RIAA: We're losing out to Web pirates

[Sckott]

Got some vittles to dig into:

RIAA: We're losing out to Web pirates

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-845012.html

:D Let's hear it! :D

[Dave B]

You know, I'm not buying this CD copying is killing the music business. It's the same sad tale we got when cassettes started to really take off. I've got news for these guys, CD burners are not what's keeping me from buying new music, bad music is. I really am not interested in the "Flavor of the Week" girl or boy bands, I don't care for rap or hip hop and too much "new" music sounds like something I've already heard. Occasionally I'll hear something I like, but not enough to spend $17.99 to see if there is another song on the album I like. Maybe at less then $10.00 I might experiment more. So instead I have a core or classic rock and pop albums that keep me quite happy. In addition I'm buying more new and used vinyl.

[BradOlson]

Exactly right. I will keep on buying music no matter if I have a CD burner or not.

[mcow1]

I too don't agree that copying is doing much, if any, damage to the industry either. I think a lot of it is spelled out in that article, waning interest in teen pop sensations. How long can you expect talent limited cute girls/boys that dance to sell millions of records or keep expecting the kids who buy this stuff to come up with the kind of money a new cd costs. Lower prices I think would help more or selling singles again so people don't have to buy a whole cd or download the one song they want.

[RicP]

I've got news for these guys, CD burners are not what's keeping me from buying new music, bad music is. A-fuc*ing-Men. :)

[Dave]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got news for these guys, CD burners are not what's keeping me from buying new music, bad music is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A men to that statement!

You just can't entertain adults with nursery rhymes "sung" by actors.;)

[KLM]

Let me jump on the band wagon here. I too think it's the high price and little talent that is driving down cd sales. I beleive the record companies keep fueling this debate. It's easier to lay blame on "pirates" rather than the fact they may have a bad product that people don't want to buy. I'd be curious if the questionaire asked whether or not they would've purchased the whole cd for $15.99 or up if they couldn't download/copy the music. I bet a lot of them would never have purchased it. Many of today's pop/rock cds only have one to maybe three good songs on them anyway. Who wants to spend nearly $20 one three songs?

[DanG]

Stop distributors of illegal bootlegs, fine. But let the little guy use his music as he wants, that only spreads the music around and whips up interest for more sales.

When I buy music I enjoy being able to compile a favorite tunes tape. Now instead of tape I do it on CDR. Why should I buy the vinyl and the CD when I can burn a copy of the vinyl? Like I used to tape a copy of the vinyl for use in the car. I've paid for the music, I'd like to use it how I like. I'm not distributing it.

Like software only running on one machine at a time.

[RetroSmith]

The RIAA is SOOOOO full of it.

Prices are WAY to high for new Cds (no matter what Beagle says)

Content is WAY inferior to was was available in the 80s.

I'm just not going to spend 17.99 to get one song.

What happened to the single? Not enough money, thats what happened to it!!

Lower all new CD prices to 7.99 retail, and watch sales SOAR. Nobody would bother copying if prices were resonable.

[RicP]

Lower all new CD prices to 7.99 retail While I admire your enthusiasm, this is simply an unrealistic goal. There's no way that the Record Labels would be able to recoup their costs on a disc that retails for $7.99 -- never happen.

While I agree that $17.99 is much too high for the typical 1-disc release, I think that $12-13 is reasonable given the amount of time, money and effort that goes into these recordings.

If MSRP were lowered to $13.99 instead of $18.99, I think things would get a lot better.

[TommyTunes]

For most of us on this forum a CD is not a major purchase. However sit back and think for a minute, the new Creed, Dave Mattews etc disc comes out, you are 16 years old and you earn either $4.50 an hour at Micky D's or you get an allowance.

Do you spend $13 bucks on the CD and maybe skip going out with your friends on Saturday or spend .20 cents on a blank and make a copy. Most music is not sold to 30 and 40 somethings but to teenagers.

In the old days, sure you could make a cassette of a friends lp BUT not only did it change the format of the music, it didn't sound as good. Plus in the digital age you can even reproduce the artwork.

My daughter and her friends buy a CD each a month but they all have they same music.

[Mike]

Originally posted by RicP
While I admire your enthusiasm, this is simply an unrealistic goal. There's no way that the Record Labels would be able to recoup their costs on a disc that retails for $7.99 -- never happen.


That is because spending is out of control. Reign in the spending and you can sell cheaper. See? :) Maybe stop paying hundreds of millions of dollars in PAYOLA. I'm sorry, I meant "indie promotion". Maybe stop spending millions on artists that sell 378 records! Did you see the Wall Street Journal article yesterday? Guffaw. For the full text of Hillary's statement, see the thread "Hilary Rosen Speaks".

[Rspaight]

An MSRP of $13.99, assuming a similar profit margin for retailers to the current scheme, would allow deep discounters to price at the magic $9.99 level.

A $1.99 CD single wouldn't hurt, either. (Maybe $3.99 for a 4-track single.)

And why not offer free downloads of the single at low bitrate (FM radio quality) and put ads all over the download page? Make it a "song of the week" deal with a different single every week.

Add some extra goodies to the discs (like maybe a coupon for $2 off your next disc on that label).

And for God's sake, stop trying for the "big hit" with a 10-million selling record by a talentless bunch of pin-ups with a shelf life of nanoseconds and start nuturing real artists for long-term success.

Not without risk, but whatever they're doing now ain't working.

Ryan

[mcow1]

I don't know as it's not working as much as they would like us to think it's not. If they were hurting so badly they wouldn't be giving out these huge contracts to some performers (or buying them out with huge sums). Look at the artist rights suits that are going down now with what a lot of artists are paid in comparison to what the companies are making on the albums even after the marketing etc.. costs.

[Sckott]

Some of the UK vinyl sleeves made in the early 80's had "Home Taping Is Killing Music" on it. Ironically, it had skull and crossbones that looked like a cassette.

Now, the cassette is all but dead.

[Grant]

Originally posted by mikey5967

What happened to the single? Not enough money, thats what happened to it!!



Actually, it was payola. That's why they killed the single. It just got too expensive for the record companies.

[jligon]

GREED!

Most of these hacks should be happy just hearing their lousy songs over the radio or seeing their ugly faces plastered all over a record store. The fact that they make millions of dollars on top of this is downright sickening! These people shouldn't even be making enough money to live on.

I saw The Breeders last week at a small club for $15 a ticket. They limited the crowd to 500 people. I can live with that. I didn't even know that gigs like that, for semi-famous bands, still took place.
I saw U2 a few years ago (believe me, it wasn't my idea) at Soldier Field in Chicago. Something like $100 a ticket and the stadium was full. We're talking many millions of dollars for one (rediculous) show! I cannot live with that. Nothing but greed. Exploiting people so that they can live in luxury for the rest of their lives.

Please don't offer any supply and demand arguments or "If you don't like it, just stay away" advice because I am already doing that. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't. Entertainment is out of control in this country. It's our number one export!

[Alan T]

It was not payola; it is the high cost of caring and handling over 100 singles and the slim profit margin. Retailers found it hard to make a profit and records labels justified the cost because it promoted LP’s. When the multi-plantium muli-disc sets became the major profit center in the late 1970’s for the record companies the small profits and high return rates from 45’s were deemed in inadequate and the format was phased out.

[Grant]

Alan T., I threw that out there because that's what a contributer to the ICE forum suggested.

While your answer makes more sense and is what I pretty much figured out a long time ago, I wanted to see how far that idea got. It also sounds plausable. There could be some truth to it but it couldn't be a major reason.

What would have been helpful is for the companies to just come out and say why the single format was killed instead of letting the consumer fume about it. So, what would be the harm in just announcing that singles aren't profitable?

[Richard Feirstein]

Let me see: They often charge significantly more for a CD than a tape even though the tape costs more to make per unit. Many mall chain stores charge over suggested list price for many CD's. Example, when Bob Dylan's Street Legal was remastered it was released by Sony Music at a low retail price, about $10.00. Our local mall shops stickerd it at $16.00 and were not moved when I brought it to their attention. They run hundreds of stores and are the main management for the group. This is intentional with many titles. Greed is the word. I think a retail price of $9.99 is about right. SACD's and DVD-A's could be about the same, perhaps a dollar or two more. Even my local vinyl store sells new disks a dollar to two above list price. And boots are sold for $16 each. This is criminal in more ways than one.