Slashdot Mirror


Music Exec Fires Back At Apple CEO

geniusj writes "Warner Music Group CEO, Edgar Bronfman Jr., has fired back at Steve Jobs in response to the Apple CEO's claim that having variable pricing for iTunes music would be 'greedy.' From the article: 'To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer ... Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past ... We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue ... We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.' Perhaps iPods combined with iPods are selling music as well, and it's not just a one-way street?"

6 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? by JeffTL · · Score: 5, Informative

    That man simply does not know the word "iTunes" and was substituting "iPod" for "iTunes Music Store."

  2. Re:The Obligatory Remix by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    My personal favorite is that "the market" should decide. Apparently this guy failed introductory microeconomics - when you are a monopoly supplier (or a cartel) "the market" doesn't decide anything, the monopolist looks at the demand curve and sets a profit maximizing price. Sometimes they decide they've been too generous in the past, and having roped consumers into a new distribution channel, it's time to start jacking up prices again as perhaps demand isn't quite so elastic as they had previously thought.

    Also, he has apparently never taken Strategy 101, or been introduced to the Theory of Complements - iPods and iTMS (and the downloadable music it distributes) are a classic example of complements. Just because Apple has for ONCE actually played a situation intelligently from a strategic perspective and the music industry has yet again failed to do so (monopolies rarely have any incentive to act strategically) doesn't give them a right to shit.

    This diatribe can be simplified into "a company that is not us is making profits in something vaguely related to music and we don't like that". After I finish wiping away the tears of sorrow from my eyes, allow me to say how many nano-give-a-shits I have for this guys problems.

  3. Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? by tb3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Edgar Bronfman, Jr. does not know a lot of things. He inherited the Seagram fortune, sold its $9 Billion stock of Dupont to buy MCA, for the sole purpose of becoming a media mogul. He's failed miserably. Here's a great article about him on Slate. I especially like this quote, "Edgar Jr. has been designated the movie industry's official idiot--a 42-year-old child who's squandering his family (and his shareholders') fortune on romantic Tinseltown fantasies."

    Don't think he speaks for the entertainment industry; he's an idiot even among those morons.

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  4. Re:A Cut of iPod Sales? by lav-chan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Austria: In Austria, the television & radio licence varies in price depending on which state one lives in. All are in euros and are paid annually.

    Denmark: The licence fee in Denmark is DKK 2 040 per annum for colour TV, DKK 1 310 for black and white TV and DKK 320 for radio.

    Finland: The licence fee in Finland is 193.95 per annum for TV.

    France: In 2004, the television licence fee in France (mainland & Corsica) is 116.50 and in the overseas departments (where viewers receive the Reseau France d'Outre Mer (RFO) rather than France 2-France 3-France 5-Arte) it is 74.31.

    Germany: The licence fee in Germany is 193.80 per annum for TV and radio, and 66.24 for just radio. It is billed by month, but typically paid quarterly (yearly payments are possible). Unemployed and disabled people do not need to pay the licence fee.

    Ireland: In 2005, the television licence in Ireland is 155. It is free to anyone over the age of 70 and to some over 66. The licence fee is the primary source of revenue for RTÉ, the state broadcaster; however, its radio and TV stations also broadcast advertising to supplement this income.

    Italy: In 2005, the licence fee in Italy is 99,60 per household with a TV set. It is the primary source of income for RAI, though it also broadcasts advertising.

    Norway: The licence fee in Norway is NOK 1 969 per annum (2005). The fee is mandatory for any owner of a TV set, and is the primary source of income for Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK).

    Sweden: The licence fee in Sweden is SEK 1 920 per annum. It is collected on behalf of the public broadcasters by Radiotjänst.

    Switzerland: The licence fee in Switzerland is CHF 450.35 per annum for TV and radio.

    United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household.


    In most cases it's not directly on the television itself and it only goes towards state broadcasters (as opposed to a whole industry like the parent was talking about), but it amounts to the same thing.

  5. Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? by jangobongo · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Slate article you linked says:
    "Edgar Jr... outraged the industry by proposing that theaters charge higher prices for more expensive movies. Why, he asked, should you pay the same amount to see a $2 million movie as you would to see a $200 million one? Analysts and movie types hooted with derision--that's "like charging for a piece of art based on how much bronze or paint was used," sneered one.

    Edgar Jr. wants to treat movies like any other product: If a movie costs more to produce, you should charge more for it.
    That was seven years ago!

    And now, talking about music:
    "To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer ... Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more."
    Sounds eerily familiar in that context.
    --

    Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
  6. Re:The Obligatory Remix by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps you are confused. Warner Music Group controls two of the approximately 25 board seats of the RIAA Board of Directors. They had revenues of 3 billion dollars last year and a market cap of 2.7 billion. They are considered one of the "Big Four" (EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music, and Warner) music publishers responsible for 95% of all music CDs sold worldwide. The Big Four were convicted (along with some smaller players) of price fixing and forced to settle with 43 states attorney generals in 2003.

    So Edgar Bronfman, Jr. is the CEO of one of the Big Four music publishers, part of a proven price fixing cartel, and one of the major controlling organizations of the RIAA, a "trade group" (i.e. cartel) that ruthlessly pursues anybody who's interests aren't aligned with the publishers.

    What were you saying again?