The Downward Spiral of Music Retailing 415
chundo writes "Business Week has an article about the financial problems plagueing specialty music retailers. Tower Records, Musicland, and Sam Goody are all "hemorrhaging money", despite efforts to move sales online. Some chains are trying to adapt - Virgin Megastore is testing an in-store service to download songs to portable players, and their Radio Free Virgin unit hopes to break into digital music retailing. Is the failure of conventional music sales reinforcement that the RIAA's business plan just doesn't work, or will it just provide them with more ammunition against the P2P crowd?"
Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:2)
Re:Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:3, Informative)
Amazon.com Radiohead: Hail to the thief. US$13.49
Amazon.ca Same cd: CDN$ 13.99
Plus buy a book or something els which you *need*. Bring the total to $39 cdn. free shipping. Also amazon does have a used cd section.
Re:Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:5, Insightful)
bingo. although it should be noted that p2p only gets a small amount of attention in the article. the bottom line is that the retailers are getting creamed on price. simply, there are other channels that offer the same material for less and consumers are going there instead. sure, p2p is considered a factor, but the three big culprits are:
- discount stores: walmart, target and friends can flog the most popular cd's at a discount - sometimes even as loss leaders to generate traffic. with prices sometimes several dollars less than, say, hmv people will pick up the new madonna cd along with their toilet paper. this price discount is all about volume
- online sales of new cds: amazon for instance. they can underprice tower records because of volume just like walmart, but also because of reduced operating costs of not having a physical store front.
- online sales of used cds: ebay here. even for something as durable as a cd, the used price always comes in lower than new. with the internet facilitating used cd sales, it's taking a big chunk out of the retailers.
note also that this is only about retailers, not labels or artists. the riaa is concerned about geffen moving units. it doesn't necessarily car if those units are moved through tower or target or amazon.Re:Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still sometimes go in stores and do the serendipity thing especially in a really good used store (like Amoeba in SF). But, overall, online's bothe better and cheaper (except for loss leaders). That's hard to beat.
Re:Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not only price. There's three area's where retail music stores fall short of the alternatives:
1) Price.
2) Selection.
3) Convenience.
Using P2P or online music stores, you can usually get better deals (p2p is free, deals don't get much better than that
Alternatives to retail stores don't have to be online though. I get all of my music from the CD rental place in the library and I copy the ones I like. I pay $2 a week to rent a CD, they have 250.000 titles available, and I can listen to any CD I want: they keep the discs inside the jewel cases in the racks. There you have a good deal, good selection and true convenience. Best of all: the rental price and the price of blank CDs include royalties, so it is perfectly legal to make copies and keep them according to the authorities.
Re:Who goes to the store to buy music? (Score:3, Funny)
Not Mutually Exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Both, unfortunately.
Why is it an either or question? (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA is, I believe, misunderstanding the situation in that they would lose sales regardless, but the reality of any situation rarely intrudes on the legalities.
Re:Why is it an either or question? (Score:5, Interesting)
But 3.8 million DVD players isn't much in the US. At one point a few years ago there were more than 280 million TVs in the US (I know more than one per person) so 3.8+1.9+? is about 2% which is very lame considering a what a DVD player costs. According to wal-marts web site the cheap ones are US$59.6 but the DVDs are 17 to $20.
I think record sales are down beause everyone has the music the like and the new bands all suck. All the CDs I have bought recently are either Indy bands, replaments for dmanaged discs or old bands with new material (and I'm not talking best of).
If the record company wants some of my business, they are going to have to improve the product and keep the price down. I used to have a rule that I never paid more then $10 for a CD and most of my collection is in that price point and my only exceptions were imports and local bands.
Re:Why is it an either or question? (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and the crappy US economy at the moment. I sure don't go buy music when I'm broke...of course, this is just another excuse to say "OH, they're PIRATING because they CAN'T AFFORD IT".
Sadly, the RIAA answers their own question about why some people prefer to go to the trouble of pirating (hunting it down, getting a stable connection, finding correctly labeled files at a decent bitrate), but they dont realize that the answer isn't "eliminate piracy", that's a fight you'll never win.
The answer is better quality for lower cost, just like EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD MUST DO. Somehow they think they can do it sdrawkcab and sue/lobby their way to success. Thy're not losing much from me, I never pirate music anymore because I feel most things I could find I wouldn't want to listen to. Other people, however, won't just vote with their wallet, they'll vote with their LimeWire. The music industry is destroying themselves and they don't even realize it.
Intestesting side note: Think this dip in sales might possibly be a massive "voting with out wallets", and the RIAA just thinks we're all pirates because we're not buying? I think they need a wakeup on the content front, I'd really be happy to give them my money if they'd improve the situation instead of just antagonizing it. It's easy guys:
- Make it better. (More interest.)
- Make it cheaper. (More units sold.)
- Profit! (And everyone else is happy, too.)
Not everyone is interested in "stealing". We do, however, like to be entertained and we're willing to pay when we can afford it. Think about that.Wide *and* shallow (Score:3, Insightful)
Wide, but very shallow.
My own CD buying has increased (thanks to greater discretionary income than college years), but I almost never step into one of the CD stores. Shopping there is like expecting to buy designer clothing from Kmart - it ain't gonna happen. If it's general pop or orchestral music I'm looking, it's amazon.com's former cdnow that I shop. Usually, though, it's direct from the la
Duh, door number two (Score:5, Interesting)
The first candidate for House or Senate who proposes rolling back copyrights to 14 years has my vote, regardless of party.
Re:Duh, door number two (Score:2)
Thomas Jefferson predicted this Re:Duh, door (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you that the RIAA will do all it can as it writhes in its death throes after having missed the bus when the Napster Revolution took place.
It reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Re:Thomas Jefferson predicted this Re:Duh, door (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Thomas Jefferson predicted this Re:Duh, door (Score:3, Interesting)
Benjamin Franklin had always been interested in a *uni*cameral legislature, and an executive by rotating committee. Nothing could be further from the ideas of the Federalists.
The opposition Jefferson was talking about had used the Alien and Sedition acts and aggressive use of libel statutes in an effort to suppress any pro-French, anti-Federalist sentiment.
All because of piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
WRONG!
According to the RIAA and MPAA low sales is because of piracy, therefore we must have more laws and no rights.
Why buy entire CDs when we can pay only for the song we like a from a per song legal music download site? The MPAA claims that movie viewing has gone down, but they fail to take into account that you can see movies as well at home on a home theater system without the $5 popcorn or the chewing gum on the floor.
Re:All because of piracy (Score:2)
Re:All because of piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Also remember that buying downloads comes with DRM, and also leaves you without artwork or liner notes, or a physical object containing your product. Personally I'd rather go buy a cd single for a couple dollars if I only liked one song, get the packaging, and the disc, and make my own DRM free mp3s, or oggs, or whatever.
Plus you get a b-side song or two that way.
I usually download full albums, and then decide if I like them. If I do I look for used copies that are around $4-5 since that's what I'm willing to pay for a cd.
A new release is Metallica's St. Anger, downloaded it, hated it, not buying it. Nobody lost a dime in this other than me paying for the electricity to listen to it. Hey, electricity broke the DMCA! Time to shut down the power plants!
Type O Negative's Life Is Killing Me is another very new release, which I loved, (and I'm talking about the ALBUM, not a song here or there) and plan to buy it as soon as I can find it for a price I'm willing to pay. In the meantime they're going to get money from me when they come to town, because I'll be right up front at the show.
Re:All because of piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like the last doizen or so cd's I've bought have been DIRECTLY from the band at some little joint where they were playing... They're generally very eager to sell you a cd at 10 bucks, and to support the band directly like that, I'm willing to shell out the dough. Heck, it's not even JUST the little bar-bands either---Even the ones who made it to the Big Stadium concerts sell their own cds...
Of course the drawback is that the Record company probably doesn't get a single red cent out of it... Darn!
I bought ONE cd last year (Score:5, Insightful)
a) I don't much care for what the studios are producing these days, and
b) I've got other things to spend my money on besides cds that may only contain one or two decent songs.
Piracy is an easy scapegoat, but as long as they believe that piracy is the cause of all their ills, they will continue to lose revenue and must eventually figure it out or die.
They are blind to their true problems.
I went through that too... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Is it directly proportional to the downward spiral of music quality? How about to the downward spiral of RIAA-member customer "relations?"
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
try the economy, stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
But yes, I agree, the entertainment industry has always been "big business" and it's not as if the execs have only recently gotten greedy. It's just that the whole thing has been snowballing and a significant minority of consumers have reached the breaking point.
is doesn't matter (Score:2)
Money to be made in P2P (Score:3, Interesting)
How dumb are they?
Re:Money to be made in P2P (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, its not really free. The record companies pay to record, produce, and market it. If they had to cover the costs of actually producing content on ad revenue from a P2P service, they would go bust, like every other dot-com that thought they could make it big off of banner ads while giving their product away for free. They quite reasonably don't want to do that, because they have a business model now that, provided their consumers respect existing copyright laws, is quite a bit more profitable.
Re:Money to be made in P2P (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what the whole issue is about - not just $, but cultural control. A P2P network is not nearly as easily tamed as distributing CDs, since the clients are n
Re:Money to be made in P2P (Score:5, Insightful)
One the right, the red console: a vibrant P2P network teeming with shares. It has perhaps 50% of the musical selection blue, but with the added benefit of hundreds of terabytes worth of movies, software, images, and, well, above all, porn. All content is free, based on open standards, and unrestricted. Downloads are quick for popular media, but can take days or even weeks for hard-to-find items.
Which would you choose?
C'mon, be honest. That the latter exists right now and the former isn't even close to is beside the point. Human nature being what it is, blue has almost no chance of ever succeding while red is right there by its side.
Re:Money to be made in P2P - Yeah Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Which wouldn't have been playable on any of the current players.
Which would have required record stores to stock twice as many discs, meaning probably half as many selections, since they would have the old and new formats.
Which would have increased mastering, manufacturing, and inventory costs.
Which a lot of people wouldn't have wanted to update to because frankly most of us don't want to spend an additional $500-$1000+ for a difference we can't hear.
Which wouldn't have succeeded well at all for years at best.
Which might not have played an any computer players, ending that market.
And which wouldn't be immune from digital ripping, compression, and filesharing anyway.
You call that a plan?
Not an either-or situation (Score:2)
Hemmoraging money (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe I should become a financial manager ... (Score:2)
It's obvious why they're going down the drain. Workers are obviously lifting red pens en masse.
In short.. (Score:2, Insightful)
New Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
And while all this was going on, the retailers were just sitting on their butts not doing anything. What the CD retailers should have done was band together and get on the RIAA's back about coming up with a better product that would bring back consumers to CD purchasing.
The retailers will always have the hardcore music listeners who will continue to buy CDs no matter what. They are the people keeping those businesses around at least for a little while longer. Unfortunately, the average CD buyer has been swayed by P2P sites, being satisfied with the quality of the files they get from them.
So, what the retailers (and RIAA) should be doing is developing new incentives for people to go back to CDs (or another media). Why not add cool features (like they've been experimenting with) such as bonus content, exclusive concert ticket buying rights, etc.? Or, they should really push the DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD formats (preferably picking one as the standard), which offer far superior sound to MP3s.
Perhaps it is too late. Perhaps the procrastination has killed the CD industry. I hope not, personally, because I highly prefer a physical product to MP3s.
Why are they called specialty music stores? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why are they called specialty music stores? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hear Music (which is a small chain actually owned by Starbucks) fits the bill pretty well, and their selling model focuses a great deal on their "Hear Recommends" items (these are items that the store / staff recommends). I really like this because I can go into their store, see what they recommend and get exposed to new artists / new types of music.
Tower records selection varies from store to store, but its usually pretty good and its prices are at least competitive with other 'real world stores' - they also at least attempt to make the customer feel at home in a place that represents music culture and not just corporate profit. Virgin is similar to Tower in my eyes, except the stores are nicer, are fewer and farher between and they have a consistently large selection of everything - and the prices are a bit higher than Tower on average.
Sam Goodie, on the other hand, is simply awful. The prices are higher than any other chain, and every time I walk into one I feel like I'm in a generic mall shop instead of a store that is part of the music culture. No thank you.
On the other hand, when I do buy CD's (which I do less and less these days) I buy at least half from Amazon and most of the rest from Hear or Virgin. Amazon is cheaper that all of the physical stores I've mentioned on nearly every CD, selection is basically never an issue with them and I never have to leave home to make my purchase. In the end, the only reason I don't use Amazon exclusively is that at Hear or Virgin, I get instant gratification (that is, not have to wait for Amazon to ship me my order).
Re:Why are they called specialty music stores? (Score:3, Informative)
If you're implying that Tower or Virgin are, even a little bit in the 'music culture', you're definitely wrong. I can't say anything about Hear Music, because I've never seen one, but Tower and Virgin just peddle you the same crap over and over again. Their 'indie' or 'non-mainst
Aside from new distribution methods... (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel that retail audio has stagnated with the CD, perhaps even regressed. Commercial CDs offer very little (in terms of audio) over P2P, and discs now are so heavily compressed sometimes a P2P mp3 from a leaked source might have better dynamic range.
Retailers should move toward pushing a new mainstream standard, say SACD.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me, tell me, baby
How come you don't wanna love me
Don't you know that I can't breathe without you
Tell me, tell me, just how
What am I supposed to do right now
Why can't you love me?
Why-y, tell me, my baby
Do you think that would appeal to me, glasses wearing, Linux using, me? Maybe they should try songs marketed towards the demographic with some discretionary income.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't personally think that "the sky is falling" because of file sharing. Music will still come out regardless of what happens to the labels. I think it's absolutely naive, though, to think that file sharing is so
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'm not convinced that on-line file sharing is the main vehicle of piracy. To point, have you actually tried assembling a complete album entirely from P2P applications?
First, you have to get a listing of all the tracks, and then you have to search for each track individually. Then you hope that they're all listed at the time you're on, which more likely than no
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jack Valenti really pissed me off by saying "There is no business model that can compete with free!" in reference to P2P trading of movies. What he doesn't understand is that people actually pay for services too as well as goods. Why would I spend an hour downloading an album I want if I can pay $10 to a website and download it in couple of minutes with guaranteed quality?
I'd love to ask him this: "Your office provides all the coffe
NO MONEY FOR MUSIC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NO MONEY FOR MUSIC (Score:4, Interesting)
Recorded music is a waste of time. To illustrate my position, think about sports.
Say you like baseball and the Yankees. You like baseball insofar as it is a tool toward the goal of gaining some level of pleasure and enjoyment. You like the Yankees because you admire how they perform in the moment. You don't watch the same game over and over because sports are not meant to be enjoyed as a recording.
Same goes for music. It's the performance that counts--much more so than the message or the sound itself. The enjoyment comes from watching musicians do their stuff in front of a crowd--be it 10 or 10,000--with the chance of disaster.
That's where the talent is. That's where the fun is. And not incidentally, that's where the artist makes money.
My fondest memories of music are at concerts--Dozens of them, not lounging around by the stereo.
It's the economy stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US economy has crashed and record sales are down, doh!
Put people back to work and record sales will go up, doh!
Population Demographics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's the economy stupid! (Score:4, Funny)
Nirvana.
Is this really unique? (Score:2)
Re:Is this really unique? (Score:2)
Using Virgin Records as an example for the market. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing special about specialty (Score:5, Insightful)
But we all cared about music, and we knew music very well. All the store sold was musical equipment, stereo equipment, and music - not pins and ribbons here. But my bud was in school and didn't really care too much about the store - it was a trap for him (the family business) and he was more concerned with getting his phd so he could get on with a career of his own.
Anyway there were probably tens of housands of music stores like that back then. Some were hard core, some were family businesses - but most all had one thing in common: the people running them at least KNEW something about the music they specialized in. A good many of them traded in used records as well.
But most of those places are gone now - they died even before the chains started feeling the pinch. With the chains in the back pocket of the majors, I think this change is actually a good thing. Because the one thing the indierecord stores CAN provide like no other is service. If the indies were to specialize in indie artists, in providing a local "hangout" and a place for people to gather and trade knowledge and music, they could once again become a dominant force in the industry.
Consider: why is it OK to hang out in a book store, sit and drink coffee and read all day, but record stores think this is so bad?
Even with the internet, people still like gathering and hanging out. Provide a place for them to feel comfortable and organize your service around that model, and there's no telling where the stores of the future could go. Think about people sitting around, drinking coffee and eating crullers, trading music on their ipods, exchanging knowledge - maybe even bringing in their old LPs to have them "ripped" to SHNs or APEs on the store's high quality LP playback system.
No matter how they spin it, I just never hear a downside when talking about the death of the (old) music industry. It's a great time to be alive... unless you're a slave of the RIAA.
More Ammo? (Score:4, Insightful)
"specialty music retailing" (Score:2)
Or because of a bad economy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps sales for them will start going back up when jobs quit getting exported overseas, when people start buying things as locally as possible, and corporations stop paying people dick for wages. I think if this were to happen, people here would have more money, and they could buy more CDs.
Here is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no good new music out there. Period. It's all a rip-off of something else, which sucked.
CD's are over priced. I wanted to buy a older CD (Metalica's, Ride the Lighting) and it was $14. Come on, that album came out 20 years ago, why so much?
Amazon.com and other like online sellers are killing these companies. Why? I can sit at home and order new, used and hard to find CD's, DVD, books and more. Why drag my ass out to Tower Records (Which always plays the worse music on the store's stereo system) and pay too much for music and DVD's.
The music biz business model is not working in todays market, so they'll blame pirates. Make a good product and sell it at a fair price.
Re:Here is why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't say I disagree. Offer me something worth listening to and I'll pay a fair price for it. I'm happy to pay, because I know how much work it is to make music (my brother has recorded a couple of albums, described by a former colleague as "A bar band. A good bar band"), and if the performers don't get paid, they'll quit making music.
The fact that the current distribution
Media Still Blindly Peddling Half-Truths (Score:2)
Has anyone provided a credible causal connection between the use of Kazaa et al. and declining CD sales? Many more factors have been cited, such as DVDs and games competeing for disposable income, a 20%(?) reduction in new material and new artist releases, and the inevitabilit
It's a little problem called ... (Score:2)
No, what am I thinking. it can't be unemployment leading to lower sales.
--Pat
Note: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the specialty retailers who are feeling the pinch. Their plight in actuality has little to do with P2P apps, but does have to do with illegal activity by the RIAA.
Specifically, they're suffering because the RIAA started obeying the law.
Allow me to elaborate.
With the rise of big box retailers (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc.), the RIAA began to fear about ten years ago that the big-boxes would start selling only hit music at huge discounts (possibly at or about wholesale cost) as a means of generating f
Sam Goody Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought the GBA game Advance Wars from them and paid $14 US for shipping. It took well over a week to arrive, and when it did the postage mark was for $1.60 US.
I let them have it in an email, but they claimed it was all part of the "third party shipping".
Whether it's games or music, if they're going to practice business like that, I hope they fold sooner than later.
It's the prices, stupid! (Score:4, Interesting)
This goes for DVDs at the offending retailers as well.
-matt
Price, not piracy (Score:5, Informative)
RIAA don't know basic economics. (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean between the fact that the RIAA is acting like an economic cartel and the fact they've set the price point somewhere in the stratosphere (e.g., US$18 or more per album-length audio Compact Disc), no wonder why sales are nose-diving. Anyone's who's taken a beginning course in economics in college knows that if a cartel sets its price too high, there is WAY too much economic incentive for consumer to thwart that cartel,
iPod would work so well here... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA Will Use It to Score Points, But There's More (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the population is getting older. Buying music is, for most people, an activity that decreases as they get older.
Second, in addition to downloading, music is offered for sale in many venues that weren't available a decade ago. As the article notes, why make a special trip to a speciality shop when you can buy it from Amazon, at Walmart, or on your next stop at the bookstore.
Third, I'm skeptical about the 40 million Americans download music claim, or the common assertion that filesharing prompts purchases that wouldn't happen otherwise. But, if/when it does, it seems likely that the purchaser will be inclined to order it online using the same computer used for the download, rather than going tothe trouble of traveling to any store -- big box or speciality shop -- to make the purchase.
Fourth, this is very speculative, but the music industry has, for a number of years, lacked the one or two overwhelmingly popular acts that can spike sales across the industry. (Think Beatles in the 1960's.) People who would not otherwise ever buy music do buy the music of these acts.
*Non*-specialty stores? (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer used CDs, anyway. Cheaper, same discs. Unfortunately, the one chain store that stocks 'em - Wherehouse - seems to be bleeding out into oblivion as well. They've closed most of them in my area, and I saw a bunch closing down in L.A. recently as well...
Change what you are Selling (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with these stores is that they are all trying to sell a commidity item. There is no difference in that CD whether you are purchasing it from Amazon, Goodies, or Tower Records, somehow do these stores expect that just because they have the product that they automatically will have people begging them to sell them that CD? It is a commidity, someone can get it anywhere.
If they want to sell something, they have to sell a service, give people a reason to go their store and buy a CD there, listen before you buy, or a nice place to relax while chilling with their music. Just throwing the thing up on a stand with a big sign saying *$16.95* is just not good enough anymore.
not all record stores are doing bad (Score:5, Interesting)
they have reasonable prices (about $11-$14 new)
they have a good selection (everything but pop and newer country)
they have a knowledgeable staff
quick special ordering
they carry smaller, independant labels you'll never find at *insert huge chain here*
Just an example, the new Radiohead album:
borders: $19.99
independant record store: $12.88
Re:not all record stores are doing bad (Score:3, Informative)
I bought my copy at Borders for $12.44.
Just an example... (Score:3, Informative)
Tower Records: $9.99
What the stores really need ... (Score:3, Interesting)
From my experience, the clerks in music stores - with a few notable exceptions - mostly listen to rap, metal, or old rock. What I want is to walk into a store, talk to someone, and have them guide me to where the good (!!!), relatively unknown music is. I love going to my friends with a new CD and saying, "Check this out, I bet you've never heard of them, but they're an excellent band!"
Until that happens, I'll listen to shoutcast [shoutcast.com] and download the good stuff. I'll do the work myself.
Both! (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA uses P2P as a scapegoat for the failed business models of the labels it represents and their inability (or unwillingness) to adapt their copyright stance in the face of new technology. In fact, the answer to your question is "both" in that as the reports of declining sales come out, the RIAA uses P2P to distract attention from the fact that labels have degenerated into top-heavy marketing machines.
The RIAA is not the record industry. When the RIAA says "we", they mean the big 5 record labels (Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner's, BMG). The RIAA is the recording industry's lobbying arm, charged with keeping the names of the labels out of the headlines as they seethe forward into the breach.
I'm wondering if accused P2P users can adopt a defense that they are non-profit broadcasters who got caught not paying their compulsories.
uhh (Score:3, Informative)
you must be new here... (Score:4, Funny)
obligatory
What the overlook... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever since recorded music first came into existance there is one thing that consumers have wanted and the record companies have steadfastly refused to deliver:
The ability to purchase exactly the songs you want and only the songs you want. At various times you've been able to buy singles in various formats (45 rpm, CD, cassette) but even then, the record companies dictated which songs were available.
The answer is amazingly simple: Put every song in existance on-line in one central location for download at a reasonable price (25 cents per song or less) in standard mp3 format with no DRM crap. This would be enormously successful and would generate huge revenue.
But the record companies will never agree to this and never even allow it to enter their minds. They are still locked into the mindset of "why should we let people buy one song for a quarter when we can force them to buy an entire CD for $18".
Give me a reason to visit! (Score:5, Interesting)
- If I want to buy a "top 40" record, I'll pick it up for $12 at Best Buy or Target or something like that the next time I'm in the neighborhood.
- If I want to buy an obscure record by a local or indie artist, I'll visit the local House O' Piercings And Attitude (aka indie record store).
- If I want to buy something that nobody'll have in stock and it'll have to be special-ordered anyway, I'll go to Amazon.
See Sam Goody in there? Neither do I. There's no reason for me to go out of my way to visit a place that charges 50% more than Best Buy for the same mainstream crap. Besides, my days of "gotta have that new record right now" are over. If I am feeling lazy and willing to pay the premium, I'll just buy it from Amazon.Why would I pay for this crap? (Score:4, Funny)
At $15 to $20 per CD that works out to about 3 hours to 4 hours of work for someone working minimum wage. Who would work 4 hours so they can support Britney Spears' music career? The sooner her career's over the sooner we get to see her in Playboy.
The RIAA/music retailing business in its current form is dead. It's not dead because of P2P being good. It's dead because it has been a piece of crap years but they locked out competition. P2P is the only competition out there for RIAA. Anything hurting their sales helps respectable companies and artists enter the market.
Broken model (Score:3, Insightful)
Industries like the RIAA and music distributors are using a model that doesn't work anymore. Technology has made them redundant. All you need to play recorded music is to have a copy of it. Obvious enough, but only recently has the media carrying the music itself become irrelevant.
Time ago, that copy came on vinyl, then tape, then CD. Fine and dandy, and the record companies supported this customer demand fairly well (not really music companies - the label and the artist was a different thing). They progressed through the different media and made a ton of money.
So here we are in 2003, and people still want music, but many of us don't need or even want a CD to hold our copy of the music - we just want the music!
That's what the record industry can't handle. Their distribution and business model needs to be overhauled. They need to reshape themselves into pure production and marketing houses, but get the hell out of the distribution game. If they were smart, they'd sell "per song" to Amazon, or whoever, and do it just like iTunes does. Hell, you could set up terminals in CD-Stores for punters to grab the tracks they want directly to their iPod and then pay at the counter.
P2P has always been there - we used to swap tapes and dubs back in primary school years ago - so I don't buy the "Napster is Killing Us" lines. If they play the game right, people won't need to scour the net to find their favourite tracks in high quality - they'll just dial up Warner Music, or the 50c website or whatever and download it. I'm sure some payment method could be handled, say a monthly account type of thing (eg, pay up purchases on the 20th), or an online version of EFT-POS to avoid CC charges.
It's not that difficult, but these cats seem to be shit-scared of making the necessary changes
Has anybody tied this in with ClearChannel yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardon my french, (Score:5, Insightful)
The cat won't go back in the bag (Score:3, Informative)
They haven't forgotten. If they can't P2P, it just makes them pissed off - they aren't buying $20 CDs ever again.
-Graham
Internet content distribution is here to stay (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly there is need to change business model. What else was Internet bubble all about? Many established business models, literally ported to HTML, few scripts and few servers, clearly don't work. What else was Internet bubble burst about?
Clearly music is not what it used to be. When I was in college I could find exciting new band at least once a month, if I tried. I (and many from my generation) could listen to 2-3 albums from a single band for 6 months or more, over and over.
Still, even the hardest music junkies arrived at 200+ vinyl records and that was it, for the next 5-10-15 years. Eventually they upgraded them to CDs and bought maybe extra 20-30 CDs of new, young bands. To stay in shape and remain open for the new things, so to say.
So where is the basis to expect the sales of music via standard distribution channels to grow, or even stay level nowadays? It doesn't exist.
Yes, I don't like ordering online. I also want to have hard CDs of any music that I want to keep for a long time. But there is a limit to it. At the same time I am getting tired of changing CDs. I used to think I need a brand new stereo equipment at least every few years. It was also very important piece of furniture, in every aspect of social interaction. Now I see it almost as garbage, taking room space.
Most people won't rush, as they used to, to upgrade to the latest version of Windows. Minority will continue to play with Linux and Mac. The same goes for hardware. At the same time more and more people are getting used to keeping music and other media content on their computers.
So where is the big money in music distribution via Internet? Nowehere. People just develop needs to experiment more for less money. On Internet there is no place for monopolistic vendor to apply the old business equation: increase the quantity and lower the cost.
Otherwise, by now we would all be happily paying $35 per month for guaranteed quality and delivery monthly stream of music of our momentary choice to our computers over the Internet. Why are we prepared to do the same with cable but not with music?
First, because the technology is still not reliable enough. Second, because the medium is different. It is much more about the discovery, search, temporary whim and experimentation. It is much less structured, preprogrammed and much more diverse and distributed.
Sorry media content distributors, but without planetary dictatorship and complete control over all Internet backbones, money flow will only continue decreasing. And so even if piracy was nonexistent.
Eventually it will hit its evolutionary bottom. It would still be a good chunk of money but nothing as stellar as it used to be.
nothing worth buying (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, because the current music promoted by the big media companies is unoriginal rubbish.
There is new stuff worth buying, but you will never see it on the shelves of the mainstream retailers.
Meanwhile, game sales are up. DVD sales are up. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the RIAA's real problem. Competition.
There's a lot more content on a DVD than an audio CD, it costs far more to make a movie than an audio recording, the movie plays longer than an audio CD, yet movies on DVD are cheaper than music on DVDs. What's wrong with this picture?
And then there's the basic problem that most of the mainstream musical genres are mined out. The best symphonies are a century or more old. The best jazz is from the middle of the 20th century. The best rock was made several decades ago. The best house, rap, and hip-hop dates from a decade ago. Until somebody comes up with a new mainstream genre, the RIAA is stuck. (People keep trying. Gospel rock? Country/rap crossover? Noise music? Next, please.)
Video killed the radio star...
Or else... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or it could be that the teeny boppers are running out of disposable income and everyone else knows the music sucks ass. I haven't heard any new decent material on the radio for a long time. Everyone is trying to sound either like Blink 182 or Britney. I think the music industry is starting to feel the backlash of homogenization and the one-size-fits-all mentality. I hope I'm right, because I would love to taste the irony that the RIAA and Clear Channel are on the path to mutual destruction at each others' hands.
Lots of reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
Two, the RIAA has been by their own numbers selling 25% less albums than were for sale in previous years. Compare that to only a 10% decline in their cd sales.
Three: CD's as a loss leader. Stores that sell CD's as their primary business cannot compete with stores like Best Buy, Walmart, Kmart, and Wiz and Circuit City that sell them at a loss because they bring people in to buy high margin items like TV's, clothing, and computers.
Four: P2P "piracy" and disdain for the RIAA and its tactics. When people copy a movie they say "oh cool I don't have to buy a ticket to see this movie" When people download a CD, they say "Heh sticking it to the RIAA again" The music industry has the worst reputation. Even worse than hollywood and oil companies and politicians
Macroeconomic effect of RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Fight P2P - This is what they're doing now, and if they want to make it illegal the majority of the populous will have to understand, otherwise it'll just be Prohibition all over again. Unfortunately the record industry is looked upon by its customers as a dirty industry, with Britney Spears deliberately marketted to take money from children nagging hard-working Parents like Happy Meals toys are. The Government cannot be seen to be on its side, otherwise it would upset the voting establishment (people older than 25) which sees this music as disgusting mass-manufactured rubbish. It would be regarded in the same way as the Government supporting McDonalds toys. Screaming, nagging children are the bane of Parents and is visible to all. It dissuades potential Parents from having children, inverting the Country's population triangle which will cause huge macroeconomic problems in the future.
2. Alter their product - This will be unsuccesful, I go to buy CDs because of the music they contain, not because of some snazzy stuff
3. Decrease prices - You can't beat free
4. Die out - the only remaining option. In its corruption and decadence, perhaps this would be most fitting. China illustrates what happens when a country has mass music piracy.
Re:How about they collect donations? (Score:2)
Re:How about they collect donations? (Score:5, Funny)
He earned no less than $10 during the four short minutes we shared a train.
Re:A cynic, how original (Score:5, Insightful)
You've just named a grand total of two projects that have been able to stay afloat because of donations from the public; and only because these are extremely high profile projects. I'm not even sure Blender counts, because the original company that created Blender just sold the source code, they didn't continue to develop it.
Go ahead and ask the average SourceForge developer if they're able to quit their day jobs and continue their projects based upon PayPal donations. I dare you. I'll tell you right now, the positive response rate will be in the neighborhood of less than one percent. Less than one percent of open source developers are able to write open source for a living.
Similarly, if you switch the music business over to a harebrained donationware scheme, you will absolutely kill the independent artist, the person who languishes in his/her studio day in and day out just so they can sell a couple thousand copies of an album for $10 a pop.
That's the great thing about capitalism: companies charge what the public will bear. You may not be willing to pay $20 for an album, and that's perfectly fine-- that's your perogative. However, you may be willing to pay $.99 for the one good song off an album, in which case I would refer you to the iTunes Music Store.
But under no circumstances should the entire industry go to a "take it all, and maybe you'll throw us a dollar" model. It will kill the independent musician.
Re:They've lost me forever... (Score:2)
Re:what a surprise... (Score:3, Funny)
While we all cheer from the sidelines and chant "DIE! DIE! DIE!" ?
Re:what a surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is fine by me, if I want to look at racks and racks of CDs I've never heard of, I'll go to my local used CD store instead of some place with a ridiculous stupid name like "Sam Goody".
Re:what a surprise... (Score:3, Interesting)
Buh bye, Musicland, Sam Goody and Tower Records. Join the 8-track in the dustbin of history.