Universal Music Group eLabs president expects digital pricin...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Jul 24, 2002
    I'd be very happy with back catalog music selling for lower prices...that's mostly the type of stuff I get from the iTMS. It makes sense for the biz too - they don't have many promotional costs to recoup on a 30 year old track.
  3. Administrator emeritus


    Jun 28, 2002
    North Central Colorado
    I think this is a bad idea. If there's a consistent price per song, then there's no confusion when it comes to figureing out how much your digital shopping trip is.

    and besides, I think Earth Wind & Fire (along with a whole lot of other artists) deserve every penny of .99¢ per song to this day.
  4. arn
    macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001

    I think for consistency... it's much better to keep all (of iTunes at least) at $.99
  5. macrumors 603


    Jul 3, 2002
    Middle Earth
    I agree with this guy

    I don't see tracks remaining at .99 for the really large bands. I think a high of 1.49 would be suited for new popular cuts. With a Majority of tracks at .99 and plenty of back Catalog at .69.

    The reason why is because this is the model that DVD is using very sucessfully. New Titles hit at $19 and depending on sales the Studios ratchet the price down as the Movies sales diminish. This way you create excitement about a recent pricecut ( XXX songs are now .99 let me buy).

    .99 is cute but if you condition the consumer to believe that everything should be .99 they won't perceive enough value. Independents will have to compete with Megabuck Superstars. Not fair .
  6. Administrator emeritus


    Jun 28, 2002
    North Central Colorado
    Re: I agree with this guy (but I don't)

    But I think that .99 is exactly fair, and that for the first time the independents are on an even playing field with the superstars. The point of the single-song-downloads to me is that I'm not paying some recording company lotsa dollars for tracks that either a) aren't good or b) aren't to my liking (whether good or bad) that I didn't want to pay for in the first place. Superstar bands aren't better musicians than independents, they just have a better advertising budget behind them that drives their sales, and a more polished image made by a stylist. It makes the superstars work just as hard making MUSIC and not just the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine or the hot seat on TRL.

    I'd rather listen to musicians than models anyday. And I'd rather them get the money from me for their effort, not for their advertising.

    (the preceding comment was written by someone who works for an ad agency)

    Oh yeah, and maybe they shouldn't be megabuck superstars. Maybe they should only be able to sell the one song on their album worth anything, instead of forcing their listeners to hear the drivel that filled the rest of the album that the record label wanted on there.

    What I mean is:
    Q: Should Backstreet Boys really be millionaires?

    A: Nope.
  7. macrumors 6502a


    Jul 10, 2001
    Torrance, Californizzel
    Re: I agree with this guy

    I agree with you nuts....first and foremost, the Music industry are the ones that will eventually dictate if they want to continue with the current .99price model or get greedy(understament) and screw everything up " Records president/COO Charles Goldstuck said Apple's success is challenging the music industry to take more risks in regards to digital distribution. However, he cautioned that the industry is still looking for the right pricing model."

    Right price model? Sounds a little fishy to me..I know they have to search for the right price but in the end, its all about making more money in the end, right? ugh...I hope that doesn't foreshadow riffs between the music industry and Apple....

Share This Page