The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Downward Spiral Desperation @ Amazon (For Neenja!) Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 29th December 2010
  #1
Old 29th December 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 
lagavulin16's Avatar
 

I think the sooner everyone accepts that the proper price per song (as dictated by the market) is more like 25 cents, the sooner you'll see more sales and less piracy.

Your content simply isn't as valuable as it once was. Whether it's worth it to you to stay in business at the new price point is up to you.
Old 29th December 2010
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
I think the sooner everyone accepts that the proper price per song (as dictated by the market) is more like 25 cents, the sooner you'll see more sales and less piracy.
but the market isn't dictating it... these are not normal market conditions so the normal economic thinking doesn't apply.

someone who won't pay .99 because they can get it for free won't suddenly pay .25 when they can still get it for free.
Old 29th December 2010
  #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
I think the sooner everyone accepts that the proper price per song (as dictated by the market) is more like 25 cents, the sooner you'll see more sales and less piracy.

Your content simply isn't as valuable as it once was. Whether it's worth it to you to stay in business at the new price point is up to you.
you didn't read the article and miss the point completely - amazon is aggressively lowering prices and not making a dent against itunes in marketshare. pricing isn't the issue, obviously.
Old 29th December 2010
  #5
And whatever the customer decides is the correct price is beside the point in the end game.
If creative people can't earn a crust charging 25c a song, they'll go and be creative some other way (writing computer software, or making films).

In ten years time the average person who champions 25c a song is going to say "$h*t, what happened to all the great music and musicians"?
Because when you talk to ordinary people, even slightly informed people on this website, they have no idea what a song costs to produce, or what it is worth.
The devaluation is 100% to do with product being available at no charge whatsoever. If you had free plumbers, free airlines, and free diners, all their rivals would find the real product price "too expensive" too.
Old 30th December 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

So Chris, what is the sweet spot for song pricing and why? You criticize everyone, let's hear your solution for the right price in an era of piracy.
Old 30th December 2010
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
So Chris, what is the sweet spot for song pricing and why? You criticize everyone, let's hear your solution for the right price in an era of piracy.
Seriously man, this is exactly why we end up going round and round in circles - something which you claim to find tiresome.
I've clearly stated in response to you before, and more than once on more than one thread..... I have no idea what the right price should be. I think there are too many variables. A homemade techno track could well make money at 99c a pop, but a rock opera recorded with the London Philharmonic...likely not.

What I'm saying to you is you have no evidence to back your 'hunch' that $1 is the sweet spot.
the difference between me and you is I know my limitations in this debate. You think you have a complete handle on it, and with that attitude tell other industry professionals they're wrong. tutt
I quoted a guy (Ari Emanuel) who said the biggest mistake the record industry made was agreeing to the $1 track. He's more plugged into international recording artists (and on the other side) the tech industry than me, so I linked the video for you to watch and learn. But you "didn't have time".

PS: I'm not criticizing everyone, just some of the people who keep claiming music is devalued (to practically zero).
Old 30th December 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I have no idea what the right price should be. I think there are too many variables. A homemade techno track could well make money at 99c a pop, but a rock opera recorded with the London Philharmonic...likely not.
Chris, I asked what you THINK, not what you KNOW.

Quote:
What I'm saying to you is you have no evidence to back your 'hunch' that $1 is the sweet spot.
the difference between me and you is I know my limitations in this debate.
Um.. Chris? WTF do you think a damn "HUNCH" is??? Good freaking lord. It's a GUESS, my OPINION. It's a guess, based on my understanding of marketing, economics, and ant's eye view of end users and piracy. It's certainly DEBATABLE and I have NEVER claimed to be an expert.

This is yet another example... I never represented my opinion as anything OTHER than opinion, yet, you come off with all this BS. It's completely illogical.

But hey... thanks for the non-answer anyway.
Old 30th December 2010
  #9
When experienced people try to explain the matter (I think it was Bob Ohlsonn from memory) you wont accept it and argue your hunch with them.

Just your actions don't square with your claims - as in 'willing to learn'.
Old 30th December 2010
  #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Chris, I asked what you THINK, not what you KNOW.
Like i said "I think" there are far to many variables to suggest a single 'sweet spot' for song pricing.
If someone who has years of experience in sales tells me $1 is too cheap, I tend to take it on board, whatever my personal hunch might be.
Old 30th December 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Just your actions don't square with your claims - as in 'willing to learn'.
What do you know about my actions? Right. Nothing. Don't let that stop you.
Old 30th December 2010
  #12
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
When experienced people try to explain the matter (I think it was Bob Ohlsonn from memory) you wont accept it and argue your hunch with them.

Just your actions don't square with your claims - as in 'willing to learn'.
Yet... I have experience in PR and tried to tell you what messaging you could try to combat piracy... ?
Old 30th December 2010
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I have experience in PR
Great, that'll inform you on song pricing then. Not.
Old 30th December 2010
  #14
I was at the Apple presentation/roll out for indie labels in June 2003. I don't think there was press there as I was called by Billboard afterwords for info on the deal.

This is what Steve told us... as best I remember... Apple had taken a sample of the average cost of a CD and the Average number of songs on a CD over an X-Year period leading into 2003. They determined it was pretty close to an average of a dollar a song (range something like .80 to $1.20).

A lot of people were upset by this - but by the time the meeting was happening with the indies, the store was already live with the majors at that price point.

Jobs in his typical, point of fact way, said the following things to the best of my memory, "This is a price point consumers are already familiar with, and this is as good as it gets. You are competing with free. If the user experience for paid is superior to free, we have a chance."

It was clear to everyone that this was really the only chance we had - itunes was developed with the expressed purpose of competing with piracy. For all the heat that Jobs takes on the ipod, it's important to note - he could have made ipods, and itunes without a store and left it just a rip/burn and storage locker for illegally downloaded files.

The other very interesting thing about this was that Apple had redefined digital distribution by NOT having it be a licensing deal which would have cost the majors 50% of the revenue. He created a formula for "digital wholesale and reselling" which not only modeled the dynamics of physical retail, but when you removed costs associated with physical product like Manufacturing, Returns Fees, etc - it turned out a $10 album on Itunes had as much margin as an $18.98 CD.

In the end, even after the removal of DRM the Apple music format is still the defacto standard and the reason that Amazon can't get a toe hold is that the majority of music consumers using iTunes do not want to introduce another step into the purchasing and management of pre-recorded music.

The ipod is ubiquitous because who is going to want to convert any and all music they purchased from Apple at anytime prior to play on any other music player?

Those who steal music however, don't have this problem, which is why, IMHO Apple still leads paid digital music sales with a market share of probably 95% over Amazon and probably 80%+ of all revenue from all paid digital music sources to rights holders.
Old 30th December 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Great, that'll inform you on song pricing then. Not.
PRIME example, Chris.. you miss the most basic of points, and I should trust your conclusions? No thanks.
Old 30th December 2010
  #16
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
This is what Steve told us... as best I remember... Apple had taken a sample of the average cost of a CD and the Average number of songs on a CD over an X-Year period leading into 2003. They determined it was pretty close to an average of a dollar a song (range something like .80 to $1.20).

A lot of people were upset by this - but by the time the meeting was happening with the indies, the store was already live with the majors at that price point.
Makes sense. There's also the marketing aspect... 99 cents is the kind of money people will spend without a second thought. There's something psychological about that price point... when Amazon's store opened, with no DRM and 89 cent downloads, it was the latter aspect that made me switch to buying there. I didn't really have a big issue with DRM, though not having it was a bonus too.
Old 31st December 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

nah, as i've said before, most are looking at this wrong.

the minimum value of a tune that you want to hear, whatsoever is .99

top tunes should be around 5.00

it's all coming, and sooner than you think.
Old 31st December 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
lagavulin16's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
you didn't read the article and miss the point completely - amazon is aggressively lowering prices and not making a dent against itunes in marketshare. pricing isn't the issue, obviously.
I'm not missing the point. I think we're talking about different points.

Apple controls the platform. ipod, ipad, itunes. You can go in there, click on a song, and it is on your computer/ipod/ipad in 10 seconds. It's a great, easy experience for buying MP3s.

Amazon you have to go through an extra step. It isn't as intuitive. I don't think this is as much about pricing as it is about the lock-in Apple can achieve and the ease of use that comes with their monopoly of sorts.

Further, we're talking about loss leaders. It's one thing for the odd Rihanna or Kanye album to be 5 dollars for a week or two, but I think if amazon were selling all MP3s at 50 cents or 25 cents all the time you'd see quite a bite from iTunes.

iTunes now has 66% of the market. They added 3% as they were at 63% last year. Amazon went from 9% to 12.5%. A small piece of the pie but a 33% increase year over year.

I find it all quite odd, but I don't buy MP3s. I do occasionally buy CDs from amazon and have been impressed with some of their release day prices. I think I paid 6.99 for the newest arcade fire album the week it was released.

I still think my point stands, that music (and all forms of content really) are permanently devalued going forward, with or without piracy. There is just too much content of all types out there and not enough time to absorb it all.
Old 31st December 2010
  #19
Lives for gear
 
lagavulin16's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermichael View Post
nah, as i've said before, most are looking at this wrong.

the minimum value of a tune that you want to hear, whatsoever is .99

top tunes should be around 5.00

it's all coming, and sooner than you think.
What are you basing this on?
Old 31st December 2010
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
I still think my point stands, that music (and all forms of content really) are permanently devalued going forward, with or without piracy. There is just too much content of all types out there and not enough time to absorb it all.
Truly impossible to know that. It's pure guess work on your part.
Piracy is so pervasive it's pretty hard to tell how healthy any creative scene would be.
Old 31st December 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
 
lagavulin16's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Truly impossible to know that. It's pure guess work on your part.
Piracy is so pervasive it's pretty hard to tell how healthy any creative scene would be.
I'm not even including piracy in the equation, as there is too much content without even considering it.

When I was a kid, we had 5 or 6 TV stations, a handful of radio stations, physical books, and a VCR.

Now we have 700 channels, endless internet radio stations, satellite radio, the internet providing all kinds of (legal) video, audio, gaming, forums such as this one which chew up X hours of our collective time, who knows how many self released albums/videos (even if it's something stupid like keyboard cat, it takes eyeballs and hours from those trying to sell content)... the list goes on forever.

The fact of the matter is that any of us could never buy another album, movie, book, or video game but still remain endlessly entertained with user created content, wikipedia, arguing on forums, you name it.
Old 31st December 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
I'm not even including piracy in the equation, as there is too much content without even considering it.

When I was a kid, we had 5 or 6 TV stations, a handful of radio stations, physical books, and a VCR.

Now we have 700 channels, endless internet radio stations, satellite radio, the internet providing all kinds of (legal) video, audio, gaming, forums such as this one which chew up X hours of our collective time, who knows how many self released albums/videos (even if it's something stupid like keyboard cat, it takes eyeballs and hours from those trying to sell content)... the list goes on forever.

The fact of the matter is that any of us could never buy another album, movie, book, or video game but still remain endlessly entertained with user created content, wikipedia, arguing on forums, you name it.
For the record, I believe you will turn out to be correct on this. It's the fact that there is too much content. I for one live and breath music but after I work on my own stuff and music I produce for others it leaves precious little time for me to enjoy outside music. It's just that there is too much content out there now and not enough time. I probably buy 2 Albums a year now:( I check out a lot of stuff online though when I can.

Going forward the new model is going to be Spotify. Mark my words..The user experience is just as easy as Itunes as if you had a library of millions of songs. Soon as the public gets a taste of it over here they will kiss ownership of tracks goodbye and millions will pony up for the app that allows thousands of tunes on your mobile. Like it or not, I believe this is the future. How we're going to get paid, is where the grey area is at the moment.
Old 31st December 2010
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
For the record, I believe you will turn out to be correct on this. It's the fact that there is too much content. I for one live and breath music but after I work on my own stuff and music I produce for others it leaves precious little time for me to enjoy outside music. It's just that there is too much content out there now and not enough time. I probably buy 2 Albums a year now:( I check out a lot of stuff online though when I can.

Going forward the new model is going to be Spotify. Mark my words..The user experience is just as easy as Itunes as if you had a library of millions of songs. Soon as the public gets a taste of it over here they will kiss ownership of tracks goodbye and millions will pony up for the app that allows thousands of tunes on your mobile. Like it or not, I believe this is the future. How we're going to get paid, is where the grey area is at the moment.
I don't know - how much are you willing to pay for crap?
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

IF there is some reasonable management of piracy, even at the cost of net neutrality - you'll see content be more valued. Content is only devalued right now because of who profits from it being that way.

Eventually, the snake will eat it's own tail, and there will be a need for quality content - someone will have to pay for it, and that someone will have to figure out an ROI that actually works.

We're in an odd time due to the back log of quality content made under the old system, but that's not going to last for ever. People always want new fresh and exciting.

I guess we'll see...
Old 31st December 2010
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
I'm not even including piracy in the equation,
Huh!
You made the statement that music was devalued with or without piracy.
The simple bald fact is that piracy IS part of the equation, so how could you ever know what the music scene would be like today without it.
Ans: You Can't.
Old 31st December 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Huh!
You made the statement that music was devalued with or without piracy.
The simple bald fact is that piracy IS part of the equation, so how could you ever know what the music scene would be like today without it.
Ans: You Can't.
hehheh

Yet... you and the other two blind mice keep yammering over and over that without piracy the music industry would be at least flat, if not growing.

Too funny for words.
Old 31st December 2010
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
hehheh

Yet... you and the other two blind mice keep yammering over and over that without piracy the music industry would be at least flat, if not growing.

Too funny for words.
So essentially in this post you have no reasoned argument to put back to us, resorting instead to childish name calling (three blind mice).

If you think your new term for us hurts I feel sorry for you. Is it really time to go to the frat house or high school musical?
There is nothing so blind as someone who never produced anything worth pirating, telling someone who is regularly pirated how they should conduct their business.
My position hasn't moved one iota in fact. I've never uttered the word 'flat'. I've always said we don't know where we'd be, we'd be struggling more due to global recession and competing interests, but we can't have people stealing content at the rate they currently are. No business could and stay afloat.
And I don't put a percentage on the piracy, just that's it's obviously easy to find illegal material and there are very few consequences in downloading it. So getting at least some facts straight would be a good start for you.



So I just want to debate the facts. Oh lord how have I been trying......

How do we know what the music scene would be like since 2005 without piracy? Please just tell me as Lagavulin is so confident, and you're confidently backing him.
Secondly (still working on yesterday's question with no luck so far), what is so crucially important and relevant about research from 2000-2004 to the piracy situation in 2011?
Old 31st December 2010
  #27
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
I don't know - how much are you willing to pay for crap?
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

IF there is some reasonable management of piracy, even at the cost of net neutrality - you'll see content be more valued. Content is only devalued right now because of who profits from it being that way.

Eventually, the snake will eat it's own tail, and there will be a need for quality content - someone will have to pay for it, and that someone will have to figure out an ROI that actually works.

We're in an odd time due to the back log of quality content made under the old system, but that's not going to last for ever. People always want new fresh and exciting.

I guess we'll see...
I'm not willing to pay anything for CRAP but there is plenty of good music to be discovered on Spotify and I will pay for the ability to listen to it. I find good music all the time through friends, friends of friends, articles, and just being into music and an artist. I don't have enough time in the day to listen to 1% of it so i'm confident quality isn't the issue. In the end, the consumer will fall in love with Spotify and that will be that. Then it will be the job of the artists and their interests to establish a royalty rate so that they can make something. Again, will it be what it used to be? I don't think so. I think they days of making fortunes in music are all but gone. I just hope we can start generating enough $$ again so those of us that are willing to try will have a chance to at least make a living. IF you want to be a zillionaire you better get into tech I guess.
Old 31st December 2010
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
I'm not willing to pay anything for CRAP but there is plenty of good music to be discovered on Spotify and I will pay for the ability to listen to it. I find good music all the time through friends, friends of friends, articles, and just being into music and an artist. I don't have enough time in the day to listen to 1% of it so i'm confident quality isn't the issue. In the end, the consumer will fall in love with Spotify and that will be that. Then it will be the job of the artists and their interests to establish a royalty rate so that they can make something. Again, will it be what it used to be? I don't think so. I think they days of making fortunes in music are all but gone. I just hope we can start generating enough $$ again so those of us that are willing to try will have a chance to at least make a living. IF you want to be a zillionaire you better get into tech I guess.
I assume you are not a professional musician, nor are you professionally involved in the record industry.

there's a really good reason why Spotify is not live in the USA, and it's because their CEO can't answer this one simple question... I know, I asked it of him, personally.


Q : How many plays on Spotify does it take to equal ONE US DOLLAR?
A : I Don't Know
Q : Do you have any sense of range? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
A: I Don't Know

nuff said.

who signs on for a business model when the CEO can't answer a simple question about how ONE US DOLLAR is generated.

If this is where it's all going, God help anyone with any aspirations to work professionally in the record industry.
Old 31st December 2010
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
I don't have enough time in the day to listen to 1% of it so i'm confident quality isn't the issue. In the end, the consumer will fall in love with Spotify and that will be that.
Well rather importantly, Spotify is only available ina few select territories.
Even if I LOVED Spotify, I couldn't use it here (in Australia).
When will it roll out in Russia, the East, Far East where piracy is rampant?

Secondly, there has always been a ton of content, and always a ton I didn't like.
People just naturally follow music trails, and dial out the music they don't like or don't need.
I don't think I own a single piece of music in my collection recorded in nashville.
That doesn't mean Nashville is crap and should be nuked off the music map, it just means I haven't got time to get into that musical territory and there's more than enough funk, techno and contemporary jazz available to keep me happy.
Nothing new there.
Old 1st January 2011
  #30
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
I assume you are not a professional musician, nor are you professionally involved in the record industry.

there's a really good reason why Spotify is not live in the USA, and it's because their CEO can't answer this one simple question... I know, I asked it of him, personally.


Q : How many plays on Spotify does it take to equal ONE US DOLLAR?
A : I Don't Know
Q : Do you have any sense of range? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
A: I Don't Know

nuff said.

who signs on for a business model when the CEO can't answer a simple question about how ONE US DOLLAR is generated.

If this is where it's all going, God help anyone with any aspirations to work professionally in the record industry.
I am a professional Musician and have made my living at it for 20 years. I'm just being realistic. I think that stuff will end up getting worked out. We pro's are in no position nor do we ultimately have the ability to stop the progression of what I believe will become the paradigm. Mobile and Spotify WILL come to the US. I believe they will work out the compensation. It will have to come to a compromise. I don't see any other way other than the further degradation and eradication of our industry.
Top Mentioned Products
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
scottwilson / Studio building / acoustics
5
G-lay / Q+A With Tommy Lee and The Public Record
2
tragedybysyntax / High end
9
hduncan / Music Computers
16

Forum Jump
Forum Jump