I appreciate the clarification on the markup, as I’ll remember that. Of course, if I would have said “increase from original cost,” I’d have been off the hook. No worries, either way. Regardless of overhead (which is a consideration, I just didn’t mention it) and other factors, having to see $20 US in some cases (going to places like Camelot music several years ago) for a CD when the cost is $1 is still ridiculous. This is even truer when now places sell the songs or album for about the same price they should have all along in B&M stores ($9.99), but now they don’t provide cover art, case, not even CD, yet an individual song is still .99 or more. The associated costs for use of paper, printing, shrink wrap, CD media, CD duplication and labeling have all been eliminated. Why does the price mysteriously “come down” to what it should have been? Coincidence? I seriously doubt it. I used to oppose use of the saying “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” but I’ve found in recent years this saying applies to nearly everything. Besides, even assuming all the “overhead” and other factors, it is not reasonable to charge ~ $20 for a $1 CD. Assuming companies would be willing to do so and be honest about it, why not tell the public how much of the pie goes to who and how much that adds to the $1 cost? Of course we’ll never hear that from any corporation, but the facts are still the facts: just as Steve Vai personally testified that “he made a ton of money” on his CD sold for $7.50 (that cost $2.50)–and especially since it did not sell hardly any in comparison to his Passion and Warfare album–the implications still remain that CD prices are wayyyy too high in relation to what they should be, mainly because of greed. Advertising? If the album is any good, it sells itself, therefore no paid advertising. Usually new releases of albums are willingly covered by shows in the U.S. like “Extra” or “E.T.” or other outlets, so in cases like those, no paid advertising required. The point is that the advertising isn’t necessary for every album, therefore if the company decides to promote the artist, that is not the consumer’s decision, and therefore, the consumer should not be stuck with the cost! That’s the label’s cost of doing business. Of course in “the real world,” others are “stuck” with such “costs” whether they incurred them or not, but that does not justify them nor make the practice right. Doug Gwyn said, “truth is not determined by majority vote,” and this certainly applies to general business practices like we discuss here. I’m all for people getting a reasonable profit (which is defined as ~10% after all factors are accounted for), but not when it’s “profit” at the expense of reasonable pricing. I’ll leave it at that.