Music Labels May Seek Higher Download Prices 446
punxking writes "Some of the big music labels are now clamoring to raise prices for digital music downloads. From the article: 'Music industry executives said introductory wholesale prices for digital tracks had been set low to stimulate demand for online music sales but the success of Apple's music store had prompted concern that they may now be too low.'" Relatedly, the BBC is reporting that iTunes is under investigation in Britain for charging disparities between the UK and the European continent.
Re:Dupe City (Score:4, Interesting)
Pete and Repeat where in a boat..... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, might as well post my old comment.
I wonder if this push for a price increase is to put a dampner on the existing on-line players as they did with the CARP [copyright.gov] act a few years ago regarding streaming.
The problem, as the established media companies see things, with these new electronic outlets they have problems excerting their marketing influences to pimp their latest one-hit manufactured artist.
If they can put the breaks on things until *they* control the market then this is better for them. Its not really an issue concering margins as all the big players seem to be reporting big profits.
In other words (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Costs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Example: I recently released a CD for a friend's band. Cost was about $1,500 for a 1,000 CDs...shipped. Now, RIAA presses in 100,000 to 1,000,000 of units. So I am wagering they are well under a $1.
Now explain to me why I have to pay $12.49 - $21.95 for a single CD that cost under a $1? I would not mind if the artists saw $5 of that cost. But usually they are lucky if they see
Re:Costs? - COST DOES NOT AFFECT PRICE!! (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other things to consider in "selling" a product. What the market will bear is largely a simplistic economic viewpoint that looks at discrete periods of time. This is a model that will get companies and individuals who advocate those models in trouble with examples like bubbles. Specifically, like those that occurred in the tech markets of the late 90s and the current real estate markets in some parts of the country.
Why does this remind me of ATMs (Score:5, Interesting)
b) Moved to a small fee for the operator of the ATM, which is understandable.
C) Fee doubled when your bank realized it could charge you in addition to the charges of the ATM operator.
D) Mext the fees nearly doubled to an average of $1.50 each side of the transaction (minus the "free" out of network uses you get per month).
E) Finally -- we end up with bank plans where you can be charged to talk to a human teller.
If we figure out where we went wrong with banks and ATMs it might help us not repeat the same mistake.
Re:Costs? - COST DOES NOT AFFECT PRICE!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways of course we have no reason to complain when an industry raises its prices, we should then be complaining to the people who purchase at the higher price of course. On the otherhand if there is a monopoly on the item it can be illigal to bump the price too high. One could argue weither the MPAA is a monopoly, but as its not a essential service it really isn't the governments buisness.
All in all most people here see rising music prices as a bad idea, and firmly beleive that the industry will lose money on it. But apparently the industry is willing to lose money and point to the P2Ps for blame.
Not selling music "would mean nothing to them" (Score:5, Interesting)
Posted by michael on Thursday October 14, @08:25AM
from the win-win-situation dept.
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 [rollingstone.com]. 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."
Telling quote from the linked Rolling Stone article:
Tensions are not as high now as they were last winter, but making sure Wal-Mart is happy remains one of the music industry's major priorities. That's because if Wal-Mart cut back on music, industry sales would suffer severely -- though Wal-Mart's shareholders would barely bat an eye. 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, it seems as though Wal-Mart is playing chicken with the music labels, betting the labels will blink first. I would suppose if they can do this with physical media, they can do it with downloads as well.
"Many in the music business fear Apple's clout" (Score:5, Interesting)
Many in the music business also expressed concern over Apple's growing clout. This stems from the fact that Apple's music store and player are not compatible with any others. One fear is that Apple will become too powerful if consumers continue to choose its digital music platform. Apple declined to comment.
"One fear"? I'd say it's the main fear. The sticking point is not Apple's proprietary technology itself as much as how market share allows Apple to assert downward pressure on per-song pricing. The music biz wants to kneecap Apple. The goal is to force Apple to open the iPod/iTMS, distribute the platform's market share among any number of companies, and so get digital distribution fully under the music industry's thumb. Cartels like chattel, not coequals.
The big question is: if Jobs refuses, will the labels start to defect from iTMS? Apple will have planned for this scenario and their response is going to be very interesting--it will tell us pointedly where the power truly lies.
Re:Dupe City (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only ironic if you think swapping it is a sin...Otherwise it's just spreading the Word. It'd be amusing if the MPAA sued or prosecuted someone for distributing it...They'd lose what support they have.
Re:Costs? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I agree with your advice: vote with your pocket and don't buy it. Much as I like music, I have to admit that I've only purchased a single new CD since 1987 or thereabouts. They just seemed like a rotten deal to me, even then, and my opinion hasn't changed one whit for the better. Neither has their product. I don't mind buying used discs, because I figure someone else already paid the RIAA tax on them, and I have the satisfaction of denying them yet another sale.