Record sales are tanking, and there's no hope in sight: How it all went wrong

It's not possible to please everyone with every song in a 12+ track CD album.

Maybe you only really like 4 songs, and the rest are kinda "meh".
What if it's some one-hit wonder, so it really is just one good song on the entire album?
 
It's not possible to please everyone with every song in a 12+ track CD album.

Maybe you only really like 4 songs, and the rest are kinda "meh".
What if it's some one-hit wonder, so it really is just one good song on the entire album?
of course, but how are u going to know unless u hear them all.
i mentioned
(the following concerns real musicians or bands, ie not ppl that perform other ppls songs)
ie not an artist that has one good song + then does 10 other covers as filler

eg Sonic mentioned smashing pumpkins, theres a fair chance his favourite songs by them are not the most popular.
another mentioned pink floyd now they didnt release too many singles 2 spring to mind, 'money ' + 'another brick in the wall', personally i find these to be the worst on the respective albums
 
The assumption there is that you have to buy the entire album before you can find out what songs you don't like.

That isn't the case.

It's also not always true that it's one good song and 10+ filler tracks.
It's possible to like one song by an artist and not like a bunch of other ones, even if the artist really worked hard on them.

Let's say there is a 10-track album.

For ten buyers, it could be ten different favorite songs.

Why not have ten buyers buy their own favorite songs, instead of ten buyers being forced to buy a whole album, which amounts to 90 unwanted purchased songs?
 
It doesn't matter, people will pirate so much, the label size is irrelevant. Artists just wont get paid much.

i disagree. For the most part i think you'll find many people who own an ipod, for example, pay for pretty much all the music they have on it through itunes. Indeed things like Itunes have skyrocketed in popularity over the last year.

In my opinion the only thing that needs to be corrected is the amount of spending the companies do on any given artist as well as the cut they themselves take which is huge, they make way too much money. The big thing that even pushed piracy was the stupid 13-15$ CD costs when you only liked two or three of the songs. Legal online distribution has only started to catch on and correct that issue.
 
For the most part i think you'll find many people who own an ipod, for example, pay for pretty much all the music they have on it through itunes. Indeed things like Itunes have skyrocketed in popularity over the last year.
Many people, perhaps; for the most part, no. IIRC, around Christmas they said that there were an estimated 22 songs on each iPod that were bought from iTunes, then growing at a ratio of ~1.6 songs/Month.

On the point that the music industry is doomed because of our inherit unwillingness to pay, I agree with you though. Had they spent a bit more time trying to give the customer what they want, much less time attacking them, and less time still clinging to an outdated business model through legislative and technological means; I believe they could have flourished. Had it not been for the vast capital that is the back-catalogue, younger and more versatile entities probably would supplant them entirely.
 
There is simply NO justification for the prices upwards from 8-10 €/$ for a CD. No way in hell. A raw CD costs what, 10 cents? Add another 20 for the inlay and packaging, another 50 for the artist (and his/hers management). The rest is just for the greedy record company. The amount going into ads, promo etc. is maybe 1-2€ per album, about as much for the salaries and expenses.

So that leaves us with huge earnings of about at least 15€ for a CD costing 20€. This is sick and I'd rather die than support that blatant ripoff.

Also, I don't pirate music. I mostly buy used CD's or from abroad where the prices are still somewhat acceptable.

And to the big record companies: suck my balls, you greedy f'in idiots!

Records label don't earn all the much per CD. A large share of the final CD price ends up in the hands of the distributor and the retailer. Big record companies aren't as affected by this because they run their own distribution channels but nevertheless, retail takes a huge cut.

Smaller record labels have to either pay a distributor to get the CDs into the major retail channel or they have to directly deal with the questionable business practices of Amazon, Apple etc., who do their best to rip off smaller volume publishers and individual recording artists who try to publish their music themselves.

If a smaller volume publisher (who used to sell CD through the traditional specialized music mail order retailers) tries to sell CDs on Amazon, they often end up losing money. Amazon pays them significantly less and combined with the fact that some of the sales, that could have been made through other retailers, switch to Amazon often results in record labels earning less money while selling more CDs.

A few months ago, I asked a friend of mine, who runs a small Black Metal label, why none of the CDs are available on Amazon and he essentially told me that he'd go bancrupt within 3 months if the started to sell CDs through Amazon.

From what I've heard, the situation with iTunes is even more dire. For many small labels, selling music on iTunes means losing money because of lower sales in retail channels that actually offer a profit margin for the record label. And the "offline" retail market is utterly dominated by retail chains like Media Markt in Germany or Wal Mart in the USA, who aren't that much better than their eCommerce counterparts.

The only labels that can realistically survive under these conditions are those that can employ the economics of scale, i.e. exactly those labels who make their money by churning out inane shit for the masses - a business model that is rapidly failing.

So that's the current situation. Specialized reocrd stores have died a long time ago. The business model of large retailers (Amazon, Media Markt in Germany, Wal Mart in the US) favours large labels. The record labels' business model cannot be changed because you need to employ the economics of scale in order to earn any money under these conditions. So the music business is locked into a business model that is failing (i.e. produce high volume products for the masses instead of music as a cultural good).

Frankly, right now, I think the available retail channels are a HUGE part of the problem, and yes, that includes iTunes. They're as much of a problem as the major labels that have been devaluating music by producing inane shit. Also, the big record labels aren't all that bad. AT LEAST THEY PAY THE ARTISTS. Ripping off recording artists is much, much more common with small labels.

The problem is complex, there are shades of grey and it's not just TEH EBIL RECORD LABELS. I mean, look at the recent escalation of CD prices at Amazon.de. Many new CDs now have a price tag of €19.95. And I KNOW that it's not the labels doing this because you can buy the same CDs elsewhere for €15.

The heavyweight retailers are constantly driving up prices, they have blocked ALL attempts by labels to lower the retail prices of CDs (and there have been numerous attempts), which, realistically, can only be done when labels, distributors and retailers work together. As long as the retailers don't play along (and they never will), CDs won't get any cheaper. In fact, the retailers escalate CD prices whenever they can get away with, while milking the labels and artists for what they're worth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By far the largest chunk of cash goes to the publisher. When I worked at the head office of one of the big UK retailers, although they took a big chunk of the retail price, they made much less profit than the publisher. The retailer has much higher overheads just in running a store and keeping stock. It certainly wasn't the retailer that pushed prices up, and price rises only happened when publishers put their prices up.

In fact there was so much competition in the market (especially on big selling titles), that retail margins were slashed to the bone. You only made money if the people buying the big hits also bought some of the back catalogue you stocked. Chart CDs were almost loss leaders, and sometimes actual loss leaders.
 
By far the largest chunk of cash goes to the publisher. When I worked at the head office of one of the big UK retailers, although they took a big chunk of the retail price, they made much less profit than the publisher. The retailer has much higher overheads just in running a store and keeping stock. It certainly wasn't the retailer that pushed prices up, and price rises only happened when publishers put their prices up.

In fact there was so much competition in the market (especially on big selling titles), that retail margins were slashed to the bone. You only made money if the people buying the big hits also bought some of the back catalogue you stocked. Chart CDs were almost loss leaders, and sometimes actual loss leaders.

Interesting. From what I've been told by people who work for smaller or medium sized publishers (who don't really have these huge selling titles), the publisher prices have remained stagnant for more than a decade.

Maybe in the world of the major labels, things work out differently, but the record labels that actually do all the leg work of building up, promoting and supporting new artists, sending them on tour (often at a loss) etc. don't really have all that much (or any) leeway for lowering prices.

IIRC, CDs are sold to the retailer at around €11-12. Large retailers like Media Markt, Amazon etc. (the few 800-pound gorillas that control up to 80% of the market) are leveraging their market power to get substantial rebates, 10-20%. So we end up with ~€10.

Then we have to subtract the margin of the distributor (20-30%, depending on volume). Ultimately, what ends up at the publisher is about €7.

Let's say production costs are €1, another Euro goes to the artist and the copyright collecting agency each. That leaves €4 for the label, which has to cover their fixed costs, employee salaries, all promotion and marketing activities, cover artwork, subsidized support tours etc. - and what's left is profit.

There just isn't all that much room for publishers to lower prices. Big publishers can probably do it but let's be realistic here: even if they lowered their profit margins by 1/3, that would maybe slash €1 from the final CD price. Unless distributors and retailers do the same, CD prices will remain high - and it doesn't look like retailers are particularly interested, judging from the recent Amazon.de CD price hike (with some CD prices now up to €20).
 
I know the most famous record store in Canada closed down recently, namely, Sam the Record Man. Today they were auctioning off their collectible merchandise, such as gold/platinum/diamond records, autographs and artwork. At least the facade is being preserved, as the building has been designated a historical site. Still, it's a great shame.

Even so, I will savour the blood of the major labels.
 
DVD's will go the same way. Just wait....

And yes, it's much more convenient to buy songs online. Why? nowdays a CD has of 15tracks might have 5 that you'll actually like. Often times, even less. At this point, it's cheaper to buy and you don't have to worry about scratching or losing the disc (happens to me ALL the time).
 
It's not possible to please everyone with every song in a 12+ track CD album.

There is a clearly visible (audiable) difference between songs and fillers.

L233: it's rather the opposite from what I know, the retailers have small margins but the publishers get the big ones. A good friend of mine works at Nuclear Blast in the marketing (which is located just a few miles from here), they make a shitload of money right now and have VERY healthy margins and they're not even a big publisher compared to Sony etc. I know that they could substantialy lower the prices if they so wished.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The artists themselves end up getting the short end of the stick for their own work. Artists often time get an advance for an album but with that have to pay all the engineers, producers, and whatever staff is needed to make and record the album. They then have to pay the record company back form the sales that are made form the album. But in a way, this lets the record label have some control over the artist and the direction they take.
Great point here.

That reminds me of this article Courtney Love wrote a few years ago.

Give it a read, it tackles the issues we discussed in this thread and adds some insider info about the way majors handles contracts.
 
An article from today. No mention of piracy, it's all about competition from cheaper and leaner businesses like online suppliers, electronic download, and supermarkets (who really know how to squeeze their suppliers). Note that HMV's profits went down despite an increase in sales.

Record companies wanted their "units" into all mass market channels, and now they are dying by the same sword. Music, instead of being a fan thing to be cherished, an expression of who you are, or a link to a time or feeling in your life, is now just another commodity thrown into your shopping basket along with the loaf of bread, bought as a ringtone, or played in a tv commercial.

With that comes all the price pressure from the mass market channels like the giant supermarket. The HMVs of the world will not be able to survive against those much tougher opponents, and their ability to supply back-catalogue will disappear as they do. No more browsing for back catalogue in their stores, just buying new "product" in the limited supermarkets.

It's no wonder that people actually interested in music are either going to gigs, or choosing their own specific tracks and titles from the e-stores or web downloads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great point here.

That reminds me of this article Courtney Love wrote a few years ago.

Give it a read, it tackles the issues we discussed in this thread and adds some insider info about the way majors handles contracts.

This is pretty much why publishers are afraid of electronic download. It erodes their position of control as the middleman, and once that's gone, their lose their ability to scam the public and cheat the artists. It's all about keeping an iron fist on how the industry works, and the money that rolls in because of it.

If all you needed to sell your music was a website, what would you need the publisher for? If all you needed to buy an artist's music was the link to their website, what would you need the publisher for? The answer is... nothing.
 
There is a clearly visible (audiable) difference between songs and fillers.

Because you say there is?
That's only true until you find someone who likes the track you designate as filler.
If the group has any level of professionalism, you won't know if they just threw it on because they needed to kill time or if they were enthusiastic about it.

The only real determining factor is the intent of the people making the album.

Are there cases where it seems clear that a given track didn't get their full energy?
Sure, but maybe that weird conceptual track is part of their artistic intent, not just to fill up space.
 
That's not what I meant. It's clearly distinguishable if it's just a bunch of parts/riffs slapped together with no deeper sense or not, at least for any musician/composer. Of course you could still say "that was intended to be like that", but that is usually rather a half-arsed explanation.
 
Your assumption is that talentless thrashing is the only thing that can be filler.
That is a rather narrow view, one that would probably miss a lot of throwaway songs or covers that a group with some amount of talent could pull off with convincing sincerity.

The problem is judging intent such in corner cases.
Some songs we may consider throwaway may not have been considered as such by the people that made them, and the inverse may be true as well.

If a song was not put in the CD with the intent of padding the number of tracks, then it isn't filler.
It may suck, and it may be without talent, but it's not filler.

There are obvious cases, and non-obvious ones.


It's also not important for the point I was making, which is that it is impossible to produce a CD with over a dozen tracks in which every track is wanted by every buyer.
Different people might want to buy only certain songs on a CD.
It doesn't matter if one of them wants to get a song that the band poured its collective soul into, and another person just wants to buy a "filler" track.
 
how do u know what are the 1-3 good songs?
true for pop acts the 'good' stuff is what gets the airplay cause some guy in a suit ;+) has deemed it as worthy, but what if the song doesnt fit the 'standards' eg not 3-4 minutes long etc

I'd say experience with past albums. With Naptser you were able to listen to songs and pick and choose, much like iTunes.

Plus if you buy a bad mp3 you are out 1-2 bucks, not 15+.
 
Back
Top