PDA

View Full Version : Boycott all $1,29 songs




arjen
Apr 8, 2009, 12:27 PM
and the record companies will eventually be less greedy!

Edit: replace 'will eventually be less greedy' by 'will eventually drop their price back to $1 because they are greedy'.

Just don't buy $1,29 songs.



miles01110
Apr 8, 2009, 02:04 PM
and the record companies will eventually be less greedy!

No, they won't.

MacNoobie
Apr 8, 2009, 02:08 PM
Why? The record companies are obviously greedy as we all know only a few cents of each song goes to the actual artist hence why I like Trent Reznor and the guy from Radiohead putting out music on their own. Organizations like the RIAA are a joke a complete waste of everyones time I cant remember the last time the RIAA contributed more then lawsuits to old grandmothers can you? (yep they withhold paying out for every song from the artists also).

Lets actually take a look at what would go into purchasing a song at your local retail store, you've gotta get dressed (if you aren't already) do your thing, gotta hop in the car and drive over to your favorite music place, go find the section with the CD, go buy it (maybe wait in line), drive back, open and enjoy. Seems simple enough now lets put a price tag on the .10-.30 cents of gas you probably used to get there and back, and tack on a "for your time" charge to be out getting this CD. You can easily see how if you really wanted to get anal about being charged $1.29 a song for the "convenience" to download it then driving to the store to pick up a copy then you need to take a look at how much energy/gas it costs for you to go out and buy the CD heck with 15 songs you may not like much less care for. I also think the $.99 cent model spoiled people since its hard to ask for $.30 more for the same thing you've paid $.99 in the past for so I think Apple really screwed up with pricing it that way.

But.. but.. MacNoobie.. My time doesn't count when I'm going out to buy stuff.. Ohh really?!? try having your boss tell you that u can work for less or free cos your time isn't worth the paperwork much less handing you a check for the time you put in.

Everyones time is worth something even if you work at the BK Lounge.. This is very true in the high tech world, bandwidth, employee's being paid to keep iTunes up at all times, song selection, artwork with your song, improvements to iTunes and adding functionality etc. Not to mention the countless number of hours sound engineers/artists/promotion peeps put into making music sound as good as it does, studio space, the millions of dollars in sound equipment, etc etc.. its just the cost of doing business and of course putting money in your pocket.

Now don't get me wrong I hate paying $1.29 for a song especially with randomly scattered prices through out the iTunes store but seriously add up a time you'd like to be paid (maybe by those damn record executives) plus gas/wear and tear on your vehicle/pita charge for using your bike up hill and come back and tell me how much that CD really cost per song.. I'm willing to bet its more then $1.29.

arjen
Apr 8, 2009, 02:46 PM
MacNoobie; the other side of the story... record companies don't have to manufacture CD's and have a very cheap distribution channel. So why pay the same if the costs are much lower?

celticpride678
Apr 8, 2009, 02:49 PM
I agree. I am already not buying $1.29 songs. Hello??, has anybody heard of YouTube, go there and listen away. It is free!

arjen
Apr 8, 2009, 02:51 PM
http://macsoda.com/2009/04/07/boycott-expensive-itunes-tracks/

bartelby
Apr 8, 2009, 02:52 PM
MacNoobie; the other side of the story... record companies don't have to manufacture CD's and have a very cheap distribution channel. So why pay the same if the costs are much lower?

Because that's what the music industry charge...

Michael CM1
Apr 8, 2009, 03:39 PM
Would you like some cheese with that whine?

First price hike in the history of iTunes on individual tracks. Ever. Considering the songs were 99 cents in 2003 (isn't that when the store began?) at 128k and are now still mostly 99 cents at 256k without DRM, I think a small price hike is damn fine. I mostly buy albums, and they have been variable for a while.

If you want to pitch a fit at the record companies, pick another battle.

Tallest Skil
Apr 8, 2009, 03:43 PM
will eventually drop their price back to $1

Nope. Can't see it.

miles01110
Apr 8, 2009, 03:47 PM
Why? The record companies are obviously greedy as we all know only a few cents of each song goes to the actual artist

This is because record companies refuse to change their revenue-sharing model to reflect the vastly more efficient distribution system that the internet provides over physical media more than it evinces overwhelming corporate greed.

Organizations like the RIAA are a joke a complete waste of everyones time I cant remember the last time the RIAA contributed more then lawsuits to old grandmothers can you? (yep they withhold paying out for every song from the artists also).

Look up Napster and i2Hub.

Lets actually take a look at what would go into purchasing a song at your local retail store ... $.99 in the past for so I think Apple really screwed up with pricing it that way.

It might not be worth it to you, but luckily for Apple some people are willing to pay $1.29 per song. Simple microeconomics, your marginal utility of buying a song from the iTunes Music Store is higher than others.

But.. but.. MacNoobie.. My time doesn't count when I'm going out to buy stuff.. Ohh really?!? try having your boss tell you that u can work for less or free cos your time isn't worth the paperwork much less handing you a check for the time you put in.

You choose how to spend your free time, which is (by definition) "free." If you choose to spend it by going to the store and buying a CD, that's your choice. The rest of your post hinges on the misconception that since you are able to download a song in less time and effort than you can go to the store and buy a CD, you should pay less. Think of it as paying for the convenience and availability.

Schtumple
Apr 8, 2009, 03:48 PM
OP, I admire your spirit, but if you really want to "beat the man", form a band, get really big, then don't sign up to capitol or any of the big labels, you'll be doing them far more damage that way than posting on an internet forum...

To any further argumenting in this thread, it's 30c, get over it, give it 6 months, and you won't notice at all, on the flip side, if you don't buy from iTunes, you'll be hurting the one company that tried to save the music industry from dissolving away from P2P piracy...

matruski
Apr 8, 2009, 04:02 PM
Would you like some cheese with that whine?

First price hike in the history of iTunes on individual tracks. Ever. Considering the songs were 99 cents in 2003 (isn't that when the store began?) at 128k and are now still mostly 99 cents at 256k without DRM, I think a small price hike is damn fine. I mostly buy albums, and they have been variable for a while.

If you want to pitch a fit at the record companies, pick another battle.

So, your logic is that the price hike is justified because it's been the same price since 2003? Oh, and they increased the bit rate and took off DRM... By my calculations, adding DRM probably made things more expensive by adding an extra step/time to the encoding process. I'm not really sure how increasing the bit rate would make things more expensive... because of increased storage? Because of increased bandwidth? In any event, those are both items that would have been paid for by Apple - the company that wanted to keep it at $0.99. So that point doesn't make much sense. By your logic, they should no longer be able to afford give away free singles of the week... heck they've been free since 2003 - about time for a price hike!

My first question is, are you an RIAA apologist? My next question is, do you understand a free market society? Supply and demand dictate price. If demand, as represented by the original poster, dwindles because of the price hike, prices will eventually go down, or record companies will lose comparitively more money. It's not a case of whining or pitching fits as you demeaningly suggest. It's just supply and demand.

IMO, this is an attempt by record companies to decrease Apple's share of power in music pricing. The reason being that when you can buy the same song on Amazon for $.99 and it's a $1.29 on iTunes, Apple will lose some business. Heck, they even have programs now that do the hunting for you.

SpaceKitty
Apr 8, 2009, 05:10 PM
I refuse. If I want to buy a song, I'm gonna buy it. It's only $1.29. Hello.......
It's still $9.99 for a CD.



IMO, this is an attempt by record companies to decrease Apple's share of power in music pricing. The reason being that when you can buy the same song on Amazon for $.99 and it's a $1.29 on iTunes, Apple will lose some business. Heck, they even have programs now that do the hunting for you.




Wal-Mart and Amazon have all adopted the $1.29 songs. It's not just Apple.

Resist
Apr 8, 2009, 06:25 PM
I will NEVER pay $1.29 for a song!!!

mojohanna
Apr 8, 2009, 06:59 PM
So, your logic is that the price hike is justified because it's been the same price since 2003? Oh, and they increased the bit rate and took off DRM... By my calculations, adding DRM probably made things more expensive by adding an extra step/time to the encoding process. I'm not really sure how increasing the bit rate would make things more expensive... because of increased storage? Because of increased bandwidth? In any event, those are both items that would have been paid for by Apple - the company that wanted to keep it at $0.99. So that point doesn't make much sense. By your logic, they should no longer be able to afford give away free singles of the week... heck they've been free since 2003 - about time for a price hike!

My first question is, are you an RIAA apologist? My next question is, do you understand a free market society? Supply and demand dictate price. If demand, as represented by the original poster, dwindles because of the price hike, prices will eventually go down, or record companies will lose comparitively more money. It's not a case of whining or pitching fits as you demeaningly suggest. It's just supply and demand.

IMO, this is an attempt by record companies to decrease Apple's share of power in music pricing. The reason being that when you can buy the same song on Amazon for $.99 and it's a $1.29 on iTunes, Apple will lose some business. Heck, they even have programs now that do the hunting for you.
Supply and demand would take place if this were an "unregulated" market. By that I mean the labels have essentially colluded on the price and are telling any distributor out there that if they dont price in the manner they wish, they will no longer have the rights to distribute. The labels are acting as a group instead of individual companies. In my mind, that is monopolistic. Think of what the govt would do if HP, Dell, Apple and Lenovo (to name a few) all got together and told retailers what they could charge for computers of the EXACT same specs? All hell would break loose.

What the record labels are doing is a crime, but unfortunately Apple has to take it. And in the end so do we. If we stop buying music, nothing is going to happen. Too many people who don't think $1.29 is a lot to pay for a song will continue to buy.

txhockey9404
Apr 8, 2009, 07:24 PM
I will NEVER pay $1.29 for a song!!!

Haha sure. Oh wait, did I just say that out loud?;)

Michael CM1
Apr 8, 2009, 08:11 PM
So, your logic is that the price hike is justified because it's been the same price since 2003? Oh, and they increased the bit rate and took off DRM... By my calculations, adding DRM probably made things more expensive by adding an extra step/time to the encoding process. I'm not really sure how increasing the bit rate would make things more expensive... because of increased storage? Because of increased bandwidth? In any event, those are both items that would have been paid for by Apple - the company that wanted to keep it at $0.99. So that point doesn't make much sense. By your logic, they should no longer be able to afford give away free singles of the week... heck they've been free since 2003 - about time for a price hike!

My first question is, are you an RIAA apologist? My next question is, do you understand a free market society? Supply and demand dictate price. If demand, as represented by the original poster, dwindles because of the price hike, prices will eventually go down, or record companies will lose comparitively more money. It's not a case of whining or pitching fits as you demeaningly suggest. It's just supply and demand.

IMO, this is an attempt by record companies to decrease Apple's share of power in music pricing. The reason being that when you can buy the same song on Amazon for $.99 and it's a $1.29 on iTunes, Apple will lose some business. Heck, they even have programs now that do the hunting for you.

Ah, the old "supply and demand" routine. Quite possibly the oldest trick in the book from every person who took economics in high school. Yes, I know what supply and demand are. Yes, I know how they're SUPPOSED to work. The problem is you're screwing your own pooch of a point. The record companies want to increase prices on what they think are more in-demand tunes. Same deal with HBO charging $2.99 for its TV show episodes.

And yes, price hikes are justified when they've been the same for that long. Song downloads are about the only thing that haven't increased in price in the past decade. My health insurance has gone up about $3 or $4 per pay period ($6 to $8 a month) each year.

I agree with you that the record companies want to decrease Apple's power in the music industry, but not by this. Walmart and Amazon did the exact same thing today. Giving everybody else different prices on music is the RIAA's power grab, not variable pricing. In fact, variable pricing goes back to your "supply and demand" thing.

And no, I'm not an RIAA apologist. Don't even get me started on those turds or the movie and TV studios. But as I said, this isn't the battle to fight.

theLimit
Apr 8, 2009, 08:30 PM
I only buy CDs, and usually directly from the artists. Less than a dozen good albums are released every year. If a track is $1.29 on iTunes, chances are it's the current pop drivel polluting the airwaves and isn't even worth $0.99, so the higher price doesn't matter. If you have to have what the record companies want you to listen to, then consider the price difference a sin tax, like the taxes on cigarettes.

techlover828
Apr 8, 2009, 08:34 PM
inflation? price's gotta go up eventually..

iSaygoodbye
Apr 8, 2009, 08:51 PM
how about you boycott it.... while i continue to buy music for what i think is a very fair price

Apple all life
Apr 9, 2009, 12:31 AM
I refuse to buy it

Sehnsucht
Apr 9, 2009, 12:41 AM
and the record companies will eventually be less greedy!

Edit: replace 'will eventually be less greedy' by 'will eventually drop their price back to $1 because they are greedy'.

Just don't buy $1,29 songs.

They'll never be less greedy, but kudos for saying "record companies," not "APPLE." :cool:

spaceballl
Apr 9, 2009, 01:20 AM
count me in - no way i'm paying $1.29 for a stupid mp3 file....

Resist
Apr 9, 2009, 01:22 AM
Haha sure. Oh wait, did I just say that out loud?;)Believe what you want. I don't need music that much. I just bought 5 songs tonight on iTunes that were $.69 each. I refuse to pay more than $.99 per individual song.

MasterNile
Apr 9, 2009, 01:22 AM
count me in - no way i'm paying $1.29 for a stupid mp3 file....

Well...that's good cause iTunes doesn't sell mp3 files :p

iSaygoodbye
Apr 9, 2009, 02:03 PM
count me in - no way i'm paying $1.29 for a stupid mp3 file....

if its stupid why would you pay anything for it...

sbking
Apr 9, 2009, 02:53 PM
I fully support this, even if I don't actually buy music from the iTunes store. But seriously, the people that actually purchase music legally are getting even more screwed. A 29% price hike is unacceptable.

So yeah, DEATH TO THE RIAA (and everyone else that wanted to raise the prices).

Razeus
Apr 9, 2009, 03:02 PM
Well I no longer pay for music. It's pointless. It's obvious music hasn't much monetary value. Music should be free. If the artists don't like it, that's tough. That's the way the environment is these days. Adapt to it or learn to profit from it. The artist can leave the business, but I don't think many will since they enjoy the "fame". So I guess they better get real good at doing shows live, because their record royalties are in the dumpster. Sure, everyone says the artist should be compensated for their work. But unfortuanetly the record company exec's and staff get the money. The music business model needs to change.

The pricing scheme is funny also. It's the only entertainment medium were the price never goes down over time. A Marvin Gaye album that came out in 1964 costs just as much as an album in 2009. Some might say that Marvin Gaye album is a classic and if they are still able to sell it, they can charge full price for it as if it came out yesterday. I don't buy it.

I suspect it has something to do with the artist contracts since they are quoted in whole dollar amounts of what they "get" for each sale instead of a % of the wholesale price. Maybe the new unproven artist get a % of wholesale and these older "legends" get full dollar amounts, but the whole setup is iffy at best.

I only use the technology that's available to obtain what I want/need. I didn't event the internet, P2P, CD technology, CD ripping software, the mp3 format, the hard drive, nor the mp3 player. These are all technologies evented, used and endorse by big media and tech companies. They created this. Not me.

And for them to charge online as if it were a full priced product is ridiculous. I understand they have huge server and other IT costs to distribute the music online, but it's obsurb to charge just as much as retail stores. Reason?: no packaging and therefore no lyrics and linear notes; while they sound good, it's still compressed music from a source that has already been compressed (the CD is merely a sample of the analog, which already throws out information it doesn't think it needs). So they are trying to charge full price for a product that is half the fidelity. That's wrong.

bartelby
Apr 9, 2009, 03:04 PM
Music should be free. If the artists don't like it, that's tough.

How do you expect artists to live?

Razeus
Apr 9, 2009, 03:06 PM
How do you expect artists to live?

Live shows, DVD sales of concerts or documentaries, publishing rights, merchandise.

DR_K13
Apr 9, 2009, 03:29 PM
paying for songs?

lulz

Robbadore64
Apr 9, 2009, 03:38 PM
Well I no longer pay for music. It's pointless. It's obvious music hasn't much monetary value. Music should be free. If the artists don't like it, that's tough. That's the way the environment is these days. Adapt to it or learn to profit from it. The artist can leave the business, but I don't think many will since they enjoy the "fame". So I guess they better get real good at doing shows live, because their record royalties are in the dumpster. Sure, everyone says the artist should be compensated for their work. But unfortuanetly the record company exec's and staff get the money. The music business model needs to change.

I feel bad, but I pretty much agree. Bands like Radiohead that let me decide how much I want to pay THEM for their music are awesome and I gladly pay double for that. And not to mention flying half-way across the country to see them in concert; giving THEM my $ and doing my small part in helping out the economy. Everybody wins.

Chwisch87
Apr 9, 2009, 06:51 PM
Ugh this is honestly ridiculous. Amazon MP3 is still at .99 cents a song. Like compare 3oh!3 store to store ... ITS ALLLL 1.29 on itunes and .99 cents on Amazon MP3. This is pretty much gonna kill all sales on the itunes store. I can understand things like singles released at 1.29 but when the album comes out all songs should be .99 cents or less .... THIS IS RIDICULOUS and what is totally dumbfounding is that there is no price continuity between Amazon MP3 and iTunes ... HOW THE HELL DID APPLE AGREE TO THIS!!! All the songs in the top 100 now are ALL pretty much 1.29. First off i would think they for one should be grandfathered in at 99 cents and all new songs have the variable pricing. This is just the recording companies trying to hurt apple in some way if you ask me. But this is just rediculous ... i wake up and its 1.29 today WOW.

I don't have to boycott this crap ... its cheaper elsewhere. Amazon MP3 here i come!!

alphaod
Apr 9, 2009, 06:55 PM
Oh whatever.

michael.lauden
Apr 9, 2009, 06:57 PM
i'm sure the 33 (and now 34) posts in this forum will greatly impact major record labels!

Chwisch87
Apr 9, 2009, 06:58 PM
I fully support this, even if I don't actually buy music from the iTunes store. But seriously, the people that actually purchase music legally are getting even more screwed. A 29% price hike is unacceptable.

So yeah, DEATH TO THE RIAA (and everyone else that wanted to raise the prices).

The only thing increasing prices on your newly DRM free music is drive more people to piracy.

Chwisch87
Apr 9, 2009, 06:59 PM
i'm sure the 33 (and now 34) posts in this forum will greatly impact major record labels!

Its not the record labels that are gonna have an issue. Its apples itunes business ... almost ALL of the songs are not cheaper on amazon MP3.

mikeinternet
Apr 9, 2009, 07:10 PM
I'm not just boycotting the 1.29 tracks. I'm not going to pay .99 either.

mikeinternet
Apr 9, 2009, 07:12 PM
How do you expect artists to live?

Get a job.

synth3tik
Apr 9, 2009, 07:13 PM
How about just stop purchasing things on iTunes. If Apple doesn't want my money, then I am not giving it to them, whether it be $.99 or $1.29.

I luck out I love a lot of electronic music and most of them are on bleep.com. Cheaper, higher quality, and tracks are usually between $.49 and $.99.

synth3tik
Apr 9, 2009, 07:18 PM
How do you expect artists to live?

more over, how would anyone expect to hear any music, I mean it takes a lot of time, and sometimes a lot of money to get songs released, not even talking about all the business side of it yet. I don't see how anyone could expect me to spend thousands of dollars and hour after hour to make them a song, because "that's how it is supposed to be.

sbking
Apr 9, 2009, 07:27 PM
i'm sure the 33 (and now 34) posts in this forum will greatly impact major record labels!42 now. yeah!!

sushi
Apr 9, 2009, 07:38 PM
If the market does not support the price increase, then they will need to lower the price. That is simple economics.

Whether this will happen or not is another issue. As can be seen in this thread, some profess that they won't purchase a song for $1.29 or whatever. I would venture to say that there are many out there who will so it won't really matter. As someone stated, $1.29 for a song is still cheaper than purchasing a CD.

jav6454
Apr 9, 2009, 08:12 PM
As much as I liked the old $0.99 price point, I have to admit I will still buy even at $1.29.

As much as I hate the new $1.29 price point, it was inevitable. I mean since 2003 the price point has been $0.99 and after 6 years the $0.30 price increase was sorta imminent. I can see the inflation argument holding up 6 years into this which I will still buy. Record labels now fear Apple, which is something good; for those of you doubtful of my statement check a recent rumor/news here in MacRumors, an executive who wished to remain anonymous said, record labels fear Apple delisting them and loosing the bounty that is iTunes.

Anyways, a boycott won't do a thing, the $1.29 is here to stay. But if Apple does see the $1.29 is hindering sales, they will push on record companies to struggle and go back to the $0.99 price point. But that's a big if.

Randman
Apr 9, 2009, 08:13 PM
Most new music is crap so it won't be difficult to avoid any of higher-priced songs.

Now, if I could find some of the reported 69-cent song ...

emt1
Apr 9, 2009, 08:30 PM
I will NOT buy at the $1.29 price point. Greedy bastards.

iSee
Apr 9, 2009, 09:43 PM
1.29 is ok with me, if it's a song I like. And if I don't like it, I wouldn't buy it at any price.

Galley
Apr 9, 2009, 10:08 PM
Ugh this is honestly ridiculous. Amazon MP3 is still at .99 cents a song. Like compare 3oh!3 store to store ... ITS ALLLL 1.29 on itunes and .99 cents on Amazon MP3.

All the other online music stores are selling singles for $1.29. The labels set the prices.

Gyrferret
Apr 9, 2009, 10:30 PM
As much as it sucks looking at songs that I wanted to get go up 30%, I don't mind too much. Even to argument that "the artists get ****** so why bother even buying music", to them I say, at least the artists are getting something from me. And you know, right now, they're getting a tad bit more. So, here's another penny Blink, and NFG, and Amber Pacific.

Yeah, I'll pay more to you.... as long as the artist is HIGHLY worth it. And kudos to the Original Poster. I will avert my purchasing from the $1.29 songs. How about we just buy the $.69 songs? Now that'll be a punch in the groin.... sorta.... though I fear it may be a matter of time until the apple site goes from "Songs starting at $.69" to "****** songs no one's heard of starting at $.69 and all the good stuff you want for $1.29"

I can't wait. Hell, I still buy m albums in the store. It's fun that way. Good ole CD....

matruski
Apr 10, 2009, 09:41 AM
Ah, the old "supply and demand" routine. Quite possibly the oldest trick in the book from every person who took economics in high school. Yes, I know what supply and demand are. Yes, I know how they're SUPPOSED to work. The problem is you're screwing your own pooch of a point. The record companies want to increase prices on what they think are more in-demand tunes. Same deal with HBO charging $2.99 for its TV show episodes.

And yes, price hikes are justified when they've been the same for that long. Song downloads are about the only thing that haven't increased in price in the past decade. My health insurance has gone up about $3 or $4 per pay period ($6 to $8 a month) each year.

I agree with you that the record companies want to decrease Apple's power in the music industry, but not by this. Walmart and Amazon did the exact same thing today. Giving everybody else different prices on music is the RIAA's power grab, not variable pricing. In fact, variable pricing goes back to your "supply and demand" thing.

And no, I'm not an RIAA apologist. Don't even get me started on those turds or the movie and TV studios. But as I said, this isn't the battle to fight.

Try sixth grade. After that I stopped paying attention. That's an excellent comparison - health insurance to the music industry... the technology and costs to provide healthcare are practically identical to music. I mean, the music industry has made incredible technological leaps forward through the years... can anyone say cassette tape?

I hope you were kidding. At $.99 the songs are overpriced. My point regarding supply and demand is that demand will ultimately dictate the price of the songs in the music industry. The reason? We're not talking about a finite quantity. We're talkinga about digital downloadings... as in, a theoretically limitless supply. That's why people pursue illegal methods for obtaining songs - because the price of the supply isn't low enough yet. Once companies relinquish their stranglehold, prices would fall to more appropriate levels. Everyone recognizes the additional costs associated with producing a cd, artwork, album notes, transportation of product, inventory of product, staffing to sell product, physically stocking product. They don't see the reason for the additional cost when the song was uploaded through a secure site and from there on out can basically manage itself.

All I'm saying is that this price hike will increase demand for illegal acquisition of product. They're headed in the wrong direction. The original price was too high - which is why digital downloading hasn't made up for the loss in cd sales. They need to lower the price across the board, increase the number of transactions, thereby increasing their overall revenue. Of course people will still buy the songs at $1.29. "People" also bought the "I am rich" app. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fight" - we're talking about a collective group making individual decisions. I'm talking about a decision not to buy a product. Not really a fight.

Regarding the Amazon thing. They hadn't released their variable price deal until after I made that post. Even still, per the article, they still have better pricing than Apple. My previous comment stands.

chrono1081
Apr 10, 2009, 12:21 PM
They'll never be less greedy, but kudos for saying "record companies," not "APPLE." :cool:

+19324830284

Theres some iTunes/Apple haters at work (who've never owned a mac mind you) who were trying to rub variable pricing in my face. Too bad their precious Amazon (and walmart now) have variable pricing as well :)

arjen
Apr 11, 2009, 04:20 AM
A dutch website (Onemorething.nl) posts that record sales of popular $1.29 songs are down and $1 songs are up. This is good news. Ratings are affected and if the drop is greater than a calculated 23,3% there is no longer a benefit for the record companies. So a boycott could indeed be effective!

Related article: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7917210cb575a9b91b4543e3d671922a

arjen
Apr 11, 2009, 04:23 AM
How about just stop purchasing things on iTunes. If Apple doesn't want my money, then I am not giving it to them, whether it be $.99 or $1.29.

I luck out I love a lot of electronic music and most of them are on bleep.com. Cheaper, higher quality, and tracks are usually between $.49 and $.99.

I'm fine with $1 a song. Even with slight increases in song prices on a year to year basis (inflation correction), just not with an overnight 30% increase.

arjen
Apr 11, 2009, 04:31 AM
How do you expect artists to live?

They live from record sales, tour income, commercials income, income form radio and tv stations playing their clips, etc. The record sales are often not their but the record companies biggest income.

Please keep in mind iTunes reaches milions of people. $1 perhaps doesn't seem as much however, if the song is populair the revenue comes down to millions per song!

It should be enough for both artist and record company I'd say.

Razeus
Apr 23, 2009, 03:33 PM
The way I see it is that if these guys can't get their songs to sell at $.99, why on earth are they trying to sell them for more.

No, prices should rise over time via inflation. Simple supply and demand will tell you that as more songs are supplied, demand has to match. Personally, I think music is over supplied and under demanded. There are no shortage of songs. Under demand is cause because there are way too many songs to "discover" and thus people tend to just go for the popular, "top ten" lists. So in a way, music really has no value. I mean the saying "sells for a song" for a reason.

I think RIAA's real issue isn't illegal downloading. Their issue is that their trumps cards have been pulled from them, right in their face. The trump cards has always been: 1) developing the format the music comes on, 2) the devices the the format plays on, 3) the distribution of the format to consumers.

All 3 of these factors have been pulled from them and they no longer have control they once did. And now they are sueing everyone in sight instead of suing the designers and makers of the new technology they refuse to embrace.

Record companies treat their artists like crap, so I don't mind downloading music. I'll get it free, and then go pay to see the artist live, maybe buy a couple t-shirts. It's sad how "music specialty stores" are no longer around as much. I used to love going to a small mom & pop and browsing for CD's.

sbking
Apr 23, 2009, 03:44 PM
Well supply is unlimited, so I don't think "supply and demand" applies here. I don't disagree with your post though.
The way I see it is that if these guys can't get their songs to sell at $.99, why on earth are they trying to sell them for more.
Thing is, individual tracks are selling extremely well at the expense of album sales and their "solution" for this is to raise the price of single tracks higher. I personally think they should LOWER album prices (10 bucks for a bunch of digital compressed music is way too much. $5-$6 is far more reasonable) while keeping single prices the same ($.99) but whatever.

Music is terribly overpriced. In my country (Holland), you easily pay 15 euro for an album =/

MacNoobie
Apr 23, 2009, 05:30 PM
This is because record companies refuse to change their revenue-sharing model to reflect the vastly more efficient distribution system that the internet provides over physical media more than it evinces overwhelming corporate greed.



Look up Napster and i2Hub.



It might not be worth it to you, but luckily for Apple some people are willing to pay $1.29 per song. Simple microeconomics, your marginal utility of buying a song from the iTunes Music Store is higher than others.



You choose how to spend your free time, which is (by definition) "free." If you choose to spend it by going to the store and buying a CD, that's your choice. The rest of your post hinges on the misconception that since you are able to download a song in less time and effort than you can go to the store and buy a CD, you should pay less. Think of it as paying for the convenience and availability.

But you're still not taking into consideration the high tech nature of this vastly more efficient distribution system you speak of. Even if you aren't hauling around thousands of CD's in a semi on a pallet to walmart you still need tech savvy individuals with college education, HVAC, space, power etc etc to keep the efficient distribution model going hence pricing on par or slightly better then the old distribution of CD's.

As I've stated before the RIAA has done nothing in the way of contribution towards recording artists nor the whole music industry as a whole besides pissing off people.

If you take a look at $1.29 pricing for music those songs are typically lower on some of the sales ranks on the iTunes store compared to $.99 tracks. Besides there will always be people willing to pay $1.29 a song as much as people willing to pay $4-5 bucks for a Starbucks coffee, doesn't mean the entire masses will.

Free time by definition isn't one that you naturally get paid for but that still doesn't excuse the fact that it does cost SOMETHING to go retrieve that hot new CD from your local retailer, whether it'd be your time/gas/millage etc. Had you read my post properly you'd realize that I wanted to state the cost between what it costs you to go retrieve it (also called hidden cost since we never think about gas/wear&tear/our time when purchasing) and justifying the $.30 raise for the "convenience" factors.

iEvolution
Apr 25, 2009, 08:09 PM
54 out of the top 100 are now $1.29..LOL what a joke.

I haven't purchased a 1.29 track yet and don't intend to. Not to "strike" but rather I just don't think they are worth the money.

Music_Producer
Apr 25, 2009, 09:06 PM
Record companies treat their artists like crap, so I don't mind downloading music. I'll get it free, and then go pay to see the artist live, maybe buy a couple t-shirts. It's sad how "music specialty stores" are no longer around as much. I used to love going to a small mom & pop and browsing for CD's.

Huh? Like 'crap'? And YOU treat them more than crap because you download music for free - thus denying the artist his/her royalty. Why punish the artist because you think the labels are so 'evil'? It comes down to the simple fact that anyone can 'steal' music so easily - if we could download oil for free, gee.. imagine that! All the biggest profit making oil companies would go out of business too.

See the artist live? Do you think majority of income from concert sales go to the artist? :rolleyes: do you think all artists perform concerts so regularly as to keep income streaming?

Seriously, please get over the whole "I hate Sony so I wont buy this artist's music at all" If Sony were to shut down their record label, that hurts artists+all the jobs associated with making music.

Music_Producer
Apr 25, 2009, 09:07 PM
They live from record sales, tour income, commercials income, income form radio and tv stations playing their clips, etc. The record sales are often not their but the record companies biggest income.

Please keep in mind iTunes reaches milions of people. $1 perhaps doesn't seem as much however, if the song is populair the revenue comes down to millions per song!

It should be enough for both artist and record company I'd say.

Do you work in the music business? Are you a musician? Do you have any idea of what expenses are involved in making an album?

Please list the associated expenses here and then we can have a discussion.

Music_Producer
Apr 25, 2009, 09:15 PM
It's not going to be long before music labels are out of business. They are already running into losses - it's only a matter of time before these losses become unsustainable.

I remember when airlines were slashing their fares - and I always wondered how in the world they could offer fares for so low. Well it figures, because those soon went bankrupt.. and the airline industry is suffering now (increase in oil prices, and reduction in fares)

So they resort to charging extra for bags, food, etc - they have to keep revenues flowing in. I don't know why everyone here thinks music labels make 'so much profit' :confused: Do they look at the gawdy music videos and automatically assume that every label is swimming in money?

In order to recoup their losses, music labels are pushing up the price for legitimate consumers - people who download music legally. Is it a bad move on their part? I think so, but it might be absolutely necessary for them to make this move.

The best solution would be to have all music encoded with adverts (one ad at the beginning of the song)- you can download those tracks for free - if you don't want that crap, then you can pay for it legally. That way everyone's happy.

NoSmokingBandit
Apr 25, 2009, 09:20 PM
To be honest, i dont know why people buy anything from the iTunes store to begin with. I can stop by walmart and get the same cd for the same price (or maybe $1-2 more) and i get drm-free high-quality music. I dont understand why people actually buy drm-laden low-bitrate junk.

iEvolution
Apr 25, 2009, 09:23 PM
It's not going to be long before music labels are out of business. They are already running into losses - it's only a matter of time before these losses become unsustainable.

I remember when airlines were slashing their fares - and I always wondered how in the world they could offer fares for so low. Well it figures, because those soon went bankrupt.. and the airline industry is suffering now (increase in oil prices, and reduction in fares)

So they resort to charging extra for bags, food, etc - they have to keep revenues flowing in. I don't know why everyone here thinks music labels make 'so much profit' :confused: Do they look at the gawdy music videos and automatically assume that every label is swimming in money?

In order to recoup their losses, music labels are pushing up the price for legitimate consumers - people who download music legally. Is it a bad move on their part? I think so, but it might be absolutely necessary for them to make this move.

The best solution would be to have all music encoded with adverts (one ad at the beginning of the song)- you can download those tracks for free - if you don't want that crap, then you can pay for it legally. That way everyone's happy.

Don't kid yourself, the prices didn't raise to save them. They raised them thinking they can nickle and dime every legitimate customer that actually purchases music.

I was a avid iTunes Store user until they a) went and tried to charge me 30 cents per track to upgrade to DRM-free, b) added $1.29 to anything popular, 69 cent tracks? Yeah where are those.

What a great way to lose customers.

JCastro
Apr 25, 2009, 11:50 PM
I will spend what I have to to get a product I want. I don't enjoy spending more but if I want it bad enough I will spend it.

I guess lots of other people think the same way since a lot of the popular songs are $1.29. Thats a lot of people still willing to spend the money.

queshy
Apr 26, 2009, 12:04 AM
it's as if they're begging us to pirate music. 30 c. isn't that much more but the psychological effect is huge!

iEvolution
Apr 26, 2009, 02:22 AM
it's as if they're begging us to pirate music. 30 c. isn't that much more but the psychological effect is huge!

It is a lot when you stack them.

Its about 1.05 with tax per 99cent song and about 1.37 with tax for the 1.29..

Get a $50 iTunes card..add it up.. that is 47 songs under the 99 cent scheme, and 36 songs under the $1.29 scheme.

queshy
Apr 26, 2009, 01:24 PM
It is a lot when you stack them.

Its about 1.05 with tax per 99cent song and about 1.37 with tax for the 1.29..

Get a $50 iTunes card..add it up.. that is 47 songs under the 99 cent scheme, and 36 songs under the $1.29 scheme.

Yes, you make a good point...we're getting much less for our money. But at the same time, most people I know just buy a song here and there and don't spend $50 in one shot (i'm sure there are people who do, though). If you're just buying one song, an extra 30 c. won't kill you -- as I said, psychologically it's much worse than it is.

Mackilroy
Apr 26, 2009, 02:43 PM
I was a avid iTunes Store user until they a) went and tried to charge me 30 cents per track to upgrade to DRM-free, b) added $1.29 to anything popular, 69 cent tracks? Yeah where are those.

What a great way to lose customers.

I've seen quite a few 69 tracks on the store, and very few $1.29 tracks.

gtyper
Apr 30, 2009, 03:38 PM
But you're still not taking into consideration the high tech nature of this vastly more efficient distribution system you speak of. Even if you aren't hauling around thousands of CD's in a semi on a pallet to walmart you still need tech savvy individuals with college education, HVAC, space, power etc etc to keep the efficient distribution model going hence pricing on par or slightly better then the old distribution of CD's.


Those costs aren't near the costs required to maintain the profit margin on physical media dispursements.

For every "tech savvy individual with a college education" required to manage the server farms and other tech - I'll raise you some exponential number of individuals that are required to manage supply lines, inventory, production facilities, distribution channels, etc. Not to mention the associated costs of the buildings, insurances, utilities.... Physical media is ridiculously expensive (per unit), especially for an artist with low volume of sales.

Comparing these costs to the costs of maintaining and insuring a massive server farm - with near virtually infinite capacity and unlimited product throughput - you're cost per unit is ludicriously low. Add to this cost, the costs of future tech, the costs of keeping the distribution channel relevant and technologically cutting edge, etc. It is still negligible.

Now, earlier someone argued that the costs of convenience should be charged. I could buy this argument if the convenience wasn't recriprical.

The reason I abhor the cost increase is simply because downloading off of iTunes is significantly easier than buying the physical good with a tradeoff in quality. Downloading off of iTunes is only slightly easier than using any number of available content sharing methodologies. The combative argument to stolen goods is not to raise the price, thus making theft more attractive.