Slashdot Mirror
UMG To Price New CDs Under $10
marmoset writes "Perhaps a decade late, Universal Music Group has decided to try out sub-$10 CD pricing in the US. 'Beginning in the second quarter and continuing through most of the year, the company's Velocity program will test lower CD prices. Single CDs will have the suggested list prices of $10, $9, $8, $7 and $6.'" CD retailers are not convinced the price cuts will work out. For one thing it depends on whether other major labels follow suit, but the article notes that "executives at the other majors were nervous about the UMG move" and "privately, some appeared annoyed."
the article notes that "executives at the other majors were nervous about the UMG move" and "privately, some appeared annoyed."
You don't say. You mean to tell me that they might have to price their music competitively? That they might have to take a pay cut in order to compete in the market? That their 'silent agreement' of what all music should cost among the biggest labels is no more?
Music record contracts really annoy me in this respect. They are nothing but middlemen when it comes to publishing music. I understand their role in promoting and paying upfront cash for studio time but their role as publishers is leech at best.
If bands had the ability to pit manufacturers against each other in publishing their CDs and albums (and also if the band could decide what percentage they needed from sales) then we would see prices dramatically plummet. Look at CDBaby and think how inexpensive it could get if that kind of market was where we bought all our CDs. And in a capitalistic world, that's how it is supposed to work. But no, acts have contracts and the most popular acts love how the labels shove only those acts down our throats. The music industry is a sorry state right now and rarely do we hear news like this. At least UMG appears to be slowly realizing that it's adapt-or-die time.
My work here is dung.
You mean it doesn't cost $20.00 to make a CD? Really?
Especially the AOL ones...they seemed to soak up more liquid than any of the others.
That's because they were specifically designed to withstand the tears of users installing AOL.
Quickly followed by
"[Sales of CDs] which [are] down 15.4% so far this year. Album sales were down 18.2% last year, and 19.7% in 2008, "
I swear, Thick as a Brick should be a Jethro Tull song, not a description of record company executives....
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Maybe I'm going into the future kicking and screaming... but I don't feel like I "own" a song unless I have it on CD (or cassette, vinyl, etc). From my point of view, CDs are the "superior" product verses the MP3 from iTunes or Amazon.
Audio CDs aren't quaint. They're reliable read-only long term storage media for losslessly encoded music. The data is unencumbered by DRM, you can lend CDs to your friends, you can sell CDs and you can listen to your CDs on as many devices as you like. I don't pay for downloads. I pay for CDs or get my music for free.
I'd rather they assumed I shop-lifted it than I downloaded it... the penalties are less severe for shop-lifters.
Collector's Edition