EMI chairman says Apple's iTunes Music Store's single 99-c...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #2
    They'll charge less for some tracks? That's a ripe one.
     
  3. macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #3
    I see them pushing a price range from 89¢ for the older tracks to $1.99 for 'hot' new releases. That way they can claim to be lowering prices, when in fact they can jack the average price to $1.59 or something.

    If they are interested in deterring piracy, they had better not raise the prices any.
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    mainstreetmark

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #4
    First, I didn't read the article. I assume it's the same stuff.

    Secondly, Aren't there like 500 million legally downloaded tracks now? I know that some of those are mine, and I also know that if I didn't download them from Apple, they'd be pirated because I can't be bothered going into a music store these days.

    So, I can say for certain that Apple's 99cent price has detered at least 2 dozen tracks to NOT be pirated. I can also say for certain that number would be much larger if the track price were half of what it is.
     
  5. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #5
    EMI have done so for many years. They have a whole division (EMI Special Markets, formerly CEMA Special Markets) dedicated (in the retail area) to selling discounted music from their back catalogue.

    CDs on their Collectables label usually list for $6.98 or $7.98, with a street of around $5. Compare to new major releases that are listing for $18.98 and selling for $13 or 14.

    Of course, things like that will be ignored because they are inconvenient to peoples' justifications to go out and steal.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    #6
    So if in his opinion, a lower price doesn't equal a better value, he must be talking about giving more for the money spent. An interesting concept, and I'd be curious to see how he follows it up.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Sharewaredemon

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Location:
    Pitch forking mulch in Nova Scotia, Canada
    #7
    Which is what Apple is doing, offering 2 million songs, for 99 cents per song.

    The iTunes store is convenient (read: in your home)
    and a good value (read: not highway robbery).

    Piss off Record exec!
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Superdrive

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx
    #8
    Sure, you can say 99¢ doesn't deter piracy. I can tell you anything higher than that will promote piracy.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    zelmo

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Mac since 7.5
    #9
    I agree. Having a single price does nothing to deter piracy, it just makes it simple for consumers to keep track of spending. What deters piracy is keeping the price of songs low enough that you reduce the incentive to steal songs to the point where most people are content to just pay for their music. Go ahead and lower the price of back catalog songs to $0.79 or something. Just don't start charging $1.99 for the good tracks, or people will just steal them instead of buy them. XX% of $0.99 is a lot better than 0% of $1.99.

    Is being an idiot now a prerequisite for working for a record company?
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Sharewaredemon

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Location:
    Pitch forking mulch in Nova Scotia, Canada
    #10

    No I think it has always been that way.
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #11
    Sorry, but I've got to quote about a quarter of the article here:

    Single Price == Convenience. Multiple prices == Inconvenience.

    Low price == value. Higher average price (with a few cheapies out there if you happen upon them) == lower value.

    Case Study 1: iTMS. Case Study 2 (antithesis): BuyMusic.com

    While "convenience" and "value" are indeed the things which "deter piracy", it is quite clear that iTMS offers both of those, and that all proposed replacement systems coming from the music industry quite directly attacks them both. So, I don't see his point, except to confuse the issues here.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #12
    No, no, no. You misunderstand. This isn't about Value to the Consumer. This is about Value to the Record Companies.
     
  13. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #13
    There are scads of EMI albums that simply aren't available on iTunes because the Apple price would be higher than the current CD list. Apple still carry most (but not all) of those tracks, by way carrying older similar albums from the higher-priced EMI labels.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    paulypants

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #14
    I can say that it does deter piracy in my case (and others I know).
    However, raising prices means I'm gonna have to fire up Acquisition again...
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    #15
    If these music companies ever force apple to raise their prices, especially to $2 for a "hit" song, I'm going to do the following:
    Now that you can drag previews of songs into a playlist and create an imix of songs you don't actually own (or didn't buy on iTunes and you want to make sure you get the iTMS references right), I'm going to create a iMix of ever song in the worst record company's catalog. It will be titled "DON'T BUY THIS CLICK HERE." In the description of the iMix it will give an explanation of all of this malarchy and explaining why in the name of fair pricing they should not buy this music and should use another outlet. Or another record label. Maybe an address to mail an angry letter. Hopefully everone in macrumors will give it enough high rating so that it will be the top rated imix containing the record company's entire library. Sound like a plan?
     
  16. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #16
    ?!? :confused:

    Just because the iTunes price/song is $0.99 that doesn't mean all albums at itunes are $9.99 or more. In fact many albums with less than 10 songs are sold at the per track price, and there are many other albums that are cheaper than $9.99 for more than 10 tracks. A quick example:

    http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=43068 17 songs for $7.99. Amazon.com reported list price $13.98

    Plus all the Rhino Hi-Five's which sell for $3.96 for five tracks. (Granted that's more than the $3.61 list price in 192 kbps WMA format from Rhino).

    I don't see anything stopping EMI from listing albums below $9.99 if that's their desire.

    B

    EDITS: Clarity & typos.
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    #17
    I simply prefer the "buck" a song, knowing that if I have twelve songs in my basket, I basically have twelve bucks I'm paying to iTMS. I think many people might feel the same way.

    All I'm saying is don't complicate the process, especially at this stage in the game. We are still in the infancy of legal download sales being a success. Raising or tinkering with the prices will not encourage people to use iTMS. I believe a simple process will, which includes common prices.

    Just my two cents, but I'm a blathering fool most days.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    mrsebastian

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Location:
    sunny san diego
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    #19
    OK, I'll just keep posting this in comments every time some article with a dopey-arse record exec comes out with a 'raise download prices' talking point:

    New release tunes should be $.99, older tracks should cost less - that's a variable price model that will work, and will help cut down on piracy.

    Now that the infrastructure is in place and people have grasped the concept of downloads, there's no reason why individual songs should cost MORE. If anything, they should cost less now that Apple's moved from concept to functioning business.
     
  20. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #20
    That doesn't help. The way those albums are licensed, offering individual tracks at the higher price isn't on. Apple don't make room for lower prices on single tracks, and making all the tracks album only wouldn't be an option either.
     
  21. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #21
    I must have misunderstood.

    I though you were saying that some low priced EMI albums were not on iTunes because the albums would be priced higher than CD list price. I was just pointing out that track price and album price are not tied together on iTMS. There are plenty of bargains, another one is "Tommy by The Who" also $7.99 on iTunes $13.98 at Amazon for 24 tracks.

    Perhaps it would help me understand your point if you could give a concrete example of one of the EMI albums you think is not on iTunes only because of price.

    B
     
  22. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #22
    As above, the Special Markets labels such as Collectables largely don't participate. Those are all back catalog albums, greatest hits collections and compilations, sold at about half price. A trivial Google search will turn up hundreds of examples.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    asif786

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #23
    thank you. i couldn't have said it better myself..

    i would love to see apple pull all of their tracks from iTunes for one day..and then they'll see just what they're dealing with.

    i struggle to see how the record labels could be so ungrateful to apple. they've completely transformed the entire music business..and they're still complaining..

    geez, i'm not sure who i hate more now - edgar bronfman* or bill gates.

    *yes, i know he isn't the EMI ceo but he made similar comments last week.
     
  24. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #24
    "I'm not persuaded of the fact that a lower price deters piracy."

    So... raise the price? :confused:

    The recording industry is starting to damage my calm.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Loge

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #25
    "I'm not persuaded of the fact that a lower price deters piracy."

    But he does at least concede that it's a fact.
     

Share This Page