andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker
Whilst I am terribly happy for Mr Jobs and the remaining members of The Beatles on their managing to successfully sign a contract, would someone care to explain to me why iTunes is selling the albums for more than Amazon?

(Sergeant Pepper's - £7.99 on Amazon, £10.99 on iTunes).

I know Apple users are terribly loyal, but is it really worth 25% of the cost not to have to deal with those old-fashioned plastic discs?

(I speak as someone who hasn't bought music in hard copy for about five years, and gets 99% of his music through Spotify nowadays, which I'm perfectly happy to pay £10/month to get ad-free and on my mobile phone.)

Date: 2010-11-16 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bart-calendar.livejournal.com
Also what Beatles fan hasn't already bought these songs in some format that they can download to their mp3 player?

Date: 2010-11-16 05:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com
Because it's been all over the news that they are available on iTunes and that you cannot download them anywhere else. Apple know that millions of people are going to pay to download them to their iPods, no matter what the price, and that even if they already own the music on vinyl/CD they will stipp buy it again because they are too lazy/incompetent to rip the CD.

Date: 2010-11-16 06:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com
Never underestimate the sheer gullability of Apple consumers...

Date: 2010-11-16 06:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] skington.livejournal.com
You get a bonus "making of" documentary for each album, though. It's not quite the same thing.

As for Spotify, the player, at least on Mac OS, tends to intermittently decide that it can't connect to the Internet (when everything else is fine), or announce that music I added to a playlist months ago is now no longer available. I much prefer, on those occasions when I decide I want new music, to buy a physical CD and rip it in lossless format, rather than rely on some third party to stream me music in a lossy format.

Date: 2010-11-16 06:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] andrewhickey.livejournal.com
The 'bonus' videos are on the remastered 'CD's (not actually conforming to the CD audio specs, hence the quotes) as well - at least the stereo versions (not the mono ones).
And while Spotify is lossy, if you're on a premium subscription it's 320kps ogg vorbis, which sounds pretty decent to me through computer speakers. And you can cache the music locally so don't need to connect to the net.

As for the original question, I think it's because the CDs are sold through many different suppliers so competition is in effect. The Beatles' CDs are meant to be always sold at new-release price, so they will be sold to Amazon or HMV on the assumption that they will be selling them for about thirteen quid - presumably Amazon eat the difference. Apple, by contrast, have a monopoly on digital versions of the Beatles' music, but they will also have entered into a contract with EMI/Apple Corps saying that they will treat them as new releases.

None of this will matter in a few years, though, as the Beatles' recordings (though not songs) start going out of copyright as of the end of 2012.

Date: 2010-11-16 08:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com
If people wanted "making of" features for albums or films in any real way (as opposed to an "oh I want to justify this purchase...aha, features I don't really care about are justification enough!") then they'd sell them separately too, because they can apparently justify a £3 or £4 pricetag going by rereleased albums and films that now having making of features, photo galleries and suchlike.

Date: 2010-11-16 08:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com
Wait, I paid to buy remastered versions of albums that I already owned, twice. Some of the songs on those albums, I've now bought five times. I don't think I can take part in this discussion due to being a colossal hypocrite if I am sarcastic about people paying over the odds for ~BEATLES DOWNLOADS OMG~

Date: 2010-11-16 08:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com
wait, six times actually. Oh god.

Date: 2010-11-16 06:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] poisonduk.livejournal.com
I got the USB key with all their albums last year for christmas, took me about five minutes to import into my iTunes, would never pay a tenner an album.

Date: 2010-11-16 06:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] andrewhickey.livejournal.com
Well, assuming the USB stick you got was the officially-released, legal one, whoever bought it for you did pay slightly over a tenner an album - it cost $270, which is £167.52, for thirteen albums plus the two Past Masters volumes...

Date: 2010-11-16 08:29 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
I assume you didn't see this almost identical post by Justin earlier?

A Beatles geek writes

Date: 2010-11-16 09:41 pm (UTC)
ext_58972: Mad! (Default)
From: [identity profile] autopope.livejournal.com
Whilst I am terribly happy for Mr Jobs and the remaining members of The Beatles on their managing to successfully sign a contract, would someone care to explain to me why iTunes is selling the albums for more than Amazon?

I can think of several possible reasons.

One is that Amazon may be selling the product as a loss-leader to draw in customers, by selling at wholesale price or even at a net loss. (It wouldn't be the first time they've done this.)

Another is that with agency model contracts -- which Apple run on -- the vendor (EMI? Or Apple Core?) set the price and APPL just takes a 30% cut. Whereas with wholesale contracts -- which Amazon run on -- the vendor figures out a likely suggested retail price, then haggles with the retailer to give them a discount. Amazon could well be buying the Beatles CDs or MP3s at a 70% discount, and are cutting their margins accordingly.

For example, suppose the SRP is £10 -- Apple get a £3.00 commission and the other £7.00 goes to the Beatles under the agency model. Whereas Amazon goes and arm-wrestles the record company and extorts a 70% discount. They then sell for £7. Of this, £4 is profit (which goes to Amazon), and £3 ends up going to the music publisher.

The public then see Amazon as the good guys ("they're cheaper"), and Apple as more expensive. But in reality, Apple is taking a smaller slice of the pie, while Amazon is strangling the artists (or their publisher) in order to deliver a small sweetener-discount to the consumer.

(The real threat to Amazon is that the publishers will wise up and, under the agency model, start discounting to compete with Amazon's pricing. And it's going to happen sooner rather than later. While much of the whining among the ebook reading public is along the lines of "iBooks are going to cost $15! But Kindle books are $10! This is awful!" what I'm hearing is that new titles will cost $15, while backlist items will be discounted sharply -- but in a way that protects the authors' royalty statements, unlike Amazon, who gouge the artists.)

Date: 2010-11-17 09:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] andrewhickey.livejournal.com
Exactly. There's also the problem that as far as the Beatles and their record company are concerned, they're big enough sellers that they're treated as 'new hit records' rather than catalogue releases (it's in the Beatles' contracts that their records never come down lower in price than EMI's new releases), but a shop like Amazon sees them as being back catalogue.

Date: 2010-11-16 11:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] errolwi.livejournal.com
Stuff Amazon vs Apple, as the MD of the ABC http://twitter.com/abcmarkscott tweeted:
The White Album in iTunes - US store $19.99; Australian store $35.99. How's that for parity of the dollar?

October 2025

S M T W T F S
    1 234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 2nd, 2025 03:14 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios