iPhone 3GS from AT&T. Free ShippingWhat's the deal with variable pricing--Ask the Editors
Q: I am writing about the new iTunes price change. I remember reading that it would happen, after Apple announced it a couple of weeks ago. I was ecstatic about having iTunes Plus with all of the songs, and the opportunity at having cheaper prices. However, at the time, it seemed that some songs were going to go to a new price of $0.79, with most staying at $0.99, and a small portion going to the higher price of $1.29.
The time has come where the price change is in full effect and I have to say that I am disappointed. Not only are there barely any cheaper songs, but most of the popular songs that I purchase regularly now cost more. Will this be in effect forever, or will they slowly drop the prices? I really don't want to pay more for a song. Most importantly, why the price hike, and when will a better change happen? -- "Disappointed Customer", via e-mail.
A: It's hard to say what will last in this market, but you can probably expect the prices of songs to get lower the longer the track has been available. For example, a hot new Justin Timberlake song may cost $1.29 now, but then go down to 99 cents after six months or so. And maybe it will eventually be 79 cents, although I have to say that the vast majority of low-priced songs I've noticed in iTunes and other online music stores are the short transitional or skit tracks.
If you're looking for a bargain price on digital music, it's a good idea to keep an eye out for the deals offered by various music stores. For example, Amazon MP3 has a daily deal where it sells an entire album for as little as $2.99 (there's a dedicated area for this in the upper left-hand corner of the store's main Web page). Near the bottom of the iTunes Store, you can find the "Free on iTunes" section, which has a handful of tracks that won't cost you a cent. Many other online outlets also offer daily or weekly specials; just don't expect to find many huge hits.
The price hike was a result of negotiation with the labels to get rid of DRM. They've been after Apple to do variable pricing for some time now, as it gives them an opportunity to make more money on hotter tracks. I have to agree with you that it reeks of suckitude, but I don't foresee it changing anytime soon.
MP3 Mailbox Monday is a recurring feature where I answer a selection of questions about MP3 players and accessories, such as headphones, speakers, and music services and software. Check back often to see if the advice presented here might be of some use to you, or send your questions directly to me. (Note: We never include last names, but if you prefer to remain completely anonymous, please state as much in your e-mail.)
For more than five years, Jasmine France has covered a variety of tech products for CNET--from scanners to keyboards to GPS devices--but she's happiest where she is now: sitting atop a pile of MP3 players, "testing" every music service known to man, and jamming a variety of earbuds in every shape and color into her absurdly small ears. E-mail Jasmine.
Donald Bell is an electronic musician, a veteran record store employee, and a fearless hardware hacker. He's also CNET's Senior Editor for MP3 and digital audio.
Jasmine France is CNET's resident digital audio doyenne, writing and editing product reviews, crave blogs, and feature stories on all things MP3. And if you need advice on headphones, she's your girl.
Do what I do - search on iTunes, buy from Amazon.
http://www.frugalgadgets.com/amazon-mp3-daily-deal.php
I'm pretty sure that's not a real word........but I like it!
Hopefully more than $1.29!
No? Really. The best song in the world, by your opinion, isn't worth $1.29 to own forever?
Then no wonder the discussion about music ownership is so lopsided. It is partially your fault.
Remember all you are "buying" is the license to use the mediocre low bit-rate copy you paid $1.29 as they allow and only until they decide to sell it to you in another format in a few years. So, yeah, $.79 is still too much and $1.29 is insulting.
Similar to a hot new sports car or a new video game, their pricing won't be discounted until the luster wears off.
And comparing music is generally subjective....who's to say Justin Timberlake's music should cost more than John Tesh's musical delights. So, the industry relies on album/track popularity to gauge pricing. In some ways, the RIAA has benefited a lot of new/little-known artists by taking a definite cut of the actual sales; but on the flip, many consumers have been reluctant to pay those prices for new or unknown music.
It used to be that if you wanted one good song, you had to buy a whole album which included many so-so songs. Thus all songs were sold for a single price.
Now, you can buy single songs and skip the lesser songs, which results in much less revenue for music sellers.
Therefore, from a business perspective (and business capitalism is the foundation of our country and the freedom that exists here and in socialist Europe) they should follow simple supply and demand. Like the stock market:
As a song gains popularity, the price should go up.
As a song loses popularity, the price should go down.
At any given point in time, the total price of songs from a given album should equal the price of the full album, potentially minus a bit since you don't get an actual CD. Theoretically, albums themselves should also be variable priced against each other based on popularity.
------------------------------
Our "I want it now and for the cheapest price possible: free!" generation needs to learn to pay for things. It costs time and money to produce music, just like anything else. The reason the United States is a good place to live, is the strong power in the world that it is, is the capitalist society we have where anybody can get paid to do anything, appropriate to the quality of their product or service. When you demand freeness, you demand teh right to have whatever you want given to you, aka socialism/communism - the antithesis of our country that has resulted in the utter destruction of numerous nations in the world's history.
I think we are all just getting screwed because the record companies are having a tough time switching business models. They always banked on consumers buying $15+ CDs that contained 2-3 good songs, or maybe being allowed to buy singles of those popular songs for 3-4$. Now we can buy whatever song for a dollar, which is what we are supposed to be doing... paying for what we want. We shouldn't be paying for what we don't want (which is a dozen crap songs).
But now, companies are testing the waters to see how much we are willing to pay for a song. Well, I say we don't pay a $1.29... it may not seem like much, but the companies are basically telling us that they want us to pay 30% more for the same product for no reason at all. The song hasn't been upgraded... they magically invented a premium for hearing a new song. If anything, music is art, and I don't think people take very well to being told that you can gain some cultural enrichment... if you're rich enough.
If I do buy mp3s, Amazon has the best deals. I've bought albums for $1.99 on there. Two bucks for an album definately makes up for the lack of a physical copy and the low bit rate.
-
by asemeco
June 3, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
- Will nobody mention Rhapsody? Most albums are $9.99, and tracks are $.99. Even the most recent ones. And these are MP3s.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)