Slashdot Mirror
Must a CD Cost $15.99?
scionite0 sends us to Rolling Stone for an in-depth article on Wal-Mart and the music business. Wal-Mart is the largest music retailer selling "an estimated one out of every five major-label albums" in the US. Wal-Mart willingly loses money selling CDs for less than $10 in order to draw customers into the store, but they are tired of taking a loss on CDs. The mega-retailer is telling the major record labels to lower the price of CDs or risk losing retail space to DVDs and video games. (Scroll to the bottom of the article for a breakdown of where exactly the money goes on a $15.99 album sale.) "[A Wal-Mart spokesman said:] 'The record industry needs to refine their business models, because the consumer is the ultimate arbitrator. And the consumer feels music isn't properly priced.' [While music executives are quoted:] 'While Wal-Mart represents nearly twenty percent of major-label music sales, music represents only about two percent of Wal-Mart's total sales. If they got out of selling music, it would mean nothing to them. This keeps me awake at night.' [And another:] 'Wal-Mart has no long-term care for an individual artist or marketing plan, unlike the specialty stores, which were a real business partner. At Wal-Mart, we're a commodity and have to fight for shelf space like Colgate fights for shelf space.'"
I thought all you guys stole all your music.
And you expect sympathy somehow? I mean, let's be serious: the music industry did all it could to make music a "commodity and throwaway product". I sorry, but what did you expect? You wanted to sell a commodity product, then you live by the rules of commodity products. Geez.... These people are obtuse...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Take it easy on him... he's a slow reader
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
OK. The article is old news, but it's a good topic for anyone interested in the industry's future to consider, and most of the points are still relevant.
Consider this:
Production costs should be down with the advances in tech and refinement of manufacturing.
Wal-Mart *is* a distributor, so distribution costs should be lower.
Promotion costs *could* be lower if more of the music industry understood new media rather than treating it as somewhere between anathema and tolerable evil.
So, real CD costs should be falling. They probably are *somewhat*, given inflation, but in context of the given advances, it really doesn't seem like enough.
The costs in the article are also interesting. Some of 'em look on, but others don't:
$0.17 Musicians' unions - Unions get royalties on CDs? That's interesting. I've never heard that before.
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing - You can get smallish (2000-5000) runs for near this cost. A major label release really should be benefiting from an economy of scale here.
$0.82 Publishing royalties - if it's cover songs, sure. If this is original material written for a contract or under licensing from a signed artist, this cost shouldn't be this high.
$0.80 Retail profit - $.80 ain't anything a profit I'd begrudge the retail establishment.
$0.90 Distribution - See Wal-Mart *is* the distributor.
$1.60 Artists' royalties - Given the information available about industry accounting practices, is anyone else skeptical that the artists are getting this money?
$1.70 Label profit - I'm OK with this.
$2.40 Marketing/promotion - Since this is what a label is really supposed to do, I'm not surprised it's this big a portion, and maybe that's OK.
$2.91 Label overhead - What exactly is supposed to be here other than production costs and everything else on this list? I suspect this is really one of two big issues.
$3.89 Retail overhead - And this is the other one.
Those last two numbers pretty much tell the story of why disintermediation is going to continue to be a strong trend for the music industry. Slash them numbers and you're down *below* Wal-Mart's sale price and certainly competetive with prevailing online retailers. Fail to do it and you're not. Especially if you're acting like you're entitled to it in the meanwhile.
Tweet, tweet.
When you do business with Walmart, you should know that you're going to be asked to reduce your price. When you stop supporting mom-and-pop shops by not giving them the volume discounts you give to Walmart, to the point where Walmart has a potentially sufocating grip on your retail pipeline, then you're in trouble.
This is what happens when you dance with the devil... you find out he's clumsy and steps on your feet, and has bad breath to boot.
There's an op-ed piece written by the founder of Snapper that sheds a lot of light on why/how a manufacturer should choose not to do business with Walmart. Too busy to dreg up a link, but well worth the read, for anyone who cares enough to do a google search.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Memo to record labels: What's wrong with having to fight for shelf space like everyone else? Competition? Has it occurred that maybe Wal-Mart would like to sell even more?
C|N>K
17 cents per CD...I missed where they contributed anything there...Are they singing backup?
They're certainly not doing ~20% of the work that the retailer is doing, or ~13% of the work the artist is doing...Just irritates me. Artists are getting fricking screwed all the time; why do they even have a union?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
All Wal-Mart needs to succeed with this is to have one record company break off and decide to join them and have $5 to $10 CDs. Which brings me to this point: Maas referenced the DVD business as a model for tiered pricing. "(It) has been around for years and has worked very well," he said. DVDs weren't always so dirt cheap. Aside from dot-com era startups selling DVDs for $1, DVD prices were extremely high for a long time. Even in 2000, it was difficult to find a lot of DVDs for much under $15-$20 at your big-box discount stores like Best Buy, etc. I remember reading an article around that time that one of the executives at Warner Bros. wanted to make a DVD an impulse buy, with a price matching that of a magazine ($6 or so). At the time, it sounded insane. A few years later, it was a reality: bins of $5 titles at Wal-Mart. Two-for-$5 titles on Black Friday. Even at corner drugstores, $10 DVDs.
Record companies have done this. They usually repackage artists into a new "best of" and sell it for $11 or less. And Best Buy has had new releases of artists for $7 and below for many years, although that's usually limited to a single week and a handful of new untested artists.
If one of the majors breaks off and starts offering discs at below-iTunes prices, the others will have to follow. They can still follow what they've been doing by mirrorring the DVD market: sell the basic CD for peanuts, sell the enhanced CD+DVD with a t-shirt or a poster or more tracks for $20.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
While I agree with you, this reasoning may not hold up very well, since the movie more than paid for itself and DVD production at the box office - the DVD is gravy. (Assuming a movie worth getting the DVD for.)
The CD on the other hand doesn't have that - maybe there's a concert tour, but the tour usually makes money on merch and CD sales, so we're back to the CD being the main profit center again.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Musicians unions often give significant emergency aid to musicians fallen on hard times. Were it not for help from the composers union, for example, Bela Bartok would have been dead two years earlier than he was. I see no reason to protest.
Who the hell approved this? There's more. It's a dupe. Wow.
Walmart is the hero in this story because they are trying to drive down prices. Now, when they used the same strong-arm tactics on the Rubbermaid corporation, it resulted in American jobs going to China. That makes them not the hero in that one, to me. The US economy was made weaker by the job loss, and the increase in the already staggering national trade deficit.
The music industry is different. Our pop music is not going to be made more cheaply in China any time soon (I hope). And while market forces would normally drive the price of a good down, with music, all CDs are not interchangeable. If someone makes a cheaper light bulb that's just as good as other bulbs, I switch to the cheaper ones. CDs don't work that way, mostly due to the amazing triumph of propaganda.
Because of this tremendous brand loyalty (people get tattoos of their favorite rockbands... anyone ever get a tattoo of their favorite soap?), the price is pretty high. Competitive market forces have not driven the price down, despite the fact that the cost to produce the product has gone down. Milton Freidman is spinning in his grave!
Further, I just don't agree with your statement that it's impossible to force record companies to take a smaller chunk of the pie without also shafting artists. The artists have been getting shafted all along, unless they're at the very top. The price breakdown in TFA shows the artist getting $1.60 in royalties (80 cents more if they wrote the song too). That's misleading. All artists do not get the same share of the royalties. Plus, the money that artists do get, they often have to give right back to pay for the cost of recording the album. Here's an article from 2000 where Courtney Love talks about how artists get shafted by record companies. In know, she's a train wreck, but she does have experience dealing with record companies.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
And besides, TFA says that the record company gets $1.70 Label profit, and $2.91 Label overhead - over and above the cost of marketing, producing and distributing. What is label overhead? And why is it way more than the artist gets, even in a best case scenario?