Price fixing rant / new Soundgarden album

[kalniel]

You cant do that , then expect those same people youve been screwing to take the high ground, when the opportunity to screw them back exists.

But they're not, they're screwing themselves. That's why it's self-defeating - by pirating you only make the big companies more powerful and help them retain greater share of the market. If you don't think the product is worth the money the don't use/listen to it - buy and listen to a competing product that's cheaper or being given away by the artist or whatever.

[melon]

But they're not, they're screwing themselves. That's why it's self-defeating - by pirating you only make the big companies more powerful and help them retain greater share of the market. If you don't think the product is worth the money the don't use/listen to it - buy and listen to a competing product that's cheaper or being given away by the artist or whatever.

If that were true then why all the measures to prevent sites such as the piratebay or even Napster ( remember the Lars Ulrich rant ? )

m

[kalniel]

If that were true then why all the measures to prevent sites such as the piratebay or even Napster ( remember the Lars Ulrich rant ? )

m

Because we elected a government to act in our greater interest. Attempting to reduce piracy is in our greater interest for the reasons I mentioned, so a government should be attempting to do that. Whether that's an in any way effective way of doing that is another matter, presumably it's just one approach of many.

If you don't agree, then you can always try and set up some kind of ultra-socialist government that instead of allowing us to pay for artists we like and not ones we don't, just charges everyone a flat fee and spreads that around government appointed artists as they like.

[melon]

Because we elected a government to act in our greater interest. Attempting to reduce piracy is in our greater interest for the reasons I mentioned, so a government should be attempting to do that. Whether that's an in any way effective way of doing that is another matter, presumably it's just one approach of many.

If you don't agree, then you can always try and set up some kind of ultra-socialist government that instead of allowing us to pay for artists we like and not ones we don't, just charges everyone a flat fee and spreads that around government appointed artists as they like.

What about the US , Sweden etc etc ?

Im pretty sure the majority did not elect the government to combat piracy when its majority that probably do it .

The only reason big companies are still around is because their all thats left , that doesnt mean their powerful its just a testament to how powerful they were - hence why they have been able to last longer .

But thats not going to last much longer unless they adapt .

m

[melon]

Prices arent the only thing the music industry is fixing...

m

[wasabi]

In the end I got it from amazon UK. They had a -25 percent off your next mp3 purchase if you sign up to the newsletter- type thing. Must say I wasn't massively impressed with the purchase system - it doesn't show the discount being applied till after you've hit the purchase button. I waited till I got an email back from customer service confirming this before I made the purchase.

I think music publishers need to get real with their pricing strategies. Even 'sale' mp3 albums seem to hover round the £3.99 mark. Given that Steam sales of computer games regularly get down to £3.49, quite often for a bundle of stuff, music 'feels' pricey for what it is. Same issue with movies vs music on streaming - Netflix and Lovefilm is cheaper than Spotify - huh? To me about £3 'feels' right for an album's worth of mp3s. At that point I think a lot of people would bother to buy legit music again rather than nick it. You need to get to the no-brainer, couple of quid, yeah , what-the-heck rice point.

[Saracen]

....

I think music publishers need to get real with their pricing strategies. Even 'sale' mp3 albums seem to hover round the £3.99 mark. Given that Steam sales of computer games regularly get down to £3.49, quite often for a bundle of stuff, music 'feels' pricey for what it is. Same issue with movies vs music on streaming - Netflix and Lovefilm is cheaper than Spotify - huh? To me about £3 'feels' right for an album's worth of mp3s. At that point I think a lot of people would bother to buy legit music again rather than nick it. You need to get to the no-brainer, couple of quid, yeah , what-the-heck rice point.

But the thing is, what "feels" right to you is immaterial to pricing strategies, for the simple reason that the "right" price will be different to loads of other people. For instance, I wouldn't pay £0.03p for an MP3 album, because either I like the music and want the CD, or I don't like it and don't want it regardless of price.

And if I do like it, what I'll pay will depend on how much I like it. Some CD's I'd buy at £15, but others I might buy at £3, but not at £5.

The "right" price, for the seller, is the one at which he thinks he makes the most. Obviously, if you sell an item (with a zero unit cost, like an MP3, assuming we ignore bandwidth costs), then if you sell it at £3, you have to sell twice as many to make the same money as you would if you sold it at £6.

So if it were you, would you rather sell 100,000 copies at £3, or 30,000 copies at £15?

And to extend thst rationale a step further, if you can make the maximum by exploiting differing market expectations by selling at a higher price in markets that will bear it, and lower in markets that won't, that's what most people will do.

For instance, you've maximised your UK market potential by selling your masterpiece at, say, £10, because that's the price you research tells you maximises your profit. But your research also rells you there are buyers in a country where incomes are far lower, say, Lithuania. People want to buy, but £10 in at local prices might be the equivalent of £50 in the UK, because incomes are lower and all market prices reflect incomes.

So .... you can sell 100,000 copies in Lithuania if you sell at £1.50, but you'll sell none, or next to none, at £10.

But if you price in the UK at £1.50, you need to sell about 6.5 times as many copies as you would at £10, so unless those sales in Lithuania more than compensatefor the reduced revenue in the UK, you won't do it.

Differing prices in differing markets, therefore, are essential unless you want to simply accept that, first, sellers cannot maximise either sales or profits, and second, that people in poorer countries simply aren't going to be able to buy at all, because they'll be priced out.

That's one, and only one, of many reasons why things are priced differently in different markets. Another will ve taxes that are imposed. Another might be differing technological infrastructures - selling via the web isn't a good idea for mass markets in areas with little net infrastructures or where most people don't have computers, let alone broadband, and so on.

Kalniel is right, if you don't like the price, buy something else or don't buy at all. Just be aware that unless very large numbers agree with your price assessment, price won't change. It's a bit like my stance on PC games with DRM I find to be unnecessarily intrusive. I simply won't buy those games. But unless a large percentage of gamers take the same view (and they don't), the result will not be a change in DRM policy, but that I end up not playing many games. And reluctantly, so be it - I don't buy, or play, many new games.

[melon]

But the thing is, what "feels" right to you is immaterial to pricing strategies, for the simple reason that the "right" price will be different to loads of other people. For instance, I wouldn't pay £0.03p for an MP3 album, because either I like the music and want the CD, or I don't like it and don't want it regardless of price.

And if I do like it, what I'll pay will depend on how much I like it. Some CD's I'd buy at £15, but others I might buy at £3, but not at £5.

The "right" price, for the seller, is the one at which he thinks he makes the most. Obviously, if you sell an item (with a zero unit cost, like an MP3, assuming we ignore bandwidth costs), then if you sell it at £3, you have to sell twice as many to make the same money as you would if you sold it at £6.

So if it were you, would you rather sell 100,000 copies at £3, or 30,000 copies at £15?

And to extend thst rationale a step further, if you can make the maximum by exploiting differing market expectations by selling at a higher price in markets that will bear it, and lower in markets that won't, that's what most people will do.

For instance, you've maximised your UK market potential by selling your masterpiece at, say, £10, because that's the price you research tells you maximises your profit. But your research also rells you there are buyers in a country where incomes are far lower, say, Lithuania. People want to buy, but £10 in at local prices might be the equivalent of £50 in the UK, because incomes are lower and all market prices reflect incomes.

So .... you can sell 100,000 copies in Lithuania if you sell at £1.50, but you'll sell none, or next to none, at £10.

But if you price in the UK at £1.50, you need to sell about 6.5 times as many copies as you would at £10, so unless those sales in Lithuania more than compensatefor the reduced revenue in the UK, you won't do it.

Differing prices in differing markets, therefore, are essential unless you want to simply accept that, first, sellers cannot maximise either sales or profits, and second, that people in poorer countries simply aren't going to be able to buy at all, because they'll be priced out.

That's one, and only one, of many reasons why things are priced differently in different markets. Another will ve taxes that are imposed. Another might be differing technological infrastructures - selling via the web isn't a good idea for mass markets in areas with little net infrastructures or where most people don't have computers, let alone broadband, and so on.

Kalniel is right, if you don't like the price, buy something else or don't buy at all. Just be aware that unless very large numbers agree with your price assessment, price won't change. It's a bit like my stance on PC games with DRM I find to be unnecessarily intrusive. I simply won't buy those games. But unless a large percentage of gamers take the same view (and they don't), the result will not be a change in DRM policy, but that I end up not playing many games. And reluctantly, so be it - I don't buy, or play, many new games.

I dont see the attraction for CDs - vinyl yes - but I just dont get why anyone would buy a cd in this day and age unless it was part of limited edition box set or something..

m

[Saracen]

I dont see the attraction for CDs - vinyl yes - but I just dont get why anyone would buy a cd in this day and age unless it was part of limited edition box set or something..

m

If I have a CD, I can always create an MP3, but you can't do it the other way round. Besides, I'm a bit of an audiophile. If I have an expensive audiophile CD player attached to a high end amp and speakers, I sure don't want to feed it an MP3, no matter how it's been ripped. And yes, I have a high end turntable and a large vinyl collection as well.

And anyway, I like physical media, be it LP's or CDs.

[melon]

If I have a CD, I can always create an MP3, but you can't do it the other way round. .

if you mean the the jacket insert and pretty picture Im sure you could print it on card , but people stick mp3 on cd all the time ( at least I thought ) why else would they sell them ?

...On second thought you may have a point , as I seem to remember my old CD-rs required a special type of discman that was mp3 compatible to play them - but that was yeas ago .

m

[wasabi]

Differing prices in differing markets, therefore, are essential unless you want to simply accept that, first, sellers cannot maximise either sales or profits, and second, that people in poorer countries simply aren't going to be able to buy at all, because they'll be priced out.

That's one, and only one, of many reasons why things are priced differently in different markets. Another will ve taxes that are imposed. Another might be differing technological infrastructures - selling via the web isn't a good idea for mass markets in areas with little net infrastructures or where most people don't have computers, let alone broadband, and so on.

Kalniel is right, if you don't like the price, buy something else or don't buy at all. Just be aware that unless very large numbers agree with your price assessment, price won't change. It's a bit like my stance on PC games with DRM I find to be unnecessarily intrusive. I simply won't buy those games. But unless a large percentage of gamers take the same view (and they don't), the result will not be a change in DRM policy, but that I end up not playing many games. And reluctantly, so be it - I don't buy, or play, many new games.

I don't buy it. You either have free market economics (no trade barriers) or you don't. Music businesses are able to record music anywhere in the world they like, avoid paying taxes (Amazon), and sell internationally with no import barriers/tarriffs. However I as customer can't buy from any source in the world due to BS legal barriers that simply shouldn't be there. That is the root of my complaint - we do not have free trade, the system is rigged against the consumer.

The other problem is simply one of protecting a dead distribution model - CDs, albums etc. At the moment there are the old guard who protect their model by extreme multi-million dollar penalties for pirates. It relies on strict regional boundaries that no longer exist in the digital age. Pirates easily work around it (rip CDs, crack games), legal customers get stuffed by a legal framework designed to structure the distribution of physical LPs, CDs etc. I increasingly wonder if doing the right thing and paying for music is simply delaying the inevitable - that a new business model is needed based around digital distribution.

We're a long way off, but I think a new model will come to be on place with lots of low value sales rather than a few high value ones, a bit like the smartphone app world where £3 is a typical price, as opposed to the PC world where £30 is the typical price.

Not saying there is an 'easy' answer. I want to pay Soundgarden for their work and to keep them going as I'd like to hear more albums.

BUT

It is all very well saying let the market sort itself out, the problem is that the music publishers have rigged the system in cahoots with governments that there isn't a true market.

[Saracen]

if you mean the the jacket insert and pretty picture Im sure you could print it on card , but people stick mp3 on cd all the time ( at least I thought ) why else would they sell them ?

...On second thought you may have a point , as I seem to remember my old CD-rs required a special type of discman that was mp3 compatible to play them - but that was yeas ago .

m

No, not what I meant. If you start out witha high quality source and use a compression technology to produce a small file, you throw away source material. This applies to MP3s just as it does to jpeg files for photos, and it's a destructive edit. Once you've thrown the data away, you cannot unthrow it .... or not accurately anyway.

Here's another (somewhat forced) analogy.

Suppose you start out with three eggs, and make an omelette. You crack the eggs, add salt, pepper and a little milk, then you throw away a third of the mixture. Then you fry it, and serve it on a plate, only to be told "I've changed my mind, I'd like boiled eggs, please".

If you start out with eggs, you can end up with boiled, fried, scrambled, omelette, or even eggs benedict. If you start out with an omelette, you've got an omelette, period.

Yes, you can put MP3 files on a CD, and you can even burn the CD in a format that makes it play like a CD, but the quality will always be that of the MP3 file, at best, and that quality depends on, erm, the skill of the chef, and the recipe he/she used to cook the MP3.




Note: Before anyone says it, yes, I'm aware some MP3 files are very high quality, but many are not, and through a good hifi and to someone with a decent ear, there's nearly always a msrked difference. And yes, I'm also aware that not all CD's are born equal either, and some are utter junk, in audio quality terms.

[melon]

I don't buy it. You either have free market economics (no trade barriers) or you don't. Music businesses are able to record music anywhere in the world they like, avoid paying taxes (Amazon), and sell internationally with no import barriers/tarriffs. However I as customer can't buy from any source in the world due to BS legal barriers that simply shouldn't be there. That is the root of my complaint - we do not have free trade, the system is rigged against the consumer.

The other problem is simply one of protecting a dead distribution model - CDs, albums etc. At the moment there are the old guard who protect their model by extreme multi-million dollar penalties for pirates. It relies on strict regional boundaries that no longer exist in the digital age. Pirates easily work around it (rip CDs, crack games), legal customers get stuffed by a legal framework designed to structure the distribution of physical LPs, CDs etc. I increasingly wonder if doing the right thing and paying for music is simply delaying the inevitable - that a new business model is needed based around digital distribution.

We're a long way off, but I think a new model will come to be on place with lots of low value sales rather than a few high value ones, a bit like the smartphone app world where £3 is a typical price, as opposed to the PC world where £30 is the typical price.

Not saying there is an 'easy' answer. I want to pay Soundgarden for their work and to keep them going as I'd like to hear more albums.

BUT

It is all very well saying let the market sort itself out, the problem is that the music publishers have rigged the system in cahoots with governments that there isn't a true market.

If you wanted to create a morally correct system youd have the rich getting taxed more for any " entertainment / personal purchases " to make sure the bulk of the money they earned was really going back into the system to help.

We all know though they dont do that , they take more and give back less instead for the outrageous spending and exuberance they have, then even worse demand we pay for it - or like the banks cry until they get more money printed.

Its a ludicrous system that is controlled by those out of control with money - and morally incorrect.

There needs to be new form or definition of payment altogether - that simply cant be rigged as easily to suit others as money is.

m

[kalniel]

There needs to be new form or definition of payment altogether - that simply cant be rigged as easily to suit others as money is.

m

Money is simply a widely accepted bartering token. A standard of worth if you will. Doesn't matter if you buy a chicken with three pounds or three turnips, it's still money.

[melon]

Money is simply a widely accepted bartering token. A standard of worth if you will. Doesn't matter if you buy a chicken with three pounds or three turnips, it's still money.

yeah .......................

[melon]

Money is simply a widely accepted bartering token. A standard of worth if you will. Doesn't matter if you buy a chicken with three pounds or three turnips, it's still money.

yeah but ......................

If the whole system collapsed tomorrow , the chicken would actually be worth something.

It doesnt charge your for its service , or if you decide to forcce it to have a sex to produce more , and unlike most partners & people, it will even let you kill it once you grow tired or bored.

me
lon