Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Businesses The Almighty Buck

A Bleak Future For Physical Media Purchases? 269

KevReedUK writes "The folks at ZDNet are eulogising over the upcoming death of physical media music sales. They refer to the noticeable drop in physical sales of albums whilst digital sales continue climbing (albeit at a reduced rate). Their central argument is that 'the music industry was pillaged by piracy and competition from other forms of entertainment such as video games ... [2007] marked the lowest tally and the steepest decline since Nielsen began publishing estimates based on point-of-sales data in 1993, a Nielsen representative said. The peak year in that time was 2000, when sales reached 785 million units.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Bleak Future For Physical Media Purchases?

Comments Filter:
  • by readandburn ( 825014 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @06:37PM (#21927172)
    1) CDs are overpriced. Here in Vancouver, CDs usually cost between $15.99 and $24.99. (Yes, you read that right. No, these are not special edition or imports.) If CDs sold for around $5, not as many people would bother illegally downloading music. It wouldn't be worth the trouble plus you can get the artwork, lyrics and something to physically "own".

    2) Most new popular music today is disposable and no one wants to pay for this crap. (Now get off my lawn.)

  • Re:I, for one (Score:2, Interesting)

    by readandburn ( 825014 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @06:50PM (#21927278)

    Aside the case artwork and such, what's the significance of having a "physical copy" in your possession?

    The originally post stated "Because I like to have it physically in my collection."

    People collect things. This person likes to collect CDs, possibly for a number of reasons (the aforementioned "artwork and such", showing off what he has to his friends, a hobby that gives him some pleasure, a sense of accomplishment (as silly as that may seem to other), etc.)

    I know a guy that buys CDs just to have them. He doesn't even listen to some of them! He just wants to "own" an organized library of music. Why? He enjoys it! (I think he's wasting his money, but whatever.)

    Collectors can seem very weird to those that don't share their interests, but it is what they do.

  • If the music industry is going to put a ton of crap on the shelves and only a few albums I really want then I will only be buying those few (since I like 80s music that is mainly oldies compilations).

    Nowadays I am more often buying mp3s from amazon as I can get the odd track that has either no longer on the shelf or is only available with a bunch of other tracks I already have/don't want.

    Would I buy more stuff off the shelves? If what I like were available. Borders and FYE have been the best of getting album sales from me lately.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @07:39PM (#21927732)
    I guess I'm buying the wrong CDs. I have never seen CD prices above about $12.99 and I've lived in PA, OH, and MN over the last 15 years that I've remembered buying CDs so it's not like it was a regional thing.

    I don't typically buy music online or in physical stores as what I listen to (for the most part) is available for free online (Grateful Dead, Widespread Panic, String Cheese Incident, etc, etc, etc, etc) but I have been using Amazon's MP3 store for other shit that's Indie like Blonde Redhead's album 23 because they have it, it's cheap, it's DRM free and I'm happy to support those that aren't RIAA hooked fucks.

    My wife just informed me that the most she has spent on a CD was $15.99 on a Taylor Hicks CD that was only available from some small local store in Arkansas. So I really want to know where these $19 CDs are and why I can't find them -- do they really exist or are Slashbotters just making that number up to cement their idea that RIAA sponsored music is horrid (like we didn't know already)?

    Any actual proof of a majority of CDs listed for $19?
  • Re:I, for one (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Enleth ( 947766 ) <enleth@enleth.com> on Saturday January 05, 2008 @07:50PM (#21927818) Homepage
    For me that's about the quality. I've got a very good, stand-alone CD player and an analog amplifier - and quite a crappy sound card in the laptop, so I prefer listening to the CDs. Yes, there's a clearly audible difference, mostly in the amount of "white noise" hum in the speakers and high frequency distortions on higher volumes - the latter especially noticeable when listening to classical music and operas, rich in high-pitched sounds. Of course that's because most of today's music is low frequencies (beat and the like) so no one is going to notice that and manufacturers can save a few bucks using a crappy amplifier with crippled frequency response in the consumer devices...
  • by thetoastman ( 747937 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @08:07PM (#21927978)

    is that today, with just a few clicks, we can get just about anything we want for free.

    While free certainly does have its appeal, I think removing the word free tells an even more important story.

    Doing research on exactly what songs you want takes time. Creating play lists, ripping to an audio format, and then storing them on a media player takes time. If a record label is going to give people a mechanism to get exactly what people want rather than what people want plus 6-8 songs people don't, then most people are going to go the single song route.

    I can think of at least two reasons to generate albums. One is that the popular songs subsidize the unpopular songs, The second is that the record labels are trying to appeal to a larger market by packaging up a broad collection of songs.

    I've not listened to a lot of pop music lately, but it seems to me that album concepts are fewer and fewer. There were advantages to getting Alan Parson's Project I, Robot, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Are there any albums concepts being sold today (regardless of whether you like the music listed above)?

    I think if the record labels wanted to be successful, they would do something like the following.

    1. Aggressive release schedule digitally
    2. Release one or two new songs at a time - when they're considered ready
    3. Monitor sales and feedback from consumers
    4. Collect well-received tracks together for a CD
    5. Put value-added material on the CD (liner notes, history, etc.

    This accomplishes a lot of things. There is less risk per song. Labels and artists would get quicker feedback on their music. Those artists who were concerned about commercial success could focus on that. Those artist who were focused on the art could use the release early, release often strategy to build a following.

    I don't know a lot about the mechanics of music (session musicians, recording engineers, sound studios, etc.) although I used to do some recording in college. However, this seems like a workable approach.

    What this approach does though is change the dynamics of the music business. A lot of project-oriented people will find their value decreasing. A lot of people who focus on the craft and quality of the art will probably find their stock increasing. For the consumer, this is not a bad thing. For the record executives, advertising executives, and manufacturing executives this is a bad thing indeed.

    Welcome to the (new) machine - the Internet.

  • Get off my lawn! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Graftweed ( 742763 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @08:07PM (#21927984)

    Distribution of content (music in this case) over the internet, definitely has its advantages from the point of view of the consumer, such as no time wasted going to the store or waiting for goods to arrive, and also a myriad of advantages from the point of view of the content producer.

    That being said, there are several tradeoffs that I, personally, am just not ready to make unless I'm forced to by the discontinuation of CDs or by a change in the distribution model. Here are the things we are losing as we move way from CDs:

    • Raw CD Audio - I can take the lossless raw cd audio and encode it into my pet format of choice with minimal loss of quality. If I start with a MP3 and assuming that's not my pet audio format, then the loss of quality if I use a lossy codec will be noticeable.
    • Used Market - I like how I can turn to the used CD market if I don't want to pay full price for an album, or if for some reason I have a problem giving the producer in question money. It'll be a cold day in hell when the EULAs that each distributor uses allows the resale of a downloaded audio file.
    • The Physical Product - A pet peeve of mine to be sure, but I like having the actual object. Not only are some pretty damn cool [jutojo.de], they serve as a backup and look good on my CD tower.

    I'm willing to overlook the last one if they tweak the distribution model to address the first two as they are the real deal breakers for me. Especially the absence of a used market.

  • Duh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by saladpuncher ( 633633 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @08:12PM (#21928038) Homepage
    The older generation that buys music as a physical medium already has purchased everything they want. My mom isn't going to repurchase the White Album no matter what new wacky format it comes out in. The new generation doesn't see those shiny metal discs as storing music. They grew up with everything being digital. Even if they burn everything to an MP3 cd, how many songs will that store? 200-300? Their friggin phones can hold that. Their ipods, zunes, etc can hold thousands or more. Do you think they are going to buy an album for 20 bucks that has ONLY 10 songs? The end of the physical medium is here. Open up a web site and sell all of your stuff online for a good price. Oh wait...Apple already is :)
  • Re:I, for one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @09:54PM (#21928658) Homepage
    It's kind of ironic that piracy and open source will end up being what preserves content for future generations.

    What's more likely to be playable in 400 years? A Blu-ray disc of Star Wars with copy protection, or a pirated h.264 file of the same movie, when the source for the h.264 codec is available?

    Gee, I wonder.

  • Re:I, for one (Score:2, Interesting)

    by yukk ( 638002 ) on Saturday January 05, 2008 @11:04PM (#21929070)
    Also, for me, having a physical copy means that when the MAFIAA comes a-knockin', you can point to a shelf full of physical items and then tell them to pucker up and kiss your hiney. An iPod etc. full of music/movies means finding electronic/paper receipts to prove legal ownership including for that song you got from a free download at Starbucks that time.
    Plus if an MP3 of something gives me a headache as it sometimes does, I am screwed, but if I have the CD, I can rip it to FLAC or ogg.
    Also, I like collecting things. So call me a packrat.

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...