Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Squeezing Record Labels to Cut CD Prices
Raindance writes "RollingStone.com has a revealing article detailing how retail giant Wal-Mart is making loud noises about throwing its weight around in order to get significantly better bulk prices on CDs. Says one industry executive, 'This wasn't framed as a gentle negotiation, it's a line in the sand -- you don't do this, then the threat is [your product is dropped].' This is the first time a big player has attempted this sort of hardball move on the labels, and the labels may be forced to deal, as Wal-Mart sells 1 out of every 5 retail CDs. Monopoly one, meet monopoly two."
Nothing like having to take it as well as dish it out.
Ironically, if they give in and sell cheaper it will probably result in MORE money for all involved, since people will be able to buy more CDs without feeling quite so ill at the prices.
Can't say I'm real happy about Walmart having so much power though. Frankly I don't trust any business with so much power. But I will say I'm inclined to worry about Clear Channel more than Walmart, since for most of Walmart's products the barrior to entry in the market isn't unthinkably high.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
If you're buying it for $12 and making $4+ a CD I seriously believe that you are gouging us.
Making a profit on a 33% mark-up is gouging? Sheesh, I had no idea that CDs should be sold for one penny more than they were purchased.
Monopoly one, meet monopoly two.
You are completely misusing the word. Walmart is a leader in the incredibly competative retail sector. They got that way by being maniacly efficient and offering low prices on goods people need. They compete with other strong retailers (Target, Sears, Home Depot ...) everyday
to the benefit of everyone. To make money they require
volume. To create volume Walmart
must offer low prices. The RIAA is under
the same market pressures as any other Walmart
supplier.
an ill wind that blows no good
Reading through all of your comments, all I see is that they are all super-biased and don't actually involve any rational thought. You are a selfish, elitist prick.
No offense, but having a strong opinion is not a crime. You're certainly not going to change that opinion by throwing around insults, either. The guy may have his problems (or he may not, I don't know), but intelligent discourse is a much better way of getting him to change his mind. For all you know he may be a very intelligent person who you would often agree with, or at least enjoy debating with.
Sorry to interrupt, carry on.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I just thought I'd tack something onto that post--a bit of math in case you don't understand my point. Purchasing 60,000 CDs at one unit each is $720,000. If you expect a store to shell out enough to carry ten each of those most-popular 5,000 CDs and still carry one each of the rest, you're talking $1,260,000. At EACH store branch! Up front, with no chance of recouping most of them, offering that variety for you as a customer so you can have what you clearly desire: choice!
Assuming they want to stock enough to not lose sales to the store-next-door if they sell one of those 55,000 albums of which they only stock one, they need to tack on another $660,000 in stock. If you were to go try and borrow that kind of money, it'd cost you all your profits just to pay the interest!
I seriously cannot believe you fault indie-er record stores for charging what they charge, man. It's really, really pathetic.
Read jack phelps dot net
I'm still not buying any more RIAA CDs, Walmart or elsewhere.
Me too. I listen to internet radio and look for nice mixes around the web and all of them are indy. I could care less about the RIAA. They are goons. The RIAA operates like Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters once did; oppression by coercion. The Teamsters took a beneficial idea (a trade union) and turned it into a money grubbing business front for organized crime. It's the same thing the RIAA has done with music, perhaps without the organized crime, but you never know. Music used to be free, but then the Metallica bands came along with their business plans. Metallica are sellouts. Who wants to put more cash in their pockets? I would much rather support a starving artist with new ideas.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Walmart is not a monopoly - but they have ruined their share of small businesses. They also treat their employees like garbage, and don't give back to the communities that they overtake. That is why many communitites protest and try to keep them from setting up shop there.
But realistically, in the end, people want the best prices on things. Walmart can offer the lowest price (usually) because they have such a huge operation and their costs are lower. Note the deal that they have with the RIAA - I am sure that nobody else gets that kind of discount. They aren't a monopoly, but they are one of the largest forces in retail. 5 of the top 10 richest people in the country are from the Walton family.
I have talked to people who have marketed products to Walmart. They are hard-asses about accepting your product into their stores, and they take a huge cut. It is very much like record labels - you give away the lion's share of your product sales in hopes that they'll stock your product on their shelves.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Why not concentrate on making music available for less money somewhere that I might want to buy it instead of worrying about making sure Walmart is happy.
While much of what you say about the stores are true, you should feel sorry for the folks trapped working there. I've worked at one, appalling is about the only word that comes close to describing how management treats employees. Many of the people there can't find other work, or Wal-mart pays more than anything else they can find. Wal-mart knows this and abuses it. I fully expect there to be lots more class-action lawsuits against the company in the near future, even with current ones they're getting worse if anything.
But the 1 in 5 figure is quite believable. While Wal-mart might not have as large a selection, their core customer base isn't looking for one. The CDs sell like proverbial hotcakes at even smaller Wal-marts, bigger ones move so many it's scary. Around here (Tennessee) there are very few chain record stores left. Of the two malls in the closest large city to me, there's one record store apiece. There are a few small retailers, but the biggest of those is a local used-CD chain (two locations).
On this one you're both right and wrong. Wal-mart is indeed wanting to make more money, but their entire business plan is to buy low and pass along the savings, keeping profit margins lower and making up their money by selling tons of the stuff. Anything Wal-mart can get cheaper will benefit consumers because then the consumers will get it cheaper. Granted Wal-mart's not doing it because they're some grand benefactor, but the end result helps consumers a bit. Actually I suspect that Wal-mart is pushing for this because the overwhelming consensus of their customers is that the CDs cost too much, even at Wal-mart's prices. (I worked in Electronics, you hear this constantly, although people still buy.)
I was at Walmart recently buying something I couldn't find at Target. I happened to stop into the electronics section while my fiancé did some shopping elsewhere. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right spots but I wasn't finding anything by developing and independent artists. If anything it was most older music that wasn't exactly getting radio play. I saw the typical teenybopper crap but nothing that I would consider new and exciting.
Umm, did you not read the sentence you posted? It said it left little room, which is exactly what you found to be true. Wal-mart's not big on new and exciting though, they're big on selling decent stuff cheap and lots of it. Independent artists and developing artists don't fit that so it's no surprise they're absent.
It is interesting to note that Wal-mart doesn't handle the merchandising of the CDs itself, they hire a company that does it, so I'm not sure how much direct control Wal-mart has over exactly what is on the racks.
While it's hard to understand t
I have a very different take on Walmart. They are successful for one reason-they market what consumers want. This is what makes them different from the Redmond Giant. Walmart has made themselves based on extraordinarily good pricing. Their methods of getting that pricing are sometimes dubious, sure, but they provide what people want, and usually at a good price.
Will they continue to do so once they have wiped out all the competition? Probably not, but I don't think that Walmart will ever be competition free.
There will always be conscientious objectors to the big W, and they will shop somewhere else. There is Target, which has made some very smart decisions on how to carry a very similar product line, yet be compelling. They are price competitive on most items, but they also market to a higher class customer, and tend to have more trendy goods than Walmart (their home decor is especially telling). I think target is here to stay. They are avoiding the mistake of Kmart, and not trying to imitate Walmart to closely (which is what killed Kmart, largely--there was little to differentiate the two, and Walmart consistently beat them on price).
Is Walmart perfect? No. I hope they get slammed in the current class action suit under Title VII (gender discrimination in wages). They deserve it.
Can people earn a living at Walmart? Probably not until you get to the Management level. This means that you need to either work your way up, or move on. It makes the perfect job for high-school and college kids trying to make a few extra bucks. It doesn't work for anyone with the desire to work there for the rest of their lives, unless they can make management.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
After college I worked at a great independent bookstore for about 3 1/2 years, just at Burns Ignoble (Barnes & Noble) was starting to drop store everywhere.
More than once UPS, USPS, etc dropped off the wrong box in the shipping room, intended for B&N, we'd be opening boxes quickly usually and didn't always notice until we looked at the invoice. The discount a place like B&N gets over the independent is significant, like 8-12% more. This is a similiar situation with record stores.
When you're running close margins to begin with and your comptetitor is getting stock for 8-12% less than you, THAT's huge, and it's d*mn hard to compete. Sadly, that bookstore, after 45 years in business, closed this summer.
Also before you complain about costs, think about what independent media places (records & books) tend to offer; people who love their product, are knowledgeable about it, and MOST importantly, they support small presses/publishers/labels than the uber stores won't touch (including Target by the way, not just Wal-mart)
As independent record and book stored closes, so do the many small presses & labels. The store I worked at bought some great books from indie pubs, many of those are now out of business since Target, Wal-Mart and the like won't even talk to them. Those books are no longer available and those people lost their jobs.
Seriously, thing hard about where you buy things. Yes, I understand $2-3 more is a lot to some people, however, you are ultimately reducing your the choices and varieties of the music you hear and books you read. Sometimes being a consumer involves more than just the price of an item.
My 2 cents
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr Kettle. By the way, I couldn't help noticing that you're black...
Telling people that anyone who disagrees with you and attacks you is a troll after you post a comment full of attacks - attacks on the record industry, attacks on Wal-Mart, attacks on its staff, attacks on people who buy the music that it stocks, attacks on independent music stores - is a bit rich.
Let moderators decide for themselves how the comment should be moderated. If I've noticed anything in six plus years of reading Slashdot it's that people with mod points aren't shy of moderating down even the slightest personal insult.
In the meantime though, I suggest you learn to appreciate a few things, including the fact that Wal-Mart does just fine selling CDs you don't want to buy, that other people have different tastes to you and that's not a crime, and that independent stores sell CDs for $16 because that's what they need to do to survive.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
OK, everyone, read the parent post where it says:
They pull in over $60 BILLION dollars per quarter and $2 billion of that is PROFIT
Now, while 2 billion bucks is a load of cash, 58 billion was spent in search of it. That's a margin of only 3.3%. It is NOT a profit of 33% as a post farther up claims with the illustration of a $12 CD being sold at $16. Walmart makes all of its money on razor thin margins. Yes, 3.3% is razor thin. Compare to, say, Intel, who pulls in a whopping 22.7% profit margin. Now THAT'S a huge margin of profit. Not Walmart and their piddly 3.3%, nevermind how many billions that 3.3% adds up to. Say what you want about the monolithic nature of Walmart and their heavy handed tactics with supplies but you cannot knock it on gouging or otherwise extraordinary profits.
(This is why you never see those 'explicit lyrics warning' stickers at Wal Mart -- they just don't give you a choice and force their censorship on you without your knowledge or consent.)
Apparently, Wal-Mart is doing just fine with these CDs on their shelves. It seems that theer is a large enough market for these censored CDs that they turn a profit on them. That's all well and good.. but if you're not happy with it, don't shop there. Simple as that. Don't complain about a company because they do something you don't like. Voice your opinion by disposing of your cash reserves elsewhere.
What is your penile percentile?
I guess you aren't one of the people who miss the days when Levi's were the best jeans you could buy? Wal-Mart forced them to "cut the fat" so they would be able to offer the product at a reduced price every year. From jeans which could hold together while being pulled by two horses, to jeans no tougher than three ply tissues.
The consumer quest for rock bottom prices has also lead to rock bottom quality.
You don't mind that Wal-mart is essentially a sweat shop that pays below average wages? That they lower the standard of living in the neighbourhoods they are set up in? That it's up to the government or the spouces benefits package to make up the difference? You may save up front, but at what cost? Every consumer that shops there is contributing to the problem.
People get up in arms when workers are exploited overseas, but don't care when it happens to some extent in their own backyard as long as it saves them $0.50 on toiletpaper?
You're right, no one has to shop there if they don't want to. I don't like what Wal-Mart stands for; I think they lead to a social net loss. So I don't shop there. And I discourage others from doing so as well.
Man, this is insane.
If you don't like what they're selling at Wal-Mart, DO NOT BUY IT. If you don't like their pricing, DO NOT SHOP THERE. If you don't like their attitude, the color of the store, their stance on not carrying lesbian porn, DO NOT FREQUENT THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.
All I ever hear about Wal-Mart anymore is how damned evil they are and how the store sucks and their music is unfairly censored and blahblahblah. If it's so damned bad, why are they making money hand over fist?
Frankly, I love what they've done for supply chain management, I love how they slap their suppliers into line, their prices are incredible, watching white trash is funny as hell, and I don't buy music there because I want to hear Jay-Z say 'fuck.'
Anybody else actually have a problem with Wal-Mart they can express intelligently?
Maybe so. But they've also changed the marketplace so that lowest manufacturing cost is the only consideration for success. Consequently, they've created a gargantuan flood of imports that we've paid for with IOUs. Low inflation over the last 15 years has been bought on loan.
Since with current demographic trends we're never going to pay those IOUs off at current values, there's probably going to be a huge surge of inflation in the future while the government prints money to devalue our foreign debt. So really what WalMart is doing is just pushing the inevitable inflation into the future, where it's going to hit us all at once.
It's like they've handed us a credit card, and we as a nation have become lazy and quit working to earn the stuff we buy. We just keep charging more stuff on the credit card.
Sometimes being a consumer involves more than just the price of an item.
I imagine that if you could have received the same price breaks as B&N then you would have jumped at the opportunity. Then you would sell them at a lower cost to the consumer.
Assuming that's true, then you are doing what you counsel against. As a bookstore you are a consumer buying from distributers, but you always look for the better deals, just as the end consumer does.
The next argument usually made is, "We would have to just to survive," which is also made by the end consumer. If I can buy the same product for less, is it in my best interest to buy it for more? The store has to make the same decision, and the result is the same - it's not in the store's best interest to buy from a higher cost distributer, and it's not in the consumer's best interest to buy from a higher cost store.
This is capitalism. It's nice to believe in a rosy utopia where everyone gets what they want, but the reality is that our economy does not support that model.
To paraphrase the GPL people, "If you don't like it, invent your own currency and enforce your own economic model. You have the tools."
-Adam