From AllAccess.com

The world's largest music store, APPLE'S ITUNES, plans to boost the price of many hit singles and selected classic tracks to $1.29 on APRIL 7th, breaking the psychological barrier of 99 cents in what could be the first big test of how much consumers are willing to pay to download individual songs, reports THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.

Although the date for higher prices has not been publicly announced, APPLE has been notifying record labels it will go into effect on that date, industry executives said.

The move, part of a new "variable-pricing" strategy that will also lower the price of selected songs, is an attempt by the music industry to wring more revenue from digital downloads in the battle to offset declining CD sales. Label executives contend the new pricing will allow them to offer packaged downloads of songs that might entice consumers to spend more on music.

Some music industry veterans are criticizing the 30% hike price, saying the timing is tone deaf because it comes in the midst of a recession and at a time when spending for online music appears to have reached a plateau.

"This will be a PR nightmare," predicted former EMI MUSIC executive TED COHEN, who is managing partner of digital media consulting firm TAG STRATEGIC. "It is for the music industry what the AIG bonuses are for the insurance industry."

JIM GUERINOT, who manages such bands as NINE INCH NAILS, NO DOUBT and OFFSPRING, said the industry's pricing was moving in the wrong direction if it hoped to compete with still rampant music piracy. "Wouldn't it make sense to try to price it cheaper instead of squeezing the handful of people who are still willing to pay for music?" he said.

APPLE INC. set the 99-cent-per-song rate in 2003 when it launched the ITUNES STORE. The company long resisted pressure from the music industry to allow flexible pricing, arguing that it would inhibit sales. APPLE changed its tune in JANUARY, however, announcing that it would begin selling music at three prices: 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29, based on wholesale costs set by the labels.

In exchange for flexible prices, the digital tracks will be offered free of anti-piracy software, enabling the buyer to make unlimited copies and play the songs on any device, which is not currently possible.

are they lossless files?

daPrettyman said:

The major labels are going kicking and screaming into oblivion. They keep repeating the same mistakes.

Read this also, this article gets a bit more involved on how and why the increase prices came about.


http://www.cdfreaks.com/n...olicy.html

Completely ridiculous. If they do that, I'll be buying my music from Amazon MP3 downloads.

shipoffools said:

Who's to say they won't increase their price?

I prefer Amazon anyway. The files are higher quality.

daPrettyman said:

I've used iTunes for years to manage my iPod, but I've never purchased music through it. What's the quality?

RipHer2Shreds said:

128kbs. Some are at 256kbs (but very few are).

daPrettyman said:

$1.29 for 128 kbps? That's a penny per kilobit! No thanks!

RipHer2Shreds said:

So right. never thought about it that way!

IstenSzek said:

Absolutely. I can MAYBE understand charging more for longer songs, but certainly not the biggest hits. After all, new releases tend to be priced way down when they first arrive...Making them go up would definitely mean Itunes losing money and more kids going to torrents.

While my mother was not one that liked the whole Napster deal, the other day when she found out my sister was buying songs for 99 cents each, she was pissed. She said it would be cheaper to buy the CDs but not really and I highly doubt my sister would buy the entire Flo Rida CD...I know and apologize for her.

Something tells me the rarer stuff I like will be priced up but I am sort of happy to hear that the new MP3s will be able to play on any device. That is an incentive.
[Edited 3/26/09 11:53am]

LimeWire anyone?

daPrettyman said:

You're mistaken. That's how it used to be. As the article states, Apple has always resisted raising prices. However, the music industry wouldn't give them higher-quality DRM-less files until they acquiesced. Virtually all iTunes files are now 256kbps AAC (with no DRM), which is generally accepted as being higher quality than MP3 files of the same bitrate.

As much as I was behind the $0.99 price for everything, I think this setup is the best alternative. I have very little interest in buying new tracks, so it's great if this means older tracks are less expensive. Unfortunately, stores like Best Buy have the opposite: they are quick to put new albums on sale, but they have ridiculously high prices for the catalog albums I'd be buying.

AlexdeParis said:

I noticed that a lot of the files are now DRM free, however, of the last few files I have purchased from them, only one is a higher quality file. It makes me wonder if they aren't fooling us into thinking their files are higher quality when they were never encoded at a higher quality. Maybe the new plus files have been updated with 256? The protected files I recently purchased are showing to be 128.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not a big iTunes fan. I still prefer to get a cd in my hands. Besides, there are too many legal sites to get mp3 files of the latest singles and albums. Download.com and sinternet.com are my friends.

daPrettyman said:

They are in the process of changing over all the files to higher-quality, non-DRM versions. All of the protected files will still be 128 kbps.

VinnyM27 said:

iTunes has never offered MP3 format. They offer 128kbps AAC w/DRM and 256kbps AAC DRM-Free.

"MP3" seems to have become the new "Kleenex" or "Frisbee" . . . a specific name that in time becomes generic and is used to describe the entire category of product.

I will still use Itunes to buy one off hits, either not in print or not a full cd I want.

Shoppers don't give a fuck what it sounds like anymore period. What will it be $12 for a new album with 1/3 the information/quality. I am giving 256AAC=320MP3

Bottom line is 99% consumers don't care enough to push the envelope with demanding lossless. Convience has made way for inferior quality. It looks so much cooler to have 20,000 tracks at 128K, then 250 lossless albums on a 120gig ipod.

I also think that most people and that includes some on this board just go to a bit torrent site and download the whole artist catalog for free, so I do think you are hurting the few who actually still legally get music by raising prices.

This week I am so frustrated with popular opinion on most artistic and business matters this just adds fuel to my fire.

aalloca said:

Well thats mainly it, i think many of us on the board who will preach about saving music and things like that, we are a dying breed, i listen to some of my favorite artists and in their interviews they talk about how they hate the whole digital thing because its eliminating things like "album artwork" and "liner notes" and even the friggin lyrics and knowing who played on a record anymore. But then they say, it really just doesnt matter to the listener anymore, and that is the main reason why you have seen the closure of so many retail chains etc...people want the convienence, the quality for the most part, matters to about 2% of listeners and buyers, and the other things i mentioned matter to an even smaller %. Put it this way, people would buy music that just came out of a rat's ass if it was cheaper and easier for them to get.

lastdecember said:

dying breed? that's wonderful. i'm not sure why anyone would even be interested perpetuating the "record industry" at this point.

i say let it die. it's bloated and greedy and is more of a hinderance at this point than beneficial - to the artist OR the customer.

except to those who work in it. sorry, you're going to lose your job. but a lot of people are losing their jobs in this economy. i see no reason why the music industry should get a pass just because i happen to be a customer of their product.

lastdecember said:

I have a different take. Indeed highinsight is 20/20, and I'm sure many could not have foreseen nor envision how technology and the Internet were going to reshape the music industry for better and I guess for worse.

I don't think we had to be a dying breed: In part the music industry fail to expand/nurture their music consumer base. Hey, I understand because for so long they were the only game in town.... as far as entertainment. So, music companies/labels and their artist/musicians assumed, they could take their customers for granted, charge anything the damn will pleased, and in many instances screw the many hands that forked over millions/billions of dollars to those companies annually. Oops. I've never seen a business who appears to have pursued a narrow consumer base instead of supporting it's current loyal buyers while expanding their product. Curious.

Once again, I felt was pushed into changing my buying habits; once I made that change I haven't gone back. We can debate who came first the chicken or the egg: I stop going to music stores all together when more often than not they didn't have what I wanted and I had to special order it. Yea, they had the top 100 album pop, rock, r&b/soul, rap but other different genres of music, forget about it. Or, for instance Jazz music (Borders in particular) still price their Cd's $15/$18 bucks on average. Still trying to screw over what they assume "mature" buyers were willing to fork over, amazing.

If the artist/musicians are lamenting that nobody cared about music anymore, maybe, just maybe they better pay attention to what's being done in their name. We've been in this for a while now, deer-in-headlight bewilderment of gee it's out of my hands... doesn't fly.
[Edited 3/29/09 10:20am]

TD3 said:

Agree on your points, but as someone that worked in the music retail from the bottom and all the way up to working with the Labels, there is still confusion on the part of the consumer. I agree that prices for CD's are too high, but retail DOES NOT control that, the labels do. Heres some MATH for everyone, when i left the retail end of Music in early 2006, i dealt with the buyers 24/7, one of them Sonya Askew who used to write a kick ass article for Vibe monthly, (actually the only good thing in VIBE), but when i spoke to her daily her complaint was always the labels and their pricing. Now we can bitch that a place like Virgin or Tower had a new CD for 13.99 and called it a sale, but does anyone know what they got charged to buy that cd for the store? well the total back in 2006 was 11.65, its now close to 13 dollars. How can a retail outlet stay afloat, we can all bitch about our precious tower,virgin and others, but when the dust settles we would all buy a cd for 9 bucks as opposed to 14, even if we were the ones helping labels put REAL music stores down. And forget the precious MOM AND POPS that people talk about on here, they are all gonna go, because when the demand for used stuff is over, which it will be at some point, because this breed will die off, you will have nothing to sell in these stores.


This is why you will see every "seasoned" artist go exclusive, they realize its a done deal, i laugh at people who are on this site talking about Prince and target like he cares, his check is in the bank already, whether it sells one copy or 1 million. Its the new business model, call it what you want, call it selling out, whatever, but why should artists stay with a business model that doesnt stay with them. You think a label would push the new Prince at radio or MTV, you think Duran Duran though signed to SONY even gets a minute of their time? no its a new world, labels cant invest the time in pushing what is good, instead they push what they think sells today, tomorrow isnt even on their radar.

Se7en said:

I'm sorry....(if there was an emoticon of a smiley face quivering in a corner, I would put it here).

So will they be offering AAC that is playable on any portable music player

VinnyM27 said:

They already do for one of the big companies (EMI?). At some point very soon, all of the tracks sold on the iTunes Store will be DRM-free and playable on any music player.

bboy87 said:

Guess who's not raising prices?

What does I tunes consider new tracks. How old does the music have to be to be considered new? 1 month, 6 months, a year?

AlexdeParis said:

So they must be DRM free (and thus, more expensive...or not necessarily) in order to play on all devices? I'm so confused!

VinnyM27 said:

Yes, they must be DRM-free to play on anything other than an iPod. Price-wise, we don't know. Right now everything is $0.99. Once this goes into effect, there will be $0.69, $0.99, and $1.29 price points.