Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

unfair marketing ploy?


Adamixoye

Recommended Posts

Okay, so there are three bands/CDs to which the following complaint applies. These bands are lesser-known bands. I don't know if "independent" would exactly apply, but they are on smaller labels, not released to the mainstream at first.

 

However, when they have become big enough, they find ways to be re-released to a mainstream label, or at least get some mainstream distribution through their label. But then on the mainstream CD, they add a track or three, or remix some tracks.

 

Without getting into politics too much, I'm for capitalism. But part of good capitalism is not biting the hand that feeds you. I'm not sure which this is. On the one hand, if you're a band who does this, you're going to get all your hardcore fans (or at least many of them) who bought the original album to also buy the new version. So more power to you. But at the same time, those same hardcore fans are the people you're really screwing over, since they have to spend all the extra money just for a few new tracks and/or remixes. And I think it's a bad idea to make your biggest fans mad.

 

By the way, if you care, the CD's are:

 

(1) "Fireproof" by Pillar (re-released with all tracks mildly remixed, plus a "bonus" track of the first single in its original form)

(2) "Collide" by Skillet (to be re-released any day now, with one new track)

(3) "Songs to Burn Your Bridges By" by Project 86 (to be re-released in June, with between one and three new tracks depending on which website you believe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 16
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by Adamixoye:

But at the same time, those same hardcore fans are the people you're really screwing over, since they have to spend all the extra money just for a few new tracks and/or remixes. And I think it's a bad idea to make your biggest fans mad.

So, are you complaining BECAUSE your favorite bands have moved to the next level and were able to release some new material quickly? You'd rather that they're re-release their original record so that you don't have to buy it? (Supporting your favorite bands, aren't you?) You'd rather wait for a year to hear new material on the major label, I guess.

 

Remember that no one forces you to buy CD's; if you don't feel like buying a re-issue, don't.

Dave Martin

Java Jive Studio

Nashville, TN

www.javajivestudio.com

 

Cuppa Joe Records

www.cuppajoerecords.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a bunch of old and out of print material, and the new record hadn't been finished yet, so people started asking for a new CD of some sort. So, we went into the studio, did one new song, and then compiled every single recording the band ever did onto one discography CD. We pondered the point you're making, about how bands re-release something, usually for more money, with maybe 3 new tracks on it, but at the same time, we realized that we'd be putting 52 songs, and two professional music videos on a CD that'd be sold for $10. We saw no flaw in our ethics...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dave Martin:

So, are you complaining BECAUSE your favorite bands have moved to the next level and were able to release some new material quickly? You'd rather that they're re-release their original record so that you don't have to buy it? (Supporting your favorite bands, aren't you?) You'd rather wait for a year to hear new material on the major label, I guess.

 

Remember that no one forces you to buy CD's; if you don't feel like buying a re-issue, don't.

I'm complaining because I was a loyal fan, checking the band websites to find out when the CD was first released. I ordered them right away. I'm complaining because now to get just an extra track or two, I would have to buy a CD at full price that, in a sense, I already own (same album name, majority of same tracks, etc.), or illegally download the extra track(s). I don't really like either option.

 

What these bands should do is find a way to make the new tracks available by MP3, if possible, by being able to detect the presence of the original CD in the CD player of the downloader's computer.

 

From my perspective, it's kind of like if you buy some gear, and then on year later, that same piece of gear is upgraded and available at the same price. Only in this case, there's no way you can trade in, and the band had the opportunity to give you the new stuff in a completely different way.

 

Sean, how are you fitting 52 songs on a CD? It can't be audio, can it?

 

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's unethical. I'm just suggesting that it's a not very nice (or in some cases smart) way of dealing with your biggest fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly understand your point and if possible making a method available to access the new singles would be the answer. From what little I know of some of this the band may not have total control over the repackaging of the old material. The remix is often required by the bigger label and the new material is a teaser to get old as well as new fans to purchase the new album. As long as there was no out and out deception about the repackaging then it really is up to the individual if it's worth the investment. I personally probably wouldn't buy the repackaged stuff but if I am a fan then at the very least I'm happy to see a band I like move to the next level and wouldn't take it personally.

"I never would have seen it, if I didn't already believe it" Unknown

http://www.SongCritic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would also want to re-release so the new label would get the points instead of the old label or producer. Usually, the previous contract would have a buy out clause (say $5k a track if re-release) and a release of obligation for royalties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these bands really want to make good with the fans who have been with them longer, they have the opportunity to do so. They could release some of the previously unreleased material on a single, or through their own website. It's something they could really do if they want to.

Obligatory Social Media Link

"My concern is, and I have to, uh, check with my accountant, that this might bump me into a higher, uh, tax..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Nicklab:

If these bands really want to make good with the fans who have been with them longer, they have the opportunity to do so. They could release some of the previously unreleased material on a single, or through their own website. It's something they could really do if they want to.

That's basically what I'm saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by badgerbass:

this seems like sort of a non-issue to me; nothing to complain about. What's the big deal.

Silly me, the thread will be deleted shortly. :rolleyes:

 

I have explained why it's a big deal to me...maybe it's not to you. That's fine. I was also hoping to spark some debate not about whether it's right or ethical, but whether bands are shooting themselves in the foot by frustrating fans who feel the same way that I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at the same time, those same hardcore fans are the people you're really screwing over, since they have to spend all the extra money just for a few new tracks and/or remixes.
Maybe no one in the band, or someone close to them, made the point that they'd be screwing their fans that way. If one of them relayed that sentiment to everyone involved, then they are knowingly screwing the fans. It shows me lack of conscience to 'bite the hand that feeds you' in order to further yourself. Which could be further complicated by them not being prolific writers to have enough material for an entirely new release.

 

Or it could be that no one even thought of that specific point while deciding their next career moves, in which case they just didn't realize the consequences.

 

I guess it boils down to if they thought of your point or not.

 

Now that you brought it up, I actually never thought of it that way before, but it's a good point.

 

I guess now if I saw a new CD out of one of my favorites, and it had a large amount of previous stuff, I'd hope they'd be available for download so I could only buy the new songs.

Bassplayers aren't paid to play fast, they're paid to listen fast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since CDs came out (20+ years ago!), labels have been reissuing albums over and over again. First it was "digitally remastered", then it was "remastered with original packaging", then "remastered with bonus tracks", then "remastered 10th anniversary with new liner notes/limited edition box set/original song demo bonus tracks" etc. etc. etc. In the days of vinyl you had the picture discs and the half speed mastered virgin vinyl and all that stuff.

 

This is nothing new. As a diehard fan of a number of bands, I welcome the opportunity to buy something special with extra tracks, because I've always been a record collector. I have stuff I bought just to have it and never even listened to, because I already had the music and I just love the artist so much. But not everyone is a completist fan like me. And if I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't buy it either.

 

I don't think it's a completely unfair marketing ploy.....perhaps a little though. Unfortunately, the industry knows that if people want music, they will buy it. That's why there is a music industry. :D And the music industry is ALL about marketing.

 

BUT, if you only want those few songs, I'd be willing to bet you will be able to buy them from iTunes or some other digital download service. And that is where the business is heading.....that band would be wise to make those tracks purchasable through those services or even just on their own website. At some point in the future this won't be an issue because music will all be downloadable, track by track, and physical packages will cease to exist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I can understand your point. I also would probably buy it anyway to support the move (that statement just cost me bucks when Mrs Grundy and CMDN make it big). What frosts my cookies are when big names do it. My latest lament is Sheryl Crow. I won everything, and refuse to pay for the "greatest hits", but it kills me because I'm a big Cat Stevens fan (she covers a song on the CD). Lizzy's prediction about the future will be delayed (in my humble opinion) because companies can still make money with these packages.

 

Originally posted by Sean Eldon:

We saw no flaw in our ethics...

Of course not - you're arrogant sons of bitches !!

 

 

For $10 bucks, I'd agree. By the way - where's my copy?

 

Tom

www.stoneflyrocks.com

Acoustic Color

 

Be practical as well as generous in your ideals. Keep your eyes on the stars and keep your feet on the ground. - Theodore Roosevelt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be possible that, at least in some of the cases, that the band chose not to mix some of the "new" songs because of financial reasons? Mixing ain't cheap, folks...
...think funky thoughts... :freak:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Matt C:

Could it be possible that, at least in some of the cases, that the band chose not to mix some of the "new" songs because of financial reasons? Mixing ain't cheap, folks...

Of my three examples, one band remixed everything, while the others added 1-3 new track(s) to an old album. Your point is well-taken, but I'm not sure if it's relevant here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...