iPod Boycott all $1,29 songs

[chrono1081]

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

+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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? 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]

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]

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' 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]

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]

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' 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.