Slashdot Mirror
iTunes Sales Ban Does Increase CD Sales
Guinnessy writes "According to the New York Times, some music labels have deliberately stopped selling some new singles on online stories such as iTunes or Rhapsody while promoting songs on the radio, so that listeners will rush out to buy the CD album instead. The album appears in itunes at a later date. Not everyone seems to think this is a good idea. From the article: 'The labels are shooting themselves in the foot,' says Rhapsody's Tim Quirk. However, Ne-Yo's CD In My Own Words sold 301,000 copies using this method. Chris Brown's Run It, that was in the itunes store, sold 154,000 copies in its first week. Ne-Yo's So Sick was downloaded approximately 3.4 million times on the peer to peer networks during the week of his album release while the album Run It!"was downloaded approximately 5.3 million times in the same release period."
From the article..."Island Def Jam offered a discount to retailers who stocked the album, allowing it to sell at stores like Target for $7.98 last week" This is a great example of someone making up stupid numbers. The fact that more CD's were sold because there no downloads sold makes complete sense. If these people, who were going to legitimately buy a CD could not buy it online, then they would buy it in the store. If they were allowed to buy it online, would they buy it TWICE? The important figure (which are not revealed in this meticulously researched article) is which way did they make more money or which way did they move more units. The fact that they sell less CD's when there is another format to buy the media should not be a surprise to anyone (except for record execs, who can't count).
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
One sample? You draw conclusions from ONE sample? Hire some statistician, would you?
There are SO many variables to be taken into account that could influence that. Do they target the same audience? To give a very drastic example, if you compare CD sales to download of a Techno song and a Country song, it does NOT matter when it comes out on which medium to predict almost flawlessly which one has a higher download and which one has a higher CD count.
Were they released at the same time? If it is released around Xmas, that would boost CD sales compared to downloads (it IS after all easier to wrap a CD in gift paper than a bunch of bits). What's the weather like on release day? Bad weather and I'd rather download it instead of going out in the pouring rain.
Do the CDs offer the same "goodies" that come with the CD? Do they both offer the lyrics in the booklet, for example, or some pictures of the artist? How about the CD cover?
So please, before drawing conclusion from ONE SINGLE sample, at least make absolutely sure that the results are comparable. Or, better, get a few 100 samples before jumping to a conclusion!
Aaaaaand, let's not forget: If it's not available from legal download... especially if the CD is DRMed into uselessness.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And why should anyone care?
hey, folks, it's epiphany time! -- the default physical medium for music sales has changed. it isn't Edison cylinders, Brunswick 77s (all "78" record makers used a different speed), 3-3/4 IPS 4-track tapes, or CDs, it's become electronic transfer.
selling CDs promotes ripping without any content copy-limiting software system. if the pinheads in Big Music had their schytte together, they'd stop shipping physical media, and sell it all online through iTunes and the like.
but all they have together is their off-key whining....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
What they're obviously missing is that denying iTunes sales increases CD sales which translate into more piracy.
Good plan.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In scientific tests, one can take a solution, mix it in another solution, and observe the results. Then one can make a single change keeping all other variables identical and perform the same tests. Those results are (arguably), if not valid, then at least a decent indication of a pattern. This summary (and I presume the article?) attempts to use this methodology with music artists -- something that by its very definition stands itself apart from science. Just because one individual's CD sells a certain number of copies through one venue, while another does comparatively poorer through another does not mean that the results are valid.
First you are taking one individual CD's sales through a store and comparing them to another CD's sales through an online distribution. While this test is almost impossible to perform (release the song at the same time through both channels and see the online distribution win and people would say that it simply hurt the CD sales, or alternatively, vice versa), it might have been a better comparison to simply take one popular artist's newer album, release it exclusively online and compare it with previous releases. Even this is not an indestructable argument, but at least you would be comparing Granny Smiths to Red Delicious, and not fruits to vegetables.
Now I am by no means a scientific person (having a greater interest in history) but it astounds me (through every century) when one side tries to sound scientific by saying, look! ho! this way works better and one can see it conclusively because the stars are in the sky and not in the ocean! This was pretty much a complete red herring of an article.
The only possible conclusion you can get out of this is "customers don't buy the same product twice".
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
This fails so many statistical tests for process control and would never even be eligible for something like an Annova (test for statistical difference) tukey-kramer test. They find one demographic of people, internet buyers. Split them in two. Offer the download to 33% of the group, deny the download to 33% of the group, and let the other 33% have the choice to steal/buy online/buy the cd ect. All the while exposing them to the exact same marketing, radio singles, and ensuring their purchasing habbits are the same. Only then can you even begin to test which group is statistically more likely to alter their purchasing habbits.
In other words, doing all of the above is hard and takes time and just coming up with bogus conclusions is so much easier.
I can't wait until the RIAA gets so much control over the music industry that they legally charge each user every time they listen to the song. Hell, they'll charge the user 1 cent per second the song is played. It wouldn't be fair to pay the same price for a 2 minute song and a 4 minute song would it?
When that day happens, and it looks like it might, the RIAA will finally implode and independant music will return in a blaze of glory. Or be outlawed as a potential communication medium for terrorists. One of the two anyway.
CDs are easier to pirate than DRM protected iTMS songs. At least at the same quality.
You mean when a band puts out a cd with one good song and a pile of crap that cd sales are higher when people are forced to buy the entire cd to get the one worthwhile song than when they can simply buy that song alone.
The real story here is not "Itunes hurts cd sales" its "Itunes promotes better music". The a-la-carte style of music downloading that itunes offers punishes crappy cds for sucking and rewards good ones for being good.
Here's my dilemma. I like music and I like my computer. I used to like CD's, but I like my computer more than I like CD's. I don't like the mixed-bag-of-root-kits-and-DRM that CD's want to put on my computer, so I don't buy them. I also don't like the DRM from iTunes, but at least from them I know what I'm getting. But, I've never bought from iTunes. So, where should I buy my music? The answer is, I don't buy it at all. I would pay for it. I want to pay for it. I used to pay for it. But, I don't like my toys to be broken by greedy strangers... Ok, extremely wealthy and greedy strangers. So, now, I still get my music, and I don't pay. If the record companies still sold a product that wasn't broken, or a risk, I'd like to pay them, or better yet the artist, for the music. But they are not offering something I'm comfortable with, so they get none.
Regardless of one's ability to draw meaningful conclusions from one datapoint, they also left out another key figure.
Ne-Yo's CD In My Own Words sold 301,000 copies using this method. Chris Brown's Run It, that was in the itunes store, sold 154,000 copies in its first week. Ne-Yo's So Sick was downloaded approximately 3.4 million times on the peer to peer networks during the week of his album release while the album Run It! was downloaded approximately 5.3 million times in the same release period.
OK, so how many downloads from "Run It" were sold in the ITunes store during that time period? If it was only about 50-100K songs, then they may have a point, but if it was something along the lines of 500K songs, then all they did was to give up some profits on CDs to make the same money on downloads. So, yeah, Duh, people are going to buy less CDs if they have the option to buy a CD or buy from iTunes than they will if they only have the choice to buy CDs.
It's like a deli that sells both ham and roast beef sandwiches complaining that they don't sell as many ham sandwiches as the deli down the street that only sells ham sandwiches. Big deal...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
That's what I always say to enviroweenies whenever they talk about global warming. I mean, can you point to any other examples of Earths that have experienced rapid rises in temperature, CO2 and other greenhouse gases in response to human activity?
If you can read this sig, you're too close.