Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Almighty Buck

UK Music Industry Sees Record Sales 244

Posted by michael from the rolling-in-the-dough dept.
ardmhacha writes "Despite the claims of gloom and doom from the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) the BBC is reporting that 'UK record companies are celebrating their best ever year for album sales, with a record 237 million sold in the 12 months to September. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) trade body said albums by the likes of Keane and The Streets had helped drive a 3% rise compared with last year. It also said sales of single tracks were up thanks to the availability of legal download services.' It looks like music sales will continue to climb if the customers get something they like. The article also discusses adding music downloads to the charts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Music Industry Sees Record Sales More

UK Music Industry Sees Record Sales

Comments Filter:

  • Too much Limewire here... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:07PM (#10927839)
    I read s/Phonographic/Pornographic, time to shut the computer off and go outside, I think.

  • I'm surprised (Score:5, Funny)

    by heptapod ( 243146 ) <heptapod@gmail.com> on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:07PM (#10927842) Journal
    I thought it was all CDs nowadays, not records.

    • Re:I'm surprised (Score:2, Informative)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
      I think that it's fair to say that record refers to recording, not only to vinyl or any other specific medium.
      • " I think that it's fair to say that record refers to recording, not only to vinyl or any other specific medium."

        I also think it's fair to say that phonorecord and phonograph refer to a recording medium.

        Article quote "...The British Phonographic Industry (BPI)..."
        • The person to whom I was replying to originally was clearly enjoying the use of the word "record" in the story summary.

          As for why the BPI is still called the BPI, well, it's historical momentum, I guess. Twentieth Century Fox is still called Twentieth Century Fox too, right?

        • Re:I'm surprised (Score:3, Informative)

          by fireman sam ( 662213 )
          Well actually phonograph is simply a sound recording. Phono = sound, graph = record.

          See also:
          Photograph - a recording of light
          Pornograph - a recording of the body

    • Re:I'm surprised (Score:5, Funny)

      by toddestan ( 632714 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:26PM (#10927956)
      Well, you can download ripped music off the internet, burn it to CD, and have a copy that is indistinguishable from the original as far as the audio is concerned. You can't do the same for records. So I guess it's no surprise that records sales are up, as the people who prefer the sound of vinyl aren't going to be downloading music off the internet... or maybe I am just reading the headline wrong.

    • "Phonorecord" under law (Score:4, Informative)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:38PM (#10928010) Homepage Journal

      To some people, "record" doesn't just mean vinyl with grooves in. I'm not familiar with British copyright terminology, but at least under U.S. copyright law [bitlaw.com], a "phonorecord" is a medium in which a sound recording is fixed, roughly corresponding to a "copy" of any other work. Examples of various types of phonorecords, or "records" for short, include Columbia 33.3 RPM LP, RCA 45 RPM single, Lear 8-track cartridge, Compact Cassette, Compact Disc Digital Audio, MiniDisc, MP3 CD-R, and any hard drive containing music files.

    • too.

      To me, "records" will always be vinyl 33 1/3 rpm LPs.

      "Album" predates LP's and originally referred to a collection of 8-10 separate 78rpm disks. They were packaged in a binder, shaped like a photo album. ("Like a what?")

      I hate it when people steal words. But then, I also hate the word police, so I'm stuck.
    • Im glad I'm doing my part to driving up the industry's sales. I'll keep using my P2P networks and try to drive it even more.

      It seems to work out for both of us. I pay nothing, the industrys sales skyrocket.

      Woohoo for modern tech!

  • Great! (Score:3, Funny)

    by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:08PM (#10927844)
    Now they can stop suing people in Europe.
  • ..but they could have made much more if it wasnt for those pirates eh?

    • Re:It may be high.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blixel ( 158224 )
      ..but they could have made much more if it wasnt for those pirates eh?

      Doubtful. I would venture to guess that a lot of people who pirate music wouldn't pay for it anyway. I buy 99% of the songs I listen to. The occasional song I "steal" is a song I never would have paid for anyway.

      • Re:It may be high.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 )
        "Doubtful. I would venture to guess that a lot of people who pirate music wouldn't pay for it anyway."

        Alternatively, some people use 'piracy' to broaden their music tastes. $15-$20 is a lot to spend on an experiment. I doubt I would have ever downloaded music if I could have returned CDs I didn't like. Thankfully, services like Rhapsody and iTunes have made a huge step in the right direction for making the business fair for both the industry and its customers.

        • iTunes gave me a chance to sample so many songs outside my usual categories. I have spent more money this past year off iTunes than the past 5 years buying CDs.

          I have downloaded so many unmarketed non-MTV songs, it's crazy. Even more amazing, I have not purchased a single full-album off iTunes. 100% of my purchases are single tracks from here and there.

  • So this means what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jarich ( 733129 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:09PM (#10927853) Homepage Journal
    I guess it depends on which spin doctor you listen to...

    A) Cracking down on P2P apps is driving sales again

    B) Good new music is driving sales

    C) The economy is picking up so people are spending money on things like music again

    D) P2P apps have exposed people to enough new music and now they are all out buying it

    • Re:So this means what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:22PM (#10927937) Journal
      If you look at the article, you'll notice a link to a related audio story in the top right corner, that talks about how the UK is bucking music industry trends [bbc.co.uk]. In other words, how the UK industry's growth is the exception rather than the norm.

    • Re:So this means what? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The economy is picking up so people are spending money on things like music again

      Your American bias is showing. Here in the UK, our economy doesn't have to pick up. We don't have record deficits and our currency is not in free-fall. In fact, we have the opposite problem - some Americans are worried about the sliding dollar, but over here the worry is that the pound might be too strong, which is hurting our exports. Funny old world.

      The real reason is your (B): our music industry has started concentrat

    • Watch This Online... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aqua OS X ( 458522 )
      I think Frontline did a fairly good job of explaining why the US music industry is not making money.

      (60 min: Real Player & Windows Media)
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/s h ows/musi c/view/

      P2P may be a problem, but is not the primary reason for decreased earnings.

      Personally, I think this has a lot to do with new music. The introduction and promotion of new genres usually gives the industry a boost. Unfortunately, corporate ownership and quarterly profits have forced many labels to avoid risky

  • ...proving enforcement actions pay off? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:10PM (#10927863)
    BPI began suing filesharers RIAA-style in October 2003, and this year the market rebounds. This isn't necessarily a testimony to the harmlessness of P2P; it could be a testimony to the effectiveness of containment and harassment.

  • And at the same time... (Score:5, Informative)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:11PM (#10927870)
    ... in Edinburgh, local cinema managers are blaming declining attendances on pirate DVD's being sold at local flea markets. [scotsman.com]
    • ... in Edinburgh, local cinema managers are blaming declining attendances on pirate DVD's being sold at local flea markets.

      Nothing to do with Blockbuster Video doing an "all you can eat" DVD postal rental service for a whopping £13.99 a month coupled with being able to buy a DVD player for under £20 then.

      • Or anything to do with local cable and satellite companies (Sky/Telewest) offering Premier viewings of movies for £3.50 each (unlimited number of viewers), or people feeling unsafe due to the large number of public bars next to the cinema's.

        I never even knew there was a market out in Ingleston, but making a round trip of seven miles by car/bus/train hardly seems cost-effective just in order to buy dodgy DVD's.
    • Nowhere in the article do they discuss what the current price of a cinema ticket in Edinburgh is, when the latest price increase was, how much the bucket of popcorn costs in a cinema, how clean the cinema is, etc etc.

      Rentals of legit dvds that can be viewed in ones home are also competitive with the cinema.
      • Good point. You can find the prices (after pretending to make a booking at) Vue Cinemas [myvue.com]

        It's immediately obvious to me that they seem to charge different prices for adults at different times of the week/day (from £3.50 to £5.80, students and children are £3.50, family tickets are £15.80. For a price of a family ticket, it would be cheaper just buying the movie, let alone renting it.
    • ... in Edinburgh, local cinema managers are blaming declining attendances on pirate DVD's being sold at local flea markets.

      So much easier than blaming the decline in the quality in movies. I've noticed that I'm downloading more and more, despite the fact that it's far easier to go down to my cheap local video rental place than spend over a day downloading over the Internet. Why? Two reasons. First, the quality of films normally 'safe' (big names, major brand) have fallen to an APPALLING low. Eg I downloa

  • Lolipop. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:11PM (#10927873)
    "It looks like music sales will continue to climb if the customers get something they like."

    Free Sex.

  • Colour me pessimist (Score:4, Funny)

    by khrtt ( 701691 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:12PM (#10927876)
    Great! Now they have more money to sue people with!

  • It's all fault of those pesky P2P apps! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:13PM (#10927884)
    Oh, wait...

  • P2P makes me buy more albums (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grundie ( 220908 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:14PM (#10927888)
    Well I for one am definately buying more albums as a result of exploring new (to me) music on P2P networks. I'd never heard of Vanglis before P2P came along, now I own his entire back catalog. Surely, I'm not the only one like this?

    • Re:P2P makes me buy more albums (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I swear this happens to alot more people as well. Where are we expected to learn about new music without P2P? Radio is so repetitive, how does the recording industry expect to sell different music?
    • Ditto. Every single CD i bought this year was first a download off either P2P or Bittorrent. In fact, i wouldn't have given most of them a chance if i hadn't gave them a spin at home.
    • I've bought all kinds of music after finding tracks on P2P networks, things I would never have even thought to look for before. The music industry is definitely making money on "illegal" file sharing.

    • Re:P2P makes me buy more albums (Score:4, Funny)

      by MrNemesis ( 587188 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:57PM (#10928097) Homepage Journal
      Vanglis?

      Looks like someone's been getting their incorrectly titled music offof Kazaa... ;)
    • No, I had never heard of Van Glis either. I know Van Halen made a lot of noise, but I bet they're not that popular anymore.

      And Van Helsing ? How's he doing ?

      (there. we've got "Van [GH]*" covered.)
    • I don't listen to any music and this causes me not to buy any albums, I wonder if there is a correlation?

  • UK Music Industry Sees -Record- Sales (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Records are back? Eeek!

  • BPI (Score:4, Funny)

    by wikinerd ( 809585 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:21PM (#10927934) Journal
    British Phonographic Industry - everytime I read the word Phonographic, I mistakenly read something else. I think that if BPI wants to maintain good public relations it should, at least, change its name!

  • Price of legal downloads (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheBadger ( 131644 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:22PM (#10927935) Homepage
    I don't understand why the price of a single track is 99p and albums are > £10!

    They don't made into CDs with packaging.
    They don't need to transported around the world/country in various forms of transport.
    They don't need to be stocked in a store which employs loads of people.

    Why, with practically 0 distribution chain, is the price still about the same as CD?

    When they come down to 25p then I'll start buying this way. Well, so long as there's no DRM.

    • Here's why: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
      For the same reason that dogs lick their balls.
    • I agree, however, I would be prepared to pay 50p per track in an introductory phase, and £5 per album (regardless number of tracks) if it were offered. I'm not joking when I say at those prices, I would spend over a hundred pounds buying digital copies of stuff I don't own. However, I expect to be able to download the music in lossless form as an option (MP3 or others as the norm, Lossless as a free option) and whenever I want, not just once when I purchase it - I want to be able to listen to it on my
    • No offense intended, but you sound like the sort of person that, if the tracks were 25p each, would complain that they're still too expensive and that you'd pay for them if only they were 10p each instead.

      I buy plenty of music, mostly from CD Wow, Play.com, or Virgin Megastores, when they're having one of their 5 CDs/DVDs for £30 sales. I never pay more than £9 for any CD I want, and I get most of the music that I want for less than that.

      The other week I bought a bunch of stuff from Virgin, in

  • Sign some bands that aren't pure fluff... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bcore ( 705121 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:28PM (#10927966)
    ...and see better record sales. Go figure.

    This might just be a better business strategy than suing your customers!

  • No, the BPI is failing. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:31PM (#10927979)
    The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) trade body said albums by the likes of Keane and The Streets had helped drive a 3% rise

    I'd be impressed if the BPI said that they had a 3% increase due to the sales of new, smaller artists.

    But the BPI accounts the 3% rise in sales based on a few large pop acts. Undoubtably there was a reduction for all other artists. This isn't a success - this is a long-term failure in the making.

    The average pop act has a very short life. If you bet the bank on one or two hugely successful acts, then you're committing yourself to financial chaos.

    It is best to have a large number of stable, repeatable acts with long-term purchases that you can depend on.

  • Piracy = Bad sales: always FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MasterC ( 70492 ) <cmlburnett@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:32PM (#10927982) Homepage
    I've always considered the stuff put out saying piracy is bad as FUD. Lawsuits also FUD. Etc.

    This article is just some of what I think should be common business sense shining through:
    • Don't force people to buy songs they don't want (by bundling them (aka album-filler) with a few good songs)
    • Give people a cheap way to buy individual tracks (iTunes, etc.)
    • Give people faster/more instant gratification via online sales
    • Put out good talent and not another Spears or Backstreet Boys or mo-thugging-gangster-wannabie
    • $18 for a soundtrack & $16 for the movie is ridiculous considering movies are like twice as long with VIDEO and usually contain something called talent

    Forcing customers to do business on your terms (buy the CD @ the producer-price-fixed $18 or break the law) while simultaneously feeding them no talent hacks (most anyway) is just begging for them to "steal" the few decent songs produced. Maybe I'm just messed in the head in thinking that suing your customers because you (the producer) won't listen to what they (the consumer) want is just FUBAR'ed.

    Note to the entertainment industry: we computer scientists have jumped into the 21st century by getting through the Y2K bug, I suggest you push your business model to the 21st century as well and reap the benefits be earning my money instead of coercing me. iTunes started it, now embrace it.

    PS: I'm not the only one waiting for you to do so.

    • The thing is, if you only buy the tracks that you already like, you aren't going to hear much new music. Most of my favourite songs haven't been the ones I've bought the CD for.
    • Forcing customers to do business on your terms (buy the CD @ the producer-price-fixed $18 or break the law)[snip]

      You mean forcing customers to buy the $18 CD, which then is copy protected so it won't work when they try and listen to it at work on their computer? Which is the reason they bought it in the first place?

      Note to the entertainment industry: we computer scientists have jumped into the 21st century by getting through the Y2K bug, I suggest you push your business model to the 21st century as well
    • ITunes is anything but cheap.
      You don't actually buy a track from ITunes, you buy a license to listen to the track on a single IPod.

      This is because DRM prevents you from making a copy of the track, and when the track is out of copyright DRM prevents you from putting it into the public domain.

      I would estimate the cost of this license to be approximately 1/10 of the cost of buying a track, which would work out at about 10-20cents.

      Now 10Cents would be cheap, so ITunes is at least 10times more expensive than

    • Don't force people to buy songs they don't want (by bundling them (aka album-filler) with a few good songs

      I've been interested for a while to see how music will change in the future when downloads start to come on par with record sales. I've always wondered how this affects artists (or producers or whoever) writing the material when they realise that only the singles are selling.

      Even great bands like U2 have better albums than others by varying standards where I wouldn't want the whole album (realised

  • The Streets!?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by payndz ( 589033 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:35PM (#10927996)
    The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) trade body said albums by the likes of Keane and The Streets had helped drive a 3% rise

    I think the mere fact that The Streets sell any copies proves conclusively that the UK music industry is in terminal decline!

    I mean, Christ. Some chav who sounds like a 15-year-old schoolyard weed dealer whining about his girlfriend, who just talks on his record, can get to number one? Kids today! Never thought I'd say this, but bring back National Service!

  • No suprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by locarecords.com ( 601843 ) <davidNO@SPAMlocarecords.com> on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:41PM (#10928028) Homepage Journal
    The major record companies are never going to be in any danger of going out of business due to downloading. And regardless of claims about 'piracy' and 'theft' this clearly demonstrates that much like any other industry they go through cyclical stages. Does this mean they'll hold back from all the big claims of the dangers of the evil pirates? I don't think so.

    Considering how much of the industry has been locked down due to vertical and horizontal integration and oligopolistic market practices it is no suprise that they can sell so much. Just don't believe the lies they tout about how hard their lives are.

    I still think that downloading has exciting possibilities for creativity and a line of flight from traditional music channels - especially through the potential of peer2peer networks and so on. But unfortunately there is a real danger of colonisation from the majors who have deep pockets and sharp lawyers.

    The Internet offer the possibility of difference and a reterritorialisation of music creativity which is at essence a collective (networked) endeavour. If we allow the major's (few and fewer as they are) to close down this space with DRM and monopolisation of the distribution channels then it will be a very sad day for alternative music.

  • What does this mean? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:44PM (#10928040)

    It looks like music sales will continue to climb if the customers get something they like.

    I understand the first part of your sentence.. but what's a "customer" and why do they have to like the music we sell?

    sincerely,
    record company executive

  • I just love the way her official website message board has lit since her recent SNL appearance. Hopefully some of these sales overseas were for cool British bands. If ever they want to trade artists again (Beatles, Stones, etc) we're willing...

  • The Pirates are killing the industry! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Darren Winsper ( 136155 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:49PM (#10928059)
    Can't you see?! So much great music has come out in the previous year but there's only been a 3% jump in sales! If you people weren't all dirty rotten smelly pirates, sales would be up 10 fold! The artists would be raking it in and thus could afford to produce more albums! Now, because of you dirty pirates, the artists are going to starve despite sales increases and you'll all suffer.

    You people disgust me.

  • I'm not suprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the real darkskye ( 723822 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:51PM (#10928073) Homepage
    The recent music to come out of the UK hasn't been the usual global tripe.
    Looking pretty and being able to sing won't sell records anymore, posters maybe but not records.

    The fact that bands are back is why sales are up, seeing the guys and gals with the instruments is a good thing, more so when it comes to live performances like V or Glastonbury.

    There is still room in the UK for gimic groups, take GLC for example, it put Aberdare on the map! (if you don't know of GLC (or Goldie Looking Chain ) its like a cross between Eminem, Weird Al and Tom Jones ... White, Welsh comedy rap)

    The future is bright, the future is turned up to Whut-ohh!
  • ..."Home taping is killing music"...heh heh heh...

  • Well isn't this surprising? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl.excite@com> on Friday November 26, 2004 @08:05PM (#10928134) Journal

    Has no one noticed that, for the most part, the people who are hardcore downloading music (or movies, or games, or software, or...), and not using it as an "evaluation" to see if they want to purchase a real copy, are generally broke anyway? The IP industries are not "losing" these customers to downloading, if not for downloading, these people would simply be unable to purchase a copy either. Net loss to IP company, therefore, is near 0, if not a net gain through free advertising to people who have the money and are just previewing.

    The premise, to me, that these broke students, if downloads were not available, would begin printing money or something in order to purchase music or other IP seems a bit flawed to me. Somehow, it seems more to me like they would borrow and trade CD's among friends.

    The premise that downloading is theft also seems a bit flawed to me. I have seen this equated as stealing a car off a lot, and this seems a flawed analogy to me, there is not still a copy of the car left on the lot.

    A more appropriate analogy seems to me that a friend of mine needs to use a car at various times. He is not really interested in having a second car, as he would only use it sporadically, but really has no other choice as his wife normally takes their car to work. This is about to make Ford money, until I come along and offer to allow him to borrow my car when he needs to.

    I find it hard to swallow that, in the above scenario, I "stole" from Ford by keeping someone to have to purchase one of their products. I didn't do this by stealing something off a lot, but by sharing something I already have. This, to me, does not indict the sharer for theft, but rather the seller for greed.

  • The key to this is online sales. It's easier for me to DL a song then it is for me to travel into town.

    Admittingly I haven't bought a CD in about 3 years because I don't care for the music. I see no difference in recording a song off the radio by tape and downloading it.

    People who don't want to buy a CD won't, they might download the song but thats all of 0% loss to the company since they didn't have the money in the first place.

    Some people may go "nah, I wont buy it, I have it now). Yep thats a loss, bu
  • Okay, from what I can gather in the article, all they said is that "sales" went up 3% compared to last year. But did they take into account things like the increase in the number of people in the UK? If there were more people who can afford and want music, then obviously more people will buy music. What about the total production of the music industry? No matter how good a band is most people would only buy one copy of any of their given CDs. It feels like of like the industry saying "look we're selling a

  • UK Music Industry Admits to Record Sales (Score:4, Funny)

    by bugi ( 8479 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @08:27PM (#10928217)
    A better headline would have been "UK Music Industry Admits to Record Sales".
  • Imagine that, labels that don't churn out the same old derivative mass marketed crap are actually doing quite well. I suspect if the RIAA looked at their figures for labels other than Sony, Universal, EMI etc they'd probably find they're doing quite well too.

  • Related News (Score:4, Funny)

    by AmberBlackCat ( 829689 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @08:33PM (#10928251)
    Porn Industry Sues File Swappers

    Anonymous sources indicate that the Porn Industry Association of America (PIAA) intends to file suit against up to 20,000 illegal file swappers, with the British Porn Consortium to follow suit in the coming months. The new wave of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks has allowed pornographic material to be shared easily, causing dramatic decreases in pornography sales. The biggest sources of illegal file sharing appear to be college campuses, insecure wireless networks, and people's basements.

    Also indicated, C-Net affiliate porn.com.com reports that in order to fend off the consumer backlash, the PIAA has enlisted the help of the celebrities it represents to endorse the legal purchase of pornographic material. In the coming months, superstars Pamela Anderson and Lil' Kim will deliver spots informing consumers of how stealing pornography deprives artists of the income they deserve. Furthermore, filmographer Rick Solomon will deliver spots on how the decrease in revenue stifles his innovation.

    Suggested alternatives to illegal porn swapping include the new Apple-supported service iPorn, RealNetworks' secure RealPorn protocol, and Microsoft's Porn Media 9 format featuring 5.1 audio.

  • In Canada, too (Score:3, Informative)

    by djmurdoch ( 306849 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @09:01PM (#10928403)
    I don't know if Canada has had record sales, but they are up over last year according to stats published by the Canadian record industry association [www.cria.ca]. Sales up 7% year to date, profits up 1%.

    • Re:In Canada, too (Score:2, Insightful)

      by afxgrin ( 208686 )
      And they were just crying a few days ago on TV about how they were losing all this money to piracy...

      CRIA can fuck themselves. Especially since I don't download any of their shitty Canadian pop crap anyway.
  • Don't have anything else to say.
  • 20 trillion Beyonce CD's doesn't really mean anything other than the what people buy is shit, more shit, deeper darker shit piled up to the stars.

  • Fragmented and Diverse (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rinkjustice ( 24156 ) <rinkjustice&NO_SPAMrocketmail,com> on Saturday November 27, 2004 @01:03AM (#10929315) Homepage Journal
    Despite the claims of gloom and doom from the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) the BBC is reporting that 'UK record companies are celebrating their best ever year for album sales

    What the recording industry hates is the fact record sales are so fragmented. Sure, more albums are being sold than ever, but it's from a wildly diverse range of artists. With consumers now able to download and listen/sample the music before buying, these monolithic labels are finding it more difficult to manufacture pop artists that can sell 10 million copies. Now they sell half a mill of one artist and 25,000 of another artist... it's more work. The consumer isn't manipulated and decieved as easy.

    Why do you think Britney Spears isn't rushing out with a new album? Because sales will be bitterly disapointing. Calculated successes of mindless garbage ala Ricky Martin is less likely now that the consumer has p2p.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close