Why DVDs are thriving while CDs tank (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

As for DVDs from Chinatown. . .bootleg they may be, but if they ever put this stuff out in region 1, I'd buy it anyway. They're NOT losing a sale of a $90 region 2 disc from me, 'cause that sale wouldn't happen anyway.

I think I'll borrow and paraphrase from Chris Beveridge- J-Rock (or any other entertainment) is not a right, it's a privilege. If you can't afford the price of admission, buy the legit VCD or don't buy at all.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I specifically said HK JRock DVD releases, not VCD

Semantics! My point was simply that there aren't separate HK releases of the DVDs because the stores there just sell the Japanese releases.
As for the DVD I got in Chinatown. . .it's a Taiwan release, not sure if it's a boot or not. But I *do* have pretty much all the videos on it on legit VCDs I got in HK, if it makes you feel any better (I do!).
And to reiterate: There is PLENTY of great new music out there, it's just on us to go and find it. . .

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The points people are making comparing CD-burning to the tapes people used to make are interesting. I remember when I was a kid, we used to make tapes for each other all the time. (Didn't make a dent in anybody's LP spending though! Hey, did I just date myself?)

However, I think the important difference is that back then, there weren't guys selling dozens of tapes at $15 a pop out of their dorm rooms.

 

[James Reader]

I think we can sum up most of the industry's problems in three words: Supply and Demand.

Obviously the demand the industry once held is no longer as great. While it would be foolish to say that the decline in demand has nothing to do with MP3 files - it also has a lot to do with industry mismanagement, inflated prices and perceived lack of quality (while I accept that there are some fantastic albums out there, that's no good if people in general don't know about them!).

If the industry fails to acknowledge these other failures (of their own making) then quite simply they deserve to loose money due to their own arrogance.

In most businesses, if the supply and demand changes, the business changes to suit the new model. Whether this means the record publishers need to make drastic content delivery changes, simply choose to lower prices or change their promotional spend and spread is up to them. But they have to realize that change is required to survive.

 

[Mickey Brown]

Good point James.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. I don't condone stealing. I don't condone file sharing, actually. But I am surely not going to tell someone they are morally corrupt for downloading an MP3 and transferring it to their walkman for a jog.

But I believe demand is changing in the music industry. The industry as a whole needs to understand that this technology isn't going away, ethics or not.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Obviously the demand the industry once held is no longer as great.

Of course it is, otherwise there wouldn't be the proliferation of file sharing there is. The music is in demand, but a generation of people have discovered that stealing is cheaper than buying, and since they can get away with it (even though all the data could be traced if someone were to really get into it), they do.

If the industry is to maintain itself, there have to be decisive steps taken to stop the illegal trade and sale of product, and since they are reluctant to do it through the courts (I still think it would be a deterent to throw a couple hundred college bootleggers in jail for a year), then it will come in increased copy protection, even higher prices, or simply making product unavailable on formats that are easily ripped.

Music is not a right. If you can't afford it, get a job!

 

[dpippel]

Music is not a right. If you can't afford it, get a job!

To the recording industry music is a product. If it's priced too high, unavailable on popular formats or degraded/made more complex by copy protection then it won't sell. If it doesn't sell then the majority of the people employed making those little silver discs will be the ones looking for work. Copy protection will not solve the problem of illegal ripping and that's been proven time and time again. The industry needs to find a way to embrace the technology, not stop it. And as an aside, if they're truly serious about putting a stop to profit loss from illegal reproduction of their "properties", they need to quit worrying about college kids in the US and agressively go after the countries in southeast Asia who are *really* bleeding them dry.

 

[Eric Bass]

The real solution here is to do away with record companies. As I understand it the avg artist gets about $1 for the sale of a CD. The cut the company takes is insane. Now I understand they take the risk with new bands and lose their shirts on occasion, but they aren't hurting by any means. I see the future as all music being paid for and downloaded online, cut the middle man and let the artists and the consumers work together directly. I know local bands who distribute music on MP3.com and the fans love it. I'm willing to bet piracy will be less a factor if people knew their money was going directly to the band they want to support instead of getting thrown into a massive faceless organization winding up in some suit's pocket. That would solve the filler situation too, as fans could purchase the songs they like directly from the artists they like..free enterprise at it's best.

 

[James Reader]

Of course it is, otherwise there wouldn't be the proliferation of file sharing there is. The music is in demand, but a generation of people have discovered that stealing is cheaper than buying, and since they can get away with it (even though all the data could be traced if someone were to really get into it), they do.

No, the demand isn't there because people aren't buying it. If - say - most mineral water was sold for $40 a bottle, sales would rapidly decrease to almost nothing. While there is still the same requirement for mineral water (i.e. most people would like some) the demand would drop because most people would be unwilling to pay $40 a bottle.

Its the same with CDs. It would be naive to suggest that MP3's and file sharing have not contributed to the falling demand, but it would also be naive to say that the publishers haven't contributed to the situation themselves.

What annoys me the most about the publishers is that they want to excuse or ignore their own failings and put *all* of the blame on piracy - how convenient, and quite frankly arrogant.

Look the average CD is overpriced. I don't care how much money is spent on pressing it, promoting it, paying the artist, designing the covers etc. It is clearly overpriced for what it is.

And replayability does not increase the 'value' of a purchase.

I have a grillpan that I love; I use it 3-4 times a week, sometimes more. Think of how many hours I've used that grillpan. And yet I only paid about $21 for it. Should the kitchenware shop have sold it to be for $220 due to how much use I would get from it? Of course not, to make such a suggestion is silly. It's the same for CDs.

Oh, one last thing - if a record company *has* to spend millions and millions of dollars on promoting an artist, the price of which is passed onto us in when we buy out CD then, once again there is something clearly wrong with the industry - and something that the publishers should try to correct instead of carrying on fiddling while Rome burns by pointing the finger *only* at Internet downloads.

 

[Jodee]

The real solution here is to do away with record companies. As I understand it the avg artist gets about $1 for the sale of a CD. The cut the company takes is insane. Now I understand they take the risk with new bands and lose their shirts on occasion, but they aren't hurting by any means. I see the future as all music being paid for and downloaded online, cut the middle man and let the artists and the consumers work together directly. I know local bands who distribute music on MP3.com and the fans love it. I'm willing to bet piracy will be less a factor if people knew their money was going directly to the band they want to support instead of getting thrown into a massive faceless organization winding up in some suit's pocket. That would solve the filler situation too, as fans could purchase the songs they like directly from the artists they like..free enterprise at it's best.

And I suppose you just wake up out of bed every morning, aware of some music artist whose CD you want to buy?
I hate to break it you, but the record companies actually do a little service-- it discovers the talent, finances the recording, promotes it, and distributes it into stores where it can be purchased.
Maybe we ought to just eliminate the movie studios because they are this big faceless organization who makes money (God, I actually thought the point of ANY business was to make money. How foolish of me!) We could just let directors use handheld cameras and then we could surf the net looking for a good movie to download for free.
Pardon my sarcasm, but this is my livelihood you are meessing with. No I'm not a music artist, but like any business it is not just the music artists who are responsible for bringing the product to market.
I am a sales rep for an independent music distribution company. I lost my job with a major after all the mergers and downsizings. I work hard to get my company's records placed in big chains like Borders so people can buy them. I work with the buyers to try and get our CDs accepted in listening sttation prgrams (which are not cheap by the way) to try and get the music exposed to people.
It's not as simple as recording a CD and throwing it out there. Thousands of local bands do that on their own every year and you've probably never heard of them. They probably still work at their day jobs.
So before you start dissing the "unnecessary" industry, please remember there are hard-working people working behind the scenes to make other people's dreams come true.
Downloading, piracy and all that doesn't just hurt the artists. It hurts people like me. I'm not "some suit". It hurts people I know who worked in and managed record stores on college campus--once record shopping meccas--that have closed their doors because students no longer buy CDs. One local large campus area has seen the close of at least 4 stores, including a huge Tower. All those people were hurt. They weren't "suits."
Okay, my little rant is over now. Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Matthew Brown]

The music/recording industry needs to stop thinking that every recording act should appeal to every person in the world. Let bands have their target audiances and market them that way. They don't have to appeal to everybody.
There are so many complaints of CD's that only have one good song on them. Long time fans of some bands may feel that most of the songs are great and the rest are listenable. Every CD will have certain songs that stand out. The song on the radio may not be the one that is indicative of the band. When I was a kid I remember the Alice Cooper song "You and me" or something like that on the radio. It is totally different than his other songs. At the time, you could buy the single. Now you would have to buy the whole CD. Chances are if you bought the whole CD expecting similar songs, you'd be disappointed.
There was a fairly recent article passed around written by Courtney Love concerning the record industry screwing acts but few people remember the article written by Steve Albini years ago. It was around the time Nirvana was breaking out. Here's a link http://www.negativland.com/albini.html . See if anything has changed. The article was written when records were still somewhat in the picture.
People who record songs from the radio get the annoying DJ cackling over the beginnings of the songs. MP3's are low quality. The people who like these are the Joe Six Packs of the music realm.
Matt

 

[Malcolm R]

a generation of people have discovered that stealing is cheaper than buying

It's not a big leap when they're being forced to pay $18.99 for one song they like.

Singles are how kids learn to buy music. I bought a ton of singles when I was younger (still do, but mostly imports now) because they were affordable and fun. I had a huge collection of singles. But if I had to buy a full album everytime I found a song I liked, I wouldn't have been able to afford hardly any music. Most kids today also can't afford an $18.99 album to get each song they like.

By eliminating the singles, the labels have taken the option of purchasing music out of the hands of young people who would go on to become lifelong consumers. They have essentially trained them NOT to buy music. I think the same situation would have occurred even 20 years ago. The only difference is that today's technology allows for other outlets (i.e. downloading) to obtain the songs people can't buy as singles and can't afford as albums.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

In a free market society, the cost of any given item is governed by what people are willing to pay for it. Expecting any industry to adjust their pricing to compete with bootlegs, or otherwise illegally distributed wares is rediculous.
If you feel CDs are overpriced, you have several legitimate options:
1. Don't buy them.
2. Buy used
3. Wait for compilations
4. Listen to the radio
This attitude that music should be delivered in a manner to suit everyone's personal needs is one that seems to dominate products we don't really need. The CD is a product for personal convenience. It allows access to music on demand. For that, there is a price. In every other market, customised option cost more. Want a different trim on your car? Costs more. Want more options on your phone service? Costs more. Want to cherry pick songs off an album? Download it for free...
I also find it interesting that, while the majority of people in this forum would fight to the death to have a movie director's vision presented in its entirety, that the same folks want to be able to edit a music artist's work to suit their fancy. Should we also require movie studios to supply just the parts of the films we want to see for download, or threaten them by ripping our own DVDs and sharing/selling them?
The saddest part of this whole debate is that it is over a product which is only there to enhance our lives, not sustain it. People can live without music. They won't die if they don't hear the latest Britney Spears song. This whole issue revolves around a selfish need for people to have access to something they like in a manner convenient to them.
In some parts of the world people actually have to worry about finding food.
As for buying a CD that you hate, I would suggest doing a little research before purchasing. There are many online resources where cuts from albums can be heard, and just about every major retail store around here allows previewing discs before purchase.

 

[John Berggren]

I certainly would not advocate that record companies cease to exist. However, the majors need to shift their priorities. If they worked towards developing quality acts rather than marketting popular pap, I guarantee they'd have more sales. The small label model is perhaps the best. Jodee, I have to imagine that the company you now work for doesn't just try to get their acts on the radio/MTV or into K-mart/Tower Records - but that you seek to make sure your acts have good songs and records before you get there. I imagine you give them an opportunity to create an album from the heart, rather than pushing for a catchy single. I've worked with small labels in college and for festivals I've sponsorred, and they tend to have a diverse array of acts with solid albums. They weren't necessarily albums that I wanted, but I saw them as creative and quality works.

Labels on the otherhand in their rush to get the next N'sync, Britney Spears, or other Pop Pap, end up crushing good talent because they get little or no promotion, and are then prevented from releasing more because the get canned, or worse, the record company sits on their contract.

Kami Lyle and Ke' are two artists I enjoyed immensely with their primary release (I knew Kami from the college circuit) but their VERY GOOD first albums got buried, and they don't have the chance to make a follow up. Tanya Donnelly busted on her first solo album, and is lucky enough to now be on an independent label where her follow up shines more than the first.

I would love to see independent labels banding together to provide music resources on the internet. I think it would benefit the labels and the artists. Certainly it has to be better than what pop radio offers today.

I've also participated in local rock video shows that focus on underhyped artists. I've found more rewarding music through such venues than I find today anywhere else.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

mp3 ripping is completely analogous to home taping from previous decades and the record companies' response is not all that different either.
Once the record companies start listening to consumers rather than telling them what to buy again, they will be rolling in dough.
Singer Janis Ian wrote an interesting article on the whole downloading phenomenon for Performing Songwriter Magazine. She posted it on her www.janisian.com website here.
Regards,

 

[Eric Bass]

I hate to break it you, but the record companies actually do a little service-- it discovers the talent, finances the recording, promotes it, and distributes it into stores where it can be purchased.

That statement definately has merit, but I'd still argue that record companies do more to make sure that marketable bands like N'Sync and B. Spears get massive publicity and radio play then they do to promote new and interesting music. If it were up to the consumer to investigate bands rather than just accepting what's being dumped down their throat I think the industry would be much better off. Whatever the record companies think they're doing now could easily be handled with word of mouth. Now financing the recording onto CD and getting them into retail stores would present a real problem for your avg band.

 

[Chet_F]

I have not read this entire thread. Sorry.
That said here is my opinion:
The RIAA(record companies) current busines model is DEAD or dying slowly. Just use their own figures to figure that one out. They say their sales are declining. I agree. And I know it isn't entirley due to MP3's. I rarly buy "new" CD's anymore. Too costly new(11.99 to 13.99 realistically) and most times I do not want the entire CD anyway. I will buy it used or at a bargain price new(7.99 they usually have this for new artists). Just did this for Audiovent(good band by the way). This bargain price I have seen on a few new artists is a great idea. Brings the price down and you don't feel that is a risk to try a new band(new music). They either need to change their dated pricing scheme or change their business model. The genie is out of the bottle of course, aka MP3's. Why don't the record companies ride along with the Genie instead of battling a cause they simply cannot win. Here's an idea Mr. Record Man: have a site to download songs and charge the cutomer. WOW ... what an idea!! But of course the record companies do not want to do this because it takes away there leverage aka the whole album. They want you to buy the whole album because it puts more money in their pockets. Why not change your business model to internet downloads and see what happens with a test demographic? Why? Because they are not inventive enough. I personally will not buy most hip-hop or rap albums. But if they were to make a site that I or J6P could go to and download the latest Nelly song for $1.50 to $2.00 they could easily get business. Who has ever wanted to make a mix CD of all the great hip-hop tunes for that certain party or whatever. But instead you would need to buy 10 albums of music that you would proabably never listen too, except for that one song you like. Here is the money maker that they have turned their back on. They should have all of the albums on the internet right now and they would see their precious bottom line start rising again. What does it cost to store a high quality sound file? Pennies on the dollar, I would guess, for a month. So you have a song that can be sold for 1.50 to 2.00 and they would be able to make a huge profit because you have eliminated the cost of production of the physical CD, and distribution(for the most part).
Whatever...hopefully the record industry will continue to bury themselves into the ground and well get a new company that is more consumer oriented.
Just my .02 cents.

 

[Aaron Thomas]

Sidebar:
There is a correlation between the "tanking" of CDs and the decrease in air time for music videos on television.

Think about it: When you consider the relative success of rap/R&B and country, it's hard to forget the fact that you've got a much better chance of seeing music videos on BET and CMT than anywhere else today.

Less advertisements for music ==> lowered demand for music ==> less sales.

Any thoughts, or are my viewing habits just skewed?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Music goes in cycles by decade

Year 2-3: Innovative rock groups show up and start setting the tone for the decade

Year 6-8(varies a bit): Public gets sick of crappy imitators and turns to bubblegum pop, boy bands and "black" music because it sounds nothing like what they've been listening too for the last 4 years.

year 9-1:Most bands die, leaving 2 or 3 good ones.Glut of bubblegum crap becomes so obnoxious that people start picking upa guitar again

repeat

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

An online, pay distribution method is a possible addition to album sales, but most of you are missing a very important aspect of the industry, which is promotion. Sure, I could find a Nelly tune on a website, but how do I know to look for it? The only reason I would is because there has been some form of promotion to bring them to my attention.
There are thousands of CDs released every month. Assuming each disc has 10 songs, that would be 10,000 links per month to wade through to find what you want. With no promotion, you don't have a clue whether Nelly is a rap artist or a horse.
There are other problems with the $1-3 download model, one of them being the cost of the transactions. Small purchases are extremely expensive to manage using credit cards. Also, depending on how high quality the tracks were, you are looking at some very serious delivery bandwidth issues. At 5M per track, even if each song was only downloaded once, you'd have huge bandwidth issues. Now apply that to a single that alone could generate a million or more downloads...
That isn't saying it couldn't be done, just that most of the suggestions offered are not as simple as people assume they are, just as releasing a CD is not as simple as most believe.