Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple vs Music Industry on Song Pricing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Music moguls are blind
In seeing all the money from music downloads they are missing the big picture Apple has in front of them. Think about it. Garageband and Logic Pro are the tools Apple has given to everyone at a very low cost. Apple has been rumored to be working on a direct submit method for music to be sold through the iTunes store. If the music industry cuts them off, Apple will open the taps to direct submit music from everyone. Albeit they will have to devise a system to rate the music in order to keep the fluff off. But they can and they will do it. They will do an end around the marketing lock up of the music industry. If the music industry cooperates, then Apple will only delay the inevitable. By allow direct submit music to the music store Apple profits goes up dramatically per song.
In seeing all the money from music downloads they are missing the big picture Apple has in front of them. Think about it. Garageband and Logic Pro are the tools Apple has given to everyone at a very low cost. Apple has been rumored to be working on a direct submit method for music to be sold through the iTunes store. If the music industry cuts them off, Apple will open the taps to direct submit music from everyone. Albeit they will have to devise a system to rate the music in order to keep the fluff off. But they can and they will do it. They will do an end around the marketing lock up of the music industry. If the music industry cooperates, then Apple will only delay the inevitable. By allow direct submit music to the music store Apple profits goes up dramatically per song.
Edgar Bronfan, Jr. is seeing the digital content as being a major source of growth.
He also feels that people in the US will willingly to pay ringtone prices for music on their cellphones, and he is citing the Japanese 1 million users = 10 million songs purchased as an example.
He has been giving a lot of speeches lately poking the stick at Apple.
While I don't like Bronfan, he is back to what he does best -- music.
Though right now the Warner Music is in as much turmoil as Apple was when Steve got back and Bronfan sees the digital content as the revenue stream of the future.
How greedy he gets grabbing that revenue should be interesting, if he spends too much time on this -- the talent will bolt, some already think that Warner Music isn't offering them enough support (ie, like spending too much time on the IPO and forgetting to support them.)
He also feels that people in the US will willingly to pay ringtone prices for music on their cellphones, and he is citing the Japanese 1 million users = 10 million songs purchased as an example.
He has been giving a lot of speeches lately poking the stick at Apple.
While I don't like Bronfan, he is back to what he does best -- music.
Though right now the Warner Music is in as much turmoil as Apple was when Steve got back and Bronfan sees the digital content as the revenue stream of the future.
How greedy he gets grabbing that revenue should be interesting, if he spends too much time on this -- the talent will bolt, some already think that Warner Music isn't offering them enough support (ie, like spending too much time on the IPO and forgetting to support them.)
onemoof said:
But the RIAA doesn't think that way. They think that no matter what the price is, you'll keep buying the same amount of music every year.
Buying an album on the iTMS is already close to the price of the actual CD (which has "lossless tracks"), they simply want to increase the prices on iTMS so that they'll either make more profits from people buying on-line or make more profit by pushing people back to CDs, where they have total control on the market.
The only thing Apple (and the planet) needs is a big-label artist to end his contract with the labels and sign up as an iTMS exclusive. Then, people will (hopefully) wake up and realise that big labels aren't needed anymore. It's artist->iTMS->customer, not artist->big labels->manufacturing->shipping->retail store->consumer.
Considering most of the crap that is being produced these days I wouldn't pay a higher price for it. These record companies have got to be kidding me, their greed meets no ends it seems. Let's face it they produce lousy singers (who unless they are male and prepared to take off their t-shirt or female and prepared to dance like a stripper) wouldn't sell a single a few years back.
On tiered pricing :: How about the following business model?
$3 per song? Sure. No problem. Provide those songs exclusively in the highest sampling rate possible as part of a Video Format when say the iPod can just randomly play any full-length video we see on MTV or directly from the label.
Say you had an artist who made 5 MTV videos. 5 x 3 = $15 you get plenty of cash. Provide a non-video version of the song at $.99.
If somone blows a real nut for the videos they will buy the "add-on" options.
Example: 50-cent. Say he has those 5 videos and 15 songs in total. If the person gets the entire audio only album for $9.99 but then purchases separately up to 5 videos you effectively make more than what you would by selling the cd in your local store.
Fans will go to extreme lengths to get as much footage of their favorite artist.
Work with Apple to produce a viable video market and watch your bottomline expand.
Demanding Apple jack the rates on a multi-tier structure as measured by popularity, for 128kbps audio, isn't going to win over consumers who want be able to preserve choice.
With this model both Apple and the RIAA can be respected "pimps." You reserve choice to the consumer who will enjoy the options.
Apple is already allowing video so if they see the demand for custom packaging options go up they can adjust their hardware to meet the perceived and requested demand.
This can lead into other content producing markets that utilize video as a medium.
$3 per song? Sure. No problem. Provide those songs exclusively in the highest sampling rate possible as part of a Video Format when say the iPod can just randomly play any full-length video we see on MTV or directly from the label.
Say you had an artist who made 5 MTV videos. 5 x 3 = $15 you get plenty of cash. Provide a non-video version of the song at $.99.
If somone blows a real nut for the videos they will buy the "add-on" options.
Example: 50-cent. Say he has those 5 videos and 15 songs in total. If the person gets the entire audio only album for $9.99 but then purchases separately up to 5 videos you effectively make more than what you would by selling the cd in your local store.
Fans will go to extreme lengths to get as much footage of their favorite artist.
Work with Apple to produce a viable video market and watch your bottomline expand.
Demanding Apple jack the rates on a multi-tier structure as measured by popularity, for 128kbps audio, isn't going to win over consumers who want be able to preserve choice.
With this model both Apple and the RIAA can be respected "pimps." You reserve choice to the consumer who will enjoy the options.
Apple is already allowing video so if they see the demand for custom packaging options go up they can adjust their hardware to meet the perceived and requested demand.
This can lead into other content producing markets that utilize video as a medium.
mdriftmeyer said:
You go into all ths math with dollars and cents, and then you have to complicate things by choosing "50-cent" as your example.
Seriously, I could see some setup like this warranting higher prices, with some value-add content, but I don't think it would fly if it was simply just the songs themselves, and nothing else that a person was expected to pay $3 (or whatever amount) for.
ok iam a no name artisits iam not signed and i only push my creative flow when iam in the mood iam not a money grabbing bastard but ive had to deal with record lables in the past and from my own exsprince what they want will really just kill off what iTunes has created ... WHO in there right mind will pay $3 dollars for a track sorry it wont happen u take it up to say a dollar $150 thats a cheeck in itself ... Like i said i aint signed iam not good enough but i do kno know this much what these gits are like and its profit for them and no one else fair enough there in a bussines to make money not just to entertain people but chirst money only gets u so much if that makes sense ..
I really think they should keep the system as it is not change it its worked so far and whats not broken dont fix it sort of thing
I really think they should keep the system as it is not change it its worked so far and whats not broken dont fix it sort of thing
synergy said:
Who is protecting us from the "fluff" now?
...I guess one man's "fluff"
simpson girls,
theory of a deadman,
duff,
black eye peas(how many ways can I sing no no no no)
is another man's treasure
not sure if this has been addressed or not. I havent read every post, but those I did concentrated soley on the tiered pricing.
But from what I was reading on slashdot.org, is that the music companies want MORE than tierd pricing. They want part of the profit from the sale of iPods!
it seems they believe that their music drives the sale of ipods and that they deserved a part of the profit from the sale of ipods.
But from what I was reading on slashdot.org, is that the music companies want MORE than tierd pricing. They want part of the profit from the sale of iPods!
it seems they believe that their music drives the sale of ipods and that they deserved a part of the profit from the sale of ipods.
Methinks the deal with Apple Corps. [McCartney & gang] wouldn't allow that, unless of course they come to some mutually beneficial agreement...Yvan256 said:
Maybe aritsts could sign up with CD Baby http://www.cdbaby.com/ and sell their music on iTMS that way? They pass on 91% of download revenue to the artist.
B
Lord Blackadder said:
Whoa. Now, let's be careful about using newspeak. Downloading music from the internet is not stealing, it is copyright infringement. There is a difference and it's important.
Now, ethically and legally, copyright infringment can have the same penalties as stealing, but they are different things, dealing with different parts of the law and require a different way of thinking.
If I steal a car, I am robbing someone of a physical, tangible object. If I download music, I am making a copythe fact that this copy can be exactly like the original is mootand am I not depriving someone of a CD, but merely the potential money I might have spent on the CD.
And it doesn't matter whether or not the RIAA is a corrupt body or a bunch of nuns, or whether I'm poor and hungry and really need my Jay-Z fix, it's still wrong.
But, copyright infringment and stealing are different and the minute we all start recognizing that is the minute we can understand how Intellectual Property should work.
The RIAA is killing the golden goose here because they're afraid of Apple's rising powerand Steve Job's tooand they're afraid they will loose control of the music business.
synergy said:
You obviously have never been involved in the business side of the music industry. As a recording engineer and producer in a professional studio I can say with confidence that ALL albums which compete with label content cost at least $20,000 to produce. Most major label releases cost between $60,000 and $300,000 to produce, and then you have another $100,000 and up for promotion and radio payola costs.
Recording a professional level album by someone with no experience with garage band in thier living room would be like flying to the moon on a Ugo, it's simply not possible.
I'd like to hear the opinions of music artists and music customers on this iTunes pricing issue.
What do the artists think about iTunes?
iTunes has beome incredibly popular among the youth. It would be very useful to hear their views about pricing and such.
I applaud Steve Jobs for drawing a line in the sand against the almighty RIAA.
Also I am appalled that Bronfan thinks he has a right to the iPod revenue stream. Do the record labels receive a cut from every radio, CD player, television and jukebox sold? I don't think so.
What do the artists think about iTunes?
iTunes has beome incredibly popular among the youth. It would be very useful to hear their views about pricing and such.
I applaud Steve Jobs for drawing a line in the sand against the almighty RIAA.
Also I am appalled that Bronfan thinks he has a right to the iPod revenue stream. Do the record labels receive a cut from every radio, CD player, television and jukebox sold? I don't think so.
the7trumpets said:
No, but someone with lots of experience doesn't need the equipment they used to. A good engineers may be more and more able to lay down good tracks without the massive studio infrastructure they used to.
So, rather than a Saturn IV maybe you just need a F-15 to go to the moon, with the right increases in the F-15s engines. I guess the metaphor falls apart, but think of what can be done in print, photography, etc. with less and less equipment. Good engineers are artists, but the technology will steadily be shrunken down to something cheap and small. Garageband/Logic are just the beginning.
This isn't going to go over very well with consumers. While not everyone is in my age group, I think we make a good (at least 10%) of the music buyers on the iTMS. Increased pricing isn't going to win more people in this age group over to buying songs, and we as an age group will probably buy less songs and pirate more or buy songs over a greater amount of time.
I fit into the second category.
I have over 3000 tracks in my iTunes library, and I can say every one of them except two are legal (either CD or purchased on the iTMS). The two illegal ones that I have are songs that I looked for off of Limewire recently and have decided that I'll purchase when I have the money (or I should say, when it's convenient for me to add some money to my account, since I don't like having my credit card attached to my account).
If prices go up, I won't be purchasing the same volume of songs that I currently do, and I'll probably go back to buying CD's (something I haven't done in years) since they're lossless and usually have extras (like the actual CD and cover).
This is one person, me. I can only wonder how many more people are similar to myself.
-Chase
I fit into the second category.
I have over 3000 tracks in my iTunes library, and I can say every one of them except two are legal (either CD or purchased on the iTMS). The two illegal ones that I have are songs that I looked for off of Limewire recently and have decided that I'll purchase when I have the money (or I should say, when it's convenient for me to add some money to my account, since I don't like having my credit card attached to my account).
If prices go up, I won't be purchasing the same volume of songs that I currently do, and I'll probably go back to buying CD's (something I haven't done in years) since they're lossless and usually have extras (like the actual CD and cover).
This is one person, me. I can only wonder how many more people are similar to myself.
-Chase
HiRez said:
That's true. Please read what happened at New Zealand's Rock Star show this month (info from News.com.au):
---
FORMER frontman of Noiseworks and one-time INXS lead singer Jon Stevens has lashed out at reality TV show Rock Star, calling it Mock Star and criticising the band members of the Aussie rock group.
Stevens - who is currently judging New Zealand Idol - ranted about the show, and advised Rock Star winner J.D. Fortune to make sure he had a good lawyer, because he was going to be "raped and pillaged".
"Mock Star's main objective is money, money and greed," he raved on a live taping of NZ Idol.
---
80's mixtapes v stealing
In the 80's a few people wholesale copied tapes and traded them. That was all they did. A lot more people would make a mix tape and loan it out or give it to someone. We even erased tapes and put other things on them. Nobody had a library with 128,000 songs that they had never listened to. Sometimes we'd even mix one song into another (remember the sampling debates?). But what we were doing, in general, was making a thematic mix of samples from albums. On a tape a song is a linear sample. You could get digital track skips; but the analog medium defines each side as a linear track. There were few if any singles available in the US (still the same), so if you wanted your friend who listened to band x and y to check out band z then mixing a tape w/ a composition w/ a song from x, y, z, z, y or something like that would be a good introduction. A tape that didn't suck (because fast forwarding through tracks was annoying and that's what the industry was shoving down peoples throats). More often than not your original (cheaper than recordable) tape broke. I have a box of them, but the record companies wouldn't give me a license for all those songs when they format shifted from vinyl and cassette to cd. I don't think taking a single song from a cassette and mixing it in with other single songs for the purpose or educating your friend on a band or a genre of music was stealing. You couldn't very well trap them in a car and switch 30 pre-cued tapes w/o an argument or accident. More often than not they would end up buying an album by z so it's a sale. I saw that as fair use.
Now let's get to that 'you must not be a musician'. Before LZ bands were reamed when they did concerts etc. Someone in the US stuck up for some cash and they got it. Fine. A lot of music made by people who have a primary motivation of financial advancement is not bad. A lot of music made by people who like to write songs and play music is often better. I think the 'I'm an artist' point becomes distorted if you frame the profits based on what an individual on a large label gets. Indy music online makes money. There's also no reason Apple couldn't reach some agreement to become a label if they wanted. Apple is just missing the pseudo-indy labels (MOS) because they are stuck in WMA land. What happens with soundtracks for Pixar movies?
As to the cost of recording. Who thinks they need a record company for this? It's not the cost of recording, or reproducing your tracks, it's marketing. Advertising is one of the biggest obstacles for the most talented musicians. If it's on ITMS it's getting it free.
Now, when we started getting CD's I didn't feel that burning a mix of different tracks for a friend was stealing. Why? Partially because I'd already paid for 3 different licenses of each song and probably a forth if I count the broken and replaced tapes. Also I feel it is fair use. I'm physically giving her a mix of different songs the overall theme I designed and letting her hear new music in a manner that tempts her to purchase more. I'm not going to let someone rip 1000's of my cds. Forget it. I think fair use should apply when you make a mix for a friend, but duping cd's and movies over and over is just theft. If they didn't have a single dvd and couldn't get a pirate one I think they might just rent or buy one. It's not like it's that expensive to rent a movie.
When we get down to music tracks on ITMS there's no point in a quality and pricepoint debate. If anything the best marker of a songs quality is the number of times it was purchased at an identical price to other tracks in the same store. If the price changes the marker changes to take in SES and it becomes skewed and invalid. Forget sales based ratings because they are gone.
P2P is theft. You are giving away or taking individual tracks; sometimes whole albums from anonymous individuals without purchasing anything. If you do p2p to sample and then buy something (deleting your songs later) then I might call that selective sampling. It does put a minor dent in the record industry; but lets remember that a lot of the people out there wouldn't buy 3000 cds. They might have a small collection of 30 and keep it there, but that's it.
P2P w/o every paying=theft. Turning people onto a group of tracks from analog linear formats=promotion. P2P and purchasing new songs=selective sampling. ITMS pricing=fair. Variable pricing=skewed and popularity based on pricing. Oh wait...that's how culture is controlled...
If the prices are raised on ITMS I will purchase less music and selectively by a few cds. I will purchase less music overall and the people who are complaining about this (Warner) will lose money.
revjay said:
In the 80's a few people wholesale copied tapes and traded them. That was all they did. A lot more people would make a mix tape and loan it out or give it to someone. We even erased tapes and put other things on them. Nobody had a library with 128,000 songs that they had never listened to. Sometimes we'd even mix one song into another (remember the sampling debates?). But what we were doing, in general, was making a thematic mix of samples from albums. On a tape a song is a linear sample. You could get digital track skips; but the analog medium defines each side as a linear track. There were few if any singles available in the US (still the same), so if you wanted your friend who listened to band x and y to check out band z then mixing a tape w/ a composition w/ a song from x, y, z, z, y or something like that would be a good introduction. A tape that didn't suck (because fast forwarding through tracks was annoying and that's what the industry was shoving down peoples throats). More often than not your original (cheaper than recordable) tape broke. I have a box of them, but the record companies wouldn't give me a license for all those songs when they format shifted from vinyl and cassette to cd. I don't think taking a single song from a cassette and mixing it in with other single songs for the purpose or educating your friend on a band or a genre of music was stealing. You couldn't very well trap them in a car and switch 30 pre-cued tapes w/o an argument or accident. More often than not they would end up buying an album by z so it's a sale. I saw that as fair use.
Now let's get to that 'you must not be a musician'. Before LZ bands were reamed when they did concerts etc. Someone in the US stuck up for some cash and they got it. Fine. A lot of music made by people who have a primary motivation of financial advancement is not bad. A lot of music made by people who like to write songs and play music is often better. I think the 'I'm an artist' point becomes distorted if you frame the profits based on what an individual on a large label gets. Indy music online makes money. There's also no reason Apple couldn't reach some agreement to become a label if they wanted. Apple is just missing the pseudo-indy labels (MOS) because they are stuck in WMA land. What happens with soundtracks for Pixar movies?
As to the cost of recording. Who thinks they need a record company for this? It's not the cost of recording, or reproducing your tracks, it's marketing. Advertising is one of the biggest obstacles for the most talented musicians. If it's on ITMS it's getting it free.
Now, when we started getting CD's I didn't feel that burning a mix of different tracks for a friend was stealing. Why? Partially because I'd already paid for 3 different licenses of each song and probably a forth if I count the broken and replaced tapes. Also I feel it is fair use. I'm physically giving her a mix of different songs the overall theme I designed and letting her hear new music in a manner that tempts her to purchase more. I'm not going to let someone rip 1000's of my cds. Forget it. I think fair use should apply when you make a mix for a friend, but duping cd's and movies over and over is just theft. If they didn't have a single dvd and couldn't get a pirate one I think they might just rent or buy one. It's not like it's that expensive to rent a movie.
When we get down to music tracks on ITMS there's no point in a quality and pricepoint debate. If anything the best marker of a songs quality is the number of times it was purchased at an identical price to other tracks in the same store. If the price changes the marker changes to take in SES and it becomes skewed and invalid. Forget sales based ratings because they are gone.
P2P is theft. You are giving away or taking individual tracks; sometimes whole albums from anonymous individuals without purchasing anything. If you do p2p to sample and then buy something (deleting your songs later) then I might call that selective sampling. It does put a minor dent in the record industry; but lets remember that a lot of the people out there wouldn't buy 3000 cds. They might have a small collection of 30 and keep it there, but that's it.
P2P w/o every paying=theft. Turning people onto a group of tracks from analog linear formats=promotion. P2P and purchasing new songs=selective sampling. ITMS pricing=fair. Variable pricing=skewed and popularity based on pricing. Oh wait...that's how culture is controlled...
If the prices are raised on ITMS I will purchase less music and selectively by a few cds. I will purchase less music overall and the people who are complaining about this (Warner) will lose money.
the7trumpets said:
You obviously are not familiar with real business. Go read up on the recent payola deals. You might want to talk to Spitzer, he might be interested to hear what you have to say about use of payola. That is if you are who you say you are.
As for all your mondo costs, check out magnatune.com some time. How many of those artists are hooking into a professional studio? Don't write them off.
Another data point that I forgot to consider, with respect to mix tapes, is that I don't think anyone really gave dubbed copies much thought. Why? Because the quality became crap after one or two passes. So when one person buys an original and his friends dub a copy, they're getting inferior quality copies. If they go ahead and redub, it gets worse and worse. This puts a practical limit on the number of times you could copy something.
You could always just buy your own original cassette or LP if you wanted the quality version.
Nowadays when you buy a CD and rip a track and post it to Limewire, thousands upon thousands can get it, and pass it on to even more people, and everyone has a copy that's just about as good as the original, with no degradation and therefore no end-of-life.
That might be a factor.
You could always just buy your own original cassette or LP if you wanted the quality version.
Nowadays when you buy a CD and rip a track and post it to Limewire, thousands upon thousands can get it, and pass it on to even more people, and everyone has a copy that's just about as good as the original, with no degradation and therefore no end-of-life.
That might be a factor.
Suddenly, I am reminded of Kurt Cobain's album Bleach which, if I'm not mistaken, cost about $600 to make, with recording equipment not nearly as good as Logic Pro.the7trumpets said:
But hey, I'm a little nostalgic myself, and visit here quite frequently: http://www.reeltoreel.de/worldwide/
Almost a shame how good these computers have become...
the7trumpets said:
You do know that in the US, payola is illegal, right? That it gives RIAA companies an unfair advantage and alladat?
If you support payola, you're just as big a slime-ball criminal as the people who are p2p nuts and have cabinets full of pirated material including (hopefully) yours.
[Edit] Allow me to add to this thought. You state that making an album costs a lot of money, right? Well you're the one paying for it, and I don't see why making an album should guarantee you profit either.
If you spend $100,000 to do an album through the RIAA instead of going to a smaller publisher, and yet you don't make your money back, that's your own problem. This is just like any person who starts a business, hey look man just because you go and try to play fake-ass alternative rock like half the things in the top 100 doesn't mean you're guaranteed to make money.
People actually have to LIKE your product and WANT to buy it. If you barely break even after doing everything RIGHT (and legal) through whatever publisher you choose to go through, or worse yet you loose money, well that's your own fault, because obviously to your target audience, your product wasn't worth the money.
At a dollar a song, all you need is 20,000 copies of the 15 or so songs on your album sold, that gives you about 15 chances to make 20,000 sales, if not more. That's 1334 CDs to break even, if you plan to deal that way.
I think it's stupid that some artists feel like we OWE THEM. I owe you and nobody else who stands on a stage and sings or plays whatever anything, if I want to listen to their music though, I can turn on a radio, listen, and turn it off afterwards -- I won't hear a single ad and in turn "haven't paid you", you know what? Too bad.
Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to like it, and if you can get enough people to like it, you'll make money. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.
Ya Right
Please, by all means talk for yourself and you alone. Some of us, (me), have been caught with a library of 4,000 illegally downloaded songs plus 1,400 dollars worth of software. If i get caught again, I'm going to jail, plain and simple. Also, about beating on doors, three kids at my campus at UMD have been fined and put in jail and are awaiting trials on record company lawsuits. So when you say no one is gona beat down your door, you better watch what your saying because it does happen.
Sdashiki said:
Please, by all means talk for yourself and you alone. Some of us, (me), have been caught with a library of 4,000 illegally downloaded songs plus 1,400 dollars worth of software. If i get caught again, I'm going to jail, plain and simple. Also, about beating on doors, three kids at my campus at UMD have been fined and put in jail and are awaiting trials on record company lawsuits. So when you say no one is gona beat down your door, you better watch what your saying because it does happen.
I really couldn't see Steve budging on this. What I could see is all Warner artists disappearing from the ITMS as the exec either prices them off the market or just angers SJ too much.