MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jan 14, 09 - 04:49 pm Comment from: deepdish

last thing I like is record execs getting their hopes up. drunk with power the way they are already.

Only the dumbest aren't willing to pay more, to get more.

There is so much more to buying music online, than just finding the cheapest price. User experience is right up there.

The labels now know that the consumer isn't just a price whore, they want value for their money. If the labels are smart they will find a way to bring more value to higher priced sales, something they haven't had to do for about 40 years.

They will adapt, and those that buy the 'bundled' packages will be happy BECAUSE they got more value, than they will with a single.

Their experience with Amazon (vs Apple's iTunes) is probably the last bit of evidence they require to know which direction to proceed.

If record execs act like they are drunk, its probably because they are.

Their business model was ripped apart, and they had no alternative to keep their customers happy and revenues up. That would drive me to drink.

Its taken some time, time used testing new models, but now they seem to be focusing in on a strategy that will make everyone happy.

Ironically, the technology that shredded their old business model has now evolved to a point where they can develop a new one. They have Apple to thank for that.

This doesn't make sense to me. We have reports that Apple caved on the tired pricing, but nothing to suggest they caved on "bundling." They might *want* to bundle stuff, but that doesn't mean they can. They can only do this if it's in the agreement that Apple just signed and as of now, I don't recall that being reported as part of it.

So, how is this "bundle" supposed to work? Package one b-side song with a hot track, and charge $2.58 for the pair, and only sell it as a pair, not as a single? Take the idea far enough, and you get the album, which is still primarily capped at $9.90. So, the ability for labels to maneuver consumers into paying more is VERY, VERY limited. Thank god, Steve didn't budge when the labels were initially trying to shove $2.49 for a hot single at us. $1.29 max is barely above the rate of inflation since the time the iTunes store opened. I think inflation would have made that original 99 cent track about $1.16 now. So, charging 13 cents more for a hot single is not going to make the labels rich. In fact, dropping the catalog tracks to 69 cents should actually drop the average price per track, I'd wager. Of course, it should also stimulate more impulse buys.

Jan 14, 09 - 05:12 pm Comment from: Brau

"Uh, how about making good music that people want to buy? Versus placing one or two nuggets into a shit sandwich and charging US$15.99 for it?"

Now *this* is why I read MDN. Truth and humor in one sentence.

Will the record companies be able to make it album only purchase, or does Apple control that? Was that the cost of going DRM free? I know they would really like to extend that model to iTunes, but would they like it so much they'd be willing to cut Apple in on the take? Something like the first thirty days are album only, with Apple making 30%? Then, break it up to singles and let the filler fall to 69 cents, hold the release list at 1.29, and let them fall to .99 thirty days after they release the single?

Curious to be sure, will have to monitor the situation...

Jan 14, 09 - 05:26 pm Comment from: Wandering joe

@Brau

exaclty my sentiments! lol!

The digital EP is upon us!

Jan 14, 09 - 05:33 pm Comment from: ndelc

Considering that the record industry is in such shambles, you'd think that they'd be trying to find ways to be innovative and give consumers a reason to purchase their product rather than trying to force people to pay more for it. I'm not sure if it's ignorance or arrogance. Probably both.

One place they might start is embedding al tracks with lyrics and other meta info like musicians who played on the track, etc. And very few albums on iTunes include a PDF of the liner art. Things like that could go a long way toward making people feel like they're getting something for their money.

So, record companies believe Amazon's inability to become the dominant force in song sales indicates that consumers aren't considered "price sensitive". More likely, consumers appreciate and prefer the consumer experience they get on iTunes - reliability, offerings, convenience, etc.

I tried Amazon once; that first download failed. I came back to iTunes.

What has R2 been telling you guys?

The labels have Apple by the balls now.

Whatever "agreement" they have is irrelevant. They'll drag Apple back to the negotiating table and squeeze more and more blood out of iTunes. It's now a very important business for both sides of the table and whenever Apple wants a change that requires an updated contract, the labels will be there with new demands in hand.

What will it be next? When Apple wants direct ringtone downloads in the iTunes Mobile store (now that I think about it, why don't we have this already)? Plenty of wiggle room left to go.

Even if it's cheaper, Amazon's not worth the hassle, so why use it?

Simply listening to samples is a mess on Amazon, so why use it?

iTunes sells and synchronizes seamlessly, that's why use it!

"While those songs could be transferred seamlessly to iPods with a downloadable program, most consumers haven't bothered to make the switch"

What's he talking about? You need a downloadable program to import mp3s? Oh, iTunes. Does he really think not having them automatically appear on your iPod put people off using amazon? Or what? He needed 21 more words?

I will NEVER EVER again buy a full CD's worth of songs if the songs are crap. I also won't ever pay to 'rent' music.
And I am NOT going to buy songs I don't want. Screw the music industry. I'll download the music I want for free.

The record labels just don't know what's in their own interest. If they could, they would complicate iTunes more than they have and accidentally kill the impulse buy effect of the ease-of-use approach.

Yes, this is the best time to institute a 30% price hike. Right at the start of a global depression.

Jan 14, 09 - 06:33 pm Comment from: Me In LA

Oh Davey, but music is not a necessity - it's a luxury, and it won't be impacted much.
Kids will still have plenty of money to spend.
Don't you sweat over it...

Jan 14, 09 - 09:11 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

Polled my friends... we reached the same conclusion;

We'll continue buying tunes at .99 (or less, and you bet your *zz we'll gravitate towards the "less"), but we won't buy a single, solitary "cheapy" unless it's something we'd have paid .99 for in the 1st place.

Got that, cartels?

NO NEW SALES RESULTING FROM LOWER PRICING, COS WE DIDN'T WANT THE CHEAP STUFF IN THE 1ST PLACE.

Next up?

We're POSITIVELY boycotting EVERYTHING more expensive than Apple's original .99

Me and my circle hope you greedy little piglets LOSE YOUR ASS with this new plan, and we'll do what we can to help see this comes to pass.

Jan 15, 09 - 12:07 am Comment from: trex67

Great artists (IMO Radiohead, Supergrass, Elvis Costello, off the top of my head) make consistently great albums. Crappy "artists" give you a hit plus filler. They have nothing in common, other than recording sounds and offering them up for sale.

Record labels exist only to exploit artists and consumers. Their days are numbered. Eventually, the net will kill the "American Idol" star. There will always be a (paying) audience for great artists.

Jan 15, 09 - 12:49 am Comment from: Scott in Japan

If the labels force their hand on this bundling issue I`m gonna start presenting all of my friends with mp3 CD`s of all of my music. I often buy complete `albums` from the iTS, but I WILL NOT be forced to buy shit with my shinola just because the labels need to maintain their level of decadence.

Jan 15, 09 - 12:51 am Comment from: Scott in Japan

ooops, I`m sorry. Did I say decadence ? How callous of me. I should have simply said "their level of living."

I how much effect it had on Amazon's music sales that (for some incredibly idiotic reason) a special app was required just to download music?

Amazon doesn't require a special app to download ebooks. Why require one for music? This (and the lack of music) is what's kept me from using Amazon for music. What's wrong with downloading via a browser? It's good enough for taking your money.

It's just flat out stupid.

Sorry... I meant to type, "I wonder how much effect..."