Music Prices Going Up?

[shamino]

... yeah I could use buck!

You are right on!
If I did it just for the money I would have been out of the game a long time ago. I LOVE what I do.

and under those circumstances, i'll bet you could make just as much without a major label.

I'm friends with a few local bands here. They're not signed to any major label. They make their own recordings by renting local studio time (using a basement studio for rehearsals.) They send their DAT masters to a duplicator to have CDs made up. They sell the CDs for $15 at live performances and over the band's web page. One such band sold through mp3.com before they stopped offering that service.

Yeah, they probably will never sell as many albums as an artist signed to a label with nationwide distribution, and they probably won't get radio airplay, but they're keeping almost all of the $15 they charge for the CDs, and they hold their own copyrights. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up netting more than they would by going through a major label.

 

[shamino]

how is it supposed to get rid of the middle man? CD: Artist, label, tower records, you. ITMS: Artist, label, itms, you. just changes the middle man, or men (label is a middle man, of sorts).

Not quite. For a CD, you have to add in the CD duplicator/manufacturer, and at least one level of distributor.

Note that record clubs like BMG charge much less than retail stores. A lot of that is eliminating a distributor or two, since you're buying from a clearinghouse attached directly to the label.

And, I don't quite get how you can say, "I should pay this much for a song"?
Why is it yours to decide?

When the officially-licensed publisher charges one price to sell to you directly, and orders retail stores to charge a much higher price for the same content, it becomes obvious (and quite illegal as well). If I'm paying $29 cents per song for a physical CD to buy directly from the label, it should nost cost over three times as much to buy from iTunes, where there is no duplication cost to consider.

You say it's not for me to decide. Well, I can't force them to lower their prices, but I sure as hell can point out to the world the exact nature and amount of their market gouging. And I can (and do) make sure that I buy my music from venues that charge reasonable prices.

If you think I don't have a right to complain, I will just say that you are flat out wrong. The right to complain is one of the few rights that I have left, and I'm certainly not going to give it up just becase some stranger on a web forum tells me to.

it's like anything else out there-you'll pay what your willing to for it, and whoever is selling it sells it at whatever cost gives them the highest yields. You don't get to say, I should only pay 15 grand for a mercedes, I should pay $1000 for a powerbook.

It's not the same thing. When you buy a car or a laptop, there are very real (and high) costs to manufacture that item. That cost is reflected in the price. When you buy music, that doesn't hold true. The cost to duplicate CDs is dirt cheap - less than $1 per disc. But you can buy that disc from perfectly legal venues from prices ranging between $5 and $18. And we're not just talking closeouts and surplus stock - the record clubs sell a lot of new releases as well.

If you want to argue "but the label has to make back the production costs for recording the album", fine. But those costs are the same if you buy a CD or a cassette. So why should a CD cost more than a cassette, even though the dupliucation costs for the CD are less than for the cassette?

The production cost for a song/album is the same if you buy a CD, cassette or download. Any difference in price between the formats should reflect the different manufacturing costs. But they don't - which is why cassettes cost less than CDs, and in many cases, the CDs cost less than the downloads as well.

And this is all talking about buying from the licensed publisher, so your arguments about theft and copyright infringement are meaningless here.

 

[Mr_Ed]

First off, if you listen to artists that only offer 1 or 2 good songs per disc you need to find better music to listen to. People often wonder why the label's keep churning out more pop crap, well, the answer is pretty simple. People keep buying it. If Britney wasn't still a cash cow she'd have gone the way of the Spice Girls.

Secondly, the DVD/CD price comparison is so way, way off base it's not even funny. Movies make money at the box office. Movies make money from rentals. Movies make money from cable/TV deals. Movies make money from DVD/VHS sales. If a band records an album basically the only way that album is going to make money is thru CD sales. If films' only means of revenue was from DVD sales alone they would be a sh*tload more expensive than they are now (the average of a feature is $102million dollars, imagine recouping that cost at $20 a pop). And the price for a movie on DVD is basically the same price as a movie on VHS in the pre-DVD era and it has nothing to do with the studios being afriad of P2P networks. As for concert DVDs I can't imagine the post/production costs being very high (relatively speaking). Probably more than the average cost of professionaly recording a CD, but significantly lower than the cost of your typical low-budget indie feature.

The only thing keeping DVDs from being pirated as much as CDs is the size. Even w/broadband up/down loading 4gigs just not viable right now. If it was people would be "sharing" DVDs as much as they "share" CDs.


Lethal

Better music to listen to? Like what? Indie music? So if I take a chance on some band that does not get air play and buy a CD and it turns out to have the one song I did hear and enjoyed and nothing else I think is worthwhile its really the same thing, isn't it? "Pop" music has nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that you buy an album or CD and you pay (and the record labe gets revenue) for ALL the tracks whether you like them or not. I'd say that has been a pretty sweet deal for them for a long time and the ability do buy a single on-line allows the consumer the choice and ability to pay only for what they deem valuable to them.

As for the CD/DVD comparison you have clearly missed the point about a pricing structure that does not encourage piracy even further. If you price it low enough, most people won't bother to copy it. Your statement about the pricing of movies is plain wrong. When movies first became widely available on tape (seems like ages ago), it was not uncommon to see some priced at $50-$80. The prices slowly came down as sales volumes increased. Today we can get a much higher quality copy of a movie on a longer lasting medium (DVD) for a fraction of that. The music industry went from charging $8-$10 for vinyl to charging $15 for CDs and then kept everything as is in spite of lower production costs due to technological advances which means they ate increasingly larger profits for years. If the movie industry had done the same, they would still charge $40-$50 for the DVD and claim they are justified in doing so because of the higher quality and longer life of the medium.

Your are right about CD sales being the only revenue source for a recorded album. So a blockbuster movie can pull in $800 million - $1 billion in box office and DVD sales and a top selling, chart busting CD will only ring in a fraction of that in sales. As you help to point out, producing that album cost a tiny fraction of what it costs to produce and market a movie. Far less than a low budget "indie" feature, right? So I don't see what is so "off base" about the comparison.

 

[dontmatter]

When movies first became widely available on tape (seems like ages ago), it was not uncommon to see some priced at $50-$80. The prices slowly came down as sales volumes increased. Today we can get a much higher quality copy of a movie on a longer lasting medium (DVD) for a fraction of that. The music industry went from charging $8-$10 for vinyl to charging $15 for CDs and then kept everything as is in spite of lower production costs due to technological advances which means they ate increasingly larger profits for years.

Remember that inflation figures in here big time, too.

 

[tj2001]

Simply Not Acceptable!


I have loved the iTMS, but if this "rumored" theory of an increase in song prices is put forth they lost me as a customer. Sorry to say it seems they (big corp execs) see a growing opportunity so let's take more $$$ from people to build a monopoly!

I used to think as America as the land of the FREE, now it seems like America the land of the FEE.

 

[~Shard~]

Remember that inflation figures in here big time, too.

Yes, and even moreso, good old supply and demand. I remember when CD-Rs used to be $10 a disc, and not so long ago when DVD-Rs were $15 each - not even worth buying to pirate a DVD movie with, as the actual movie didn't cost much more! Not that I would ever do that... Inflation is a factor, but so is supply and demand and the costs of manufacturing and technological factors as well - they all contribute.

 

[~Shard~]

I used to think as America as the land of the FREE, now it seems like America the land of the FEE.

There aren't many things in this world that are free, so you may need be a little less harsh and a little more realistic. Everything costs money and there will always be price increases in all aspects of life, (gas, clothes, food, vehicles, real estate, ad infinitum), not just online music services.

That being said, I personally don't support a price increase myself - just making the point that realistically these things happen, like it or not.

 

[tj2001]

That being said, I personally don't support a price increase myself - just making the point that realistically these things happen, like it or not.

Not that they "just" happen and have to happen it is that these corporate big wigs care not for the little consumers and only see the digits growing in their bank accounts. It's greed and it disgusts me! It's one thing to sell at a reasonable rate to where you can make profit for your efforts and also cover expenses, but to see something and know it is well worth more and then try to demand more for it is wrong.

 

[dontmatter]

I have loved the iTMS, but if this "rumored" theory of an increase in song prices is put forth they lost me as a customer. Sorry to say it seems they (big corp execs) see a growing opportunity so let's take more $$$ from people to build a monopoly!

I used to think as America as the land of the FREE, now it seems like America the land of the FEE.

Where's your logic? you loved itms, somebody made up a lie about a change in it... now you don't use it? itms is just the same as before the rumor, and never changed in the meantime, I suspect, just that your percepton of it did.

 

[dontmatter]

Not that they "just" happen and have to happen it is that these corporate big wigs care not for the little consumers and only see the digits growing in their bank accounts. It's greed and it disgusts me! It's one thing to sell at a reasonable rate to where you can make profit for your efforts and also cover expenses, but to see something and know it is well worth more and then try to demand more for it is wrong.

Yup, corporate big wigs care more for their banks than anything else. Common knowledge. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with prices increasing. It isn't like they were generous and now are greedy and so raise prices-prices always have been, and always will be, where they make the most money. The reason you can't buy a loaf of bread for a quarter is inflation. Prices go up because of simple economics, and fortunately, so does your salary. Of course, it doesn't go up quite as fast anymore, b/c of numerous political factors, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing astonishingly fast. But that's a different matter.

you absolutely cannot complain, though, that prices go up, because they do so because either A) the cost of making them goes up (incomes are going up) or B) Demand is rising, which would be a reflection of incomes going up, as more people have the money to buy. Corporate greed's got nothing to do with it. Corporations live by supply and demand, always have, and always will. those laws don't change based on the greed of the execs.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Better music to listen to? Like what? Indie music? So if I take a chance on some band that does not get air play and buy a CD and it turns out to have the one song I did hear and enjoyed and nothing else I think is worthwhile its really the same thing, isn't it? "Pop" music has nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that you buy an album or CD and you pay (and the record labe gets revenue) for ALL the tracks whether you like them or not. I'd say that has been a pretty sweet deal for them for a long time and the ability do buy a single on-line allows the consumer the choice and ability to pay only for what they deem valuable to them.

As for the CD/DVD comparison you have clearly missed the point about a pricing structure that does not encourage piracy even further. If you price it low enough, most people won't bother to copy it. Your statement about the pricing of movies is plain wrong. When movies first became widely available on tape (seems like ages ago), it was not uncommon to see some priced at $50-$80. The prices slowly came down as sales volumes increased. Today we can get a much higher quality copy of a movie on a longer lasting medium (DVD) for a fraction of that. The music industry went from charging $8-$10 for vinyl to charging $15 for CDs and then kept everything as is in spite of lower production costs due to technological advances which means they ate increasingly larger profits for years. If the movie industry had done the same, they would still charge $40-$50 for the DVD and claim they are justified in doing so because of the higher quality and longer life of the medium.

Your are right about CD sales being the only revenue source for a recorded album. So a blockbuster movie can pull in $800 million - $1 billion in box office and DVD sales and a top selling, chart busting CD will only ring in a fraction of that in sales. As you help to point out, producing that album cost a tiny fraction of what it costs to produce and market a movie. Far less than a low budget "indie" feature, right? So I don't see what is so "off base" about the comparison.

When I said listen to better music/bands I meant listen to better music bands. Read reviews on albums. Listen to track samples on Amazon, iTMS, or the bands website. Start a thread saying, "hey is this album any good?" or "hey, I like this genre/band what are some good ablums to buy?" One of my favorites is to go to www.allmusic.com, find bands/genres I like and see what other bands are in the same genre. Hell you could even talk to your friends and see if they have the album or have heard if its good or not. Major label, indie label, unsigned it doesn't matter. Good music is everywhere and crappy music is everywhere.

When any new tech/product is introduced (be it DVD, videotape, records, CDs, or casette tapes) there is a premium on it. Comparing the cost of tech that is on the bloody edge of cutting technology to a product that has been in the mainstream for a while is stupid. How much for a videotape movie when they first came out? How much for a DVD when they first came out? How much for a VHS movie now? How much for a DVD now? DVD's are more expensive partially because of the extra features and what not that are on them, but mostly because there is more of a demand for DVDs than there is for VHS. The price of CDs has never been "fixed" at $15. When they first came out in the early 80's the dics and the players cost significantly more than they do now.

I thought my point about CDs and DVDs is pretty clear. Movies have multiple revenue streams. Albums have one. I guess I fail to see why people think they should be more comparibly<sp?> priced. Because they are both on optical media? Also, your "estimations" for how how much a blockbuster movie would pull in are way, way high. Most movies, just like most albums, never make a profit (which means most of the time studios and labels never make back the money they invest in a project). You can't price your product so low that you can't cover your expenses (and in this case part of your espenses is invesnting in artists that may or may not ever be profitable). Toss in related costs like marketing, and you are talking a multi-million dollar investment per album for an artist that a label is really trying to push.

There are three baisc things that factor into the these things. The cost of creating the content (the music or the movie), the cost of creating the media (new types of media will always have a premium on them), and the demand for the product. You can't focus on one apsect and pretend the other 2 don't exist. You also have to factor in the retailer. When MegaDeth's new album comes out I could go to FYE (or some other chain in the mall) and buy it for $20 or I can go to Best Buy and get it for $9.99. Is it the labels fault if I'm dumb and shop some place that over prices everything?


Well, I seem to have ranted left and right. Hopefully some of it makes sense.


Lethal

 

[itsa]

and under those circumstances, i'll bet you could make just as much without a major label.

I'm friends with a few local bands here. They're not signed to any major label. They make their own recordings by renting local studio time (using a basement studio for rehearsals.) They send their DAT masters to a duplicator to have CDs made up. They sell the CDs for $15 at live performances and over the band's web page. One such band sold through mp3.com before they stopped offering that service.

Yeah, they probably will never sell as many albums as an artist signed to a label with nationwide distribution, and they probably won't get radio airplay, but they're keeping almost all of the $15 they charge for the CDs, and they hold their own copyrights. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up netting more than they would by going through a major label.

Don't get me wrong.. Artist under a "deal" are in many ways better off than ones doing the indy thing. I have been down that road many years.

It is nice to pocket that much off of each CD you sell but the truth is it's not at all easy to make a good living as an indy artist. The big 5 make sure of that too.
I had a manger that was doing real well for me in indy land. He also had other artists that did well under his belt. He now works for Sony.
Takled with him about a week ago. This is what he said. "I need to find a way out of this contract. They just brought me here to shut me up."
He is no longer doing what he was good at (promoting new groups). He is now under a 10 year contract that has him calling smaller venues and talking them in to investing into Main stream groups rather indy bands.

A deal is a good thing and a bad thing all wraped up into one!

If you don't have one, you want one. When you have one, you wish there was another way.

 

[Devilshotrod]

Music is going to cost as much as makes the most money (now, you could argue that labels would make more if it was cheaper, but that's a different argument). you get to buy it, or you don't. There is no should.

Well, when you're talking about a Mercedes that protects your life and really allows you to accomplish more with your life by getting around, or a powerbook that has so much design thought put into it which again allows you to accomplish more with your life, possibly even make a living off of it, it's really a different concept now isn't it than being force-fed a price for a little leisurely pleasure. I find this fleecing no different than gas prices out here in California. Oil companies have an obvious power over thier product, would you pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas right now? I think you would unless you're some tree hugger up there in Seattle. Do you think that would be fair? Because that sounds like your arguement (dontmatter is whom I'm speaking to). And while you're backing these companies getting to "make the most money", think about what you're saying. Might doesn't make right. I just want to hear a justification on why 99 cents or 9.99 is even a fair price. As far as I know the only arguement even worthy is because so many artists fail, and so do thier music. So the ones that do hit, hit big, and need to make money for a label to recover costs on the artists that didn't hit.
But now labels should realize they can minimize costs on new artists by using a means such as ITMS. ITMS has huge possiblities, especially with it's future in being able to have whole sections created just for new artists to get people to start listening, that might never have heard those artists before.
All hail the downfall greed brings. But then again, somehow corporations always seem to get off scot free or come out on top anyway, so don't worry dontmatter, we probably will be paying 1.25 for song soon anyway. Well, you will at least.

 

[johngordon]

being from the UK 99c seems pretty good - thats about 55p at the moment.

given that albums here generally cost £13-14 ($24) we've generally considered ourselved to be getting ripped off even more than you guys!

so 99p seems about as much as I'd pay, but thats still more than $1.25...

Iain

 

[shamino]

When any new tech/product is introduced (be it DVD, videotape, records, CDs, or casette tapes) there is a premium on it. Comparing the cost of tech that is on the bloody edge of cutting technology to a product that has been in the mainstream for a while is stupid. How much for a videotape movie when they first came out? How much for a DVD when they first came out? How much for a VHS movie now? How much for a DVD now?

So why don't CDs follow this trend? When they were first invented, CDs cost $16 per disc. Today, the list-price stores charge $18 per disc. Yes, I know there are discount stores today, there were then as well. The discount prices today are higher than the discount prices then.

The movie industry did better when they lowered the price of DVDs from $50 to $35 to $20. The music industry would do just as well by following that trend, but they would prefer to believe that all their lost sales are due to piracy and not overpriced product in a weak economy, so they spend billions of dollars on lawsuits instead - which only costs them more, both in terms of money and in lost reputation.

 

[wdlove]

So why don't CDs follow this trend? When they were first invented, CDs cost $16 per disc. Today, the list-price stores charge $18 per disc. Yes, I know there are discount stores today, there were then as well. The discount prices today are higher than the discount prices then.

The movie industry did better when they lowered the price of DVDs from $50 to $35 to $20. The music industry would do just as well by following that trend, but they would prefer to believe that all their lost sales are due to piracy and not overpriced product in a weak economy, so they spend billions of dollars on lawsuits instead - which only costs them more, both in terms of money and in lost reputation.

For some reason the music industry isn't getting the message, such as decrease sales. Or the reason is that they choose not to listen, those that don't change in the market place tend to fail. The movie industry is very saving in there pricing.

 

[Mr_Ed]

When I said listen to better music/bands I meant listen to better music bands. Read reviews on albums. Listen to track samples on Amazon, iTMS, or the bands website. Start a thread saying, "hey is this album any good?" or "hey, I like this genre/band what are some good ablums to buy?" One of my favorites is to go to www.allmusic.com, find bands/genres I like and see what other bands are in the same genre. Hell you could even talk to your friends and see if they have the album or have heard if its good or not. Major label, indie label, unsigned it doesn't matter. Good music is everywhere and crappy music is everywhere.

When any new tech/product is introduced (be it DVD, videotape, records, CDs, or casette tapes) there is a premium on it. Comparing the cost of tech that is on the bloody edge of cutting technology to a product that has been in the mainstream for a while is stupid. How much for a videotape movie when they first came out? How much for a DVD when they first came out? How much for a VHS movie now? How much for a DVD now? DVD's are more expensive partially because of the extra features and what not that are on them, but mostly because there is more of a demand for DVDs than there is for VHS. The price of CDs has never been "fixed" at $15. When they first came out in the early 80's the dics and the players cost significantly more than they do now.

I thought my point about CDs and DVDs is pretty clear. Movies have multiple revenue streams. Albums have one. I guess I fail to see why people think they should be more comparibly<sp?> priced. Because they are both on optical media? Also, your "estimations" for how how much a blockbuster movie would pull in are way, way high. Most movies, just like most albums, never make a profit (which means most of the time studios and labels never make back the money they invest in a project). You can't price your product so low that you can't cover your expenses (and in this case part of your espenses is invesnting in artists that may or may not ever be profitable). Toss in related costs like marketing, and you are talking a multi-million dollar investment per album for an artist that a label is really trying to push.

There are three baisc things that factor into the these things. The cost of creating the content (the music or the movie), the cost of creating the media (new types of media will always have a premium on them), and the demand for the product. You can't focus on one apsect and pretend the other 2 don't exist. You also have to factor in the retailer. When MegaDeth's new album comes out I could go to FYE (or some other chain in the mall) and buy it for $20 or I can go to Best Buy and get it for $9.99. Is it the labels fault if I'm dumb and shop some place that over prices everything?


Well, I seem to have ranted left and right. Hopefully some of it makes sense.


Lethal

If you are ranting, then I guess I must be too "Ranting" sounds unpleasant and I would probably consider it so if you were not engaging in an intelligent exchange.

On the "good music" thing, I understand there are ways that I might increase the odds of enjoying more tracks on an album but after all, we are talking about a highly subjective thing here. How a musical performance affects (or fails to do so) an individual is a very personal thing. I have found that asking the "opinion" of others, even those who know me, does not actually amount to much help in that regard. Besides, if I go and get everyone else's opinion on the music before I get it then by definition, I am only buying it if ispopular. Britney Spears!! Here we come!!!

On the price of "new" technology vs. established technology: You are right about the price of CDs not being "fixed" at $15. I remember paying around $17 for some of the first CDs I ever bought back in 1986 (I believe). I also know Best Buy has lots of them today in the $12 range but a some places do still sell them in the $15 range. You are also right about the fact that all of the items you mentioned cost less now than when they were introduced. My point had more to do with the perceived drop in prices of movies (VHS/DVD) being FAR greater than the drop in music CD prices in spite of the fact that:
a) CDs have been around longer than DVDs.
b) As you point out, DVDs include additional materials and capabilities when compared to VHS.
c) The cost of producing/selling a music CD has dropped significantly over time due to technological advances.

I never said that a DVD and a CD should be priced comparably but in any case, the number of "revenue streams" of DVD vs. CD made no difference in what I wrote. I purposely listed a sales figure of $800 - $1 billion for box office AND DVD sales so we could make a straight out comparison with a chart topping music CD. I did that because of the very reason you stated: Lots of movies (and albums) lose money which the companies will try to recoup with the sales of popular items. Everything else you mention (dealing with artists/content creators, marketing, etc.) constitutes expenses that both industries incur. The only thing that is different is the scale of the amount of revenues brought in by each of their products. That difference in scale also applies to the costs involved in the production of their products. Heck, a movie studio will routinely spend more just on marketing a single movie than a record company will spend producing a CD (how often do you see a prime time TV ad for a new music CD release?). Even if you focus only on DVD sales (no box office receipts), industry estimates I have seen indicate DVD sales can account for as much as 30% of the total revenue for a popular film. Does looking at $200 million (vs. $800 million total) in DVD sales alone change the argument here? I don't think so. Scale aside, the comparison is more than fair and if so, it is difficult to justify a CD costing almost as much as a DVD.

BTW: Look here for a sampling of the top grossing movies to see that the "$800 mil. to $1 bil. box office and DVD sales" example for a blockbuster was not out of line. These figures are box office only, no DVD sales included.

 

[Devilshotrod]

being from the UK 99c seems pretty good - thats about 55p at the moment.

given that albums here generally cost £13-14 ($24) we've generally considered ourselved to be getting ripped off even more than you guys!

so 99p seems about as much as I'd pay, but thats still more than $1.25...

Iain

Are American artists songs costing you the same as artists from the UK? Very curious why that would be. Again, with the internet, there really seems to be no reason I can think of why it should cost you more.

 

[Sun Baked]

Apple says no price hike planned for iTunes

PowerMacMan, posted the link before. Which is to the full article.

Sort of funny that a comment made on Friday is finally hitting the papers today. When most papers are always running the Apple stuff immediately.

---


Wonder what'll be going through the record execs minds when they hear the backlash to a rise in price to 1.25 ...

 

[LethalWolfe]

If you are ranting, then I guess I must be too "Ranting" sounds unpleasant and I would probably consider it so if you were not engaging in an intelligent exchange.

On the "good music" thing, I understand there are ways that I might increase the odds of enjoying more tracks on an album but after all, we are talking about a highly subjective thing here. How a musical performance affects (or fails to do so) an individual is a very personal thing. I have found that asking the "opinion" of others, even those who know me, does not actually amount to much help in that regard. Besides, if I go and get everyone else's opinion on the music before I get it then by definition, I am only buying it if ispopular. Britney Spears!! Here we come!!!

On the price of "new" technology vs. established technology: You are right about the price of CDs not being "fixed" at $15. I remember paying around $17 for some of the first CDs I ever bought back in 1986 (I believe). I also know Best Buy has lots of them today in the $12 range but a some places do still sell them in the $15 range. You are also right about the fact that all of the items you mentioned cost less now than when they were introduced. My point had more to do with the perceived drop in prices of movies (VHS/DVD) being FAR greater than the drop in music CD prices in spite of the fact that:
a) CDs have been around longer than DVDs.
b) As you point out, DVDs include additional materials and capabilities when compared to VHS.
c) The cost of producing/selling a music CD has dropped significantly over time due to technological advances.

I never said that a DVD and a CD should be priced comparably but in any case, the number of "revenue streams" of DVD vs. CD made no difference in what I wrote. I purposely listed a sales figure of $800 - $1 billion for box office AND DVD sales so we could make a straight out comparison with a chart topping music CD. I did that because of the very reason you stated: Lots of movies (and albums) lose money which the companies will try to recoup with the sales of popular items. Everything else you mention (dealing with artists/content creators, marketing, etc.) constitutes expenses that both industries incur. The only thing that is different is the scale of the amount of revenues brought in by each of their products. That difference in scale also applies to the costs involved in the production of their products. Heck, a movie studio will routinely spend more just on marketing a single movie than a record company will spend producing a CD (how often do you see a prime time TV ad for a new music CD release?). Even if you focus only on DVD sales (no box office receipts), industry estimates I have seen indicate DVD sales can account for as much as 30% of the total revenue for a popular film. Does looking at $200 million (vs. $800 million total) in DVD sales alone change the argument here? I don't think so. Scale aside, the comparison is more than fair and if so, it is difficult to justify a CD costing almost as much as a DVD.

BTW: Look here for a sampling of the top grossing movies to see that the "$800 mil. to $1 bil. box office and DVD sales" example for a blockbuster was not out of line. These figures are box office only, no DVD sales included.

If you poll your friends for music suggestions and they all come back w/Britney it's time to get new friends. I understand where you are coming from but there is no way to ensure 100% satisfaction. Like you said, it's completely subjective. And sometimes I like tracks the first time I hear them but 6 months later I hate them and vice-versa. I think we are getting closer to a world where buying one track at a time is the norm. And, IMO, that is kind of sad. There are tons of songs I never would have fallen in love with if I wasn't "forced" to buy the whole album. It's the same reason why I never buy "best of" CDs anymore. 'Cause "best of" really means "most popular" and there are always awesome tracks that never end up on them. When buying albums I'm not too familair w/I've been pleasently surprised more often than disappointed (and I'm fairly picky when it comes to music).

Okay, here are the two points of contention I'm still hung up on. You seem to be discounting the fact that movies have multiple revenue streams while albums only have one. That makes a huge difference.

And two, why are CD's and DVD's even being compared? Why not books and CDs? Better yet, books on CD and CDs? What about video games and CDs? Besides being on round, optical media and being forms of entertainment CD's and DVDs, the music industry and the movie industry, are two completely different beasts when it comes to generating revenue.

And, just a random thing, I mentioned your "blockbuster" numbers being way high, not because they are impossibly high numbers, but because movies that gross that much are flukes. The link to IMDB you have shows 11 movies in the history of filmmaking that have grossed over 800 million and only one, Titanic, that grossed 1 billion.

Speaking of Titanic... Do you know why Titanic did so unexpectidly<sp?> well? Because packs of teenage girls kept going to see Leo again, and again, and again. Which brings up yet advantage movies have over albums. Repeat customers. Blockbusters become blockbusters because people go to see them more than once. How many people buy the same CD over and over again? How many people go to see a movie and then buy it when it comes out on DVD?

I've also noticed in these types of discussions that people tend use the lowest DVD price they've seen and compare it against the highest CD price they've seen. I did a 2 minute skim over at Amazon.com and, going by their "top sellers" list the average CD seemed to be $14 or $15 and the average DVD movie seemed to be $19 or $20. This was going by the selling price not the MSRP (which is hardly, if ever, used).

Final thought. Adjusted for inflation, how would a $17 CD from 1986 cost in todays dollars?


Lethal

 

[AsgardianGod]

LOL... a reson why this site is called MacRumors folks. A lot of tension and anger over something that was eventually proven to be just that.. a rumor.

I like iTMS, and if the market bore a $1.25 increase in the future, I would live with it. Although I might buy 1 or 2 songs less a week (I buy about 5 a week max).

 

[shamino]

I think we are getting closer to a world where buying one track at a time is the norm. And, IMO, that is kind of sad. There are tons of songs I never would have fallen in love with if I wasn't "forced" to buy the whole album. It's the same reason why I never buy "best of" CDs anymore. 'Cause "best of" really means "most popular" and there are always awesome tracks that never end up on them. When buying albums I'm not too familair w/I've been pleasently surprised more often than disappointed (and I'm fairly picky when it comes to music).

Do the sample tracks on download sites help at all in this regard? I know that sometimes, the 30 seconds Apple chooses for the ITMS sample isn't representative of the song, and for some songs it can't be (just try and find 30 seconds that is representative of Genesis's Supper's Ready ) but I've found it useful in most cases.

The interesting thing is that I usually look for "best of" albums. It gives me a good feel for what the artist's style is about. From there, I can decide if I want to buy the remaining albums or not. If I like all the hits, I'll buy the rest of the albums (eventually). If I only like one or two of the hits, I'll buy the one or two albums that contain those songs and stop there. It was Renaissance's compilation (the 2-disc Tales of 1001 nights) that convinced me to buy everything they published.) Ditto for many other bands.

Speaking of Titanic... Do you know why Titanic did so unexpectidly<sp?> well? Because packs of teenage girls kept going to see Leo again, and again, and again. Which brings up yet advantage movies have over albums. Repeat customers. Blockbusters become blockbusters because people go to see them more than once. How many people buy the same CD over and over again? How many people go to see a movie and then buy it when it comes out on DVD?

How many people call in to radio stations to request their favorite songs over and over again? How many people buy albums when they've heard the song dozens of times?

It's the same principle. A song's revenue from radio-play is smaller than a movie's revenue from box-office showings, but the production costs are also much smaller. In the end, I think the same principle applies.

I've also noticed in these types of discussions that people tend use the lowest DVD price they've seen and compare it against the highest CD price they've seen. I did a 2 minute skim over at Amazon.com and, going by their "top sellers" list the average CD seemed to be $14 or $15 and the average DVD movie seemed to be $19 or $20. This was going by the selling price not the MSRP (which is hardly, if ever, used).

Which is why (in my posts) I try to distinguish between MSRP and discount prices.

There are plenty of stores (like Tower Records) that charge full MSRP for most CDs. This is typically $15-18 for a single-disc album. Those same CDs at discount stores (like Best Buy) will go for $10-15, with some titles as low as $8. When purchased from distributor-sponsored discount clubs (like BMG), these albums end up costing about $5 (plus shipping charges, resulting in an actual cost of about $6-7) if you buy several albums at once.

Ditto for DVDs. Some stores (like the video stores in shopping malls) do charge full list price, which for movies today is in the ballpark of $20-30. Discount stores usually charge $15-25, with some titles as low as $10. (Unfortunately, I don't belong to any video clubs, so I don't know what those prices end up as. If they're like the music clubs, the catalog prices will be full MSRP, but with steep discounts for buying several titles at once.)

 

[LethalWolfe]

Do the sample tracks on download sites help at all in this regard? I know that sometimes, the 30 seconds Apple chooses for the ITMS sample isn't representative of the song, and for some songs it can't be (just try and find 30 seconds that is representative of Genesis's Supper's Ready ) but I've found it useful in most cases.

The interesting thing is that I usually look for "best of" albums. It gives me a good feel for what the artist's style is about. From there, I can decide if I want to buy the remaining albums or not. If I like all the hits, I'll buy the rest of the albums (eventually). If I only like one or two of the hits, I'll buy the one or two albums that contain those songs and stop there. It was Renaissance's compilation (the 2-disc Tales of 1001 nights) that convinced me to buy everything they published.) Ditto for many other bands.
How many people call in to radio stations to request their favorite songs over and over again? How many people buy albums when they've heard the song dozens of times?

It's the same principle. A song's revenue from radio-play is smaller than a movie's revenue from box-office showings, but the production costs are also much smaller. In the end, I think the same principle applies.
Which is why (in my posts) I try to distinguish between MSRP and discount prices.

There are plenty of stores (like Tower Records) that charge full MSRP for most CDs. This is typically $15-18 for a single-disc album. Those same CDs at discount stores (like Best Buy) will go for $10-15, with some titles as low as $8. When purchased from distributor-sponsored discount clubs (like BMG), these albums end up costing about $5 (plus shipping charges, resulting in an actual cost of about $6-7) if you buy several albums at once.

Ditto for DVDs. Some stores (like the video stores in shopping malls) do charge full list price, which for movies today is in the ballpark of $20-30. Discount stores usually charge $15-25, with some titles as low as $10. (Unfortunately, I don't belong to any video clubs, so I don't know what those prices end up as. If they're like the music clubs, the catalog prices will be full MSRP, but with steep discounts for buying several titles at once.)

In regards to "best of" albums if it's a band I like and I start buying their albums I feel like I wasted money on the "best of" because I never listen to it anymore. I think 30 samples help sometimes (it depends on the band and the genre). More and more bands are starting to put streaming versions of their songs on their websites which is cool. That's basically how I've been shopping for music for the past 6 years. I'll go to message boards of bands I like and start a "who are you 5 favorite bands" threads, or go to allmusic.com and "research" other bands that are in the same genre of bands I like. One time I was at a record store, w/those devices that will scan the barcode of a CD and you can hear samples from the disc, and I picked up an album w/an interesting looking cover, listend to it and was like "man, that's cool." so I bought it.


In regards to radio play, artists don't make any money from their song being requested/played on the radio. Just like they don't make any money from their videos being played on TV. In fact, quite the opposite. If a label wants to really push an artist they might pay an "independent promoter" to go out and "convince" radio stations to put a certain artist in heavy rotation. The obvious reason being, the more a song is played, the more people will hear it and hopefully go buy the album. In a business sense air play (be it radio or TV) is just another promotional device for the product (the CD). That's one reason you don't see "new album" commercials as much as you see "new movie" commercials. Why spend a lot of money on TV commercials when air play is your best advertising? Most people won't buy a CD w/o ever hearing a track from it first. Commericals for CD's are more like reminders that the album is out as opposed to most commericals which are trying to convince people to buy this product or see this movie.


Lethal

 

[Mr_Ed]

...
Okay, here are the two points of contention I'm still hung up on. You seem to be discounting the fact that movies have multiple revenue streams while albums only have one. That makes a huge difference.

I ther last full paragraph of my last reply I explained why I don't see see the multiple revenue streams being a problem in the comparison. There is a HUGE difference between the costs involved in producing a film and a DVD. I also cited numbers that allowed me to ask you if looking at $200 mil. in DVD sales for a top selling movie (instead of $800 mil, thus taking the "box office" revenue stream out of the picture) make a difference in the argument.

...
And two, why are CD's and DVD's even being compared? Why not books and CDs? Better yet, books on CD and CDs? What about video games and CDs? Besides being on round, optical media and being forms of entertainment CD's and DVDs, the music industry and the movie industry, are two completely different beasts when it comes to generating revenue.

I chose CD/DVD because IMO they constitute similar types on content for a similar purpose and they have achieved similar production cost savings from technological advances in a relatively short amount of time. When was the printing press invented?

...
And, just a random thing, I mentioned your "blockbuster" numbers being way high, not because they are impossibly high numbers, but because movies that gross that much are flukes. The link to IMDB you have shows 11 movies in the history of filmmaking that have grossed over 800 million and only one, Titanic, that grossed 1 billion.

Check those numbers again. Two grossing over $1 bil. By the way, these numbers do not include video sales, it was strictly box office take. Would "chart topping CD" not be a "fluke" as well? I purposely compared the top tier on both sides.

...
Speaking of Titanic... Do you know why Titanic did so unexpectidly<sp?> well? Because packs of teenage girls kept going to see Leo again, and again, and again. Which brings up yet advantage movies have over albums. Repeat customers. Blockbusters become blockbusters because people go to see them more than once. How many people buy the same CD over and over again? How many people go to see a movie and then buy it when it comes out on DVD?

Once again, even if you look at the DVD sales only the comparison holds. How many people buy the save DVD over and over again? How many people buy a movie soundtrack CD after seeing the movie? How many people buy the soundtrack BEFORE they even see the movie? And yes, people do see a movie and then often buy the DVD. That's because they have a pretty good idea that they will enjoy what they are buying. That's the part I hate about buying an album and which I say has constituted a "free" ride for the music industry. If I buy a CD with 10 tracks for $10 and after listening to it I feel 8 of those tracks are *crap*, then I feel like I got ripped off. Simple.

...
I've also noticed in these types of discussions that people tend use the lowest DVD price they've seen and compare it against the highest CD price they've seen. I did a 2 minute skim over at Amazon.com and, going by their "top sellers" list the average CD seemed to be $14 or $15 and the average DVD movie seemed to be $19 or $20. This was going by the selling price not the MSRP (which is hardly, if ever, used).

Final thought. Adjusted for inflation, how would a $17 CD from 1986 cost in todays dollars?

Most people who might agree with my point of view on this, would be upset that the prices are that close. And depending on what sources you go to for CD/DVD sales, you sometimes do find CDs priced higher than some DVDs. As for the inflation argument, I don't remember what year movies were first sold on video but it pre-dates CDs. How much would that $50 movie cost in today's dollars?

Anyway, it's safe to say you and I "agree to disagree"

 

[shamino]

In regards to radio play, artists don't make any money from their song being requested/played on the radio.

Then this is just another example of labels pressuring artists into signing away all their rights.

The labels get paid for every play on the radio. That's a huge part of what ASCAP does - collect royalties from radio stations (and Muzak, and dance clubs, and any other public performance of the recording) for distribution to the copyright holders.

Radio play is a revenue stream, whether the artists get a cut or not.