Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacPolls.com Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 26, 2005.
Vote: Poll: Should iTunes songs be sold with tiered pricing?
I think it would be bad.. as songs get more popular, they'd cost more than 99 cents, and as the popularity wanes, the price would go down. Consumers would know this and no one would buy music for over 99 cents because they know it'll "eventually go down."
The model of supply and demand doesn't quite work in this instance.
I'm in agreement, a lot of people who pirate music use the justification that they will buy it in the future. If everyone knew that older songs are cheaper on iTunes, they would obtain the song illegally to start with and then pay for it once it was cheaper. I see where such a system would lead to a large increase in piracy with the justification of "I'll buy it when the price drops."
Poll is missing the correct answer.
At least IMHO, the answer is BOTH: That is to say:
--popular songs: $0.99
--less-popular songs: LESS than $0.99.
In other words, have variable pricing, but make $0.99 the CEILING, not the floor!
I'd do that.
MMM! Old Ben folds for 33 cents? I'M THERE!
what about TV shows? $1.99 enough? Too much? What's goin' on with that?
i dont buy any of todays crap. give me the grungy early 90's for 79cents!
I vote yes, but with different price scheme
Not "new songs cost more, old songs cost less"... instead, just open it up the same way CDs are open: labels price CDs any way they want (with, of course, the retailer in between deciding the actual price to consumers).
People don't wait for the price of music to go down on CD, because it'll take 20 years... the latest by Kanye West is $17.99 (because people will buy it at any price), while something from Springsteen's back catalog is only $9.99 (because people will only buy it if it's cheap).
I think the users would tolerate, say, $1.19 for the major label stuff, and there would be a lot of indie labels, garage bands, etc, who would be thrilled to sell for 39 cents. In either case, Apple can take the same 12 cents (or whatever): majors are satisfied because now they get $1.07, and indies are thrilled to get 27 cents (better than nothing).
This would make iTunes simultaneously more appealing to big AND small labels. One price for all songs is like a one-button mouse.
Well, let's try this model for 20 years, and then we'll try to come with a tiered-pricing scheme that looks like a single-price model.
Too much. Should be $1 per hour for anything from the networks since you could record it for free with a VCR and antenna. I would also say the same for basic cable shows. If they started offering shows like the Sopranos, or the premium channel shows they might be able to pull $2 per show but the production quality is generally much higher on these than typical shows, and people pay for the privilege to watch them anyway. I could see maybe charging $2 for a high definition version of the shows so you could watch them on the TV if you had to miss it for a power outage or some other circumstances beyond your control.
I don't want prices to go up with a tiered system, at least if they do have to go up I hope not by much. I know Apple is well on our side with this one, but their agreement with alot of the labels apparently ends in early 2006. I hope these disputes don't result in labels pulling out and not renewing with Apple. If it means keeping the content I don't think we have a choice, if it's what the labels really want, I just hope that any change in price is marginal and will not make much of a difference.
I think having 99c as the ceiling is a good idea, but I think the labels may just choke on their coffee when they read it! I think its great having the flat out rate for all songs, I hope it stays. But I don't want it to jeapodise the content.
Boom Boom!! Very good! Everyone wins!
DigDug, interesting idea, that would be a compromise I would be willing to accept if it came to it!
1. Simplicity. Which is a large part of why the iTunes and iPod have succeeded. Don't add confusion and variation--a demonstrable problem with competing services.
2. On average, prices would go UP. The RIAA wants to do this to make MORE money, or they wouldn't bother pushing for it.
3. Has anyone looked at the New Releases section of your local video rental store?
I agree with you on that...that would sell a lot more songs.
Are you serious? I would never pay that much for "major label stuff." There's no way people would pay that much when other services offer it for cheaper.
As stated here before, $.99 should be the max of any song from any label. Any more than that, then they're being greedy (heard that before?).
Nah, different music is worth different amounts to different people - it all is subjective and depends on personal taste. I don't think anyone can arbitrarily put different values on different albums/songs simply because they might be more "pop" than others. Should a "popular" Britney Spears peice of garbage be worth more or less than a Dvorak Symphony?
Of course, I'm certainly happier paying less than full price when I go to a store. Usually, on its first week out, the CD is cheaper than regular price at several stores.
While I'm happy with tiered-pricing at brick-and-mortar stores, the iTunes Music Store doesn't have sales, so having the great majority of songs at 99 cents makes much more sense to me.
I couldn't vote on this because I quite frankly don't know.
On one hand a song is a song, and why should they be priced differently, but on the other hand you got more demand for newer songs it makes sense to price those a bit more aggressively, if - on the other end of the scale - that opens up for "nice prices" on some older stuff...
99 cents is fair. keep it.
i think this system could work as well
I don't think even the RDF of Steve Jobs could get THAT from the RIAA. Not this decade. But it's a nice thought all the same
Simplicity! Elegant and easy to understand! Let's keep it simple so slow folks like me can still use it !
It wouldn't be technically difficult
On iTMS, "Name" and "Price" are unremovable fields and seeing a long vertical column of "$0.99" seems that variable pricing was envisioned from the start. Things may get tricky when others give away iTMS songs as promotions. Would they switch to giving away a certain dollar value of music or keep the number of songs the same with a maximum value? I've noticed that all of the Apple-based currency (allowances, gift cards, etc.) are in dollars, not songs.
I'd like to see pricing commensurate to quality. You'd actually get paid for downloading certain tunes. If you get the complete Journey collection, you could put a kid through college!
Also, hip-hop/rap music ought to have a "swear jar", 5 cents off for each foul word in the song. Again, customers can earn money with that deal.
Ashlee Simpson and Britney Spears songs ought to have two-part pricing: the first is the standard price, but the second would be a user-selected, variable, tax-deductible donation. For Ashlee, it would be for singing lessons and a stable hair color and for Britney, they ought to set up a giant fund for their child's enormous therapy bills that will certainly be needed.
Within the context of the intended question, I'm inclined to say "No - leave it alone".
However, what most people don't want to realize is that Apple already has tiered pricing:
$0.99 per song
$9.99 per album.
You will find that there's the occasional artist who refuses to sell his songs as a single, so you have to buy it at the album price (IIRC, "American Pie" is one of them).
Overall, a big part of the appeal of iTMS is its simplicity, of which an essential component is its standardized price.
PS: I tend to agree that $1.99 for a half hour TV show is steep, but as my wife commented to me: "its half of what people pay at Starbucks for a cup of coffee...if its under $5, people really aren't all that price sensitive anymore". She's right.
List for the Late Registration CD is $13.98.
The Springsteen back catalog lists at the same $13.98 on CD. (New Sony releases typically list at $18.98.)
Different labels (UMG vs. Sony), totally different artists selling to different buyers.
It's a big mistake to assume that "the RIAA" operate with a single idea on how to price things. Each label has its own ideas on where to price things.