buy them even if they're not 100% sure if it's something they'd like.
Universal has learned this. Maybe some others in the industry will learn this too. And do you know what? If the others don't go along, that's fine with me - I just won't be their customer.
At $18, I won't buy.
I don't pirate music.
So I won't listen.
The only real loss is to the aritst and the label.
Is there anything wrong with that?
Mind you that the 12.98 is a "suggested" retail price. It is likely that the retailers will keep their $17 pricing scam and just pocket the rest as an increase in profits. Also that $0.98... round up folks, it is actually $13. Those 2 pennies don't mean jack.
If they really want to get people to come back in droves then the reduction has to be quite significant. Drop the price to $5 per CD or let people purchase per the song either online or to have the music stores burn in the songs people want.
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
They're still a large evil media monopoly.
I'm sure glad I don't have any interest in the crack they're pushing.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
-Ansel.
G=C800:5
The company, whose artists range from U2 to Reba McIntyre, will also cut wholesale prices on cassettes so its MSRP for top-line releases will be $8.98
Wow! You mean, you can BUY tape archives of CDs in the stores? Here I've been ripping my cds and backing them up to tape like a jerk.
This should save me LOADS of time.
best web host ever
Well, at least it's a step in the right direction. What they really need to do is offer free downloads of either full length, lower bit (less than 96kbit) MP3's or high quality, 30sec samples of every track in their catalog. Free downloads because good stuff can then be passed to friends. This is the past, present and future of advertising. Nothing works better than a suggestion by a friend or family member. This would be the ultimate way to get "Word of Mouth". What the "common Joe/Jane" want is to sample music. They usually buy stuff they like. The problem is there is so much music out there and the radio stations are all homogenous. People don't know what to buy. Given the cost of even these reduced priced CD's, it's still a tad expensive to experiment.
Hardcore file traders don't do much to the "content" producers' bottom lines. Some would never spend the money. Others may still buy some CD's from some new bands they found. Basically harcore file traders are zero sum since they provide some advertising (and therefore, new sales), while satisfying some people (loss of sales). Basically balances out.
So, we have the homogenization of the "free" classic media, an economic downturn, and a lack of major label backed new, innovative, interesting content. File trading is just a scape goat.
I don't download music as the quality is too low for me. I might buy more if there was a better way to sample music (like http://www.apple.com/music/store).
I would only buy from iTMS if there were less than 2 tracks on an album that I wanted because AAC quality is too low for me. I would buy if there weren't any CD-singles available. I rip my CD's into FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net/)
I don't download movies as the quality is too low for me. I have, however, sent trailers that I could download to people. At least the movie peole have their heads on straight by allowing people to download their trailers.
I download anime that is fansubbed and not available in the states, or to demo a series. I have bought entire series ($$$$ of dollars) because I was able to download and watch enough to get into it. I buy them because I want the higher quality video and audio. The fansubbers' subs destroy what can be done by the CC subbing built into set-top DVD players.
The music, movie, and software industries are idiots for funding the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA, respectively. These *A's are just trying to keep themselves relevant. They are cartels. They should be illegal as they form oligopolies (price fixing, collusion). They are hurting their respective industries by not allowing it to slowly evolve. M/G/S studios can do their own advertising directly to the people and save some $$$$$$$$. All they need is to allow downloading of samples from their catalogs and people will spend their own bandwidth advertising stuff they like.
Anthony
Here's the reason.
Hypothetical: you purchase a popular mainstream CD at a store such as Best Buy.
You would pay about $12.99-$14.99 for this CD.
This CD almost certainly retails for either $17.98, $17.99, $18.98, $18.99, or $19.99.
Incidentally, Best Buy tends to make less that $0.75 per popular CD sold, and frequently less than $0.50 on the ones in their ad. They sell only items they believe they can make huge volume on, with the hopes of drawing you into their store so that they will buy their other products which have sane profit margins.
MSRP of $12.98 means a Best Buy price around $8.99 -$10.49
Additionally: cost is not $0.02/CD.
Cost works something like this:
Production: $0.03
Royalties to Musicians: $0.05
Royalties to Songwriter: $0.08
Retained by retail store (covers costs like distribution, plus profits) $3.00 - $4.00
And this does not include the cost of producing the very first CD, generally on the order of $10,000 - $100,000 (varies greatly depending on artist and what all is going on) Amortizing this across all copies sold (lets assume 500,000 -- a pretty good amount for one disc) means that cost is between $0.02 and $0.20
Note that the numbers for royalty per album sold were real numbers I got from folks inside the music industry, but that they are about a decade old. IIRC, they have increased slightly lately, so it might be $0.10 / $0.16 instead of $0.05 / $0.08.
Anyhow, the total minimum cost per disc is on the order of
$3.36 / disc.
I have left out many of the costs involved in the production, distribution, and marketing of music because I don't have any decent numbers, so I'd just be guessing.
Even if the other costs are forgotten, $3.36 / disc cost vs. $12.98 MSRP means a profit of:
286%
instead of:
435% for a $17.98 CD
In short, yes the music industry can afford this cut, and it was a good idea, but IT IS SIGNIFICANT
Like I said, expect to spend on the order of $8.99 - $10.49 per new CD you buy at the discount stores (from Universal anyway)
Expect others to follow suit.
In my opinion the "Best Price for an Album" -- as in, the price the CDs should retail for to maximize record label profits is $9.99.
This is because this allows price ranges in discount stores to be on the order of $7.00 - $7.99 and I think that this is the highest price that most people will be willing to spend and still buy every CD from most of the artists they like.
That's just my opinion though. I want to know, really, what do you all think the "Best Price for an Album is" remember, the idea for this number is to maximize RECORD LABEL profit (NOT sell the most music or decrease piracy the most, just make the label the most money)
What ever happened to the $9.99 sale price for new CD releases? I remember back in 1994 I could walk into a Circuit City (on a Friday in Tallahassee, FL) and get a new release for only $9.99 on sale.
And why is it that back in the 80's I could buy an album on cassette for around $7.99, but today I have to pay $18 for the same ammount of content on a CD? CDs are cheeper to manufacture than cassettes!
I'm sorry, but Universal is going to have to do better than $12.98 to get my hard earned money.
It is ironic that the top echelon of recording artists could not exist without an industry to support them. Strip away the managers and agents, stylists and coaches, from someone like Justin Timberlake and ask is it possible that he could still make a living from music? Probably not. Ani di Franco, on the other hand, has been making a comfortable income for years without the support of the business she's supposed to be in.
As Douglas Adams pointed out, many companies aren't in the business you think they're in. Fox News is, despite a million conspiracy theories to the contrary, simply in the business of delivering an audience to its advertisers. The ethics and actions of the "Big 5" corporations who control 90% of record sales make rather more sense if they are viewed, not as separate companies, but as one distributed bank.
As anyone with any experience of dealing with banks will know, they are monolithically slow to react to changes in the environment, and are populated with highly intelligent, but narrow-minded, solipsists. They're doing now what every one of us was warning them that they should be doing the instant MP3 was rolled out.
By way of related tangent, here is an article by Steve Albini about his experiences with one of the majors, and his advice to anyone thinking of getting involved. At the bottom of the page is a detailed breakdown of a typical deal in which the "industry" made $973,000 and each of the four band members made $4,031.25.
When the entire system is that fucked, the price of a CD is moot.
too many musicians think that they are artists. The reality is that the vast majority of popular music is performed by those that would be more aptly called artisans than artists. Picasso was an artist, the guy down the street painting lettering and cartoons on a billboard is an artisan.
How do you prevent one of your friends from bringing along one of the artist's CDs and playing it over and over again in the car? By the time you get to the concert, you're sick of hearing them.
Why do people do that?
And no, "get new friends" is not an option. It took way too long to get friends in the first place.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The company, whose artists range from U2 to Reba McIntyre, will also cut wholesale prices on cassettes so its MSRP for top-line releases will be $8.98.
I still believe that older, somewhat obsolete, formats are a great deal for those on a budget. In fact, I purchased my last copy of Windows on 5.25" floppies. 300 of them. Sure, it took over 3 months to install, but at least I feel I got my dollars worth out of Microsoft. I don't like paying for intangible things like software, but 300 floppies.... thats something you can impress your girlfriend wi...
--please insert disk 27 for rest of comment--
I've never bought a music CD in my entire life! Thats right. I have about 2 CDs that came off magazine covers and thats it. (I dont give a shit what you think about stealing). I like to have all my music easily availiable - ie a click away, not a shuffle of disks away. The CD as a medium is going to die once everyone gets hooked on mass-storage mp3 players etc... And while im totally pro raw high quaility uncompressed audio, mp3 is going to win the battle like VHS over Beta & Laser Disk. There are only afew things i would like to listen to uncompressed that i would either copy or maybe buy if i really really wanted to, some music has very noticable compression artifacts and if your gonna be editing or sampling it in any way or using it in a video etc then you want uncompressed but otherwise im starting to live with compression aslong as its good. The record companies have figured this out and some CDs are starting to come with compressed files aswell i think? but this seems to be always windows media format?
Something i would like to see in shops (they already have similar things) is the ability to very cheaply make your own CD compilation but to be able to choose the format and compression setting (or have it raw). To dumb it down you could have pre-set options with an "advanced" screen on the terminal, and instead of just CD's you could make DVD's aswell. Once you had selected all the songs you wanted you could have them burnt and the (powerful) computer would compress them right then and there (or if thats too much it could just store the mp3s and forget compression options). If they did this right, they could make it worth-while for even people with fast net connections - it can be a hassle choosing the right file on kazaa and checking the quaility etc. with this system you would be guarenteed instant cheap music either raw or compressed at high quality. The question is, should they charge by the MB or per song?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Sure, most pop stuff is like this; but you've not looked -nearly- hard enough if you believe that. And, with a name containing "punk", you'd think you'd know about some of those indie bands (Or indie-bands-gone-mainstream) that are damn good. AFI, Stutterfly, System of a Down, or Millencolin anyone? How about Dashboard Confessional? Or how about The Offspring? Bright Eyes? Thursday? Glassjaw?
Not paying for -good- musician's music is a crime, both morally and legally. No matter how little of the money goes to that musician, they've worked hard for it. And they deserve to be paid it if you listen to it.
If it's cheap and mass produced, don't listen to it. If it's good, and you like it, then pay for it, enjoy it, and support the artists.
Complaining that it's cheap mass-produced advertising, and then listening to it is pure hypocritical bullshit. Why, may I ask, are you listening to it if it's so bad?
I like how Universal cites artists like Ella Fitzgerald, Reba McIntyre, U2 and Nirvana as "examples" of their artists.
Unfortunately, half of those bands are dead and the other half aren't representative of Universal's normally dismal and talentless array of crap music by artists with names like: Boo & Gotti (with their hit single "Ain't In Man"), Big Tymers, Baby Bash "The Smokin' Nephew", Lil' Wayne, Playa, Thug City, Ric-a-che, and Mac 10.
I think it might be a better PR move if Universal announced they were going to start selling Courvoisier or enrolling their artists in a few English classes.
Screw Universal and the rest of the RIAA members: unless they're indie buy used CDs and send the artist $2, go to a concert. Musicians don't make dick from CD sales - all production, promotion, legal, administrative, and other costs are charged against the artist. Once *all* of that is cleared, then they get paid a sliver of what's left over after their producer, manager, and entertainment lawyer snack. As an added injury, only in the music industry do artists not retain copyright to their works. Many musicians are now discovering piece-for-hire, you don't retain the copyright to your works. Concerts: this is where artists make their money, their bread and butter - it's certainly not from CD sales. They go on tour, license t-shirts, ball caps, posters, whatever. Make a chunk of concessions, etc. And now the music industry wants a piece of concerts too. Screw 'em. Screw them in both ears - buy indie. If there's non-indie tunes you dig on, visit your local CD Warehouse or hit eBay and buy albums used - then send the artist a couple of bucks.
Universal Music cuts CD Prices
What's most interesting here is not the price of CD's, (which at $14.95CAD is about $11 US), but that they plan to offer Canadian downloads in October for 99 cents (Canadian) a song!
It's too early to say whether any of the other labels will participate, and what kind of restrictions are going to be put on the media. Still, it looks like the Canadian industry has taken a much more concilaitory approach to the problem of filesharing, by giving up on the price, and offering additional share of downloaded fees to artists as well - so at least they're trying to adress some of the complaints on this and other forums.
Wow...
I've heard stories of people like you, but I thought they were urban legends.
Welcome to the 21st century.. this is a lighter... look, I can make fire with a flick of my finger.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I remember back in the day when LPs (aka vinyl) were common, cool stuff was included by the cool bands. The four KISS solos done in the 70's each had poster that were a part a larger one (I had all four). My "Face Dances" album had a cool poster. A band I bought a couple of LPs by called the Feederz, had full jacket sized double sided sheet with cool anarchistic cartoons and sayings. This just a few of the cool things that would come with LPS.
I don't see any of this with today's CDs. Of course I do understand the spatial problems with packaging, but the media companies need to give people an incentive to buy the CD rather than a monetary one. Entice the people into buying the CD so they can get a T-shirt, poster, or something else from the artist. Folks are going to choose free over any price if they can get the same thing.
Wow, somebody at Universal must have taken an introductory Economics course, learned about supply and demand curves, and realized you don't maximize your profits by continuously raising your price -- especially so on non-essential items like music!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
What you are seeing is the normal life cycle of a monopoly. When the public gets mad the price goes down, for a while. Then the price goes back up. Usually even higher.
Consider the price of gas. Remember when you thought to yourself that if it went over a buck a gallon you'd stop driving and take a bus? People get upset, the price goes down, and then starts creeping up again.
If you have a capital market, ie not a monopoly, then the price stays down. There are what 7 major lables, and they cooperate on the price. It's a monopoly.
You can claim your tiny victories, but as soon as you buy one CD you've given the victory away. I buy maybe one cd a year (if that). (I don't fileshare either). Basically the whole system has turned me off, I now just play my own music, or listen to the radio.
1) I absolutely love every song on the album and I want to support the musician any way I can , or
2) I can buy directly from the musician.
What would be really cool is if these musicians would just put a paypal icon-link on their website and I would gladly donate what I believe is a fair price for the music I yanked from NGs or BT.
-Ladd
Don't Panic.
Oh, wait...price wasn't the problem. Shitty music was.
Note to self:
Price was the insult added to injury.
Oddly enough, many employees think this as well, and I've known more than one person who turned down a small raise because they thought it would actually throw them "into the next tax bracket".
:)
Up here in the great cold north, higher tax brackets only apply to income ABOVE THAT BRACKET. It's not like the rest of your salary gets taxed higher because you got that $500 raise.
YMMV in other countries, of course
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Does anyone know what the typical record label contract says about funds mailed to 'the band'. I always thought it was possible that the label might have some rights there, and take a cut... unless you find away of mailing the band without being screened by thier label, which I've never seen a band be like 'mail us at home at 42 sunnydale drive...', it's always 'band', c/o xx record label, ny, ny
RIAA does suck but for promotion you absolutely cannot top the work done by record companies. Justin Timberlake can barely hold a note and the only instrument he can probably play is the flesh flute, but, thanks to outstanding marketing the record industry turned him and a few other pseudo singers into a bankable megastars for a time. They put together the posters, the artwork, the image, the stadium tours, the album, the promotional tie ins, everything. An Indy company might appreciate your desire to avoid writing a song that could help go with a "Happy Meal", but, then again, they'd never give you the fat check for doing it.
Most of us who are developers have no problem selling out our sense of code purity to make deadlines and cash a check, and I suspect that if we each thought that writing even the shareware version of the Office PaperClip could make us a buck, we would.
So let's at least cut the artist some slack and not be so critical of the music industry that we drive it out of existence. Support the right of the artist to sell out and cash in, and hopefully, they'll make music that recognizes our own god given right to do the same.
This is my sig.
The value of a typical CD to me is somewhere between $5 and $10. It is simply too easy to download and burn a CD filled with good songs rather than drive to the store and buy the a CD with maybe 1 or 2 good songs. I feel no remorse about doing this because I know most of the money doesn't go to the artist, who I support directly by buying concert tickets. The rest (most) of the money goes to the record company who I do not think is involved in the creation of the art which is copied onto the CD which I think is where the true value lies...not in the medium, but in the content.
I have little to say to this decision than "too little, to late". I am reminded of the recent lawsuit of Kazaa vs. major record companies (Time-Warner, Virgin Records, etc). of Kazaa vs. major record companies (Time-Warner, Virgin Records, etc), alleging that these record labels conspired to increase the price of CDs. Results: "This settlement will put cash in teh hands of millions of consumers and music CDs in libraries and schools throught the country, and will ensure that the challenged distributor/retailer practices will not resume."
Full results of the article can be found here.
Well finally, lowering prices. That's a relief. But to 12.99? Who are they kidding? They're still hitting profit margins like popcorn at a movie theatre, and CDs are clearly above what any sensible consumer would consider a "fair" price. But they are clearly not lowering prices enough to "bring consumers back into stores."
Instead, they sic the RIAA on everyone, start spitting out scare tactics, threats, seizing bank accounts, etc, then there's the MPAA whining about Warez, then text messeging. Countless US citizens, many whom honestly pay for and purchase music legally and download some music (who clearly pump money into the music/entertainment industry as a whole), are getting tangled up and crippled just so others will be scared to do the same.
And what does it all boil down to?
The music entertainment is simply charging too much for second-rate products/servies (anyone see Gigli recently? I didn't think so). They are doing so because it has historically worked befor p2p alternatives (such as freenet) started showing up. Now, faced with fair prices, they panic and sue by the thousands, which isn't helping them long-term. Millions of people worldwide are getting soured by US entertainment industries, and the entire United States looks like one giant ass as far as other countries may see us (whatever happened to that free country thing we had going a couple hundred years ago?).
The Bottom Line
I absolutely, blatantly refuse to support music/entertainment industries while this chaos is going on. These lawsuits spitting back and forth do not represent the ideals that our country was founded upon. I for one, spit in the music industry. I blatantly refuse to support any industry that practices such childplay.
As for the artists I suppose there's little to do other than say tough beans, cause I'm not paying for any of your crap while it's mixed up with RIAA. Or is there? There are plenty of ways to make lots of money that stray far from CDs in retail stores. Put your mp3s up for free download, the fans will come. New services like iTunes are a great alternative to Records, or even better, record your own!!. I am in full support of music artists, and I always will be, and I will never stop pouring dollars into concerts, special events, etc.
If you are an artist or an end consumer, don't be pushed around by bully tactics. There is still plenty you can do to download your favorite music, support the artists, and still keep the RIAA out of your face. They may look tough now, but don't back down; they're only eating themselves.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
$12.98?!!
How about $3.
That is about what they are worth. Anything higher than $5 is a monopoly rent.
Who are they kidding?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
La de fucking da... if Fugazi routinely gets their CDs available at the local department store for $10 a pop and has been doing so for years, I fail to see why I should be impressed that one of the big five is "drastically" cutting prices back, whilst blaming it soley on "rampant" piracy (because the economy couldn't be a factor). Not to mention that I still haven't seen a dime in repayment for their earlier price-fixing scheme.
"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball."
And this is a good thing?
Seriously, if the record companies would promote "true" artists (i.e., those that could actually write, produce and sing quality material) instead of wasting millions developing and promoting folks like Timberlake simply because they're "pretty", everyone would be happier.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I might be wrong, but don't the record companies recoup their money spent on the artist before the artist even sees a dime of it? Some times with interest? If that is the case please don't act like the record companies are helping out the artsits. And helping a few of the 'current hot' cliche is only helping those few. Look at all the other artists that aren't getting any promotion.
They say that 8 of 10 artists lose money, 1 breaks even, and 1 makes the money to support the rest. So by that assumption you'd think that at least 2 of 10 (1 of 5) artists get some decent promotion. How many bands/artists are signed by the RIAA? A thousand, maybe just hundreds, I'd think? But it's laughable to think that 1 out of 5 artists gets decent promotion.
Actually, thinking about it, what does one consider promotion? Magazine ads? Posters? Commercials? Signings? That's it, right? Surely they can't legally call payola-ed airtime "promotion", can they? Do they just count up the value of the tickets/swag they give away?
Jeffool.