|
Post by funkle on Dec 12, 2019 16:23:38 GMT -6
The dollar is worth 1/3 of what it was in 1980, and in many cases (like housing, gas or grocery prices) probably even less, yet CDs are still $15 (as they were 40 years ago) In some places. And some places they're more, or less. Point being, people should seek the best price they can, and feel good about it. Willingly paying more doesn't make you some kind of Support Warrior. And for the artists to charge their fans who buy direct, so much more than they charge vendors for discs, is pretty skeevy in my book. You wouldn't expect to pay more for food at the wholesaler than you would at the grocery store. Buying direct is supposed to be cheaper. You might even think cds should be less now, simply because so few consumers are willing to pay for music at all anymore. Instead, they're taking advantage of the cd buying crowd and trying to get them to make up for the losses due to the streamers. Pricing discs at 20 or 25 dollars, next to 9.99 files and free streams, is no enticement. I've paid for disc duplication and packaging. I know how offensive a mark-up that is I can appreciate that viewpoint. My professional position is that you should ask for what it takes to a) do a top quality job, and b) cover your expenses & make a fair living. I rely heavily on people appreciating the value I have to offer, and being willing to pay the going rate (which may seem increasingly high). It would be hypocritical for me to try to beat down the price asked by someone else in a similar position. If Scott needs $20 per CD to float his boat, then I'm fine with that and would (and have) gladly pay that amount. But the flip-side may be that more people will buy a $10 album than $20, but not sure how that math works out. For me, the perfect model is on bandcamp where you can voluntarily pay more than the asking price. I usually pay $20 in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Dec 13, 2019 5:51:41 GMT -6
I like to buy direct to support artists but I agree with George there is no justification for them charging excessive amounts for postage.
|
|
|
Post by jacofan on Dec 18, 2019 12:04:27 GMT -6
Though I don't share it, I appreciate the existence of the free market viewpoint but I prefer to be a support warrior (thanks for the new term - I'll add it to my social justice warrior cap). If you don't that's fine. Without supporting the artists directly, since our society cares more about money than they do about artistic pursuits, we won't have any artists to support in the future.
One thing worth mentioning is that the wallmarting of retail commerce (now Amazon) has lead these entities to unfairly leverage their market share against small businesses so that they have to either reduce their price to below or right at cost or risk a no-show on their sites (or shelves at all). The margins on new product are so thin, I'm not sure how they can possibly pay for all that goes into the product itself, most importantly, paying the musicians.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Dec 18, 2019 12:40:48 GMT -6
Without supporting the artists directly, we won't have any artists to support in the future.
Demonstrably untrue. Hardly any artists had direct sales, for decades, and they all did quite well. It required people actually buying retail though, instead of exercising a legal loophole that allows for a service that enables anyone, to get every recording by every band, for less than the price of a single album. The industry is on life support, but it's not retail buyers killing it, it's streamers.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Dec 18, 2019 12:50:34 GMT -6
One thing worth mentioning is that the wallmarting of retail commerce (now Amazon) has lead these entities to unfairly leverage their market share against small businesses so that they have to either reduce their price to below or right at cost or risk a no-show on their sites (or shelves at all). The margins on new product are so thin, I'm not sure how they can possibly pay for all that goes into the product itself, most importantly, paying the musicians.
huh? The musicians are paid in both the online retailer and brick and mortar retailer system. Both entities buy from the labels or artists at whatever cost is agreed to, so the artist cut is settled before it ever hits any shelves. Amazons ability to undercut brick and mortar by selling at cost or just above, while a distinct advantage vs. b+m, doesn't hurt musicians. Do you actually think they pay labels/artists less because they sell it cheaper? That's not how it works. They take the loss in order to get you on their site, in hopes that you'll continue shopping.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Dec 20, 2019 22:34:56 GMT -6
One thing worth mentioning is that the wallmarting of retail commerce (now Amazon) has lead these entities to unfairly leverage their market share against small businesses so that they have to either reduce their price to below or right at cost or risk a no-show on their sites (or shelves at all). The margins on new product are so thin, I'm not sure how they can possibly pay for all that goes into the product itself, most importantly, paying the musicians.
huh? The musicians are paid in both the online retailer and brick and mortar retailer system. Both entities buy from the labels or artists at whatever cost is agreed to, so the artist cut is settled before it ever hits any shelves. Amazons ability to undercut brick and mortar by selling at cost or just above, while a distinct advantage vs. b+m, doesn't hurt musicians. Do you actually think they pay labels/artists less because they sell it cheaper? That's not how it works. They take the loss in order to get you on their site, in hopes that you'll continue shopping. You need to read this to understand what the big companies do to their suppliers: www.fastcompany.com/47593/wal-mart-you-dont-know
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Dec 21, 2019 8:03:23 GMT -6
Relevant only if you believe that every giant is the same, and every product is beholden to the same parameters. Makes me kind of happy though that I've never made a purchase at Wal-Mart.
|
|