Okay, I'm sure some of you will think I am a cheap bastard but isn't $.77 a little steep for downloads. I think it is, at least if you compare what we pay for CD's. A retail store buys a CD for about $7.50. Then they jack the price way up and you pay somewhere from $10.99-$24.99. Say the average CD has about 12 tracks on it. $7.50 divided by 12 equals $.62. So before a retail mark up you pay about $.62 per song when you buy a CD. Of course it varies depending on how many tracks are on a CD but I think 12 is a reasonable average. When you buy downloaded songs there is no retail mark up, no manufacturing costs, no distribution costs. That's why I think $.77 is too much. I think maybe $.25 would be much more fair. Especially when you consider that many people are going to buy the tracks twice (once as a download and once as a CD). Am I nuts or do any of you agree with me?

99 cents is the industry standard at this point.

I think .77 is fine. Maybe if they cut a deal on downloads for whole albums or "download 5, get one free" or something, that would be nice...but I have no problem with the pricing.

common misconceptions: "there is no retail markup, no manufacturing costs, no distribution costs" in downloading tracks.

no distribution -> one needs to pay for the bandwidth used (the more popular you are, the higher this cost will be), as well as the back-end infrastructure to hold the media and process orders

no manufacturing costs -> one needs the equipment to actually record and endocde the tracks

no retail markup -> unless the owner of the product is selling directly to the customer off of his/her desktop system, there is always a number of people in the middle who need a slice of the pie


That being said, it does seem that a lower price-point could be profitable, but the question is, is it profitable enough to make it worth while?

rialb said:

I couldn't have said it better, my friend

Wow, I can't believe nobody agreed with me. I respect your opinions but I still believe that if we had all of the numbers to consider it would prove that we are still being ripped off. If the labels can sell cd's to retail for about $.62 a song then I think it's crazy to but the same song minus credits, lyrics and all the other crap in the liner notes, for $.99 or even $.77. I don't think you guys fully appreciate how much money they save. Even some of the people running these pay to download sites admit that the prices are too high.

amyhr said:

well it's true that it isn't free, but it is a lot cheaper this way than doing it the traditional way.

rialb said:

I agree.

apple has the highest volume music download store - they charge .99, they keep .34 and give the rest to the rights holders, and their store loses money. So clearly the overhead is at least .34.
[This message was edited Thu Mar 11 13:21:24 2004 by alandail]

rialb said:

I think $.77 a download is reasonable. Check it out, maybe you can hear samples and you don't have to download what you don't like.

AND... most people buy a full album for 1, maybe 2, maybe 3 songs... So paying 99cents x 3 for the songs one wants versus $12 for 3 songs you want plus a bunch you don't is a better deal...

Now, I know, in Prince's case, we want it ALL!

I'm happy that we get to pay 77 cents versus 99 cents!!!!!

Is it just the new album that will be available for download or will there be other tracks as well? i.e will there be vault tracks etc?

Anyone know?




.
[This message was edited Thu Mar 11 14:03:53 2004 by bkw]

i think .77 is cool. it's still cheap and the artist is still able to make a profit. i think it is rather naive to hold the belief that the artist is in it for the music, alone. prince (and all other performers) want to make money.

how much do you charge your employer?

I'll buy all his .77 downloads.. as long as its prince music.. no filler crap of other people.


Thats worth it.. big time.

Yeah, but the newest announcement from his publicist says that it's going to be the tracks from the album...in which case, hell no I ain't paying for downloads of 'em!! I'll just pick it up at the movie theatre and the 3 concerts.

Putting the tracks up is great for worldwide fans but if he's starting downloads again it would be a shame if he didn't actually release something this time.

rialb said:

I agree with you.
I think 77 cents is too high
for an intangible product
with no resale value.

Plus I have to pay for the blank cd.
That should be included in your cost.

25 to 50 cents sounds
more than reasonable to me.

cough*cheap ass muhfukkahs!* cough

thedoorkeeper said:

Wow...if you think 77 cents is too high for an "intangible product," how do you feel about paying $25 to join the club in the first place? The club is much more "intangible" than digital music files that you can listen to anywhere you have a computer or a CD player.

77 cents is a great deal -- as pointed out above, the difference between per-song pricing and pricing for CDs is that you can pick and choose the songs you want for 77 cents rather than being stuck paying $17 for a CD of music that you might not entirely enjoy. I'd rather pay more per unit and have my choice of music.

It'll be a crying shame if all that's in the Musicology store is the new album, though.

thedoorkeeper said:

How do you feel about having to pay for water?

Doozer said:

I dont think the concern is about the "resale value".. The value is in the music, and if u want the music.. Its there for you for a certian time for 77 Cents.

Well, it's 77%-99% more than a lot of people are used to paying for downloads.

thedoorkeeper said:

I agree. Not because I'm "cheap", but because it is the truth that downloads are overpriced, including at the I-tunes store.

A CD has artwork, lyrics, pictures etc., downloads don't -> all has to be paid for.

A CD is a tangible product that needs to be produced and has a jewel case, downloads don't -> all has to be paid for.

A CD can be re-sold: once you bought it, it's your property, a downloaded file is not -> no re-sell value

A CD (12 songs) costs a retailer no more than 10 $. While distribution and retail costs and profit margins of middlemen can be cut out, the average price of a song on a CD should be much more than an individual download, but it is not.


--
[This message was edited Fri Mar 12 1:28:17 2004 by Abrazo]

Doozer said:

I personally think it's ridiculoius to pay 25$ just so I can "join" a website, chat a little bit and get banned for criticism. Therefore, and plenty of other reasons, I haven't joined.



The possibility of buying individual licenses to listen to songs costs the content provider nothing extra. Therefore the customer shouldn't be charged extra for it either.
Plus, re-sell value does matter, to me anyway. If you do the download scheme you will not own the files you bought a license to listen to. You will not be able to treat the files the way you are able to treat a CD. The file will be packed with DRM and licensed so you can only listen to it and possibly only on your computer. When I buy a CD I can listen to it anywhere, copy it and still re-sell it if I don't like it so I can gain back some of the money I spent on it.

--
[This message was edited Fri Mar 12 1:31:57 2004 by Abrazo]

Doozer said:

That comparison makes no sense whatsoever. Instead compare a license to listen to a copy protected music file (which is what you'll get for your money) to owning a CD. Then you are talking.

--
[This message was edited Fri Mar 12 1:33:40 2004 by Abrazo]

rialb said:

I must admit you're a cheap bastard.

Abrazo said:

My point is that saying you're paying 77 cents for an intangible product makes it sound like you're giving 77 cents away for nothing in return, or for something that's freely and widely available in all civilized parts of the world.

The fact that the files will be licensed is another issue altogether. I don't like it, especially since there hasn't been official word on what the alternative for Mac users will be (WMA DRM files won't play in WMP for Mac). But, I'll admit that no one is forcing me to buy the stuff if I choose to.

To say that 77 cents for a song download is too expensive is a bit silly. 77 cents is cheaper than any other legal download service out there, AND it could very well be that the club downloads won't even be available elsewhere. So, 77 cents for possible exclusive content is fine with me as long as the files play on my platform of choice.

Doozer said:

and on the iPod
[This message was edited Fri Mar 12 15:38:16 2004 by alandail]

The marginal costs of downloads are cheaper, but the overheads aren't all that cheaper, especially for smaller artists. Simple economics my friends! If downloads were to sell in the same volume as CDs, then they would become cheaper. And there needs to be more competition. Records companies can spread the costs of CDs across hundreds of millions of sales.

.77 looks good compared to .99 cents!

.77 for each track of NEWS would be good value!!

.77 is great value for all us in the UK as well - we pay £1 per track on a CD roughly, and about the same for downloads .77 is like £0.4 or something.

We pay £4.50 for CD singles!! Can you believe that! That's about what the yanks pay for full albums!!!

Doozer said:

Speaking of paying for intangibles, I paid $.50 to put air in my tire.

wyld1 said: