PDA

View Full Version : No Holiday Cheer for Band Aid and iTunes


MacBytes
Nov 28, 2004, 12:55 PM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: No Holiday Cheer for Band Aid and iTunes (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041128135557)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Sharewaredemon
Nov 28, 2004, 02:58 PM
This seems like a classic case of "On one hand... on the other hand..." with valid points arriving from both sides. My solution? Apple should make a donation, perhaps 1-2 million, to Band Aid to secure the rights to distribute the song for free to iTunes users. Think about it: Band Aid gets a nice fat check (probably for far more than it would if Apple sold the track through iTunes), Apple gets good publicity and a nice tax deduction, and Band Aid, whose recognition is North America is only a fraction of what it is in the U.K., gets tremendous publicity.

That's a good solution, I think Apple could afford it.

Applespider
Nov 28, 2004, 04:47 PM
Having said all that - I haven't heard anyone in 'real life' talking about this so how many people won't buy an iPod because of it.

Besides - have you heard the song? I'd consider making a donation for Apple to keep it off iTunes.

The free thing is a worse idea - then it would seem like people who otherwise would have paid more, are getting it for nothing. I'd say that if Apple feel they have to meet the publicity, is sell it for 0.79 (although I doubt the record company would be happy with that) and make up the additional 70p as a donation.

Is there a technical reason why it can't happen? Could iTMS only be able to cope with songs at a single price in each store? We know they can change album prices but it this a facility that they don't want to make record companies aware that they have?

StarbucksSam
Nov 28, 2004, 05:39 PM
That is uttery ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it's not Apple's job to do fundraising, and they did make a promise to their customers. Yes, I DO understand that giving to charity is a good thing, I think companies should do it, but Apple is not required to do this and they shouldn't have to look bad because they don't want to help someone else at the expense of their prices to their customers.

Fender2112
Nov 28, 2004, 06:51 PM
That's a good solution, I think Apple could afford it.

Ditto. I think this would be a win-win for everyone.

nsb3000
Nov 28, 2004, 08:02 PM
Is there a technical reason why it can't happen? Could iTMS only be able to cope with songs at a single price in each store? We know they can change album prices but it this a facility that they don't want to make record companies aware that they have?

This has nothing to do with Bandaid or Africa, it has to with Apple's battle with the record companies over graduated pricing structures. This is one of the big sticking points between the Record Companies and Apple...Apple, for reasons I can't say I understand, has been staunchly instant on the 99 cents/$9.99 for Albums pricing structure.

While I applaud Apple for trying the get the Music industry to understand that CDs are overpriced and that the per album cost of Music has to come down, I think this is a loosing battle in the long run. As the music download business becomes mainstream, Apple is going to have to let there be more variation in the prices. Just remember, a graduated price structure mean not only that certain songs and albums can be more than the standard pricing but some can be less as well.

happyadam
Nov 29, 2004, 02:40 AM
Just remember, a graduated price structure mean not only that certain songs and albums can be more than the standard pricing but some can be less as well.

I don't understand this myth about all songs costing 79p. Have you checked out the Incredibles Remix EP? - it has 3 tracks and costs 7.99 with only 2 available as single track only (making the UNKLE track over 6 to purchase). There are many EPs on the Euro stores which have just 2-3 tracks and still cost 7.99. (Incidentally the Incredibles EP on the US store is just 0.99c for all 3 tracks). There are also many EPs that cost just 1.99 which are much better value for money.

I guess it's down to the licensing so given all this, why can't they just sell the Band Aid single as a one track EP for 1.49?

wrldwzrd89
Nov 29, 2004, 04:37 AM
I don't understand this myth about all songs costing 79p. Have you checked out the Incredibles Remix EP? - it has 3 tracks and costs 7.99 with only 2 available as single track only (making the UNKLE track over 6 to purchase). There are many EPs on the Euro stores which have just 2-3 tracks and still cost 7.99. (Incidentally the Incredibles EP on the US store is just 0.99c for all 3 tracks). There are also many EPs that cost just 1.99 which are much better value for money.

I guess it's down to the licensing so given all this, why can't they just sell the Band Aid single as a one track EP for 1.49?
What's an EP? It sounds to me like Apple is using their album pricing structure for these and considers them albums, since they contain multiple tracks.

Stella
Nov 29, 2004, 07:09 AM
Apple will put the scripts of the US presidental debates on to US iTunes but will not put a charity song on the UK iTunes.

A sad day for Apple, unwilling to participate in a very high profile charity event.

Won't do them any good at all.

asif786
Nov 29, 2004, 07:24 AM
i think the donation to charity thing is a fairly good idea, but wouldnt a 2 million donation push iTunes into the red? from what I recall, iTMS was making a small profit. If I was head of the iTMS I wouldnt be willing to turn my project into a loss leader because of some UK PR stunt that will fizzle away after a few weeks..

Applespider - you're right, that song is terrible!!

/asif

happyadam
Nov 29, 2004, 08:43 AM
What's an EP? It sounds to me like Apple is using their album pricing structure for these and considers them albums, since they contain multiple tracks.

It's essentially a mini-album, somewhere between a single and an album. You're right Apple do consider these albums although most albums on iTunes that have less than 11 tracks are usually priced at 79p * the number of tracks. A lot of EPs are either priced at 1.99 or 79p * the number of tracks. I just find it frustrating when they charge 7.99 for 2 or 3 tracks - especially since there's quite a few I would consider purchasing but will not at this price (especially since I can't 'use' the music in most non iLife apps).

Still - charity singles could always be considered a one-track album and charged at the appropriate amount. Given U2's Bono has supported Band/Live Aid for the last 20 years I find it strange that this single won't appear on iTunes given all the recent Apple/U2 coverage.

asif786
Dec 1, 2004, 01:54 AM
Hey,

Apple is now selling the band aid single on the UK site. They are selling it for 79p,and they will donate a further 70p on every purchase to make the total 1.49..

Way to go Apple! Maybe iTMS will get some positive coverage in the news today :)

Loge
Dec 1, 2004, 02:03 AM
Way to go Apple! Maybe iTMS will get some positive coverage in the news today :)

Let's hope The Times will publish this news at least as prominently as they did the previous story. :p

Applespider
Dec 1, 2004, 03:57 AM
According to the BBC, iTMS is also selling the original Band Aid single with all proceeds going to Band Aid. Might buy that one instead since my original vinyl one doesn't seem to work in my slotloading drive! :rolleyes:

kiwi-in-uk
Dec 1, 2004, 04:06 AM
Hey,

Apple is now selling the band aid single on the UK site. They are selling it for 79p,and they will donate a further 70p on every purchase to make the total 1.49..

Way to go Apple! Maybe iTMS will get some positive coverage in the news today :)

Yep - both the 1984 and 2004 versions are at the standard price of 79p, with ITMS donating a further 70p on sales of the 2004 version. [EDIT: my mistake ... 70p for EACH song]

I think both are rubbish, but bought them anyway.

iGav
Dec 1, 2004, 06:03 AM
Unsurprsing considering the numbers it shifted on it's first day...

But they were taking heavy flack for their stance, even in the music industry. I wonder if it dawned that there is a real possibilty that Band Aid 20 might just match the success of Band Aid and then spawn Live Aid 20 and as such they wanted to avoid the seriously negative publicity that some of the heavyweight U.S. pop stars of '84 encountered when they spoke out against it until it was too late.