Music Labels See Slower iTunes Sales Growth in Wake of Price Increases

[Jonny75]

The music industry doesn't get it.

The film industry is walking a similar path and the gimmick of 3D will not change it.

To fight against free, you don't put up your prices. The record and film industry had it easy in the 70s and 80s and lessons should have been learnt in the 90/00s. It may take a new generation of executives before they realise.

 

[macshill2]

Ditto my brother.

Amazon offers same content but cheaper. Also, I don't want to push iTunes into being the sole place, in the future, to buy music/videos/movies - as monopolies won't benefit anyone.

Sssshh... don't tell *LTD* this. His head might explode. He's one of the most diehard Kool-Aid drinkers possible.

Hmm...? On second thought (tell him! lol).

 

[Bubba Satori]

Yup. Some people fell asleep in economics 101.

Maybe Edgar thinks that price elasticity means his $50 dollar socks should be more comfortable.

 

[mozart11]

You spent $8000 on what you consider crap? I need to get into the Port-a-John business.

I use music for work. So I used to buy pretty much anything I needed or if I thought I needed. At $1.29 I do not buy it if I don't need it. I used to buy to have the music for work. Not anymore. .99 is too expensive too.

.10-.20 cents per song is what music should be on iTunes. ANd the band websites should be giving it away.

 

[freiheit]

No! Really?!

No! Really?! When the raise prices, people buy less? I didn't get a degree in economics, but I think I could have told them that.

 

[kushninja]

When the iTunes store first came out, I was a kazaa user. I switched to iTunes because for the music that was worth it, I wanted the artists to get paid. As time went on and I learned how much the artists were actually getting, I bought less. Then the tiered pricing came (mostly upward tier) it just showed me how even more greedy those record label bastards are.

It sickens me so much that for the last couple of years I refused to buy music and went the torrent route. Obviously this isn't 100% right but there's more to it.

What we need is a "hybrid" system like others have suggested. My personal belief is that we should go to the source vs paying two (or more) extra companys in the process. Go to the artists website and buy from them. There was a place for record labels in the past, but they've gotten out of hand.

 

[likemyorbs]

Sooooo these idiots are the people im supposed to feel bad for when i pirate my music?? After reading this article i want to go pirate a few more albums. ARRR!!

PS
And another thing. Why do artists need these retarded record labels anymore?? they were useful back in the cassette and cd days because they were willing to take a financial gamble on artists and produce physical media for them without knowing whether it was going to be a hit or not. With digital distribution, artists need these record companies like a hole in the head.

 

[carmenodie]

I ain't got no dang edumocation and I could have figga that out my dang selfish.

 

[carmenodie]

The music industry doesn't get it.

The film industry is walking a similar path and the gimmick of 3D will not change it.

To fight against free, you don't put up your prices. The record and film industry had it easy in the 70s and 80s and lessons should have been learnt in the 90/00s. It may take a new generation of executives before they realise.

you ain't lying. Avatar sucked and 99% of the showing at least at my local theatre were in 3D. But the 3D didn't do a damn thing for me. Yet I paid 13 freaking bucks to see a plot hole riddled movie. But boy did Cameron clean up.

 

[umiwangu]

I get my songs for FREE-

Wait for it...Wait for it......Legally

-HOW?
My Coke Rewards-I can get 1.29 Napster songs for Free-I just grab the caps, before I recycle-11 Caps=1 free song

And how much coke do you drink?

 

[Sofabutt]

Ultimately a company will come along and standardize pricing among the different online sellers. The consumer will be forced to pay whatever price the RIAA decides is appropriate. Or maybe the consumer will get wise and loan each other CDs and so never have to pay for a song again.

 

[ekwipt]

maybe if the digital downloads were of the same quality as CDs people would start downloading more.

As it is the record companies want you to pay more for what technically years ago was a far superior product.

Lossless downloads (FLAC would be my choice) would free consumers in the choice of buying whole albums (receive physical covers, etc) and buying singles tracks, and not lose quality in that choice.

For far to long the consumer has let Apple dictate the terms of the digital download.

Internet is cheaper than ever, hard drive space is cheaper than ever, digital downloads are becoming more expensive for an increasingly inferior product

 

[pirateyarrr]

In a related story, bittorrent usage ticked slightly upward. Yarrrrrr.

More news from the "well, duh!" column at 11.

 

[pirateyarrr]

I'd like to hear some ideas from this community on how they would fix this industry to bring profits to everyone while decreasing prices for the end user and eliminate piracy 100%.

Well, that's not what the community is interested in, and good for them. The key phrase you've included is "bring profits to everyone". The record industry will never again enjoy the profits they once did, their profits will continue to decrease no matter what they do, and the longer they fight this unwinnable battle to continue doing business the old way, the more of what's left will go away.

Artists will continue to earn a living by recording music and performing music live. Will there be artists that get signed to the $100 million contracts like Madonna and Metallica once enjoyed? Probably not. And who cares? Raise your hands if you weep for the next Britney Spears that won't realize her full $100-million-potential, and will have to settle for a few lousy dozen millions instead.

 

[Plutonius]

Apple should start to change the prices since they don't care about computers anymore. They need to make money someway somehow right? Or just make money with iPhone, iPad (?)....

The iTunes store breaks even on it's music and is used to drive iPod sales.

 

[yayitsezekiel]

4 words:

i love bit torrent

 

[Plutonius]

I have not and will not purchase songs that are priced at $1.29.

+1 but we all know Amazon will be forced to charge $1.29 when their sales reach a certain point (i.e. take enough business away from iTunes). Then, when pirating increases, the music industry will run to the government for help (taxes, new regulations, etc).

 

[RazHyena]

and the new iMacs are stellar.

Yeah, all those defective 27 inch iMacs are really something. Koolaid much?

<>

In other news, increasing the price of a product causes demand to soften......

 

[Prof.]

Maybe Edgar thinks that price elasticity means his $50 dollar socks should be more comfortable.

Ooooo he cute.

 

[Neodym]

My personal belief is that we should go to the source vs paying two (or more) extra companys in the process. Go to the artists website and buy from them.

Yeah... right! Going to dozens of individual websites (more often than not lousy designed) just for shopping a song per site. Do you also drive to various farmers directly to buy your milk / fruit / bread etc.?

iTMS & Co. may not be all about good guys, but hey: For customers they offer real added value by providing content, test listening and convenient payment methods, all packed into a really nice user interface in one central place. And for musicians they offer a higly frequented portal.

How many musicians would have people coming to their websites if the latter would not even know those musicians existed? Famous bands can depend on a loyal fanbase - young artists can not! They need promotion one way or the other. And online music stores are such a way.

Good luck to Amazon and the others - competition is important!

 

[SeaFox]

Idiots. Of course people don't want to pay more, and are less likely to buy if the prices increase. Who hired these idiots?

I predicted this happening while Warner's executives didn't. Anytime Warner's board wants to reach me about that multimillion dollar CxO position I'm available.

 

[cumanzor]

Or you take a NIN approach and make your own record label.

When you are a band with the size and popularity of NIN, it's not that difficult to create your own label and release your own content.

What about the little little guy?

 

[GooMan]

maybe if the digital downloads were of the same quality as CDs people would start downloading more.

Lossless downloads (FLAC would be my choice) would free consumers in the choice of buying whole albums (receive physical covers, etc) and buying singles tracks, and not lose quality in that choice.

I can assure you that a vast majority of the people buying music don't give a rats a$$ about lossless formats and couldn't tell the difference if you gave them one. They want ease of use (integration,syncing,finding music,etc) and cheap prices.

 

[rhett7660]

I can assure you that a vast majority of the people buying music don't give a rats a$$ about lossless formats and couldn't tell the difference if you gave them one. They want ease of use (integration,syncing,finding music,etc) and cheap prices.

Bing, this is my thought too. Give them somewhere to shop and ease of use and you have the general person. Load up the iPod and away they go.

 

[theBB]

If sales go down 5% because of a 30% per song price increase, and your profit goes up 30% per song due to the price increase - well, you have increased profits by almost 25%. Which is not dumb at all...

That's what I thought as well and I am surprised nobody else seems to have picked up on it.

Personally, my purchases go down by more than 30%, as I end up adding the song to my wishlist to see if I can get a better deal on Amazon or Lala, but never get around to checking it out, so they keep staying on my wishlist.