[Flasken]

where I live, the price actually drops a bit a few years after the album is released. I mainly buy older releases anyway, so high prices for newly released albums don't really bug me that much...

I just hate that I'll have to shell out 150 Kr for "Hail to the thief"...

Wait a minute... What are you complaining about?? current exchange rate from $ to KR is 6.44.... 150 divided by 6.45...

That's $23 and a quarter!!!!!!! Damn danish VAT!!! I hate it!!

And those money are supposed to come from a salary reduced by taxes at 69%!!

Damn... Denmark sucks when it comes to money...

 

[Davie]

Some of the indie classical music labels (Harmonia Mundi, for example) were releasing new albums by artists that they were trying to promote at under $10 (at least they were going for $8 or $9 bucks at Tower), and I bought almost every single one. Then I paid full price for some of the artists' other releases. Over $15 is too much for most people to risk on something they might only play once, especially given that resale prices for CDs are so low.

I'd bet that there is a vicious cycle between the high price of CDs, the conservatism of the buyer, and the conservatism and mediocrity of the "product" that is released. The whole system is due for an overhaul.

 

[sorrywhat?]

i'm of two minds on the file-sharing issue (my girlfriend would argue i barely have one mind .. let alone two.).
on one hand .. it is stealing to download copyrighted music .. movies .. computer programs. it's no different than walking into a clothing store and taking stuff off of the shelves and walking out. music is the music industry's product.

THAT BEING SAID...

like most people here .. i've been collecting cd's for a long time. in canada .. they retail for anywhere from $14.99-$23.99 (approximate). that price simply cannot be justified given production costs. we're being raped .. plain and simple. the music industry doesn't like it when we throw their rules back in their faces. they've generated a lot of ill will from the public through their business practices and have clearly learned nothing from the downloading issue. they're producing copy-protected material that i .. as a consumer .. can't play on my computer even though i purchased the cd legally and have no intention of ripping to mp3 for filesharing. who are they to tell me where i can play my music?
i have downloaded music from albums that i will never buy.i'd pay on a per-song basis if it were more widely available. i also have purchased cd's that i never would have bought had i not downloaded the music first (the walkmen-everyone who pretended to like me is gone ... stuff you don't hear on the radio).
the music industry had better change because there's no way this genie will go back in the bottle.

 

[Nikos]

Quote:

Originally posted by jaskin I think if we were to be affected by quantity instead or quality we would be more price conscious. However, if we were quality conscious we would buy the CDs no matter what the price.

Well thats what Im saying--arent most people on this board more QUALITY geared than not?

Which makes the poll not as respresentative as the average music listener?

Or do most pretty much agree that they would buy much more if cds were cheaper?

 

[NewSc2]

Yes, Yes, obviously yes. Of course the volume of CD sales will go up if prices go down, it's simple economics.

I personally buy used CDs mostly, or CDs on sale for like $8-12. Never above $15, at all.

Although I do think the average price of a CD should be more around $7-10 (maybe suggested retail at $12, sale prices between $7-10. My CD collection would be virtually complete if prices were like that.

 

[dougli]

It's already happened to me. Like Mr.PD, now that I've found some places that sell CDs for $10-$12, with shipping included, I'm finding that I am buying more than before. This also makes it more fun to take a chance on one that can't be heard prior to purchasing. But I don't see a trend happening to having prices reduced in general, because I don't see human greed being reduced.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikos Do you think this poll speaks for most people or is it too biased in the fact that this is a headphone site where most value QUALITY?

Yes, the poll is biased -- I think the point was made that the two really are unrelated. The poll was not phrased thusly.

 

[chadbang]

I'm currently in the 1% -- although I hardly think that's an accurate reflection overall of the effect of file sharing on the recording industry. I simply don't buy CDs since I can download the songs for free. That's my answer and it will be until some compromise is reached. Someone (I forget the source, I read it in the newspaper) said that - through some reasoning and calcuation, based on I don't know what - that the price of $1.67 per officially released CD would be the point at which people would not bother filesharing at all and just buy the CD. I'd be down with that. Frankly, I won't pay more than 5 bucks for even a used CD these days (and I've only bought 1 in the last 7 months!)

 

[Nikos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk Yes, the poll is biased -- I think the point was made that the two really are unrelated. The poll was not phrased thusly.

What would be the best way to phrase it?

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally posted by blip Have any independent research firms conducted a full-scale analysis of the economic impact of filesharing? The little so-called "evidence" that I have seen about file sharing hurting CD sales has been shakey at best. (i.e. well sales are going down aren't they? With no correction for changing economic conditions done.) With all the public debate it seems like a university somewhere should have done a study on it.

Yes... most of the record labels have investigated this. The general consensus is that it's not having much if any impact monetarily on the RC (record companies). Most likely it's making people be more selective on what they're purchasing.

The one thing that does bother them is it's still theft of intellectual property... i.e. the artist's/rec companies' work. That's what they're not happy about. It's one thing to make a copy for yourself... another to post it out in the world for everyone. In the early days of the web it was pretty hard to get good sounding mp3s from the web. Now with broadband & faster networks that's not an issue anymore.

Pardon me while I put on my flame retardant suit... 'cause alot of you aren't gonna like this...

The thing that's making the RC furious is individuals who take a cd and burn multiple copies for their friends. That's what really has them pissed. They know alot of people are doing this, and in this aspect they are losing money. They're more upset about that then filesharing. Just look at the price of cdrs. You know a ton of people are doing it. Now on to the next controversy... bringing down the price of CDs.

I have a friend who's in the RC business here in Nashville. They work primarily in marketing as well as all other aspects at an independent label. I talked to him last night about this whole controversy and he made several valid points...
There are costs to be considered in the making of a new cd... outside of manufacturing. They have to first record it, then test a couple of tracks on focus groups ... and that's just one aspect of it. What you are buying is new product... not old. My bud went through the whole process & I know I'm leaving out a substancial chunk of it, but I understand how a cd can end up being $17 on first release. Remember... what you are buying is new product... not old. He did make a good point that look at the cd 3 years from now. What does it usually cost? Around $10. And he's right... just go to any Wal-Mart and look. Hey... I don't like the high prices either, but I do see the point from the RC's angle. Once again he mentioned that the thing that really hurts the record industry is people burning multiple copies of a manufactured cd. So... that's why cds on their initial release may seem high priced.

 

[archosman]

More detailed info...



Everybody knows that you have to pay a premium when
you buy something when it first comes out... stereo equipment, a new car, a
new computer, etc. In the course of the normal life cycle, the price does
come down on all of these things. Music needs to viewed the same way... if
it is brand new, you are going to pay a premium. Once it becomes "catalog"
then the price drops down. There's a lot of experiements going on out there
right now with this. For instance, the 1 year old SCARECROW album by Garth
Brooks was dropped down to an $11.98 list price 2 months ago which gets it
into Wal-Mart at under $10. It has only increased sales by maybe 20 - 30%
to under 1500 copies a week.

The other thing to understand is that the record companies are not making
$$$ hand over fist like everyone thinks. Most people think that the record
companies are swimming in profits. Not so. The majors usually give up only
14% in distribution fees but the math is pretty scary considering the amount
of money necessary to adequately record and promote a good quality project.
Independent labels have to give up 20 - 25% in distribution fees. Here's
some real-world math for an independent.

Typical Distribution Math:
$16.98 list price = $10.78 avg wholesale price (what the distributor can
potentially get)
After standard discounts = $9.81 avg landed price (what the distributor
usually gets)
less 22% distributor fee = $7.65 avg label proceeds before other
distribution fees

That gives the label about $7.76 per unit before chargebacks to cover their
variable and fixed costs.

Variable costs:
14 tracks x .08 statutory mechanical rate = $1.12 payable in songwriter
royalties
Manufacturing = $.90

Now the label is down to about $5.74 per unit to cover price & positioning
programs, other marketing and radio promotion costs and label overhead, as
well as the original recording costs. That's not the $10-12 per unit profit
an artist makes by when selling small quantities of independent CDs at
personal appearances! If the label sells 50,000 copies they only have
$287,500 in cashflow to work with!

OK, now let's take a look at a $9.98 list price title.
$9.98 list price = $6.40 avg wholesale price (what the distributor can
potentially get)
After standard discounts = $5.91 avg landed price (what the distributor
usually gets)
less 22% distributor fee = $4.61 avg label proceeds before other
distribution fees

That gives the label about $4.61 per unit before chargebacks to cover their
variable and fixed costs.

Variable costs:
14 tracks x .08 statutory mechanical rate = $1.12 payable in songwriter
royalties
Manufacturing = $.90

Now the label is down to about $2.59 per unit to cover price & positioning
programs, other marketing and radio promotion costs and label overhead, as
well as the original recording costs. For an album that sells 50,000
copies, you hopefully have $129,500 in cashflow to work with to record the
album ($50,000), market and promote the single ($25,000+ per single), do a
music video ($20,000+), pay your overhead, etc. etc.

Oh, and on that CD you paid $16.98 for, the retailer made at least $6.28.
On that CD you paid $9.98 for, he made at least $3.48.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Yep, if they cost around $10 I could afford to buy almost twice as much of the little silver buggers.

 

[pod-lover]

Quote:

Originally posted by ProFingerSk8er $10 still seemz a little too much...how about $7 ?! my style: buy new cds, record them on my mds digitally on SP mode... and sell them as brand new cds

i agree
Bootlegs are $4 where i live
i'd spend $7 for an original

 

[dougli]

Quote:

Originally posted by archosman More detailed info...

Thanks for posting this info. I'd always wondered how this sort of thing worked.

 

[daycart1]

I get mine cheapo on ebay and from internet discounters. Including postage, I almost never pay more than $6 per CD.