PDA

View Full Version : Study: CD prices sing the blues


MacBytes
Jun 3, 2004, 01:59 PM
Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Study: CD prices sing the blues (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040603145911)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Dahl
Jun 3, 2004, 05:16 PM
The thing that really gets me is not so much the price of new CD's, but the prices of older titles. Old DVD movies have fallen greatly in price, why oh why are old CD's not cheaper as well?

King Cobra
Jun 3, 2004, 05:27 PM
I could get 2 DVDs in comparison with the price of a CD, and still have enough cash leftover to buy a 10-10-321 sticker.

0 and A ai
Jun 3, 2004, 11:26 PM
cds should cost 5 dollars

Abstract
Jun 4, 2004, 07:00 AM
I like that bottom quote. :) Oh its so true, isn't it? Die-hards are die-hards. If you make it easier for them to buy music, they'll buy more.

And no, I don't understand the price of old album either. A few albums I'm looking for are $26.99 Canadian right now because they're imported. They're old, and nobody buys them, so they're expensive. Most new albums sell from $13.99 to $17.99 Canadian.

All indie music is expensive. Sure, they make less of them, so production of the album must be...oh...... $0.25 more expensive, but they spend so much less on advertisement and promoting these bands that they should actually be cheaper in my book. :rolleyes:

shamino
Jun 4, 2004, 12:10 PM
All indie music is expensive. Sure, they make less of them, so production of the album must be...oh...... $0.25 more expensive, but they spend so much less on advertisement and promoting these bands that they should actually be cheaper in my book. :rolleyes:
But they also sell fewer units, so the band and publisher need to charge more to recoup the production costs. (Plus some profit, if they want to eat.) Even with a home studio (which, of course, has to be paid for) the costs for recording, mixing and mastering are significant.

I'm not saying that a $26 is a fair price, but I'm not surprised that privately-published stuff isn't cheap.

FWIW, most of the indie bands that I listen to charge abour $15-16 per disc for material sold at their concerts, and slightly higher on the rare occasions I can find them in stores. Which is about in-line with prices charged by major labels.

mrsebastian
Jun 4, 2004, 12:33 PM
this is pretty interesting when compared to earlier rumors the industry was thinking about raising the $0.99 per song amount. prices can only go so low. something's gotta give and i get the feeling the industry will be assed out at some point, allowing artists to go to the world over the net.

shamino
Jun 6, 2004, 09:21 PM
this is pretty interesting when compared to earlier rumors the industry was thinking about raising the $0.99 per song amount. prices can only go so low. something's gotta give and i get the feeling the industry will be assed out at some point, allowing artists to go to the world over the net.
Prices can go quite lower. When you buy CDs from a record club, the publisher is taking in around 25-30 cents per song, so download prices can easily drop to 50 cents with the record labels breaking even.

As for artists going directly to the net, some are already. More will follow. And as soon as one artist gets rich and famous this way, it will open the floodgates. Then the labels will be truly screwed. But that day hasn't happened just yet.

Dahl
Jun 7, 2004, 01:39 AM
All indie music is expensive. Sure, they make less of them, so production of the album must be...oh...... $0.25 more expensive, but they spend so much less on advertisement and promoting these bands that they should actually be cheaper in my book. :rolleyes:
Not true, many indies sell their records for $10-12, cheaper than anywhere else. So buy directly from the labels and save. Sure many indies don't spend much on ads, but indie fans are a differnet breed that reply more on live shows, word of mouth and reviews.
Many indies are almost like how the majors used to be, they mostly only sign quality and they don't drop a band, if the don't sell huge from the beginning, they give bands time to find their fans.

I know it's a bit unfair to compare DVD sales to CD sales, it harder to sell a new artist than a new movie. Hollywood spends huge amounts on their films PR and that spills over, when the DVD comes out. You don't need to tell people the film is good, since most saw it already. They just need to know it's out. New music is different, radio is not supporting new music so it's very hard to bring awareness to a new band. Awareness comes with time, something most majors don't have, since the have the quarterly budgets. That's why we see so many good bands getting dropped, even if they are very good and the press like them. They have to produce a hit right away, something many of the largest bands of the 70's would not be able to do, if they were signed today.
As for artists going directly to the net, some are already. More will follow. And as soon as one artist gets rich and famous this way, it will open the floodgates. Then the labels will be truly screwed. But that day hasn't happened just yet.
Ani Difranco is doing it all on her own and she's wellknown.
I think they are already many who are doing quite well, selling their CD's by themselves or though their own labels. They may not be huge stars, but they do better than if they were with a major label.
But don't write off the major labels just yet, they are still better to promote bands than anybody else, including the band themselves. It's one thing to produce a CD, it's a whole other thing to promote it and have success doing it. I have seen many bands trying to do it themselves and they are clueless, poor websites, bad coverart etc... The majors have a hard time promoting new artists, the artists trying to do it on their own are going to have even more trouble, if they hope to be huge stars.
I think it's more likely that major labels will act like brokers or PR firms for the bands. There are still soooo many records coing out all the time, you need somebody to help you stand out.