Login:
Password:

iTunes and the 99 Cent Question

David Falman, Guest Columnist

October 7, 2005, 2:05 PM

David Falman is Managing Director for Odessa Mama Records of Melbourne, Australia. In this guest column, he explains from a professional perspective why the record industry's attempts at raising the price of digital music from iTunes' 99-cent ceiling would do more harm than good.

With a showdown approaching between the major labels and Apple over its 99 cent price for downloads (and now music managers in the UK becoming unhappy with iTunes pricing) I wanted to give an independent label's view on this subject, given that there are over one thousand independent labels on iTunes.

With almost 15 years experience of running one, I think the majority of my peers would agree with my views. Of course, I highly doubt that the majors will actually remove their catalogues from iTunes; nevertheless I am very concerned about the developing situation.

Let's get straight to the point. Forget about "variable pricing" issues as you can already set variable album pricing on iTunes - you can sell albums from $5.99 and up. The majors want to raise prices for new releases. They simply want to make more money now, which they are not denying and that's fine with me. After all, music is a business and they have to answer to their shareholders.

What worries me is that music industry is not out of the doldrums yet. While there are reasons to be optimistic -- legal digital and mobile downloads taking off, the phenomenal success of ring tones, and expansion of digital radio etc -- in the last five years many independents have closed their doors. I'm not talking about small one or two person operations; these were companies who in the mid- to late-1990s sold millions of albums per year.

What forced them to close wasn't Internet downloads, but CD piracy. I remember talking to one of our partners in Southeast Asia who said that within two weeks of a release, bootleg copies would begin selling in the street.

Physical sales are still falling every quarter and vast majority of downloads are still not legitimate. P2P traffic is still growing. Pirates can easily set up a CD/DVD plant in a spare bedroom. How many majors did we have just a few years ago, compared to today? How many records get released now versus the end of the 1990s?

No, its not that there is a shortage of good artists or material to release. Record sales are not what they used to be, thus making many releases not commercially viable. Today, even the "big hits" sell fewer numbers.

To force Apple to raise prices now would only benefit Apple's competitors, but only in the short term. Apple is not the only online distributor currently selling tracks at 99 cents. in fact, many are selling for less, so I presume that if Apple succumbs and raises prices, other online stores will be also asked by the record companies to raise their prices as well.

Majors are complaining that Apple makes money from iPods and not from downloads. Sure, they are making little money from music, but that's because of how much they pay us, the record companies. Frankly, I don't care if Apple makes money on iPods or music. All I care is that we get 70 cents from every download - we have no manufacturing cost, distribution costs or returned stock.

Because of this, we can pay artists (who supply finished masters) 50 percent of the revenue. If UK managers are complaining that their artists are getting only 4.5 pence on every 79 pence track, why blame Apple? They should be blaming themselves for negotiating these types of contracts for their artists! If download prices go up, would they be happy with, say, 6 pence from a download? I don't think so; it's still a very low royalty rate.

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (30 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 10, 2005 - 10:36 AM

The fact that they already want to raise the price speaks for the entire industry as a whole.

Score: 0

By writingyourrequiem

posted Oct 8, 2005 - 9:59 PM

If I like the band, and have heard a CD or downloaded a CD by them, then I will buy the cd. Otherwise, I'll download it. I know it's not the right thing and I have no good argument for downloading music.

Score: 0

By Portal3

posted Oct 8, 2005 - 9:00 PM

Heh, If you sell mp3 players capable of storing 40,000 songs in a country where ripping copyrighted music from any other medium is illegal (aka Australia) then the only viable solution is to purchase mp3s from online.

Let's look at this: 40,000 mp3s @ 99cents each....... Even that price is a little harsh.

Either AU government can have a clause allowing ripping CDs to other mediums or companies can expect their raise in price for an already overpriced product to influence 'pirating'. I'm sure the average user would be more than happy to pay for music, just so long as it doesn't cost them $40,000 to fill their mp3 player.

Score: 0

By Liratheal

edited Oct 8, 2005 - 4:33 AM

Incase no one has noticed, piracy has occured for hundreds of years. Granted piracy has changed slightly, but it goes to show that no matter what the 'ggod guys' do, the pirates are going to be there, one way or another.

Closing torrent sites just makes people open up new ones in the places that don't give one about the copyright laws, and the RIAA. For example, China.

My point is, raised prices or not, piracy of music will go on for as long as there is music to pirate, and trying to clamp down on it just not going to help, the distributers of pirated music will find a way around it.

If all else fails, buy a damn CD.

England: Music Zone, sometimes Virgin Megastores.

US: Best Buy, Circuit City (As mentioned by mrleung21)

International: Amazon.

Stop being so bloody closed minded and do a bit of bargin hunting, rather than moan about raised iTunes prices.

Then at the very least you have a hard copy of the album you can play in your car, your home stereo, your laptop or desktop computer.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited Oct 8, 2005 - 5:05 AM

Not all of us WANT a damn 13 song album for even 8 dollars. See what you're forgetting is that for instance, I don't like 50 cent, but I may like 1 or 2 of his songs. Can you get me 1 or 2 of his songs on a CD? No. So before you hack at people for worrying about raised MP3 prices, open your own mind to why. I stopped buying CDs a long time ago. Does it mean I'm a music pirate? No. Granted, I HAVE downloaded a few club songs I could never find on CD or legal mp3, but this is for people who don't want an entire CD, even if they're getting it for 5. I like being able to buy whatever song I want for 70-99c. I like not having to worry about my CDs getting scratched. There's a certain freedom there. Take that away, and ofcourse I'll be pissed - so will many others.
My car plays Mp3s, so does my home stereo, so does my laptop and so does my home PC - I don't need a store purchased CD, and I don't want a store purchased CD. Mp3s are fine where they are, the companies aren't making a loss, so why raise prices? Greed. And I don't understand for the hell of me, how they consistenly get away with it. I don't want to ever be a music pirate, but stuff like this is sure to turn me, and many others. I'm not buying a single mp3 for more than 99c, and that's that....if it ever goes above that, then I WILL find a way to get the music, somehow. I'm also not buying a CD for 8 or 11 dollars when I only want 1 song.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited Oct 8, 2005 - 2:11 AM

I've got news for all of you. The rise of music/mp3/wma/aac prices are inevitable. The more P2P goes the way of the dinosaur, and 'sharing' is curbed, etc. etc. etc, the higher digital music prices.
It won't only be Itunes....and they won't be able to fight it either.....Napster, Yahoo, Musicmatch, they'll all HAVE to raise prices eventually, or face losses. If the industry starts charging them more per song, then what else can they do but pass the cost on to customers? And when bittorrent and p2p goes, I guarantee they WILL start charging more for royalties. They're not gone yet and they're trying. See, either way they'll win. On one hand, people will buy CDs rather than buy 1 mp3 for 1.50 or 2. On the other, people will buy the song for 1.5 or 2. One other option is to steal it....but for every song someone steals, the higher the risk of being sued. So then, that's 3 ways they win. And they can sue someone for 2 grand for about 200 songs, that's even MORE profits. Since 200 songs are only worth about 200 dollars (at max).
This is the way of capitalism, but moreso the way of the record industry. Greed is the key.

Score: 0

By ptksr

posted Oct 8, 2005 - 12:30 AM

Raising iTunes music prices will only make me stop buying it. I prefer to buy individual songs, unless the whole album is worth it, in which case I get the whole album.

RIAA, you have a good deal here, stop being morans.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 8:14 PM

The big question David, is when Apple are actually going to be able to open an iTunes store in Australia. What's the hold up?

Score: 0

By dfaiman

posted Oct 10, 2005 - 10:17 PM

Of course, I'm not 100% sure, but most likely
reason is that Apple can't agree with one or more majors on prices, so again pricing is the possible issue

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 4:15 PM

The 99 cent price seems quite reasonable. Maybe a little high, but reasonable.

The fact that artists are make such a small portion of that pie is a direct result of policies within the major labels, which has nothing to do with Apple.

Score: 0

By LostProphet

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 4:13 PM

I think 99 cents is all i will pay for a song. at this point either if i buy the CD or the indivual songs either way i am getting screwed.

I think the price should be equal a little more. example avg cd cost 18.00 and there are on an avg 25 songs on cds price per song is 72 cents.

i guess the 30 + cent markup is to cover providers server and bandwith.

my prob is that if i buy the cd i can copy trhe songs off i like and due the same with others and make a singal good cd. but if i download load it, then the DMR kick in, i have all kinds of limits from what it can be played on to how many times it can be burned to a cd. NOT FAIR if i pay the 1 for the song, i should be able to do with it what i wish for personal
enjoyment.

sorry small off topic rant ;)-

i agree with the article in i think higher prices would stall the market and possibly even raise piracy over time.

Score: 0

By GhoS

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 3:18 PM

I haven't made the decision to join digital downloads since I still favor buying on CD. However I have noticed the sheer variety available via the online model that I will surely change to adapt soon.
However if the price goes above 99 cents then it makes it less enticing. Go too high and I might as well buy the cd or just simply find it for free on P2P.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 3:12 PM

The article is missing a big point of its own premise... there are two big pressures -

*Keep the price .99US
*Have .70 left over for costs

OK, so what you're saying is that Apple, et al., should only make .29c for each sale. It sounds like right now that's nearly impossible. All your points are fine and dandy, but explain to me how you're going to redistribute the .99c pie? It doesn't sound like you can, and you don't want to raise prices...

So what then is the proposed solution?

Score: 0

By dfaiman

edited Oct 10, 2005 - 10:15 PM

Drumcat,
Apple is keeping 29c from sale NOW and seems to satisfied with the current situation, so
all I'm saying, that we should keep the price at 99c as it is now and not raise it as is proposed by majors.

Score: 0

By sophist_dreams

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 2:35 PM

Personally I think if they raise the price for legitimate music download sites the RIAA might as well set up booths in court houses. The incentive to not using Peer sites to download pirated songs was not having to pay $12.00-$25.00 per CD for a disk that might have only one song you want or is the only good song on the disc. This will only invite pirates to create more inventive ways to dodge the RIAA and to figure out ways to copy CDs if they are purchased.

Score: 0

By mrleung21

edited Oct 7, 2005 - 11:49 PM

" $12.00-$25.00 per CD for a disk that might have only one song you want or is the only good song on the disc."

The age old arguement. The only problem is that if you're only getting 'one good song' per album, what you listen to is most likely trash. Hopefully that stone cold truth doesn't offend anyone.

Not only that, 25$ for a cd? sniff. sniff, HUH? I never pay more than 10$ per cd. It's called best buy, or circuit city. Check it out, it's great.

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted Oct 8, 2005 - 12:09 PM

Yeah, I'm always amazed at the "but there's only one good song on the album". The only time I've ever bought music with only 1 or 2 good songs on the album were used CD's I bought solely because they looked interesting. Out of more than a thousand CDs I'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful I feel that way about. Perhaps, this is because like the parent said, most people listen to crap. There's more good music out there than I can afford to get, but I can guarantee two things: 1. You'll never hear it on the radio (except maybe satellite), and 2.) It's rarely if ever put out by the the big RIAA labels. Now certainly there's good stuff put out by the big labels, and I imagine that somewhere there are analog radio stations that play good music (e.g., there's a nice little low-power independent jazz station here in DC, but like the classical stations, it usually doesn't play _newer_ music). It's funny: I recall when I wanted to buy a single when I was 16, my Dad suggested I get the whole album instead. This was a great idea, since the whole album had even better stuff (the album in question was "Moving Pictures" by Rush if you are insterested), but the unspoken implication was that buying the album would be worthwhile.

To get back on topic, I haven't bought digital music yet. I'm not interested in figuring out how to get around the DRM so I can use it how I want, I'm concerned about the quality, and finally, except for a few mainstream things I might be interested in, the on-line stores rarely sell anything I'm interested in. And finally, I still prefer to have something I can hold in my hand. Broadband is getting common. archive.org has lots of SHN and FLAC files to download. Why can't I buy lossless music?

Score: 0

By rbrewer420

posted Oct 9, 2005 - 9:38 AM

I don't see the need to bash anyone because of their choice of music. They are spending the money to buy the cd. They should have known what they were getting into when they bought it, at the price the agreed to buy it at.

Regardless, whatever you think is cool, generally sells for the same price as what they think is cool. Poking someone for what music they like on a thread talking about consumer pricing is futile.

Score: 0

By beta_animal

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 2:14 PM

I wanted to just add a small note to this excellent article:

In the US, each song costs you $0.99. At current exchange rates, that equates to GBP £0.56, but each download actually costs £0.79 ($1.39). This is unfair for a start, but you can imagine how nervous people in the UK are over all the talk of price increases on iTunes and other legitimate download sites.

I wholeheartedly agree that if the music industry in the UK has a problem with the low return per song, they should re-negotiate the contract. This shouldn't result in higher prices for users, it should result in a small drop in revenue for whoever is currently benefiting from the higher UK prices.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 2:38 PM

But should Apple really adjust its prices based on current currency conversion rates? Because George Bush launches an unethical war in Iraq and the US Dollar drops, Apple should be forced to pay the price?

Plus, what happens if the US Dollar goes back up - would you suggest Apple raises its prices?

Example: Apple drops prices in the UK to 56 pence. US economy gets stronger and dollar goes up. Suddenly that 99 cents Apple was getting becomes 70 cents and it can't pay the record label fees. So what can it do? Piss off customers and raise prices, or shut down the store altogether?

Score: 0

By beta_animal

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 3:37 PM

I appreciate Apple are an American country, but as far as I can remember, 99cents has never been as much as 79pence. There may be currency fluctuations, but probably not to the extent of 23pence in each 99cents.

That wasn't my main point though. Yes, we pay more per song, but the artists get less from UK than US sales as stated in the article. If the industry want the artists to make more money from each download, I don't think that cost should be passed on to UK buyers.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 5:30 PM

Apple's pricing also correlates to music prices in the country. For example, let's say a CD in the US costs $10 USD. Does that mean CDs in the UK should cost 5.5 pounds? Unfortunately, that's not how things are.

CDs in the UK cost about 8 pounds at the low end ($16 USD), which means that Apple's pricing per song is pretty much on target with those numbers.

On that note, a single trip on the Underground costs 2 pounds, or almost $4 USD (even in New York prices are half that). And a bottle of Coke costs 1 pound, or almost $2 USD.

My point: Life in the UK is more expensive, and thus salaries are higher. So paying a bit more for music is completely normal - you already pay more for CDs.

If everyone is so upset about it, how about dropping the pound and joining the European Monetary Fund to adopt the Euro like everyone else is doing :)

Score: 0

By computershack

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 7:10 PM

"My point: Life in the UK is more expensive, and thus salaries are higher. So paying a bit more for music is completely normal - you already pay more for CDs."

Actually salaries aren't higher and as well as that, after Income Tax/National Insurance, we get less of our gross pay.

Score: 0

By eoswald

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 7:52 PM

Before you make a statement like that, check your facts.

Average US salary? $20,114 USD.

Average UK salary? 22,411 pounds, or nearly $40,000. Even in the poorest part of the region in Northern Ireland people make $10k more than most US citizens.

Thus, iTunes is actually a better deal in the UK versus the US. There is a reason why things are more expensive in the UK. PEOPLE MAKE MORE MONEY.

You cannot tell me that your taxes are that high, I'm sorry.

Score: 0

By beta_animal

posted Oct 8, 2005 - 8:37 AM

Taxes are quite high, but don't forget that we also have to pay 17.5% tax on everything we buy. Also, an average salary isn't a very good indicator. I really wish I was earning as much as you think we all earn!

Back to Nate's point though: He said that CDs in the UK are £8 at the low end. Actually, that's not strictly true. CDs in the UK are quite easy to come across at between £5 and £7. Music Stores on the high street charge a lot more, but we can actually save a significant amount by shopping around on the internet.
In my experience, unless I want an album that was newly released, I can get a CD for less than or about the same price that iTunes charges, so it isn't such a good deal in the UK.

I think that 79p is about reasonable when you're buying individual songs (although 56p would be much nicer!). Albums are maybe a bit over-priced on iTunes (in the UK at least), but everyone seems to be missing my point. It's not about taxes or anything like that, it's this:

If artists want more money per download, whoever is currently making the lion's share of the profit on each download will need to take a revenue cut. If the consumers end up being charged more, they'll stop buying legal downloads.

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Oct 7, 2005 - 2:45 PM

Nate.... we are discussing music prices in this forum. Your political views are unnecessary and unwelcome here. Stick to the topic.

Score: 0

By joesnow

edited Oct 9, 2005 - 12:35 AM

sharing won't be curbed at all, lol.

to the non-technical, non-geek people, music sharing online has been around since napster.
to everyone who knows how to work a computer farther than pointy clicky yay my icon opened a program, mp3 sharing has been going on since 'mp3' was first developed years before Napster was even a wink in anyone's eye. We just did it via FTPs on IRC or other chat networks. Napster (and those that came after) just made it "simpler" to get exactly what we wanted instead of having to just down every MP3 directory off someone's site in hopes of getting what u want, or searching a little bit longer on FTPs.

In fact if i look at it correctly, P2P services have actually decreased the volume PER USER, and increase the amount of users that download. Before, I would download 2GB of MP3's for the hell of it cuz i saw a few good songs on the guy's FTP (my friends would do this too), and we'd have thousands of MP3's that we stocked up and would never have to buy....but since the advent of P2P most of us have had under 1GB of music TOTAL and actually consider buying some of the random obscure stuff we find.

Put out the light of P2P and we'll just naturally go back to not buying anything at all and downloading entire sites full of MP3's and sharing them to whomever we choose, totally undetected, on a totally different port, ...a little more annoying but hey, done it before, i'll do it again.

----------------------
in regard to the iTunes prices rising, that won't boil over well with many people i know who own iPods, they're students who can barely afford the hardware itself let alone a buck per song. lol considering like many, they have 20+ gigs to fill. damn right they come to me for MP3's as it is, if prices rise their money will not be going to Apple or the RIAA.

if these prices rise I do believe I won't buy another american music CD.

Score: 0

By MarSprite

posted Oct 10, 2005 - 2:27 AM

P2P Sharing is an Invincible beast, well perhaps not Invincible, but definitly Immortal.

It doesnt matter whether you believe that sharing is wrong or right, or whether or not the RIAA gets commercial P2P shut down. P2P sharing cant be killed, there will always be P2P networks that are uncontrolled by those who care.

The music companies need to see and respect this, hopefully the'll see it before they start dying, because eventually its going to be impossible to make a living being a musician, and thus no-one will be making any half-way decent music.

as for prices on songs, I quite simply don't buy from I-Tunes, the limitations they put on the music you can get from them disgusts me. so its no surprise that I don't really care if they raise their prices or not. if I like most of the songs on the CD, I buy it, if not, I just download the ones I like, or get them from a friend,

and screw anyone who has the gall to tell me what my ethics should be in that regard, my ethics are mine, everyone sets their own standards, if you like what your ethics do for you, then they are the right ethics for you, and if you don't like what they do for you, then thats your problem

I-Tunes gets to set their own prices, and they get to choose who to make contracts with, and as long as they cover their behinds in that regard, everythings gonna be A-OK for them, because what they are doing is within the laws commonly held by all the countries they operate in, and I'm sure in most of the rest

the price is a balance, if its too much, no-ones gonna buy, and your not gonna make much money, if its too low, you aren't going to make as much money, you hit that middle ground, and ultimately, people will buy your product, and you will make money, and thus, greed is basicly self defeating

Score: 0