Slashdot Log In
iTunes Sales Ban Does Increase CD Sales
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 09, 2006 04:49 PM
from the sounds-logical dept.
from the sounds-logical dept.
Guinnessy writes "According to the New York Times, some music labels have deliberately stopped selling some new singles on online stories such as iTunes or Rhapsody while promoting songs on the radio, so that listeners will rush out to buy the CD album instead. The album appears in itunes at a later date. Not everyone seems to think this is a good idea. From the article: 'The labels are shooting themselves in the foot,' says Rhapsody's Tim Quirk. However, Ne-Yo's CD In My Own Words sold 301,000 copies using this method. Chris Brown's Run It, that was in the itunes store, sold 154,000 copies in its first week. Ne-Yo's So Sick was downloaded approximately 3.4 million times on the peer to peer networks during the week of his album release while the album Run It!"was downloaded approximately 5.3 million times in the same release period."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Apple iTunes to End Flat Fee Pricing? 556 comments
MdntToker writes "According the Forbes, EMI has an understanding with Apple that flat fee pricing will end within the next 12 months, and more popular songs will be priced higher than 99c, while lesser known acts will be priced lower than 99c." From the article: "Label executives have made multiple arguments for flexible pricing. They argue, for instance, that almost all retail businesses have different price points for different products. But they are particularly interested in boosting their revenue from digital music sales, which aided by the sale of mobile phone ringtones, are increasing but not quickly enough to replace the continuing drops in compact disc sales. EMI said today that digital sales, made up 4.9% of the company's sales in the last six months, up from 2.1% a year ago." We've previously reported on this story.
[+]
Apple: iTunes Music Store hits Billionth Download 214 comments
SirWraith writes "In case anyone hasn't realized Apple has had a counter going up to a billion for a few weeks now. Apparently last night, they hit the mark. From ABC News: 'Apple says Alex Ostrovsky from West Bloomfield, Mich., was the lucky audiophile who downloaded "Speed of Sound" by Brit pop band Coldplay, giving the Cupertino, Calif., company bragging rights to the 10-figure milestone.
Thanks to a generous prize package from Apple, Ostrovsky will now use a $10,000 iTunes music card to keep those downloads flowing on his new 20-inch iMac computer, and listen to his favorite tunes on one of the 10 60GB iPods.'"
[+]
Apple: iTunes Might Lose Labels 614 comments
Dreamwalkerofyore writes "According to the New York Times, the iTunes music store might have to change its 99 cents per song policy or risk losing a huge amount of songs due to recent disputes with record companies, who demand an increase in the cost. From the article: 'If [Mr. Jobs] loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted 99 cents to download any song could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.'"
[+]
Apple: iTunes More Popular Than Most P2P Sites 333 comments
bonch writes "A study by NPD Group shows that iTunes ranks #2 in popularity of music downloads, rivaling services like Limewire, Kazaa, and iMesh. The #1 service was still WinMX, but NPD believes this proves to the music industry that legal downloads can work, and that iTunes provides an economically viable alternative." From the article: "According to NPD, about 4 percent of Internet-enabled households in the nation used a paid music download store in March."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
iTunes Sales Ban Does Increase CD Sales
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 185 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Liars, Damned Liars and Statisticians (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.fishdan.com/ | Last Journal: Monday April 16 2007, @02:26PM)
Re:Liars, Damned Liars and Statisticians (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
So one can reasonably conclude that iTunes, at least in an indirect way, is forcing labels to sell their music cheaper in order to secure more sales!
I don't think iTunes is going anywhere, but if it's presence causes labels to actually price aggresively the way it should be, then I think it's a good thing.
Re:Liars, Damned Liars and Statisticians (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liars, Damned Liars and Statisticians (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel | Last Journal: Saturday April 15 2006, @12:27PM)
Also not mentioned here is that the Brown album was available for download ONLY for over three months before they released the physical album. '
so what I see being 'proved' is that:
- Disallowing CD sales for 3 months cuts into CD sales.
- Cutting the prices for CDs increases CD sales.
- exhausting your Radio play before releasing an album can cut into album sales.
- Forcing fans to download music increases downloads.
- Being available online for 3 months can increase downloads.
and for number one......Bare statistics can be misleading.
((mumbles something about hanging by the toenails and being beaten by an organic carrot))
Re:Liars, Damned Liars and Statisticians (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~karzz1)
"They did that deliberately to get numbers like that so that they can use these misinterpreted numbers in their propaganda machine."
There, fixed that for ya
From one sample to conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
There are SO many variables to be taken into account that could influence that. Do they target the same audience? To give a very drastic example, if you compare CD sales to download of a Techno song and a Country song, it does NOT matter when it comes out on which medium to predict almost flawlessly which one has a higher download and which one has a higher CD count.
Were they released at the same time? If it is released around Xmas, that would boost CD sales compared to downloads (it IS after all easier to wrap a CD in gift paper than a bunch of bits). What's the weather like on release day? Bad weather and I'd rather download it instead of going out in the pouring rain.
Do the CDs offer the same "goodies" that come with the CD? Do they both offer the lyrics in the booklet, for example, or some pictures of the artist? How about the CD cover?
So please, before drawing conclusion from ONE SINGLE sample, at least make absolutely sure that the results are comparable. Or, better, get a few 100 samples before jumping to a conclusion!
Aaaaaand, let's not forget: If it's not available from legal download... especially if the CD is DRMed into uselessness.
Re:From one sample to conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
(http://symbii.com/)
Re:Sample OK, Conclusion NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 17 2004, @02:33AM)
If it's the CD rip that eventually gets on the networks or the iTunes. If they had a simple watermark at the end of the song that would show up in the resulting encodings and be detected they could track which method is actually contributing to piracy. If people who are more likely to purchase a CD and rip it to serve on the file sharing networks or if it's the iTunes users that serve it up. With a couple hundred songs marked and tracked that'd be compelling data either way.
In any case all it takes is one person to borrow/buy/steal/download a track and serve it up.
It makes a lot more sense to make it cheap enough and easy enough to get a song that illegally downloading it is not benificial. Not threatening them with vague lawsuites that people really don't care about. And not DRM crap that makes it better to download it illegally to use on the multitude of products out there being marketed by the same companies that restrict the customers ability to use them (cough-sony-cough).
If there were a service that let people pay a small price for music by the track in a high quality standardized format and allowed them to do whatever they wanted with it without any draconian DRM restrictions, it would be an alternative that would capture the majority of the market share overnight. And at the same time would make the p2p networks that much less attractive.
(didn't hear it from me, allofmp3)
It's not something new, but needs to be said again to these execs: Basic economics 101, if you offer an easier product at a cheaper price without a significant quality drop you will make more money in volume than your competitors.
The competitors in this case are virus ridden, illegal, spotty selection, gun to the head, can go away at any time, P2P networks.
You hear that RIAA? You could make millions happy, rake in billions of dollars in sales, have more volume with significantly less overhead and 3rd party costs. All you have to do is look at the market and act like business people and fulfill the obvious need.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://jedidiah.stuff.gen.nz/wp/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 04 2007, @02:51PM)
They are simply applying Vesilind's laws of experimentation:
Jedidiah.
Re:Oh, yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
finally the truth (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.theworldwidewebguy.com/)
Who the fuck are Chris Brown and Ne-Yo? (Score:4, Insightful)
so what does iTunes to to Edison cylinder sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday April 16 2007, @01:18PM)
selling CDs promotes ripping without any content copy-limiting software system. if the pinheads in Big Music had their schytte together, they'd stop shipping physical media, and sell it all online through iTunes and the like.
but all they have together is their off-key whining....
You know, I have a problem with this.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.vy2sc.info/)
First you are taking one individual CD's sales through a store and comparing them to another CD's sales through an online distribution. While this test is almost impossible to perform (release the song at the same time through both channels and see the online distribution win and people would say that it simply hurt the CD sales, or alternatively, vice versa), it might have been a better comparison to simply take one popular artist's newer album, release it exclusively online and compare it with previous releases. Even this is not an indestructable argument, but at least you would be comparing Granny Smiths to Red Delicious, and not fruits to vegetables.
Now I am by no means a scientific person (having a greater interest in history) but it astounds me (through every century) when one side tries to sound scientific by saying, look! ho! this way works better and one can see it conclusively because the stars are in the sky and not in the ocean! This was pretty much a complete red herring of an article.
Interesting quote... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a weird analogy... if I buy a single song... that's not like buying the upper right hand corner of a Picasso (though with some of Picasso's work I might enjoy it more). It's just like buying a single painting... you select the one you prefer and purchase it. You don't need to buy the whole body of work that an artist produces to appreciate the artist... a song I would equate to a single painting... meanwhile an album is just multiple paintings by the same artist.
At a buck a download... wouldn't they make more off of the album than at the 8 dollars they are selling the thing at Target for? How much does it cost to produce and distribute these CD's to each of the retail chains? How many of those CD's that are produced are in fact sold? So how many just sit on the shelves forever? Or... if you don't produce enough to meet demand... how much money have you lost opportunity costs?
Digital just seems so much more efficient... and this robbing peter to pay paul is silly... yes if you only sell a track in a single medium... of course the volume will rise for that medium... but in the end are you making more money or less? (Say you sold 300,000 tracks on iTunes... cost/benefit?)
Digital uptake is just ramping... if they start doing silly things like this to make it harder for consumers to get their content... either they'll go back to piracy... or it'll stop the whole legal digital distribution before it's even had a chance to become mainstream.
Need broader statistics to be meaningful (Score:3, Interesting)
It therefore seems hard to argue that file sharing and digital distribution has a negative affect on music sales.
amazing, headline news (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://projectx.gamerznet.com/)
Wow, that's so Statistical! (Score:5, Insightful)
This fails so many statistical tests for process control and would never even be eligible for something like an Annova (test for statistical difference) tukey-kramer test. They find one demographic of people, internet buyers. Split them in two. Offer the download to 33% of the group, deny the download to 33% of the group, and let the other 33% have the choice to steal/buy online/buy the cd ect. All the while exposing them to the exact same marketing, radio singles, and ensuring their purchasing habbits are the same. Only then can you even begin to test which group is statistically more likely to alter their purchasing habbits.
In other words, doing all of the above is hard and takes time and just coming up with bogus conclusions is so much easier.
I can't wait until the RIAA gets so much control over the music industry that they legally charge each user every time they listen to the song. Hell, they'll charge the user 1 cent per second the song is played. It wouldn't be fair to pay the same price for a 2 minute song and a 4 minute song would it?
When that day happens, and it looks like it might, the RIAA will finally implode and independant music will return in a blaze of glory. Or be outlawed as a potential communication medium for terrorists. One of the two anyway.
Not only what I said before but... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday October 13 2003, @03:10PM)
try this (Score:5, Informative)
Message to the music industry:
The horse and buggy distro system of funny plastic disks has been superceded by an Internet. Tune in or drop out.
Shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
The real story here is not "Itunes hurts cd sales" its "Itunes promotes better music". The a-la-carte style of music downloading that itunes offers punishes crappy cds for sucking and rewards good ones for being good.
So, where should I buy music? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://1fp.us/ | Last Journal: Friday March 10 2006, @11:22PM)
I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.sardonicbastard.com/)
I don't get it...
Not a good idea to follow the movie industry (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://jimmybearpearson.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 09 2006, @10:10AM)
If my family wants to see Harry Potter [insert episode here] at the movie theater, we'll go see it so we can have a blast sitting in the dark listening to the overly-amped up sound and get a fun thrill from the big screen.
However, if the DVD were available at the same time, we'd still go to the theater to do the family thing, then buy the DVD if we liked it.
Means this: we go to the theaters to see the things in which we are interested - irrespective of DVD availability. We then wait with anticipation for the DVD for a release (and generally buy it on the day it is released) if we really liked the film. What I'm trying to say is, if we like it enough to patronize the film, we'll see it several times.
Enter the music industry: The industry is trying to figure out how to stay in business, and along the way, they're forgetting something critical: the fans. If the fans like it, the ones who pay for music will buy it (and some of us will buy the CD if we want to support the musician(s)). Those that don't buy music probably won't buy the downloads or the CDs.
Key point: If the artist makes the fans happy, they'll buy whatever makes the fan happy (CD or individual download). Preventing one of the means of purchasing is not helping the artist or the label. Truthfully, (this is a personal opinion, folks) if I really like a given artist, I'll buy the CD - even if there are some tunes to which I won't listen - so I can patronize the artist. If I like one tune of a given artist - but the artist doesn't generally float my boat, then I'll download the one tune and not buy the CD.
Cutting off means of distribution is not a smart business tactic.
Maybe they didn't consider... (Score:4, Funny)
Missing numbers... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.drewandkim.com/)
Ne-Yo's CD In My Own Words sold 301,000 copies using this method. Chris Brown's Run It, that was in the itunes store, sold 154,000 copies in its first week. Ne-Yo's So Sick was downloaded approximately 3.4 million times on the peer to peer networks during the week of his album release while the album Run It! was downloaded approximately 5.3 million times in the same release period.
OK, so how many downloads from "Run It" were sold in the ITunes store during that time period? If it was only about 50-100K songs, then they may have a point, but if it was something along the lines of 500K songs, then all they did was to give up some profits on CDs to make the same money on downloads. So, yeah, Duh, people are going to buy less CDs if they have the option to buy a CD or buy from iTunes than they will if they only have the choice to buy CDs.
It's like a deli that sells both ham and roast beef sandwiches complaining that they don't sell as many ham sandwiches as the deli down the street that only sells ham sandwiches. Big deal...
pop music value meals (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 03 2007, @11:34AM)
This attempt by the labels to push albums is nothing new. The last time we saw, which was only several years ago, was when they were trying to stop the sales of singles. The singles were cutting into sales of albums, and the theory was that if singles were not available, then the consumer would be more likely to buy an album.
I think the more likely aspect is the key. Wiithout singles, one might be more likley to record a song from the radio or just copy it from a freind. Even then there were albums that are so bad no one wanted anything but the same album. Not even the b-side was worht anything. With singles it was more likely all parties would be compensted for the product the consumer wants, and if we dig our heads of the artistic bigotry, when one is talking about selling a million albums, we are fundementally talking about providing a product that the student wants.
So, when singles were pulled, it was a statement that the labels would tolerate more copying in the hope they would end up with increased overall profits, even if the formula used to calculate royalties meant the perfomers and other parties recieved less. I wonder if this algebra will work out in the current climate of rampant unlicensed distribution of any hit track, not to mention much more sophiticated distribution channels for used albums. Frankly there have been way too many times lately when I have gone to iTunes hopeing to legally acquire a track, only to find it unavailable or only as an album. If it is an older album, I can get it used for much less than iTunes. If it is a new album, I soon will be able to get it used. Does this help the company bottom line?
Back to the original question. If the fast food joint only offered value meals, then a person with only a burger would cause a great deal of havok at the unfairness of the situation, disrupting bussiness. And such a person would have a point. The burger is seperate, you could sell it seperately, but you choose not to. It is simply not worth the effort, despite the clear benifits.
How about just selling singles? (Score:3)
(http://www.matchorclash.com/)
What it promotes is more illegal downloads... (Score:3)
News Flash: Hype and delayed gratification sells! (Score:4, Informative)
Making people listen to a song on the radio without making it available for purchase means that it will hit the charts hard when it does release. Is there anyone who could possibly be surprised by this?
Correlation and Causation (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~dalroth/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 04 2004, @05:12PM)
Thank you,
Bryan
What about the artist? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://goninzo.livejournal.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 23 2001, @03:34PM)
Let's take that arguement for a second. Ne-Yo now has around 3.7 million people with an interest in his music, while Chris Brown has around 5.4 million people interested in his music. Because artists don't make much money off cd sales, they make it on people showing up to concerts and other options they have. So who is in a more actionable position? And how much money does the artist get from an itunes album sale versus a physical sale?
I can see why the RIAA is getting upset though. The artists might actually make a buck and not need a monopoly pushing their product.
Wait, Wait (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm bigger album sales? Digital or CD, the record companies are still selling the same damn thing. Thus it shouldn't make much of a difference if the music is sold online or otherwise.
However, if this becomes widely practiced then it begs the question of "why are cd sales preferred by the record companies?" the answer would lie in the gross profit margin. One would think that digital delivery would be cheaper as the distribution channels are "virtual" and that there are no materials involved. If cd's are preferred then cd's might have a higher margin than the downloads. Then it makes us wonder why cd's cost so much in the first place.
Hopefully this will provide more fodder for the case against the record companies and allegations of price fixing.
Increased sales, but what about profits? (Score:3, Interesting)