Billboard poll: 99 cents too expensive for downloads

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Billboard poll: 99 cents too expensive for downloads.

GristyMcFisty lets us know that the Billboard.com
website has posted a interesting poll.
More than 9,000 people voted that 99 cents to download one song from the
Internet is simply…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6456-Billboard-poll-99-cents-too-expensive-for-downloads.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6456-Billboard-poll-99-cents-too-expensive-for-downloads.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Some have been doing it on a more independant level for some time. !K7 records has $5USD album downloads availible for some newer albums. Ends up < $0.50 per song. They are also regular mp3s. ::


#3

I see no reasone why a downloaded song should cost $.99!! You’re no longer paying to 1) Print CD covers, 2) Manufacture Jewel Cases, 3) Press CDs, 4) Truck product all over the country, or 5) Stock store shelves. It’s rediculous to me that we should have to pay $.99 a song. If you add $.99 per song for the whole album, you might as well have purchased the whole album. They must take people for fools!! If you are going to work up a business model that involves downloading these songs they should be reasonably priced, say $.25 - $.50 each. (All money references are in U.S. dollars. :B)


#4

You’d have to be a real cheapskate to consider $1 too expensive. $.25 would be frankly ridiculous. The artist won’t see much of $1, they would be lucky to see a few cents for $.25. Stop being cheapskates and get your cc out.


#5

And how much do you think the artists get out of that $.99?! All I’m saying is that most of the overhead dissappears when you start offering the music up for download. You maintain a webserver and hire a webmaster. (Over simplification I know, but you get the idea)


#6

I wouldn’t complain about paying 70p (=$.99) so long as the selection was enormous (including all types of music), and the music could be downloaded quickly at a bitrate of choice. Perhaps also allow for reductions for multiple purchases of the same artist?


#7

1 dollar is a tad too much. Since all they have to pay for now is the bandwidth to supply it to us. 50 cents each would make me buy. The quality would have to be pretty damn close to CD though with an enormous library. That’s what bothers me the most about using Kazaa or the like, finally getting that rare track then finding out it was encoded in Real jukebox. Nooooooooooo
[edited by squinty on 20.08.2003 20:23]


#8

Does anyone remember how much the first VCR, DVD, and widescreen TV’s cost when they were first brought out? A bloody fortune. It’s not new for us, but for the music industry this is very new teritory, so like all new technology it initially costs to be one of the first to use it. My advice is to support it (as much as your morals will let you) and eventually other companys will jump on board and force the price down.


#9

its actually cheaper to buy a tape now. lol. in the UK, at least, most singles cost .99 and they include the minimum of 3 songs on a cassette. so… i think i’d rather stick to less legal ways and hope the RIAA don’t open a supenona on me.


#10

MS new music service is gonna charge about £1 per track. So you US folks better stop bitching about it being too expensive :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

99 cents per track is outrageous in my opinion. For a song that has DRM, sounds absolutely terrible when compared with a cd and is only allowed to be burned so many times, you are getting ripped off. Wouldn’t it just be easier to lower cd prices? I mean cmon?


#12

Call me a cheap scape if ya want but 1 dollar per song is way to much. I got the choice of downloading eminem 8 mile cd or going to store and buying it for probably less. Its rediculous. I gotta buy blanks / jewel cases / cd labels and then find songs… Download them… burn them… design labels… print them using my ink puting wear on my printer… and final result is a less quality sounding cd for probably half again the cost of going out and buying it. And what they do? simply store the music and have it ready for download. No one had to do the list of things that smabbage list plus pay someone to be cashier. I can see the advantage of being able to make a mix with your favorite songs on a cd and that is only thing that makes it maybe worth while to consider paying them prices. Im gonna have to agree .25 cents to .50 cents per song is more proper. It cost close to nothing to serve these songs to the customer compared to retail. emocean mensioned K7 offering .50 cent downloads… Call me stupid if ya want for asking but what is the link to that place?
[edited by T4Z on 21.08.2003 07:23]
[edited by T4Z on 21.08.2003 07:23]


#13

This is not entirely pointy, as I might say that one one hand, the technology is not new at all, and it’s not about selling something “top-tech” but using a support already there. It’s bloody simple to offer 20,000 songs for download :slight_smile: Hell, I even could offer such songs myself considerring my 150,000+ songs already on MP3 CDs! My idea: $.30 for “Top” songs (new albums, recent albums, singles, so on) but $.99 per song is appropriate for very rare songs. E.G. I am looking for songs never seen on any P2pnetwork, I could pay up to $5.00 per song if it should be available. Such service should include a database of requests, for sure… My request: makeem cheaper, for Lord’s sake!
[edited by war4peace on 21.08.2003 11:38]


#14

Seems I’m not the only one to think that $.99 is just way too much. An average album has anywhere from 8 to 20 tracks (yes, there are albums with 20 or even more tracks) so it would cost 8 to 20 dollars just to download it. On the other hand an average price for the same album at Wallmart/BB/Borders/whatever would be 10 to 15 dollars which is about the same if not less than you would have paid for downloading it. However if you download the album you won’t get fancy case, fancy artwork and 5-10 page booklet with it and I don’t even mention that downloaded music most likely will be compressed with some lame mp3 codec and will sound worse than the actual CD, so who in hell would want to pay the same price for less? It almost seems that all of this is just an elaborate plan to make us pay more for nothing. Think about it. First you think of a brilliant idea - let’s make our songs available for download for some fee. Second you get rid of competitors, in this case nicely examplified by RIAA sueing p2p networks as well as end users. By doing this you are not only getting rid of competitors but also force public to force you to legitimize the process where customer pays for downloading a song. It’s brilliant, don’t you think? You make public do all the work. Third, seemingly under the pressure from the puclic, you relactantly agree to make such a system, you tell them it costs millions and is marginally profitable (as some ppl here seem to think) but you do it anyway. You fool public into thinking that they made a difference, that they forced recording industry to create such service where you pay for downloading a song. But who profits from it? Music industry of course, not us. It costs nothing to create such service compared the all the savings on cases, artwork printing, pressing CDs and transporting the finished product to its destination. And the public bloated with a sense of accomplishment fails to notice they’ve been tricked. Brilliant, just brilliant… I’m not against paying for downloading songs. I would pay for them but only if the terms are acceptable, and that includes: 1.The price should be reasonable, $.25-.50 for a song is a reasonable price. $.99 is a ripoff compared to all the savings music industry gets. 2.The download speeds should be decent. 3.All the artwork and booklets should also be available for download for no additional fee. 4.Most important the music should be available in a lossless format such as monkey audio, not some lame 128Kbps mp3/WMA/OGG.
[edited by thyfleshconsumed on 21.08.2003 18:45]
[edited by thyfleshconsumed on 21.08.2003 18:46]


#15

I’ve just noticed something interesting… For the past year the majority of people have been saying that buying a cd in the shops is a rip off because there are only 2-3 songs you want and the rest are crap, but the majority of you now want to download the whole album. I think the system is quite clear, if you want a couple of tracks because the rest are crap then just get them, you could save quite a few bucks, or if you want the whole album then go to your favorite shop and buy the origional CD. Or an I missing something here…
[edited by petera on 21.08.2003 19:00]


#16

T4Z: k7.com It’s an independant label, mostly electronic. ::


#17

give the artists their moneys worth damnit all you cheap folks make me sick lol seriously nothings for free in the end wether we like it or not theres a price to pay, and stealing is one of them, a dollar IS NOT that expensive damnit, you guys disgust me sometimes… :S