iTunes price increase may have already hurt sales

[DaemonSeid]

Billboard reports that there’s already evidence that the recent change to song pricing in iTunes may have hurt sales of individual songs.

On Tuesday, April 7th, Apple announced that all digital rights management (DRM) had been removed from music sold on the iTunes Store. The company also unveiled tiered pricing for individual songs and albums.

The new tiered pricing prices some songs at 69 cents, others at 99 cents, and others at $1.29.

Writing for Billboard.biz, Glenn Peoples reports that the changes in chart position between Tuesday and Thursday indicate that higher prices had forced many songs to drop in chart position to lower-priced songs.

“By Thursday, there were a total of 15 songs that had risen to $1.29 from a $0.99 price on Tuesday. Over the two-day period, those 15 songs had lost an average of 1.5 chart positions,” Peoples wrote.

He cautions that his analysis does not take into account sales trends that would have existed with the absence of price changes, however. External factors including radio play, media attention, time since release date and other issues could have also affected the rise and fall of certain songs.

link (http://tech.yahoo.com/news/macworld/20090413/tc_macworld/reportitunespricehikehurtssales)

[RU OX Alum]

I'm actually surprised apple did this. It kind of goes against the "vibe" or whatever of the company.

[PiKA2001]

I'm actually surprised apple did this. It kind of goes against the "vibe" or whatever of the company.

It's not Apple per se, but the record labels. They have been going back and forth ever since itunes have been around. Apple has wanted ALL songs DRM-free and only 99 cents for awhile now.

[TexasWSP]

If you pay 1.29 for a single song you should be slapped.

[moe.ron]

If you pay 1.29 for a single song you should be slapped.

Agreed, should be .80 max. Otherwise, it's off to torrent for me.

[DaemonSeid]

Agreed, should be .80 max. Otherwise, it's off to torrent for me.

YOU STEAL MUSIC!!??!!

shame on you!


stifling a grin!

[NinjaPoodle]

If you pay 1.29 for a single song you should be slapped.

http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/fighting0064.gif (http://www.smilieshq.com)

I agree

[NinjaPoodle]

YOU STEAL MUSIC!!??!!

shame on you!


stifling a grin!

Or limewire. Sorry but if itunes doesnt have it, limewire will and it's fileSHARING:D

[moe.ron]

YOU STEAL MUSIC!!??!!

shame on you!


stifling a grin!

I don't steal them, I evaluate the music for an undisclosed amount of time for purely artistic reasons.

[DaemonSeid]

I don't steal them, I evaluate the music for an undisclosed amount of time for purely artistic reasons.

I examine them for flaws.

[RU OX Alum]

It's not Apple per se, but the record labels. They have been going back and forth ever since itunes have been around. Apple has wanted ALL songs DRM-free and only 99 cents for awhile now.

ah...that makes more sense

[KSig RC]

Even without getting into the vagaries of what.cd and friends, both eMusic and Amazon's mp3 service are just so much better than iTunes at this point, it's retarded.

Just off their respective front pages, the new Silversun Pickups is $6 cheaper at Amazon ($3.99 to $9.99), the new Metric is a dollar cheaper, Bon Iver's "For Emma" is $2 cheaper, etc. And eMusic's worst subscription plan is set at .45c per download (90 @ $19.95). iTunes is just behind the curve at this point.

[PiKA2001]

luckily for me the music that I'm into (indie) can be downloaded for free (select singles) on the interweb.

http://betterpropaganda.com/Default.aspx

[KDAngel]

Agreed, should be .80 max. Otherwise, it's off to torrent for me.
Didn't you learn not to steal while growing up? I don't care if you think it's "just music," but unless you think it's OK to go into the store and take things from the shelves w/o paying it's the same thing.

Moreover, the new $150k damages penalty that can come your way per song for file-sharing now ought to scare you off.

[moe.ron]

Didn't you learn not to steal while growing up? I don't care if you think it's "just music," but unless you think it's OK to go into the store and take things from the shelves w/o paying it's the same thing.

Moreover, the new $150k damages penalty that can come your way per song for file-sharing now ought to scare you off.

Ouw, somebody want ruin the party. Let me download a couple gigs of MP3 so we can party. By the way, the 150k threat won't effect me since I'm in a different jurisdiction and pirated DVDs are openly sold in Mals.

[KSUViolet06]

Didn't you learn not to steal while growing up? I don't care if you think it's "just music," but unless you think it's OK to go into the store and take things from the shelves w/o paying it's the same thing.

Moreover, the new $150k damages penalty that can come your way per song for file-sharing now ought to scare you off.

Didn't you learn not to be condescending when growing up?

[KSig RC]

Didn't you learn not to steal while growing up? I don't care if you think it's "just music," but unless you think it's OK to go into the store and take things from the shelves w/o paying it's the same thing.

You're not "taking" the same thing - the physical CD manufacturing process weighs heavily into the price tag, and the artist actually gets very little. For that reason, so-called "new marketing" is far more important in music than anywhere else - and this is the real reason behind the RIAA's actions: to protect the absurd profits of the labels.

That doesn't mean stealing is 'right' or even morally ambiguous, but it does mean that the tide is shifting away from what you're talking about and toward a new music model. There is no reason to support the "old" system any more than there is reason to buy dictaphone recordings or fly in an autogyro.