Wal-Mart Squeezing Record Labels to Cut CD Prices 910
Raindance writes "RollingStone.com has a revealing article detailing how retail giant Wal-Mart is making loud noises about throwing its weight around in order to get significantly better bulk prices on CDs. Says one industry executive, 'This wasn't framed as a gentle negotiation, it's a line in the sand -- you don't do this, then the threat is [your product is dropped].' This is the first time a big player has attempted this sort of hardball move on the labels, and the labels may be forced to deal, as Wal-Mart sells 1 out of every 5 retail CDs. Monopoly one, meet monopoly two."
No news here. (Score:5, Informative)
walmart means moving product (Score:5, Informative)
Standard Operating Procedure (Score:5, Informative)
While I don't agree with this practice, I am glad to see it getting turned on the record companies now, since they've been ripping me and other consumers off for years. Let the jackals tear each other to pieces...
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:5, Informative)
The thing is, nearly 1 out of 5 *anythings* are sold by Walmart. They are big on a scale most people can't imagine.
We view "entertainment" industries as big, but really, companies like Walmart dwarf them. They just aren't in the news every day like the movie and record industry. They chug along making billions of dollars without drawing attention to themselves.
Wal-Mart has 3500+ domestic stores, and nearly 1500 international units. They pull in over $60 BILLION dollars per quarter and $2 billion of that is PROFIT.
Walmart has so much purchasing power with wholesalers that this current story is just everyday business. However, this time they happened to target a branch of the media, who tend to yell and scream louder than most industries when *anything* happens to them.
Why CDs are $15.99 (Score:5, Informative)
$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Walmart a monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:2, Informative)
But when you buy music at Wal Mart, are you getting the real version or the censored but identically packaged version [cexx.org] made especially for that store? (This is why you never see those 'explicit lyrics warning' stickers at Wal Mart -- they just don't give you a choice and force their censorship on you without your knowledge or consent.)
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:5, Informative)
By contrast, in the larger cities, the necessary goods are in closer proximity to one another so that going from one store to another is much less cumbersome. This also creates greater competition for shoppers' dollars, and the stores (on the whole) have a greater variety in order to distinguish one from another. In addition, bigger cities are actively trying to fight back against suburban sprawl and make better use of nearby land. The sheer size of Walmart runs counter to those goals. Therefore, Walmart is disdained in the big cities because it takes up an enormous amount of valuable space and does not stock the high end products that are locally available.
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:5, Informative)
A 30% markup for a specialty store is not unreasonable. You act like some asshole is just taking the $4 and putting it in his pocket. You should try to run a business. The owner of the store probably invested a good bit of money up front to get started. You have to fill the store with racks, buy inventory, and plan on running at a loss for the first few months as you grow your business. The owner is probably paying back the debt incurred at startup for a long time or they risked a lot of savings just to get started.
Once you get past that hurdle you have to pay rent, taxes, insurance, hire employees, pay unemployment tax, workers comp, social security. You also have to pay to advertise your business, pay your accountant to file your taxes, possibly hire a book keeper to help you keep up with the sales tax that you must pay. It is endless. $4 per CD doesn't go very far. You have to sell a lot of CD's to break even. Making a big profit off of such a business isn't a trivial thing.
I'm not saying that you should feel bad for business owners. Just realize that it isn't all that easy. If you go into a store that you really enjoy that has a wide selection, knowledgeable employees, and a great atmosphere with good customer support, you should appreciate it for the gem that it is. Someone has really had to put a lot of thought and strategy into pulling it off right. They probably also took a lot of risks just to get it started. It isn't all that easy.
It's not that easy (Score:2, Informative)
"While Wal-Mart represents nearly twenty percent of major-label music sales, music represents only about two percent of Wal-Mart's total sales. 'If they got out of selling music, it would mean nothing to them,' says another label executive. 'This keeps me awake at night.'"
So what happens when the publishers don't sell to Wal-Mart?
"...Wal-Mart executives hinted that they could reduce Wal-Mart's CD stock and replace it with more lucrative DVDs and video games."
So, not as easy for the labels as it seems. If Wal-Mart "will not be taken seriously as a place to get music," they can move on with other things, having made an example of the labels to others who might try the same tactic.
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:1, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
For further reading... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm too broke to NOT shop at Walmart.
cheers.
$4 per CD is not gouging (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps you should look at this again. In the mall around the corner from where I live, it costs $5000 per month for rent on their smallest sized storefront. Assuming they need a minimum of 4 employees working 40 hours per week to cover the store, and they pay them $8/hour, you come to over $5000 in salary expenses per month. That's $10,000 per month just for these two expenses. That means you need to sell over 83 CD's per day with a $4 markup in order to cover just these two costs. A music store requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of inventory. Personally, I don't think a $4 markup on a CD is gouging the customer. The record comanies, however, with a cost of under $1 per CD, selling for $12, is certainly gouging, especially when you consider that the payouts to the artists is included in that less than $1 cost.
Cut them off (Score:2, Informative)
Hmmm, I have one partner who is destroying all my other partners, providing no real benefits to me, and is now forcing me to wreck my margins in favor of theirs. Sure they sell a lot of my product, but record sales are actually down since they got in the game, and big deal, if they aren't selling my goods others will, and people will still buy.
It's not like if they stop supplying to WalMart they're going to lose those 1 in 5 customers. The benefits are pretty clear, they'll be doing their other partners a favor allowing them to compete (partners which provided marketing push for them) and they'll have more of their products on the selves.
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:2, Informative)
See the thing about averages is that there's a bottom, a middle, and a top. Or a left, middle, and right. Or maybe a better way to put it is that to graphically represent an average there has to be two points on opposite sides of the represented average.
If Walmart paid higher wages, then someone else would be paying "below average" wages, etc etc.
And I know some people aren't taught this, but, there's always someone at the bottom.
Low pay is not illegal, it's not even unethical. If Wal-Mart raised their pay rates, they'd have to fire people. So ask yourself, do you want fewer people making more money, or more people making "less than average" money?
Re:On the topic of wal-mart employment (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly correct. Some of those jobs will never be filled by citizens, for example agricultural jobs (read: fruit picking) around the Santa Cruz area on California's central coast. Unless you're willing to live four to a room, you can't afford to live there picking fruit. However, all of the wal-mart jobs currently being filled by illegal aliens could be performed by citizens, especially if kerry gets elected and fulfills his promise to raise the national minimum wage to $7 over the course of (approximately) his first term.
Re:Walmart is not evil (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My eyes are filling with tears for the labels.. (Score:3, Informative)
Am I getting you right, is that what you're saying? So DeBeers, MS, Exxon, R.J Reynolds, we know those guys aren't doing anything wrong because they have lots of money? That's the most bizarre argument i've heard in a very long time.
Anyway, as for a good argument why WalMart isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, despite their impressive wealth you can try this article: http://www.alternet.org/story/12962
You can refer to the book No Logo also for more information.
Really, there's a wealth of damning evidence out there. I don't think you've been looking.
Re:Why CDs are $15.99 (Score:5, Informative)
A simpler view of the same data...
This ISN'T the first time. (Score:4, Informative)
"This is the first time a big player has attempted this sort of hardball move on the labels."
Not true in the least. Slashdotters have Wal-Mart to thank for the record labels being punished for price fixing (as in the popular Slashdotter refrain, "the record companies are evil! They've been busted for price fixing!"). Here's what happened, in a nutshell:
Re:Why CDs are $15.99 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, what do you know? (Score:3, Informative)
Another problem with the Berkeley study is that it assumes that all Wal-Mart employees do not get health insurance through parents, spouses, or other employers. The actual results are likely to be much smaller.
Well, I still didn't read the actual report
"our methodology accounts for the fact that some individuals who have spouses working at a company with more generous health insurance are opting into such plans.... Given the greater rate of job based health coverage at large California retailers overall
I had guessed this about the methodology even before reading the response. I can't imagine a professional researcher/PhD without a personal axe to grind who wouldn't account for this in his research.