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.
iTunes Store Variable Pricing to Begin April 7th?
- Thread starter Lesser Evets
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good!
The way I look at it is... Given the state of music today, this is an "idiot tax".
Those who don't support mediocre, mass-marketed music (I swear I was not attempting alliteration... oops, I did it again... I'm not trying to reference Britney Spears, either)... will be rewarded with lower prices as they always have been, by and large. Those who absolutely need to have the latest pop crap available will pay a premium. Or not, if they end up pirating them.
Either way, it suits me just fine. Most of the music I've been buying is either back catalog stuff or new unpopular music.
This is great news for independent distribution and the continued trend toward leveling the playing field for obscure artists who would not stand a chance in the old physical distribution paradigm. Their production, promotion and distribution costs are lower, and they can profit more than the artist locked into serfdom whereby they must repay the advance loan given by the record company before they see a dime of royalties.
This will only drive the nail even further into the coffin of overexposed, overproduced mass garbage... especially in current economic conditions where people have next to no disposable income.
The way I look at it is... Given the state of music today, this is an "idiot tax".
Those who don't support mediocre, mass-marketed music (I swear I was not attempting alliteration... oops, I did it again... I'm not trying to reference Britney Spears, either)... will be rewarded with lower prices as they always have been, by and large. Those who absolutely need to have the latest pop crap available will pay a premium. Or not, if they end up pirating them.
Either way, it suits me just fine. Most of the music I've been buying is either back catalog stuff or new unpopular music.
This is great news for independent distribution and the continued trend toward leveling the playing field for obscure artists who would not stand a chance in the old physical distribution paradigm. Their production, promotion and distribution costs are lower, and they can profit more than the artist locked into serfdom whereby they must repay the advance loan given by the record company before they see a dime of royalties.
This will only drive the nail even further into the coffin of overexposed, overproduced mass garbage... especially in current economic conditions where people have next to no disposable income.
Windows 7, as pre-release software, should be compared with Snow Leopard, not the current retail version of OSX. And these rave reviews of Windows 7 you speak of are by no means universal. Oh, and OSX runs fine on my Core Duo.
I think this variable pricing is going to be bad news, particularly if a 1980's album like Born in the USA will go up in price.
I'd also be curious to see how many tracks fall to .69 There's a lot of "old" music on the store that I'm sure gets minimal sales... Could this be the time to stock up on those hits of the 70's?
Haha, I agree. It's all about these greedy record companies and the fact that they are upset that they are loosing out on money that they didn't earn in the first place. They are and have been pimping artists for ages and it's sad. The artists do all the work and lose out in more than one aspect.
I have long thought that the labels should be able to set their own prices. Don't we live in a free market, Steve?
They are FREE to sell their wares somewhere else at their prices. They WANT in the iTunes store and Steve is using this FREE market to sell at the prices he wants.
Working as intended.
Well, frankly if it's a song I really like then I probably really like the other stuff the artist does so I'd probably be buying the CD from Amazon anyway.
A lot of popular music is available on YouTube for streaming download anytime you want. Yeah the quality ain't great but it's at least as good as radio, and it's good enough for me for songs I'd like to hear now and again but don't really think I need to buy it to put on my iPod.
So that covers the top and bottom end, meaning I'd only be buying individual iTunes tracks for songs that I like more than "meh" but less than "Wow, I love this artist!" For me, raising the price 30% is enough for me to hold off.
If the record companies are setting the prices we are going to see 0.1% of the store at $0.69, 20% at $0.99 and 79.9% of the store at $1.29.I'd also be curious to see how many tracks fall to .69 There's a lot of "old" music on the store that I'm sure gets minimal sales... Could this be the time to stock up on those hits of the 70's?
I have long thought that the labels should be able to set their own prices. Don't we live in a free market, Steve?
"Free market" allows Steve to hit the labels with a clue stick, if and when they need it. I guess everyone should avoid to buy any $1.29 songs, to give the labels another clue.
AMEN. I stopped looking at the iTunes top music list years ago, especially after artists such as Nims with "This is Why I'm Hot" were number 1 hits for weeks at a time. After Britney Spears' crazy ho a$$ made a "comeback", my opinion of mass tastes in music dived to new lows.
Sadly I doubt that is the reason songs were cheaper on iTunes. I've had friends who put out 500 copies of their own work and even at such a low order number (500 vs. the 50,000+ record labels order), you can get each CD for about $2. Even if a CD was $5, they'd still have marked it up beyond 100%.
What you're really paying for is the copyright of the song ... and oddly enough, you're paying the middle man (the record companies) for that copyright mostly, not the artists who made something worth copyrighting. On the other side of the issue, record companies do _claim_ it's expensive to do what they do as most artists fail to break even, supposedly.
You should all use your consumer vote, your purchasing power: if you disapprove of something, don't buy it.
And to think, this is for the US. Will the new pricing be cross-border, or will us Canadians have songs priced at $0.79 and $1.49?
This is completely off left-field, but I need to know... why did you spell iTunes as "I-tunes". I see that enough to ask, mostly from non-Mac users. Is it a common-way words are spelled in certain parts of the world or something?
This is completely off left-field, but I need to know... why did you spell iTunes as "I-tunes". I see that enough to ask, mostly from non-Mac users. Is it a common-way words are spelled in certain parts of the world or something?
American corporations hate the fixed price model.
They are addicted to their tired bag of carnival tricks.
" buy two, get one free"
"was $1.99, now .99"
" free" ( read the fine print)
"low introductory rate"
I can go on and on and on.
They are also addicted to the sale.
Profit is less important than the sales figures themselves.
That is because every manager is subject to the almighty quarterly report.
They are addicted to their tired bag of carnival tricks.
" buy two, get one free"
"was $1.99, now .99"
" free" ( read the fine print)
"low introductory rate"
I can go on and on and on.
They are also addicted to the sale.
Profit is less important than the sales figures themselves.
That is because every manager is subject to the almighty quarterly report.
Yea, I know what you mean. I'm honestly not trying to be a snob here, but even the new iTunes "Indie Spotlight" section is mostly huge, mass marketed artists, eg Cat Power, The Decemberists, etc.
As a huge music lover, I'm a bit depressed over how little people understand the breadth of music out there: 99% of music put out you never hear of but companies that put out 1% of music (RIAA) have 99% of the perception of music; MTV, etc. act like its the only stuff out there, when lots of kids are making great songs and paying for a 300 copy pressing and selling it locally, etc. Sure there's lots of crap in that model too, but at least it's honest and lacks an RIAA-esque Big Brother.
That said, iTunes is actually fairly decent at letting the little guy sell his album. It'll never be spotlighted, but at least it's available in the same store.
I have a feeling we're going to see an increase in Amazon.Com music downloads.
Better quality (debatable) and less expensive (not debatable)= better deal all around.
I have always been an advocate of CD's anyway- better quality and now cheaper, too. The only d/l's I have are the freebies from Pepsi promotions.
Apple has no one to blame but themselves when they fall to # 3 by the end of the year, behind Wal Mart and Amazon.
Originally Posted by scooterbaga
Ya... It'd be nice to hear the explanation for how Supply/Demand logic actually applies to 'infinite' supply of digital downloads.
Good point!
Actually, this argument is a bit flawed... but rather than negate it entirely let me try to steer it in the right direction:
The logic behind it goes something like... the product is the distributed item. IT is not. The product is the music which is itself intangible. The various media in which it is fixed are tangible, but they're simply the method of delivery. It would be like arguing that if Ferrari increases their output to 2 million cars a year (exponentially more than present) that somehow the Ferrari design is worth about the same as a Ford, and Ferrari engineering is worth about the same as a Ford. Neither of which are true.
These facts would not change either the production costs OR the intangible value and demand for a particular band's music. Even if a lot of craftsmanship went into building a certain house, that says nothing of what the market is willing to pay for that house ... which may be based on entirely unrelated factors like location, which has nothing to do with appraising the house on a "cost basis.". Consequently, as many homeowners are discovering, putting $40,000 of renovations in a house does not always translate into $40,000 or greater increase in market price.
So now you have Artist A and Artist B. Artist A is a big star, not very talented, but a ton of money was thrust into their production and marketing. On a cost basis, their music is worth more. On an availability basis, their music can be argued to be worthless (because they sound like everyone else). But... there are STILL more people out there wanting Britney's albums than there are Britneys. Many times over. The record label can demand a high price for this artist's material, and expect to be paid it. Even if the value is low
Artist B is not very popular, and their talent is such that it is rarely found. Their production costs were low, since they recorded it all on a four track reel-to-reel, in one take in the bass player's living room (based on a true story... jazz trio I did CD mastering for had done it just like that). They won't ever see high demand, but their talent is rare, their music is very original (and therefore also rare), and so their value is high... but their price doesn't have to be in order for them to make a reasonable profit.
The key factor here is that value and price are not the same thing. Price is not exclusively driven by value, it's partly driven by fixed costs, but also driven by demand relative to the competition for acts that are similarly desirable... just like housing market prices are not driven entirely by how your house compares to every other house available on earth.
When it comes to dime-a-dozen pop stars, also consider that just like Coke, Pepsi, Big K and a bunch of lesser brands are absolutely the same, how often do people choose Coke instead? Why? Brand perception. Lots of money is put behind marketing a Britney as a brand unto herself. Even though she's utterly replaceable, the cost of creating a perception that defies reality are high and too must be recouped.... but they pay off in that they are often successful in creating that perception and therefore falsely inflating demand to counteract the broad supply of music like hers.
It also doesn't matter how many copies of Britney's latest album are crapped out by iTunes... People who believe that Britney is different will want Britney, and not the Kroger generic brand version of Britney, of which there are thousands.
But if you still don't believe me, may I ask what brand of soda you drink and why?
This seems to be a new business practice here in the states. I went to price a new Telecaster at my local mom & pop music store and Fender raised the price of all 2009 model year guitars almost 50%!! At first I thought the store was trying to pull a fast one on me, but since I have been a repeat customer the owner told me it was Fender's new pricing policy. Sell less and charge more. I went to a local mass market music store (Guitar Center) and they told me the same thing. I guess some business will try any angle to grab you're cash!