What is Digg?160 Comments
- 808kick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35I think Courtney Love explained it better back in 2000
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.jdray.com%2FDaviews%2Fcourtney.html&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official - scottmc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Funny how the price of a multi-million dollar movie on DVD is cheaper than your average new release CD... value, yeah right.
- djhifisi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"including multi-media material, such as music videos," and ROOT KITS! (They forgot that bit) haha. Greedy *****.
- tfaz1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD..."
That makes sense. I run my own business and also have no idea how much the stuff I sell costs me. I figure, why bother? - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Quoted directly from the article, [snip] sections are where I have removed some text for brevity.
Items in quotes are from the article, items with - before hand are my comments.
"... CD manufacturing costs may be lower, but it takes more money than ever before to put out a new recording."
-This is factually false. It is now cheaper than ever to produce a new recording. Most of our local artist (around here) are able to release an album every year now rather than one every 4-5 years because the costs have come down so much. The fact is that because there is such a gross profit on the sale of the CD the bigger artists are comfortable spending more money on recording because they know they will get it back.
"Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist’s effort in developing that music. Artis...[snip]...incurs additional costs in finding and signing new artists.
Once an artist or group has songs composed, ...[snip]...all must be recovered by the cost of the CD. Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio..."
-These costs are the same as previous formats as well hardly indicative of the 50% increase in costs.
" ...For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn’t just happen!..."
-a song for which the studio recives money for for being played.
"...Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases. For every album released in a given year, a marketing strategy was developed to make that album stand out among the other releases that hit the market that year. Art must be designed for the CD box, and promotional materials (posters, store displays and music videos) developed and produced..."
- Again, the same costs involved with other formats of the past.
"...For many artists, a costly concert tour is essential to promote their recordings."
-Concerts which are one of their largest profit centres? This is not costly, its cost of business.
"Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority are never profitable. After production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit. In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest."
-This is somewhat acurate if missleading. However if the costs of production were reigned in to a normal level instead of giving everyone bloated salaries and spending $500,000 + on music videos when $10,000 ones can get similar results.
"[snip]...Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%."
-According to the CPI website the general inflation was 57.5% during those years
"If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75."
-Using your own figures of 60% the price of a CD in 1996 would have been $10.30 (assuming all other costs were equal, and there was no further reduction in the manufacturing cost of CDs)
"While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially,"
-This statement is 100% false. I have CDs I purchased in the early years of CDs which have exactly the same content as the CDs I purchased just a few months ago... roughly 12-16 songs.
" along with higher quality in terms of fidelity,"
-Again, 100% false. Placing music in a CD format reduced the fidelity to be able to fit the data onto a disc.
" durability, ease of use, and range of choices, including multi-media material, such as music videos, interviews and discographies. Content of this type often requires considerable production expense and adds a whole new dimension that goes beyond conventional audio."
-When this content does appear (infrequently) it almost always means a significant increase in the price of the disc as well.
"In contrast, CD prices are low compared to other forms of entertainment and one of the few entertainment units to decrease in price, ...[snip]... between 1983 and 1996."
-Again! 100% false. I used to pay $9.99 or less for an audio cassette, now I pay 50% to 340% more for a CD with the same amount of product!!!
-Taking inflation into account (98% from 83 to 05) a CD should cost between $2.85 and $12.75. I've paid that for a DVD but never less than $14.99 for a CD and if its not a brand new release its $33.99. How exactly does this cost less when I was paying $4.99-9.99 before?
-Greedy bas***ds
-What would happen if they all took $40,000-$60,000 salaries, brought production costs in line with actual demand, and embraced new technologies to reduce cost of sales? They'd still be stinking rich! - designbydave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially..."
..and you get FREE SOFTWARE TOO! - diggumjonez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>>>While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD, there are many factors that go into the overall cost of a CD -- and the plastic it's pressed on, is among the least significant.
It would be seriously irresponsible for them to NOT collection information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD. That is complete bull, especially since they talk about the least significant costs IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Come on. I'd have some respect for these guys if they just came out and said "Out of every $15 CD you buy, the artist gets a buck, it costs us a buck to press and print the label, and we spend about 50 cents per CD paying radio stations to play it. The rest, we keep."
Goodbye, RIAA. I hope you guys invested wisely, because the "downturn" in music sales will never pick up for you. You did this to yourselves, no matter how much you want to blame your customers. - markormesher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know what though? We, as tech educated people (some of us Entertainment Industry as well...) we know the truth, we know how sucky it is. Personally, I am in the theater business, and work with quite a few Musicians, so I know how screwed over they get, but Joe Schmo, in the suburbs, with 2 kids and a dog, he doesn't always know this. I did an experiment just now, showed this article to my father, and said, "So dad, how much of this do you believe? And with this argument, would you say that CD's are well priced?" His answer? "Yes."
My Dad is not a dumb man by any stretch of the imagination (his IQ is in the 135 region...) so if even HE can be convinced by ***** like this, what is it like for the average person. Think about that before you laugh at the obvious fallacies. - eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They cost a lot because drug habits cost a lot. Next.
- DD32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Is it just me... or have we managed the digg effect on riaa.com?
We need more top stories hosted on their servers!
D - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"CDs truly are an incredible value for the money."
lol - yeah, wait, dont you mean the content?... if its good content?
If it sux, then why would anyone care how much money went into producing it = it never should have been made - 808kick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The RIAA is a cartel if you don't follow their rules you can't play. Artists make very little of anything, the ones who do are browbeat into unreasonable contracts where they forfeit royalties and are forced to churn out albums at unreasonable speeds. I'd gladly pay 10-15 bucks a CD if it all went to people who deserved it like artists and people who actually worked on the album.
- BoyBlue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I understand, therefore, that CD's that sell at a loss will be made available for free download as that will obviously assist the record companies to maximize their profits
- crapiolio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RIAA speaks baby language.
- whig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The creative ability of these artists to produce the music we love, combined with the time and energy they spend throughout that process is in itself priceless. But while the creative process is priceless, it must be compensated."
Re: Priceless
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - jonohull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD..." - They probably actually do, but don't want to tell us how cheap it can actually be. You don't need a music video with all kinds of "bling" and garbage like that.
- cpawl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Although I can completely agree that the RIAA is utter ***** and that the cost of CD's can be outrageous I still will purchase artists CD's I am really into. One reason is, they might only get 5% but they are getting something verses me downloading it for free some illegal way. Another reason is that I like to have the physical product to add to my collection. To me, even at $20 a CD for a band or artist that moves me is worth it. I appreciate the detail that goes into the entire product process from the recording concepts to the artwork ...etc. I have easily paid more than this for ***** electronic products in my life or even on bad pasta dinners at some hokey restaurant. To pay for a CD by an artists that I can cherish- or even yet one that contains songs that have forever altered my personality and heart... it's a purchase well worth it.
To this regard, being expected to pay these prices just to discover artists is absurd. At the same time almost ANY artist worth his weight in guitar strings has a website or a MySpace profile or something on-line that offers an opportunity to sample the music before purchasing it. Not everyone out there has access to this option but it is available to most and a step forward in the scheme of things.
I am possibly more rabid than most about music but my technic on music is this-
- listen to Internet free radio stations or check out music related websites, word of mouth, magazines, whatever... discover new artist.
- Search for sample material on line. Again now a days most artists even have the entire album stream on their website.
- If I am fond of them. I purchase the CD, rip it, add to my collection, listen.
The irony on all the RIAA bashing, although I do agree they are the devils, the irony is that even if ALL the money goes to the artist or band most of music down-loaders would not buy the CD anyway... sometimes at ANY cost whether it be a major label artist or an independent artist. The fact is having easy access to music via downloading it is more convenient to the tech savvy generation. Let's not forget that most teenagers (and for those involved beyond their teenage years it's time to get a job and move out of Mommy's basement) find a thrill in performance and procedure of illegal downloading. This thrill tends to be more exciting than the music they are stealing. For anyone who is the thrill seeker, you know finding the torrent on a warez site was much more fun than actually listening the Vanilla Ice sing the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle theme song.
So even with the ever expanding collection of on line solutions like itunes and the like most still complain about the price factor. Some use the restriction logic as the backbone, an example being the itunes ACC format and all that, and they do have a point on this but just like the irony mentioned above- to the "swappers" out there... whether or not the were restrictions (there are alternatives) the thrill is in the download and more importantly the ease of getting the material elsewhere for free.
Some songs touch the heart more than any thing or person has in our lives. Some just remind us of good times, make us dance or rock out, or feel nice. The point is, a good song is worth a good dollar. When people argue the pricing scheme of on line shops like itunes I am with disbelief that they can not justify paying .99 cents for a song they enjoy and will have forever but are okay paying MORE than a dollar for a bottle of water or a Sunday newspaper.
To finish up this rant- the RIAA is ***** no doubt, but let's not forget so are the majority of music fans as well. - lcars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Make a tape! WTF? Does anyone still make tapes?! Notice they don't mention rip the damn CD so you can really use it. Still having a hard time with reality.
"A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD, – or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends, and keep that CD for many years. That’s probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value. At the same time, when asked directly whether CDs cost too much, some consumers will say yes! Why the contradiction?" - mcgreevs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The tone of this article is really patronizing. I agree with some of the points it makes but most people understand the costs of album art and marketing. We're not first graders.
I don't think the cost of music production has necessarily gone up. At least not for independent artists. Just think about the technology that has allowed bands to record records in their basements. From Digi-design to m-audio to software like Logic and Pro-tools.
"For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn’t just happen!"
In other words major labels had to pay off New York DJs (SONY)
"New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company..."
That's not true either. If you think about marketing from an Internet perspective you have to factor in the impact sites like Myspace and iTunes have had. It allows unknown artists access to millions of potential fans all without a label of any kind.
It just illuminates exactly who the RIAA is pulling for. Whether the prices are justified or not depends on the artist. Witnessing the RIAA doing bad PR for Major Record Labels, is as the article puts it, priceless. - soupyc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3FTA: But while the creative process is priceless, it must be compensated. Artists receive royalties on each recording, which vary according to their contract, and the songwriter gets royalties too.
Yeah...anyone ever recorded anything under contract? Artists dont get ***** and the RIAA knows it.
Bands make money on tours...plain and simple...
One reason debunked. - cod3man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2best quote-
" The cost of entertainment is rising along with our willingness to pay it "
Does that mean I pay for everyone else's stupidity? - LaserCobra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Problem 1: When companies have too much 'fat' and thier costs increase the prices of a product or they become less competitive, smart business usually says to downsize, restructure, or rethink their cost center. This article seems to indicate that they have too many hands in the cookie jar.
Problem 2: They are blatantly stating that the cost of advertising is passed to us, the consumer. While this is standard practice with most companies, to put it in black and white like that is stupid. Just because YOU (the company) think an artist will be more popular and as a result purchase a super bowl commercial slot, doesn't mean that I should have to pay for your 'taste' in music.
ARGH- I just can't get my hate out right now. This crap is the straw that broke my back. I'm through with this stupidity! - telcontar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is why you should support independent musicians!!!!!
- ed480, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you liked the Courtney Love and Steve Albini links, you'll probably like these Janis Ian links too:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html - tomaburque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...the most important component of a CD is the artist’s effort in developing that music" Then why do you pay the artist least and last?
- Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Their argument has more holes than a whore house.
- Abatrour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought I would share this.
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html
That site talks about the average cost to produce a CD. Huge scam, ofcourse they report losses when the record company gets around $700,000, while each artist get $4,000 - baltakatei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Talented Artists make music.
Companies promote music.
Promotion costs money.
Company Music CDs must recoup costs.
Customers pay for promotion of Music CDs.
... (time passes)
The Internet makes finding music easy.
Music can now bypass the Record Companies.
Record Companies sue to keep customers via intimidation.
... (future) - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Man, their math on that site is sooooo ***** up. No math in the universe can explain why record stores expect me to cough up $21.95 for a *****' Barry Manilow album :(
- doon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These are the same guys who have been whining about people stealing "their" content under the pretense that they "paid for it". The artists are the talent, all they do is produce little pieces of plastic and overcharge for them. $34 dollars for a CD? What garbage! Nobody would pay that and they know it and that's why they can't charge that. (Not that they wouldn't if they could!) And what do we get for our investment? Rootkits!
These guys are just middlemen who add little if no value, just cost. This is the bunch that invented payola to pimp their records. And as to content theft, they invented it. How many great artists were flim-flammed by these outfits? While they go on about the CPI (exactly what value does a record exec add to an album? Nice jacket notes?) And instead of passing on the savings of dramatically reduced production costs, the retail cost of CDs is a joke. It's iTunes for me, no more CDs (tired of rootkits)
They created a generation of theives by their own greedy behavior. And they have only themselves to blame. - jhaitas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1***** the RIAA
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People need to remember that the cost to produce a CD is not the cost to produce the music on it.
The RIAA could save millions of dollars by scraping the bad songs out, distributing music only over the web and such but they would rather create "value-added bundles" that put a whole bunch of unneeded materials that just go to the landfill anyway and cost more to create so there is justification to charge the consumer more.
The reason music is so highly traded online is because it is so convenient.
Get the 1 or 2 songs you actually think are good in less than 2 minutes on your PC (free or through legal DL services) or get dressed, run down to the record store, buy the CD with 8 other songs you aren't so thrilled about for more than you're really wanting to pay.
These people aren't pirates, just demanding consumers who feel they aren't being listened to and are willing to take their business elsewhere. - applesux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Watch the "Where are they now?" show on the band "New Edition" if you stumble across it. I don't care for their music but it showcases the greed of the RIAA (and other bloodsuckers in the loop) as well. These kids sold tons of records, toured the country to sold out shows and made millions - for the record company. Their first royalty check was - no BS - something like $1.86 each. Funniest and saddest thing I have ever seen. Screw the RIAA.
- yllabianbitpipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To the end user:
Movie = 1.5 to 2 hours long = 9.00 ticket (and people gripe about that)
CD = .33 to .9 hours long (usually on the shorter side) = 16 dollars? Ridiculous.
Movies get made with multi million dollar budgets and include visuals, sound effects, acting, big name stars AND music. And they sell the end user experience for under ten bucks, and the DVD of the whole thing PLUS extras for the same price as a new CD.
I think the music industry should hire whomever the hell is making all these movies to help make their albums. I mean seriously. Lock four guys in a studio for three years and they come out with half an hour of product. Puhleeeeeeze. Either they're not getting paid enough or you're backing the wrong artists. - plefno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"In addition, the label incurs additional costs in finding and signing new artists."
Oh, so we have to pay the record companies money so that they can go look for talent to make them more money? Sure... that makes perfect sense. /sarcasm - Fosowp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sooooo 90% of you business is not profitable? Um, maybe thats something to look into. Do some market research or something. My family has been in business all my life and if we didn't make a profit on 90% of what we sold we would be SOL.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1808kick: Good read. I have the audio on my blog.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"When was it decided that musicians and movie stars had to be millionaires?"
When was it decided that musicians make barely anything while record labels and RIAA executives get filthy, filthy rich?
actually.. it's almost always been that way.. personally, i think the money we pay should go to the artist.. but hey, i'm just weird like that - JJorsett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I particularly like the "90% of what we produce is crap, so the other 10% has to make us our money" argument.
- milomind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow! I feel like getting religion after reading that. There IS a Satan. And not the good "Slayer" Satan, either.
- aetherane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't promote them. I don't care about the songs playing on the radio or tv - its a waste of my money and people are going to buy music even if they aren't shoved in their faces.
- IpodCrazy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4My opinion is that most of the music that is out today is crap. I just listen to music from movies. I listen to John Williams or James Horner. I also listen to classical music like The Planets by Gustav Holst. OH GOSH THAT'S A GOOD CD. No, i'm not a 75 year old guy that's bashing the music of today. I'm 17, haha. Just listen to rap, It's just old stuff with a new twist.
- kanback, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD, – or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends, and keep that CD for many years."
So that makes making copies of music okay if that's part of what I pay for........ - spudwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I refuse to buy CDs for one reason... most music lately sucks. And if I want to hear anything new, alI have to do is turn on the radio because they play the same 7 songs over and over every hour.
And, as someone said earlier, multi-million dollar 3-hour movies on DVD (with a boatload of extras included) are cheaper than the random crap that the record companies pump out on 56-minute CDs.
Record companies are greedy dinosaurs that refuse to move forward with the rest of the world and technology. Screw'em. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All Besides the point! :) Bottom line, the Recording Industry Ass. of America's Price Fixing scandal that spanned 5 years 95-2000!!! http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2002/10/15/3590 The very fact they did this gives them no right to justify their costs! period.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are right when they say it costs a lot to promote the music. For labels, it costs around 2 bucks to ship a single CD to a radio station. I know, I've seen the price of shipping right on the package. I don't know if the price is inflated or not, but I can believe them when they say that the 10% pays for the rest. There are A LOT of ***** signed bands out there.
- YourParadigm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, so here it goes...
"Clearly there are many costs associated with producing a CD, and despite these costs the price of recorded music to consumers has fallen dramatically since CDs were first introduced in 1983. Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%."
They make it sound like they are the reason that the CD prices have decreased is due to the good nature of the music industry, and not the fact that the cost of the hardware required to produce CD's, CD cover art, and CD cases becoming more available and at a lower cost. Way to pat yourselves on the back, guys! - forumdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm signed to a major label and i would say it's fairly accurate that this is what they spend their money on. i think the main problem with this is the 10:1 success rate. that is simply too high. and let me tell you this: most signed artists fail not because their music is bad but because of bad management, stupid label politics, people ripping off each other, incompetent people in the business, labels/people being too busy with themselves than with the artist/music, everyone being a smart-ass, fear of commitment, and the fact that there's just too many failed musicians in the business. if they could get it to a 50% success rate, cd's would be damn cheap.
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Holy crap, did Courtney actually write that? Don't do drugs, kids. She had a stellar mind in 2000 when she crafted this lucid, cogent article. I can't believe it's the same chick that today even Tara Reid is too embarassed to be seen in public with.
- Mojave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority are never profitable. After production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit. In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest."
They admit that 90% of what they produce (actually, I would say 99%) is crap? Anyone can smell a lemon no matter how much you tell people it's a rose, why can't the RIAA? So, in effect, they are subsidizing bad music by overcharging for CD's and by ripping off the good artists. We just need the general public and the recording company shareholders to see the light. -
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is