This is NOT the Way to Sell More CDs!

[Botch.]

Actually, this did work for an American ice cream company years ago. They didn't change their ice cream formula, all they did was double the price and change the name to a difficult-to-pronounce "Haagen-Dazz" (sp?). Sales went thru the roof...

[Archer]

Originally posted by Super 8:

Originally posted by Anderton:

I think they just don't get that a lot of people don't really want physical media, they want a license to put something into a format they dig, whether it's iPod, RAM player, cuts CD for their car, whatever.

I like physical media. I like having something I can hold in my hand. In fact, the thing that pisses me off about CD's is that it's less physical media than LP's were. In specific, the cover art. I enjoyed having something substantial, with a BIG picture or artwork and some decent liner notes.

 

Sometimes they included a poster. KISS 'Love Gun' had that little paper gun that came with it.

 

They don't do stuff like that anymore.

Now we're just going to download a file. "Pay me money. Here's your file...now buy something else, or go home."

 

Music has become so heartless. Maybe the digitizing of sound wasn't such a good idea.

I myself like the idea of just downloading and not dealing with media going bad (getting scratched etc.)

 

The major players, however, need to charge as little as possible per song. They are trying to entice pirates into paying and those who prefer a physical media into a completely different musical experience as well.

[Anderton]

<>

 

Very good point. The idea of charging the same for a downloaded track as for a CD -- how stupid do they think we are? I don't believe that running a server is as expensive and making, duplicating, warehousing, shipping, and handling returns from physical products.

 

Now I want to make one thing clear. I'm not, by nature, a record company basher. I know it's a crap shoot, that most artists don't make money, blah blah blah. I've seen some companies put a lot of resources into an act they believed in and end up with nothing. So I'm not unsympathetic in general, but jeez, the latest actions by major labels is mystifying. Other businesses try to be fast on their feet when reacting to competition; but the record industry seems determined to keep the same modus operandi.

 

Change is what it's all about. It's like when we did the EQ redesign. We had no idea whether people would love it or hate it, but we felt it was necessary to change, and based on feedback we've gotten, changes will continue to come as we fine-tune things. I can't imagine taking an approach of "This is how EQ is, this is how we're doing it, you're going to like it or else, and by the way, we're going to raise the price for no really good reason other than that we'd like to make more money." Yet it seems that what the major labels are doing.

 

So here's an idea: A label should negotiate with artists to allow one track per album to be used royalty-free, with compromised fidelity (e.g., 64 kbps MP3), strictly for promotional purposes. Then they should create MP3 CDs with hundreds of cuts, and sell them at cost. Do this every month, promote the hell out of it, and make a limited number of CDs. Hey, why not include some outtakes, too, or collector's items like live versions?

 

I bet there would be lines at record stores the first of the month as people waited to buy their $2 CD with hundreds of tunes in MP3 format. Make it available online too.

[Dak Lander]

Originally posted by Anderton:

<<

So here's an idea: A label should negotiate with artists to allow one track per album to be used royalty-free, with compromised fidelity [e.g., 64 kbps MP3], strictly for promotional purposes. Then they should create MP3 CDs with hundreds of cuts, and sell them at cost. Do this every month, promote the hell out of it, and make a limited number of CDs. Hey, why not include some outtakes, too, or collector's items like live versions?

 

I bet there would be lines at record stores the first of the month as people waited to buy their $2 CD with hundreds of tunes in MP3 format. Make it available online too.

Very close to what mp3 did at the outset. I have the first four volumes of their 103 best songs you've never heard cds of mp3 music along with other cds they put out. The price was very cheap & free if you had the right thing going. Great music on them. All this before the lawsuit that started the downfall.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I personally think the 99 cent download is too expensive for an mp3 file. If you look at the idea that the nominally agreed cost a cd should be is $10.00 with an average of 12 songs it's 83 cents a song and a buck and a quarter if the cd is $15.00. With mp3 losing quality knocking some off that would be a huge selling factor, disregarding the incentive of the single market coming back.

In my mind the mp3s are in a position of taking the place of the single or the A/B side 45rpm records that used to be sold, except with less quality.

Now, a full wav file or a lossless compressed file may be worth the asking price. And with broadband becoming more widely availble may be the way to go with the 99 cent downloads instead of the mp3s and drop the mp3 downloads to, say 59 to 75 cents. They'd still make a killing on the downloads, albeit with less quality. The other downloads at the higher price would give a better quality of music at a price comparable to an had copy.

 

Just some random thoughts guys, no real in-depth analysis.

[Tele Kinesis]

Originally posted by daklander:

 

I personally think the 99 cent download is too expensive for an mp3 file. If you look at the idea that the nominally agreed cost a cd should be is $10.00 with an average of 12 songs it's 83 cents a song and a buck and a quarter if the cd is $15.00. With mp3 losing quality knocking some off that would be a huge selling factor, disregarding the incentive of the single market coming back.

In my mind the mp3s are in a position of taking the place of the single or the A/B side 45rpm records that used to be sold, except with less quality.

Now, a full wav file or a lossless compressed file may be worth the asking price. And with broadband becoming more widely availble may be the way to go with the 99 cent downloads instead of the mp3s and drop the mp3 downloads to, say 59 to 75 cents. They'd still make a killing on the downloads, albeit with less quality. The other downloads at the higher price would give a better quality of music at a price comparable to an had copy.

 

Just some random thoughts guys, no real in-depth analysis.

Pretty much my gripe. Paying as much, or more, for a lesser quality? C'mon! I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.

It's ironic that people who make the music are stumbling all over themselves to record at the highest bit/sample rate possible, only for their work to be hijacked and passed around as MP3's. Heck, why not just record everything as an MP3 in the first place? Less disc space, less strain on the computer. Obviously the masses don't care about sound quality, as long as they get the latest sludge as cheap as possible to impress their friends.

It should be priced quality appropriate. As background music, MP3's are fine. It might be a good experiment for a site to offer both MP3 and full quality versions for download, priced accordingly. If someone wanted the quality version to burn to CD, they'd pay slightly more, and they could always just convert it to an MP3 themselves, for their use. If you are happy with MP3's, pay a little less. Obviously, it ain't gonna sound better converting it.

Of course, it would require a site to obtain more storage space, and I wonder if it would be cost-effective on that point?

As long as the consumer is getting value, and the artists and hosting sites are covering operating costs plus enough profit to continue and update/upgrade in a reasonable manner, everyone wins.

I think the current problem in this is nobody REALLY yet knows the balance between all these things to everyone's satisfaction. It may never be truly resolved. Sooner or later, someone's going to think they are the one's who deserve more, and the cycle repeats.

Just some thoughts.

(No more coffee )

 

Tele

[coyote]

Waaaay back in 1974 you'd pay a buck for a 45rpm vinyl 'single', which would contain two songs. And you'd take it home, and put it on your Close&Play....

 

In that context, 99 cents for a download isn't a terrible deal. However, they should 'package' the download as two songs: the 'A'-side and the 'B'-side! In those days, the B-side was almost always a "non-hit" or filler, but at least you got something else to listen to (and some of those B-sides were great stuff!)

 

What the industry has forgotten is that you have to provide at least the illusion that the customer is getting his money's worth.

[Anderton]

<

 

What the industry has forgotten is that you have to provide at least the illusion that the customer is getting his money's worth.>>

 

That's a great idea and would certainly make the download seem more valuable. Sure, 99 cents isn't bad in context, but given that no distribution mechanism isn't necessary, and the quality isn't as good as a CD, it seems downloaders should get a break.