Are Music Downloads & CDs Too Expensive?
November 10, 2008 by admin
Filed under Your Opinions Do Matter
In the US it cost about 99c for a single download and about $9.99 for an album download. Is this too costly or are music buying consumers putting record companies and artists out of business?
In the UK it cost about 79p for a single download on iTunes and about £8.99 for an album download. But I can remember a few years ago when CD or vinyl single was £4.99 and the regular price of an album were £13.99. Now it appears that consumers practically want to get music for free! Newspapers and supermarkets are giving albums away when you spend a couple quid on shopping or when you buy a 50p newspaper. So is music still priced too high or have the music buying public gone too far?
I don’t think that it’s too expensive in my opinion. We’d have to pay for things that are valuable. These artists/icons/idols deserve all the credit they can get.
It’s not that expensive indeed. The only problem I see is with the record companies and the profit share they take from the artist. I always thought an artist needs to mostly rely on live performances. So I wouldn’t cry over the record companies but the artists need our support. And next is that DRM thing … but that’s another story.
It shouldn’t be free…although I agree they could lower the price a bit. I’d be ecstatic if they do. I download songs as soon as they’re available. If they link these downloads with promotions for other products, I’d still go for it.
Determining the price of items is trickier than it seems. Too low, you’re losing out on profits. Too high, and you lose customers. No one ever wants to be charged more though. But I don’t want the industry to die. So my answer is that it’s priced just right.
Who here thinks that digital downloads are inferior to CDs? But that’s a whole other argument. Downloads haven’t reached their full potential. If there are more customers then prices will drop. Just how do they get more customers? That’s the dilemma.
I’d rather pay for singles than entire albums. Downloading allows me to pick only those songs that I want to hear over and over again. It’s value for your money. It’s only fair.
Artists have to eat too. 99 cents is alright. I hope that the artists are getting the most of the income from that. The record company has it easy. They don’t have to pay for packaging, shipping, or distribution.
MP3s???? They’re free….isn’t that great? Nothing could be cheaper than MP3s. Quality sucks…but I don’t mind.
I’d have been happier if most of the songs in the CD aren’t crappy. Nowadays, I’d be lucky if 3 tracks are worth listening to. 99 cents is fine.
Well, it depends where you live. I guess 99 cents is fine if you get to hear the song first and actually like it or feel that you should buy it. Most albums, on the other hand, tend to have just a couple of good songs nowadays, so it doesn’t make too much sense to buy the whole album for $9.99. However, the only way to curb piracy would be to consider making the whole album even cheaper so people get tempted to buy the album rather than downloading it off the net…..
I just spent 20 bucks on a CD this week, 99 cents a song is just dandy. If the itunes music store ever comes to PC, i could very well spend my paycheck there every week. BTW, im guessin they interviewed the trailer park welfare retards without computers.
It is ridiculous to expect less than 99 cents per song and still be profitable, at least until there is more demand and more competition driving the pricing down (ie: when iTMS reaches Windows and International Community, along with offerings by Microsoft and Amazon.com). The price suggestions from 50 cents and below are pretty absurd, considering the legal alternative is to buy the actual CD for $20. Those who want something for nothing should just take the risk and download illegally. Something I do not condone.
The reason an album is 9.99 after cutting out manufacturing, distribution is that the manufacturing cost of a CD is minimal to the overall costs (recording, advertising, hype, flunkies). iTunes is not a record company, but a retailer, so presumably making - like all retailers - a healthy mark-up between the costs they pay to their suppliers and their own costs. What’s needed are a few rival services, offering the same tracks, then the price will fall (as CD prices have - significantly - since the end of price fixing).
I do have to say that I am more inclined to buy a whole album online than just one song at a time. Sometimes the best songs on the CD are the ones that aren’t on the radio. So if a CD has 15 songs on it (which is a little above average I would guess) I would spend about $15 on ITunes (if I was an apple kind of girl). With eMusic, I would only spend 10, but the selection is much more limited.
Just lost an incredibly articulate post, which was lost due to character limit exceeded. So I’ll summarize: A physical cd, $15, an online album $10. You’re already paying a lower price. Maybe when I’m done being ticked off, I’ll try to post my long reply again.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t cost anything to produce the music… I am saying that most of what you are paying for, when you buy a $15 CD has nothing to do with the production of the music itself, and more to do with the way the recording industry has artifically inflated the prices of CDs. I’m not making this stuff up. Several big name music companies were found guilty of price fixing.
And 10 cents a song? You’ve got to be kidding me. Even if an artist got 10% of the profits (which is rare), they’d only make a penny per sale. For musicians, making music is their job. If they can’t live off of what they earn, they stop making music. Artists need to eat, too, you know.
if they can encode the song with higher bit rate…… then 99 cents is good
i agree with ti, 10 cents with no restrictions is what would get me to go from free to pay services. until then, kazaa here i come
As long as the quality of the download is good, I don’t think 99c is too much for one music download. When it comes to listening to my favorite artist, I really have no qualms about paying 99c or even anything higher than that. Do we think so much when we spend uselessly here and there?
I feel 99c is a little too much for downloading a single song. 50 or 60c would have been ideal for the job. With the rapid increase in prices in think, within a few months, the price will cross 99c and after that, it would be too much for all music lovers.
It is a good idea to download music for such a low price. At least you get the liberty to pick and download the song that you want instead of buying the entire album. Don’t you think that is a way of saving money? You don’t have to buy an album to listen to a particular song.
99c is not that costly. I agree that it is a good way to save money. Music lovers really don’t mind to pay this amount when they want to download songs of their favorite artists. More so when it is soul music, I am willing to pay more than that.
You can’t put a price on great music, can you? Can you say this track is worth a dollar and that one 10? To someone it could be the soundtrack of their life. I’m for a free market where artists find new and inventive ways to promote their music and charge what they like. Like Radiohead - brave band - who said pay what you think its worth! Course loads of cheapskates paid very little - but some of us download it cheaply (or free) and then still buy the album when it comes out. But that’s us collectors and REAL MUSIC LOVERS I guess.
Anyone can make their own music if they want it free. For quality that invigorates your life and lifts your senses, why shouldn’t you pay? Artists get paid a fortune for their canvas work, footballers earn phenomenal wages, why should musicians, singers and bands be any different? Tours often COST the artists money that isn’t recouped in record sales - so come on eveyrone, put your hand in your pocket for great music.
I have no problem paying for my music as long as you’re getting quality. What drives me crazy is put-together bands doing covers and putting the same old same old on their videos like we don’t know better. Keep it fresh, we’re happy to pay.
I agree with Lady Luck. Music today has become repetitive and mundane when compared to the older classics. Give us some good stuff, and we will be happy to pay for it.
I think music will soon be sold the most digitally, and will become more popular and sell more if we can pay say $1 per song instead of having to buy the whole album for $10 or more.