Study shows Digital Music is too expensive

[MDSleep]

Originally Posted by The Real MC

Producers are puppets of the labels and they interfere with the art of music by forcing the label's view of music onto the product. It's all "flavor of the month". The reason many of us have stopped listening to radio is because it all sounds the same.

probably the dumbest thing i have ever read on GS. you have no idea what you are talking about. not a clue.

[ajk!]

Originally Posted by The Real MC

The reason many of us have stopped listening to radio is because it all sounds the same.

There is a lot of good music that ISN'T getting played on mainstream radio and that is why we have sought out music on the net.

quit signing up pretty faces who have no songwriting or singing talent.

TV? I quit watching it, too many ads and the programming is poor.

Grammy or other award shows? Irrelevant, most of us quit watching it. Same talentless pretty faces on radio.

The net is your new promotion vehicle. Adopt it or die.

Radio is no longer relevant. The playlist rotates on a short cycle and we hear the same sequence of songs every few hours. The variety of genres is extremely limited. We hate it.

MTV is no longer relevant. Today the "M" means anything BUT music.

thumbsup 100% agree with everything you've said

[The Real MC]

Originally Posted by konkaos

this is the entertainment industry and by ur musings you have no idea how it works and the affect of all media outlets working in conjunction on a move to create a successful project or movement. Good luck finding your way.

Not only are you delusional, but you are wearing blinders as you refuse to accept what is going on around you. I used to work in entertainment. I know how the entertainment industry works and that business model is no longer relevant in the 21st century.

Look around you. The media outlets are dropping like flies. Tower Records has closed its doors. There are fewer media outlets in the last ten years all over the nation. I can count on one hand the number of media outlets left in my town. Is that the result of the huge numbers of the public or of me and my friends who have no grip on the music industry?

Sales do matter but you won't have sales if you don't have product that the public will buy. That's why the media outlets are closing.

Simple Economics 101. And no amount of legislation is going to change that.

[The Real MC]

Originally Posted by MDSleep

probably the dumbest thing i have ever read on GS. you have no idea what you are talking about. not a clue.

My own experience contradicts that. I have a pretty big clue.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by The Real MC

Not only are you delusional, but you are wearing blinders as you refuse to accept what is going on around you. I used to work in entertainment. I know how the entertainment industry works and that business model is no longer relevant in the 21st century.

wow u once worked in the industry? I doubt that. I have been in the industry on the major label level for over 16 years. My first major distro deal was in 98 and continue to have them. And I will say u dont have a clue on how anything works in the industry. It's nice to be "against the establishment" but spouting opinions as facts is not truth. I'm telling u what's happening from experienced ground zero not ignorant "i hate the establishment" opinions.

The net alone will not get you to the streets and the heartland of america. It hasnt yet. Look how many folks think they can put up a myspace page and become famous. It hasnt happened yet and it wont happen. Cassie, Soulja Boy, and others got noticed by producers from myspace but it took a company who got on the floor and hit w/ radio, promo, tv, mtv, etc. to make it work.

The net just makes more alleyways for garbage to be heard and that is the downfall of the modern music industry. Oversaturation of junk. Any fool with a logo and some horrrible songs can call themselves a record company and a group and plaster the net with their nonsense. Then when no one likes their bullsh*t they become "anti establishement"

[Bob Olhsson]

Opinion polls are fine but the fact remains that most people won't walk across a mall to save a buck on a CD they actually want to buy.

The record stores earn the lion's share of the price of a CD. I can assure you if lowering the price would increase sales volume, CDs would have been at least five dollars cheaper for a decade. Provided they want to buy it, most people have no problem with the price. In fact Yahoo was selling files for 79 cents in competition with Apple's 99 and they tanked.

Money talks and we all know what it is that walks...

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

People tend to blame pirating for the problems in the music industry, but as this study shows, it's just one aspect of the problem. Distribution costs have fallen dramatically, but the record companies haven't passed those savings on to the consumer (surprise!). This article suggests that record companies and artists would make a lot more money if they lowered the price of digital downloads:

Study: digital music is too expensive : Christopher Null : Yahoo! Tech

The record industry did the exact same thing with vinyl and CD. CD's were far less costly to manufacture/print and ship than vinyl was. Yet the put a price increase on CD's

[Steffmo]

I'm sorry to have to disagree with the esteemed Wharton School of Business. But I do.

When a song...a track...a whatever you want to call it has the goods, even if many of us here might hate it for whatever reason, but when the song, the production, the artist image, the promotion, the promotion, and he promotion are right....people pay whatever.

And they certainly don't argue about .30. If your daughter is DYING to have a song on her iPod....30 isn't gonna kill the deal. Once again i will point out we aren't selling empty files...blank CDs. We are selling performances.

Price only becomes an issue when everything else is generic, when its this shoe versus that shoe at Payless. But if you want Air Jordans, or whatever the current hot ticket is, people buy it at whatever. Hasn't Apple proved this umpteen times over. Is an iPod more expensive, yes. Has it kept it from selling...no.

People think music is too expensive gecause it is now generic. There is little to separate this from that. And when there is NOTHING to differentiate between this track and that track....well yes, price comes into play.

But when the product is special, and the promotion succeeds in letting everyone know that it is special, all these issues evaporate. The cost of promoting a hit single is astronomical. When you consider that a label only realizes .65 on each download, and that that has cover .30 creative royalties. someone is getting .35, maybe .40 per sale, which means that to recoup 1.00 of investment you have to sell 2.5 downloads.

So, to recoup 100,000 in production and marketing expenses you have to sell 250,000 downloads. And of course if the artists first sihgle stiffed, you might have to do twice that to be even two songs in.

And my investment numbers are low.

Music isn't too expensive. Music isn't good enough to warrant a fair price.

My humble 2 cents.

[indravayu]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

The record industry did the exact same thing with vinyl and CD. CD's were far less costly to manufacture/print and ship than vinyl was. Yet the put a price increase on CD's

I am fairly sure that CD's today cost less than vinyl did in its heyday, when you adjust for inflation.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Steffmo

...Music isn't too expensive. Music isn't good enough to warrant a fair price...

Exactly. The big question today is what exactly IS good enough to warrant a fair price. I think packaging is part of the story and I also think we are a decade overdue for somebody redefining popular music on stage. The only reason it hasn't happened is too much reliance on corporate sponsorship and too indirect a relationship between performers and fans.

[fhames]

IMHO: Pop music has been deluded to the point where it's value is virtually worthless. There are so many artists and recorded releases that the value of music has dropped to nothing. It is simple supply and demand. The supply has far exceeded the demand.





Bryant - Hames Music

[Bob Olhsson]

Supply and demand only applies to generic commodities. Nobody expects to pay anything for generic music. The thing is, that isn't what we are trying to sell in the music business.

[The Real MC]

Originally Posted by Bryan Talbot

Not the Nashville I live and work in! You should do some fact-checking, son.

I did, Dad - and it's too expensive compared to where I live.

You need to get out more, and I don't mean the large metropolitan areas.

[The Real MC]

Originally Posted by konkaos

wow u once worked in the industry? I doubt that.

Oh ye of little faith.

Sorry to bring your house of doubt down, but I did in fact used to work in entertainment. I got tired of the scavengers in the business.

And I will say u dont have a clue on how anything works in the industry. It's nice to be "against the establishment" but spouting opinions as facts is not truth.

So the loss of media outlets is not a fact in your book?

Look who doesn't have a clue! You continue to evade the facts in my previous post! Those blinders must be glued on.

The net just makes more alleyways for garbage to be heard and that is the downfall of the modern music industry. Oversaturation of junk. Any fool with a logo and some horrrible songs can call themselves a record company and a group and plaster the net with their nonsense. Then when no one likes their bullsh*t they become "anti establishement"

Typical evasive tactic. There are net channels with good music, the industry is just scared to death to admit that another distribution system is threatening their business model. Instead of adopting, they tried to kill it. When they couldn't kill it, they tried to control it. When they couldn't control it, they bought politicians to get legislation that would perpetuate their obsolete business model. That has been their modus operandi since the invention of the phonograph. The word got around and the consumers walked, which contributed to the fall of media outlets.

The industry may have won the battle, but they lost the war.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by The Real MC

Typical evasive tactic. There are net channels with good music, the industry is just scared to death to admit that another distribution system is threatening their business model. Instead of adopting, they tried to kill it. When they couldn't kill it, they tried to control it. When they couldn't control it, they bought politicians to get legislation that would perpetuate their obsolete business model. That has been their modus operandi since the invention of the phonograph. The word got around and the consumers walked, which contributed to the fall of media outlets.

Once again u prove ur ignorance. Doesnt matter what distribution system it is. If it's their product they still make money- ala itunes, amazon.com, walmart.com, etc.. The major companies while being late to the dance, as everyone was, around napster time has strong deep inroads into the net. You cannot blame the major companies for "only on the net" acts not being successful. 99% of the "only on the net stuff" is garbage. You need more than the net to make it pop.

Maybe you, or your "only on the net-hide from the real world" group will be the first to make it by using the net only. Being 1 of 400 million on myspace, reverbnation, soundclick, etc sure are good odds. No promotion, radio, tv, mtv, etc needed to steer thru that list of garbage to ur page right? Just keep sending those email blasts that 400 million others are doing too.

This is how the real world works for unsigned artists. Get u a great single. Put some $ behind it for radio. Get it to 400 BDS spins and the offers will be coming. U stay on the net with the email blasts though hoping someone will sift through the pile of nonsense in the 400 million to find u.

[ears2thesky]

I think debating the details of the state of the recording industry is interesting and sometimes entertaining, but I think this discussion misses the underlying point of what has brought us the problems we discuss.
Growth.
How can any system hold up to unchecked growth and still function in a positive manner? Look at economics. The model for our "capitalist" system doesn't hold up when the market grows in unpredictable ways. How we can have a perpetually growing GNP? Doesn't the potential max out at some point?
The music industry is a part of a market that has changed dramatically in a relatively short period of time. Should it be surprising that the paradigms of twenty years ago are no longer relevant? Where's the money? Where was the money before The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan and launched a million wannabe rockers? How about ten years later? Twenty?
The advent of affordable recording technology and digital distribution changed the paradigm. The media has grown exponentially making the market a much different place than it was 10 years ago. It's not simply a matter of piracy or new distribution methods but of different values in the current mega multimedia world. At some point something's got to give--maybe it's your job. The industry will continue to follow the money.
Find your niche. Gamble on the changes in the future. If you're not ahead of the game you'll be left behind.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by konkaos

The net just makes more alleyways for garbage to be heard and that is the downfall of the modern music industry. Oversaturation of junk. Any fool with a logo and some horrrible songs can call themselves a record company and a group and plaster the net with their nonsense.

Absolutely.

[The Real MC]

Originally Posted by konkaos

Once again u prove ur ignorance. Doesnt matter what distribution system it is. If it's their product they still make money- ala itunes, amazon.com, walmart.com, etc.. The major companies while being late to the dance, as everyone was, around napster time has strong deep inroads into the net. You cannot blame the major companies for "only on the net" acts not being successful. 99% of the "only on the net stuff" is garbage. You need more than the net to make it pop.

Better not let Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails know that, 'cause they're still thriving on the net after they left the majors.

Once again you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of facing the facts. Haven't you anything better than birdshot to fire back?

[work2do]

Originally Posted by The Real MC

Better not let Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails know that, 'cause they're still thriving on the net after they left the majors.

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails were built off the backs of major labels and the traditional media outlets (tv, mtv, radio, personal appearances, videos, promotions, award shows, etc.) you shun. That's what built their fanbase. Once you have ur fanbase built they will find u anywhere. Their fans are looking for them and not sifting thru the 400 million wannabees.

But, an unknown group trying to do what they do on the net without a fanbase- it hasn't worked and it won't work.

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

lol
I did duplication I know what it is........... symantics
to-ma-to tamato potato? lol

unbelievable..........

Slightly off-topic, but I've never heard anyone pronounce it 'potarto.'

[synthoid]

I would be so happy if I could get 10 or even 5 cents from a song download. We've had 100s of thousands of downloads of songs in China -- some of the big music outlets here maintain download logs and make the statistics available -- and not a cent from any of it. Shoot, $10000 or so looks like big money when you compare it to $0.

-synthoid

[Dean Roddey]

These threads just depress me more and more. I find it mind boggling how little people actually think.

Just a start, let's look at the claim above that by selling for much less that they'd make a lot more money.

OK, so you have a $1 song. You start selling it for 10 cents. Well, now you have to sell TEN TIMES more, just to even break even with where you are now. Does anyone here think that they are going to sell ten times more music? Probably not, and even if they managed to it wouldn't have been worth doing at all. It would only be worth if it they were going to sell, say, fifteen times more music, and that's even less likely.

All it would likely do is massively reduce their already massively reduced revenues (almost by half in the last decade) and further diminish the perceived value of music. If you don't think that a good song, that you can listen to as many times as you want, is worth a dollar, then you already don't have any respect for music to begin with.

As to why singles aren't less expensive... well, have you ever noticed that it's cheaper to buy 12 rolls of toilet paper at once than to buy 12 individual rolls of toilet paper? Pretty much any industry will sell to you cheaper if you buy a group at a time, and for more if you buy one thing at a time. The fact that they don't charge MORE for singles than effectively what one song would have cost is actually being more forviging than most industries would be.

The whole thing about NIN and Radiohead is silly because they can only make it only their own BECAUSE they had huge marketing from the labels they were signed to, who buit up their brand awareness. Now those bands dump the labels and go out on their own. But that's not going to work for any band that doesn't have that brand awareness. And you aren't going to go that unless you actually market.

There's ALWAYS been millions of people making music. Yes, all those millions can now put their music up on the internet, but that makes no difference. The number of more people who will know about them is only slightly larger than it was before. Most of them will never be known by anyone but a few friends and family and the few folks on the forum where they post their music for a few polite comments. The difference between those people and the ones you actually know about are that the latter were MARKETED by the labels.

It's not that none of the others were any good, they just never got the marketing behind them. That's not because the labels were evil, but because they can only push so many products at once. But it's because of that marketing that we know of bands like Radiohead. If they came out today and just put their stuff up Myspace like everyone else, they'd still just be another band getting a couple thousand hits most likely.

Anyway, I could go on for days, but I'll save that for the next such silly premise'd thread.

[Geoff Grace]

Houses are too expensive too. Studies show that if the market were allowed to price houses based on supply and demand, they'd settle in at about 60 to 70 cents per square foot.

Best,

Geoff

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

... but I'll save that for the next such silly premise'd thread.

Save, copy, paste-- now that's what I call a formula!

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

OK, so you have a $1 song. You start selling it for 10 cents. Well, now you have to sell TEN TIMES more, just to even break even with where you are now.

No Dean, you have a $0 song. You start selling it for 10 cents. Now you have to sell only one to make infinitely times as much much as you made before.

Sadly, that's much closer to today's reality than your $1 song thing.

:-(

-synthoid

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by The Real MC

The net is your new promotion vehicle. Adopt it or die.

The year 2000 and their failed prophecy of the future just called and they said you might want to rethink your catchphrase.

[David C.]

I think 99 cents is perfectly fair for a song, but I want a wave file. I just won't pay for mp3s. Weren't cassettes a chunk cheaper than albums? Can't remember because I always bought albums.

Mp3's sound fine on my 4" computer speakers and probably ok on ear buds or whatever people listen to now days, but I like to listen to music on hi fi speakers thank you very much.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by synthoid

No Dean, you have a $0 song. You start selling it for 10 cents. Now you have to sell only one to make infinitely times as much much as you made before.

Sadly, that's much closer to today's reality than your $1 song thing.

:-(

-synthoid

But the person who is stealing it for zero now, is probably still going to steal it for zero most likely. Ten cents is as far from zero as one dollar is. You'll just have the remaining folks who would buy it legally just paying way less for it.

[synthoid]

prices aren't set by 'fairness' or other ethical considerations, especially in the case of something like a downloadable file with no DRM. they are set by supply and demand. right now, the supply is practically unbounded. how can prices be high?

-synthoid

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

But the person who is stealing it for zero now, is probably still going to steal it for zero most likely. Ten cents is as far from zero as one dollar is. You'll just have the remaining folks who would buy it legally just paying way less for it.

what remaining folks?

I hear what you're saying, and it works for recording artists that are well known or even a little bit established. I pay $1 per track all the time for artists I know to be serious about music and recording. But for unknowns, $1 is an insurmountable barrier I think, as a practical matter.

The only hope I have is that some fees might be collected based on download volume or traffic or something, in the style of fees collected from broadcast radio. They will necessarily be small. It's better than nothing.

I think, from your point of view, the right thing is to make money from the relatively few people who do not download 'free' music. So of course you have to charge more. From my point of view, I think the thing to do is to find some way of getting at least something, even if very little, from the folks who are downloading 'free' music. That way the volume works in your favor. Dunno, there are good arguments to be made for both approaches. So far, neither approach seems to be working very well.

-synthoid