Slashdot Mirror
Downloaded Music Gets More Expensive
Reverberant writes "Just as the online music market is starting to gain traction, what to music execs want to do? Why, raise prices, of course! Under consideration is raising the price of online singles up to $1.25 to $2.49, or bundling less desirable tracks with hot singles."
The point you missed here is, competition normally drives prices down. They know this too, thats why they want to artifically inflate prices so they can continue riding high.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Will they ever learn? Having to buy whole albums with only a single good tune was one of the major reasons why online music became so popular, and why P2P is so useful. Downloading single songs is great, costs very little yet delivers exactly what we want.
And now they're going to "bundle" it up again? Force us to get more than what we want with the package, and obviously pay for it?
They'll never learn...
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Even though the record companies have ultimate control over their portion of the price, something inherent as an Apple users tells me that Apple would either lower their profits from each song to keep the price lower, or possibly raise incentives to purchase songs, like giving the Music Store a refreshed look, or increasing play quality as an option for high-speed users.
I truly doubt that Apple would just raise prices to $1.25 without a fight, there is nobody who is more pro-music in the technology sector than Steve Jobs himself.
Yes, you read that right - online stores just selling downloads are charging *more* than Amazon does for the CD itself (and Amazon typically has free shipping if you get at least $25 worth of stuff). That's seriously ridiculous: while I'm looking at this new "revolution" of pay-for-download music optimistically, I must admit that having the hard copy is still just better. Much better audio quality if you're an audiophile, ability to rip it and do what you want with it, and while the jewel cases suck the little inserted booklets are often pretty handy. Stick the CD and the booklet into your 288 CD binder and you're good to go. Unless they start packaging downloads with nicely designed info files with picures and lyrics and such, I'm not interested.
- Listen to a copy your friend has
- Skim through it at a record shop (if they will let you)
- Download it
I personally don't have money to burn (and like to make up my own mind) but I do like to own CDs because they sound better on my equipment than MP3s do. I wish there was a way to not get duped into buying something which wasn't up to scratch without 'being shadey' or having to wait for someone else to make the leap of faith.Not crap attached to it.
Not stuff that'll cost more than it's worth.
I thought they had got this right, and now they come up with this crap.
If they had half a brain they would've realized by now that songs should be sold like domains are now.
Remember when domains cost $35? Now that they've opened it up, everyone and their grandma is selling domains, most of the time very cheaply. And you're not stuck having to buy hosting or other crap like what the music execs want to do now.
Imagine when (if) this will happen for music! Everyone and their grandma sellings songs, for cheap! And unlike domains, you can sell any song more than once!
But, for now, we're stuck with this BS. Oh well...
AC comments get piped to
I buy CDs because I like to get whole albums, rather than picking individual singles. Why is that? I really enjoy albums that are a complete whole - concept albums, themed albums, whatever you care to call it. That is, I don't suffer from the "Buy a CD to get 1 or 2 popular songs, and get a whole bunch of crap" problem because I just don't buy those albums. My problem is thus: The amount of stuff out there is getting thinner and thinner.
In days gone by you could get Animals, or The Wall, and even albums that weren't that tightly bound often tended to be designed to at least have the tracks sit together as a collective whle - to have some sort of theme and order to the m aterial presented on an album. In the last 10 years or so we've The Downward Spiral, another fine concept album, and the likes of Aphex Twin, and Autechre still put together albums as if all the tracks were designed to sit next to one another, plus myriads more doing similar things. But mainstream? Anything even approaching mainstream? It's harder and harder to find anything but a random collection of singles that bear no relation to one another, that fail to hang together in any way shape or form. I have an attention span that runs longer than 5 minutes. I'd like to listen to music that is more thna just a single. I'd like to listen to an hour or so of music that has theme and progression. Why is that getting so increasingly hard to find?
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
There's a lot more that goes into that album then just packaging and studio time....
Just to name a few more expenses:
--Advertising (this includes print adds, video ads you see on TV, those nice displays you see in stores for some albums, etc)
--Food (the record company usually pays for the food the band eats in the studio)
--Room and Board (record compnaies usually pay for the artist to live in a hotel while the album is being recorded)
--Payola (assuming the record company participates in this practice, believe it or not some don't)
--Photographers (gotta put photos on that album and adds right?)
--Music Video for the first single (this isn't always done, but with a lot of artists it is)
--Producer, Engineers, co-writers, etc (all these people have to be paid for their work, most producers get what's called "points" of each album sold)
--Travel Expenses (the record company pays to get the band to and from the studio, the tour bus, flights to interviews, etc)
So yea, theres a lot more that goes into making an album then what most people think. However there are ways the companies could circumvent such costs. Like for instance, pick a studio in the band's hometown (or close to it) and fly the producer down and just pay for ONE persons expenses rather then 3-6 peoples. That's just one example.
The music companies are reluctant to talk openly about their wholesale-pricing strategies, but they are quick to blame the retailers for higher prices. A spokeswoman for EMI, for instance, stresses that the retailers, not record companies, ultimately set the prices consumers pay.
I call bullshit. Retail price is directly related to inventory cost. Any retail outlet must meet operating costs by marking prices up. While I do feel some retailers are enjoying rather healthy margins, I know what it takes to run a brick-and-morter shop in direct competition with an online market. Which brings up another point- in the article it's mentioned many albums are now more expensive when downloaded online than actually paying for the physical CD.
Looks to me like record companies are starting to recognize that the problem is not piracy, but a crappy product. Even in legit download sites like iTunes, people are going right for the songs they like, and ignoring the crap they don't. What does the recording industry do? Raise prices on good songs, and bundle crap via the label "Also included!"
It's all about control- they want you to hear only what they feed you. They want you to pay for what they produce, whether or not you like it. Instead of buying the 3 or 4 songs off an album you like, they make it cheaper to buy the CD in a store, or if you still download- you get the other 4 or 5 crappy tracks along with it, "as an added bonus" (paid for by the price increase).
It's complete crap. What will it take for these overpaid execs to see what their market wants?
They're just rehashing an old marketing plan. Think CD or cassette 'singles'. They generally had a hit track and a couple fillers.
From my perspective, online prices are still too high. CD prices are much too high, and what do I gain by buying a $17 CD for $10 online and then spend my time and media burning it? A CDR is less durable than a pressed CD, it requires me to supply the jeweled case or sleeve, and includes no liner notes. I'd rather just go buy a used one. To encourage me to buy digitally, they'd need to price to be less than 50 cents a track and $6 for the whole CD.
But then again, it's not price or P2P that is keeping me from buying CDs now. It's the fact that the artists I buy are not putting out new music and they aren't introducing new artists that interest me.
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
"considering they have to pay for advertising, marketing, distribution, renting the studios, etc."
How much marketing do the record companies do for Elvis, The Eagles, Frank Sinatra, The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles these days?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Vanilla Ice "To the Extreme" is the highest selling Rap album of all times. Thus by your reasoning since it is the most popular it must be the best.
Then why does The Matrix Revolutions the movie (Widescreen) cost only $4 less than Matrix Revolutions the soundtrack? What do the musicians need that the actors, writers, producers, etc. don't need? And, remember that the sound track is INCLUDED in the DVD.
So, after paying royalties and payola etc, that leaves about $4 for the cost of the blockbuster movie series that helped to redefine US action movies?
Maybe it's because the expected value of the CD is $15+, and without competition, the monopoly that owns redistribution rights can set the price.
Many posts are talking about how the MPAA has it figured out, or at least moreso compared to the RIAA.
As some have noted, this is due to the fact that the theaters are where the money is made.
(PS - an exercise for the reader is to consider how a theater model might work for music)
But, as far as walking into the store and choosing between a DVD and a CD, many things are taken into consideration (esp. if you have piracy as an option)
Music: I could buy this CD, for about $16-20 which is a couple bucks more than this DVD, but instead I could go home and download the one song I really want (legally or otherwise) and take a hit in quality. Given the speed of my net connection and the price differential, it's far better for me to not buy this CD, and use other means.
Movies: I could buy this DVD, for about $10-15, or I could go home, get online, and pirate an approximately 700 meg version that will be of crappy quality (far worse of a quality hit compared to CD vs. MP3/Ogg/ACC), which will take me a few hours to download. Or, I could spend the money, get the sucker in a portable format (and off my HD), with immensely superior quality and all the bonuses. Yeah, that's worth the money.
If you consider that time is money, at minimum wage in CA ($6.75 an hour) you could spend 2 hours on DSL (if you're lucky) pirating a movie ($13.50) or buy it for about the same price. Meanwhile, a CD costs about 3 hours ($20.25) and is compared to about 3.5 megs for about 12 tracks, or about 42 megs, which comes in, if you're lucky, in about 30 minutes ($3.37). That includes the tracks you DON'T want. If there's only 3 that are good, it's about comparable to buy those on iTMS legally.
This isn't difficult math. It's just math the RIAA can't do.
I totally agree. In a way nothing has changed. Restricting what other people can copy has nothing to do with property rights, or even creativity rights. Because of copyrights, they were enabled to be abusive and monopolistic to begin with. Then when copyright enforcement became threatened they started to file tons of lawsuits to keep alternatives at bay while offering other download venues for cheap prices. Now that they have a market toehold they are leveraging copyrights to choke off alternetive distribution and raise prices as they do to finance it.
Moral: liberty is an is an end in itself, not pricing, not artificial markets, not unjust property rights, not distribution of profits, not creation of music, or even the artists. There are a lof of good sounding cuases that people can sell their freedoms down the river for, but only one major reason to have liberty - and that is to have more freedom in the future.
Conclusion: Anything less than the outright abolition of copyright monopolies is just going to delay the inevitable and make the situation worse.
There is thematic unity, progression, variation, and transformation on a theme, different styles (baroque vs a classical symphony), structure, etc. The same piece performed by different artists added additional insights and interpretation as well.
Not to sound snobby or anything but a classical music can be both something to enjoyed simply or an intellectual exercise if you want it to be.
Lastly, I know 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, I can still listen the the same Mozart, Paganini, Bach pieces I enjoy today. So may my kids. Would I enjoy Coldplay or Coolio 30 years later? Not likely.
Now notice that these ARE the starving artists that those that want to crush P2P talk about. Almost all of them have other jobs to support their art. The engineers tend to be full time, but none of them are rich by any means. It pays ok for a job that requires quite a bit of skill, but not a ton. These are the ones that need money, these are the poor and struggling.
They do not benefit from the music industry as it is now. It is designed to lock people like them out from major distribution, unless the labels decide they want to sign them on, which means reliquinshing creative and monetary control, as well as being unlikely. Even if they get signed, unless they become huge, it's highly unlikely they'll profit. The record labels, not the artists, are the ones making all the money under the current system.
Well the Internet is their weapon, and they can use it to fight back. With it their music can be distributed to the world, it can get some publicity, and people can discover them. It doesn't make them money directly, but it can lead to things that can. More importantly, it lets the world hear and appreciate their work. I don't know any musicians that are in it for the money, it's just not that kind of field. They are in it because it is what they love. Part of that love (I'm a musician too) is wanting others to share it. Playing a live concert for a crowd is a powerful feeling, when the audience shares your emotion through the music you create.
So please get off your high horse about the poor, starving artists. P2P is not what is keeping them from making money (or are you so quick to forget receant emperical studies by non-biased parties), it's the record labels.