[cerbie]

Generally, CDs are expensive. A bit over 10 years ago, they were cheaper (I can't easily walk inot a typical retail store and get a $10-12 CD, now). Then in the mid 90s, they seems to go up to $15-20, and have remained around $15, as far as retail stores are concerned. A few deals exist here and there, and there are used, but that's about it. Sometimes, if I already am sure it will be worth it, I'll pay that much. If I'm not, I won't.

This has led to a couple cheap CDs that turned out to be amazing, and generally me passing up buying some discs that I may like, but am not certain of. I have also been very dissappointed with a few CDs I've bought, one not being RIAA (Ian Moore's Luminaria has hideous mastering! I love the music, but it is not fun the listen to--I'll probably catch some live DVDs, soon).

If distribution really costs so much, why don't they stop distributing the same way? Or at least allow something different. How much does it cost to send 400MB down to my PC (typical losslessly compressed album)? Oh, wait, it has to be encumbered with DRM...back to compact discs.

OTOH, I might just pay more if I can be sure to get something good. $17 for Rumours? That was no sweat. Can they assure me that my next CD will actually sound good? Not just taste (that can't be), but actually that it will have been recorded and mastered moderately well? I'm often in the position of liking some music, but not being able to listen to it, because of listening fatigue. I can listen to most anything from the mid 60s to the late 80s for hours. That might be worth a few more bucks a piece.

I am beginning to see a division in music tastes. There are people that experience music, and people that want music as a distraction.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omedon ... Even have Sonny Rollins - Tenor Madness SACD for $5.99 OMG Awesome ECM releases for $5.99 (Cost $20-25 here and are NEVER on sale EVER) Jan Garbarek - Ragas & Sagas, In Praise of Dreams Brad Mehldau Trio - Day is Done Charles Lloyd - Jumping the Creek, Water is Wide Pat Metheny Group - Pat Metheny Group, Off Ramp

Thanks for pointing the ECM stuff out! I've just ordered the Garbarek and Lloyd discs. The others I already have.

 

[discord]

If yourmusic.com had an indie section, i'd be alll over it.

 

[pennylane]

I never spend more than $15 on a CD. Actually, I get hesitant when I have to pay more than $10. I tend to go used.

 

[Jasper994]

I think one of the things that the RIAA is really missing is that under a certain price point it's faster and easier to buy a CD rather than dealing with the hassles of downloading. Not to mention how much more often people would take chances with unknown artists. At $15.00 - $20.00 CD, I want to know that I'm getting an album I really like. They either need to invest a lot more time and effort into putting out solid albums, or lower the prices to where buying an album with only a couple good songs won't piss off the consumer. Nothing is more annoying then spending $15 and getting an album with only 1 or 2 good songs on it. How many people would ever go to a movie or buy a dvd if most movies only had 5 minutes worth of quality material?!?

The other thing that drives me nuts about buying music is the whole pricing scheme. If you want to take a chance you can get it for a bit less in the first week or two. After that the price goes up and will often continue to climb until you are paying $19 for a CD. Once or twice a year you might be able to find one of those great sales where you end up spending $10/CD but as a general rule, you're gonna spend close to $20 if the CD has been out for a while. They need to take a page out of the DVD markets pricing methods where the price falls heavily after the first 6 months and continues to fall thereafter.

I spend quite a bit on music, but these days I primarily buy used. That way, I know what I'm getting (since the albums have been out for a while), and the prices are low enough so that I can justify spending the money. Sadly, the artist doesn't benefit from this at all...

 

[Edwood]

Listening to downloaded and crappy MP3's has actually caused me to seek out and buy CD's.

But I do it more on eBay these days, since I usually hunt for out of production CD's more.

-Ed

 

[Elec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994 I think one of the things that the RIAA is really missing is that under a certain price point it's faster and easier to buy a CD rather than dealing with the hassles of downloading. Not to mention how much more often people would take chances with unknown artists.

What's interesting to me is that at some point, there may be sort of a Wal-Mart effect that kicks in. If CDs were all 2-3 bucks each, I'd probably buy everything I ever even sort of liked or thought might be good. At $15-20, I only buy what I know I want. If you can move way more CDs, you don't have to charge as much for each.

I guess this only works as a whole though. If Eminem can sell 5 million copies at 15 bucks, they're not going to sell his album at $3 to squeeze out another million or two sales, and that move would hurt him and everyone who makes money off his music.

Now, Smalltime Unknown Band who normally sell 200,000 copies at $15, maybe they'd sell 2 million at $3 because there's less risk for the consumer. This is good for them. It's good for the consumer, it's good for the record label. But it's bad for Eminem because he makes less money with this model and presumably doesn't get a share of Smalltime Unknown Band's increased earnings.

So then is my conclusion that hot sellers should cost more because people will pay it and poor sellers should cost less to help sales? Maybe...but then how the crap do top selling PS2 games go from $50 into the $19.99 greatest hits collection 6 months after release? Hmm...

 

[Elephas]

It's consistent with economic logic to price products with less demand lower and products with higher demand higher. However, the pricing model for CDs as well as the music industry's business model is different from most other products.

One distinctiveness of the music industry's pricing model is that popular CDs become popular due to a high number of sales. Where do the high number of sales come from? Radio airplay, publicity, etc. and also discount pricing when the CD is released. There is often discount pricing for new releases, and one major reason for the discount is to boost the CD's sales and get it into Top 100 lists such as Billboard. This way, the CD gets noticed and generates more sales, creating a virtuous circle of sales leading to publicity which leads to more sales.

In general, discounting a low-demand CD won't boost sales enough to make it a "hit," so labels are reluctant to reduce prices. The music industry is forward-looking, and is less interested in discounting their back catalogs than coming up with the next big hit. Music labels make the bulk of their profits from the 5% or less CDs that are "hits." All the rest are losses and not worth promoting or investing in further.

There are also many other reasons labels like the "standard" US$15 per CD, but the hits-generated sales model is a major reason.

 

[ken36]

Yes.

 

[elrod-tom]

When I was a young teenager, I can remember buying vinyl albums for between $5 and $6 at my local store. Now, this was a small town, and there is a certain cost of doing business in a small town mom and pop shop. Still, this was almost 30 years ago...you could buy a new Mustang for $6K back then.

At that price point, it makes me feel like $15 for a CD is probably pretty reasonable.

What seems to drive this argument more often than not IMHO is the issue of what people WANT to pay, vs what is reasonable to pay. I've seen folks argue that they would buy much more music if it was $2 a CD...well, DUHH!!! I'd buy a lot more too. The question becomes, is that a reasonable price? I'd have to say no, as it would be IMHO impossible to sustain a profitable business at that price.

One of the things that tends to poison arguments such as this is the cartoonish view that some have of the record companies as mustachioed villians who tie little old ladies to railroad tracks and buzzsaws. What they are is businessmen, and their job is to produce a product that people will buy that will make profit for their companies. When that doesn't happen, they will eventually exit the market...who wants to sell a million CD's if they lose money on each one? That's a bad business model.

Music is like any other commodity. If it's too inexpensive, nobody will produce it. If it's too expensive, people simply won't buy it. I happen to consider the $15 CD (and I rarely pay that much, btw...) to be a pretty reasonable bargain. One purchases the music, and enjoys it in perpetuity. If you don't enjoy it after a while, you either stop listening or churn it in a used CD store somewhere. (BTW - If you really want to pay less for your music, that's a VERY good way to do so.)

The recording industry is selling fewer CD's lately, and I suppose that there are a lot of reasons for this. Maybe CD's do need to come down in price a bit, and I'd acknowledge that they might be priced above the profit-maximizing outcome (more sales at less $$/sale vs fewer sales at more $$/sale). If nothing else, it might discourage illegal downloading (which I am NOT advocating or suggesting is OK, BTW...). I just think that many of the arguments about why CD prices are too high are based on what people wish they could pay, verses what is a reasonable price to pay.

 

[omedon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom One of the things that tends to poison arguments such as this is the cartoonish view that some have of the record companies as mustachioed villians who tie little old ladies to railroad tracks and buzzsaws. What they are is businessmen, and their job is to produce a product that people will buy that will make profit for their companies.

But recording industry execs ARE mustachioed villains.

And they don't produce music ARTISTS do. What they do is MARKET music and tell people what to like and what they should listen to so they can boost sales and fill there OWN, and shareholders, pockets producing nothing at all except maybe demand. For that SERVICE I think that they are way overpaid.

Of course marketing costs money as do record execs. But they are not necessary to the music. Money only needs to go to artists and recording studios and cd manufacturing plants for music to get produced.

Quote:

When that doesn't happen, they will eventually exit the market...who wants to sell a million CD's if they lose money on each one? That's a bad business model.

Lets hope so. They are uneccessary and outdated old dinosaurs throwing around millions of dollars desperate to maintain there power unwilling to quietly disappear into the night. With modern technology ANYBODY can record an album. They can be made in basements and on computers and ANYBODY can distribute through the internet or burn their own CD's. This was not the case 20,30,40, or 50 years ago. Then big recording companies were needed but now they are obolete. Everybody seems to realize this but them.

I think that their marketing power is beginning to be challenged as well through channels such as MySpace.com.

HOLY QUOTES BATMAN

I got a little carried away there and went off on a tangent. What I originally wanted to say was that many CD's that sell for $20+ were recorded 20 or 30 years ago were huge hits at the time making record #'s of sales. They have already had great success the recording and marketing no longer has to be paid for so why such a high price? The only cost is manufacturing and a very small royalty fee.

The reason for the high price is that there is ZERO competition. If you want to hear the Beatles - Let it Be there is only one place you are going to get it. I guess we should be happy that they aren't charging $100 for it

I guess that is why DRM and internet piracy is so important. They can no longer charge whatever they want because there is a too easily viable illegal alternative these days.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom What seems to drive this argument more often than not IMHO is the issue of what people WANT to pay, vs what is reasonable to pay. I've seen folks argue that they would buy much more music if it was $2 a CD...well, DUHH!!! I'd buy a lot more too. The question becomes, is that a reasonable price? I'd have to say no, as it would be IMHO impossible to sustain a profitable business at that price.

Maybe not at $2 a piece, but at $5 a piece you could still make a killing. The question is not how much do we want to pay, it is how much the greedy record companies want to make. In any other product, if the price to produce it went down significantly, the consumer would expect to pay less... why is is any different with music?

 

[Enverxis]

I dont really have a problem with the price I pay for a CD these days.

CD prices in Australia depends on the kind of music and the place you get it from usually. Department stores such as Target, Big W, K-Mart are able to do ~$20 on most of the "Whats In" music which isnt bad for walk-in retail.
CD stores like Sanity, HMV, Leading Edge have a wider range of stock but prices vary between $20-30 for popular genres, and its very hard to get non-mainstream stuff for a good price, I paid $44.95AU for a CD once, albeit the CD+DVD Ltd Digipak Edition.

Although I discovered buying music online to be alot cheaper, I dont mind buying off ebay and most cds can be found for under $10 USD+shipping.

There is one store in particular (Sonic Cathedral) that sells 80% of the music that I like, and they offer free worldwide shipping without Jewel Cases for orders over $25, and their prices range from ~$10-20 depending on the CD, sometimes more, sometimes less, usually $14-16 though. I think thats a good deal, I can get the music I like for less/about the same as popular music at walk-in department price in AU inc shipping.

I can only think of one artist that I listen to that would have massive CD sales, Iron Maiden. The next closest being Nightwish.
I find it sad that so many excellent artists just do not get the sales they should get.

 

[devwild]

I think CD prices on popular music are too expensive. I have no problem paying $12-17 for the many, many lesser known but technically/artistically superior artists (not necessarilly indie, I think a lot of indie is over-rated personally). In both cases I think the record companies need to be drop kicked if they aren't willing to stop taking their caviar cut.

Spend that money on better quality recordings. And put together a coalition with the brains and common sense to market surround-sound quality formats to the masses so that it might actually catch on. SACD and DVD-A are nice idea but nothing about the way they were implemented is sensible.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox Maybe not at $2 a piece, but at $5 a piece you could still make a killing. The question is not how much do we want to pay, it is how much the greedy record companies want to make. In any other product, if the price to produce it went down significantly, the consumer would expect to pay less... why is is any different with music?

I'm not sure that's any more true at $5 per CD than at $2 per CD. Why does it seem like we're judging what it ought to cost to produce a CD strictly by the materials cost of manufacture?