|
|
|
Some distributors, labels angry over 99-cent Lady Gaga album sale on Amazon
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 11 June, 2011
On May 23rd, Lady Gaga released her much-hyped album "Born This Way," and Amazon quickly dropped the price of the digital album to 99 cents, bringing a huge amount of press to the company's MP3 store.
In fact, the deal went so well that "Born This Way" sold 1.1 million units in its first week (massive by 2011 standards) with 662,000 of those copies being digital.
There was so much ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
baxter00
Member
|
11. June 2011 @ 23:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Finally, the record industry got the big one right in the *ss. It's nice to see a recording artist that actually does the work FOR the fans, and not the label.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Member
|
12. June 2011 @ 01:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
U get more ppl to buy .99 cents album than freaking 10+ dollars u P.O.S label companies.
Being nice always has its own consequences
|
|
gnovak1
Member
|
12. June 2011 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
From what i'm hearing about this album from Lady Gaga fans, 99 cents is all it's worth.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
12. June 2011 @ 11:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Remember folks, Amazon & the record label is going to be taking "all" of the money (however small) from that sale. Lady Gaga, I don't give a shit what your view of her is, won't see a cent from that cluster sale. That's why you're hearing such a pissin & moanin festival. Like the public is going to feel 'sorry' for them. The suits are whining because they can't buy god for the 158th time this week off another artist.
I've worked in the industry & blogged about it; I offer that you folks look it up. That's why Gaga isn't having a shit fit about the whole torrid affair. She still has a contract for the label to pay for her touring dates and such. That's because it's the "ONLY" time music artists make any money; when they perform 'live'.
So am I giggling like a third grader that has put Ex-lax on the school principal's morning pastries? You're damn right! Corporate leeches have been bleeding artists AND their customers dry for years. A dose of gross public humility for everyone in our society (in the US can't speak for the rest of the world) would probably be a good thing right about now.
|
Junior Member
|
12. June 2011 @ 11:54 |
Link to this message
|
I can't believe these idiots are still trying to sell CD's. The CD is dead! At least when it comes to large scale music sales.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
12. June 2011 @ 13:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ghostofamzn:
You sir, are dumb. The labels and gaga made their standard money off this ($8.40 wholesale price sold to Amazon and Gaga taking .60-1.00 for her cut. Amazon is the only person who took a loss on this deal and they did it specifically to gain more customers and traffic to Amazon MP3.
EVERYBODY won on this deal. Indie distributors are mad because they cannot afford to take a 7.41 loss per cd sale like Amazon can.
OK, I'll stand corrected on the original delineation of funds. You're right, "to a point"; so prepare for your high colonic as you sir DO NOT know what you write entirely about.
Yes, Amazon lost out on 'physical' sales. Clerical errors happen like that and somebody is going to take a severe beating of sorts for it too.
Nobody made $8.40 per album. You are daft. Plain and simple. There was no check cut for that much. What class in Economics 101 did you fail to learn that in? Even if the Album went for that, that means the COST (once again "I" teach), COST PER ALBUM (which means "no one" MAKES anything) is $2.80 (1/3 the quoted price you stated = cost)... Your math is grossly failed.
So I will go ahead and bow out of your "dumb" comment from you and continue with obliterating your diatribe of the music industry economics lesson for my 30+ years real world lesson...
So, NOW that we know a real world wholesale price to retail stores of music cds are around $2.80 which is actually WRONG, wholesale is sold in units, wholesale to Amazon being global I'm guessing here was probably closer to $1.80 +/- .05. How else do you think Wally world can take a $20 CD one day & mark it down to $5 and sell it to you? Do you "think" their actually going to sell you something & NOT make any money... please.
Yes, folks won out on their purchases, and I celebrate with them.
But "you" know SHITE about royalties & how they are paid to recording artists. .60 to a $1 per album!?! I guffaw literally at you. This is Gaga's sophomore album with the label. She may have one more before her contract is up. AT BEST... PER ALBUM... MAYBE... liberal figure, best girl on the planet and Christmas morning, .17 cents per album. LESS if she had it written into her contract that she keeps the rights to all her songs and I doubt that she does. This IS industry standard!
Most bands get .07 per album... those being one hit wonders. Folks that labels figure will only get one really good album out of, at best, will get .12 per album and them try a second album that usually goes nowhere.
How do the labels 'know' when artists like Gaga (or anyone for that matter) come around? Unlike you Ghostofamzn, they don't look at the cloths, the makeup or the immediate dialog. They look at the whole picture and surmise the statistics. Not to mention, like me, they've been at it a really gyotdamn long time!
Lesson done...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. June 2011 @ 13:10
|
|
dEwMe
Senior Member
|
12. June 2011 @ 14:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Meh...I can't believe it sold so many. I personaly can't stand her music...I must be getting old (thank God!!!!)
Just my $0.02,
dEwMe
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
12. June 2011 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
All music should go to this model...$1 for an album is about right; if all albums were like that, it would be the end of piracy (assuming it isn't loaded down with DRM...DRM always causes piracy). It would also help the performers more than anything. They make most of their money touring...and touring needs fans. Most people won't pay $15-25 for a CD from a band that they don't know...but paying $1 to get the same album as a download is no big deal. Lady Gaga was already famous, but just imagine how many new fans were created by people saying, "Hey, I have heard of her...only $1? Sure, why not?"
|
|
ps355528
Senior Member
|
12. June 2011 @ 20:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
again in English?
|
|
patrick_
Junior Member
|
13. June 2011 @ 04:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
so an album cost 5,98USD to Amazon. Finally I know their gross margin.
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
13. June 2011 @ 09:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
To all the labels angry about Amazon's slick marketing method......
F YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!!!!
Go Amazon. This is jealously at its finest.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. June 2011 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ candsixx and patrick_ did the IQs just drop in relation to the water levels rising next to the river basins? Take a High School economics class... the cost of an album is not what you seem to think it is. Nor is "WISHING" for it to be; that isn't going to make it so either.
As I'm sure your folks have been trying to tell you for years, "the world is a cruel place" and the Music Industry is one of the cruelest.
So again, Eco 101... In order to MAKE money selling something... after having put everything you've got in producing something (materials, time, electricity, rent, ect...) you take all that money and multiply that times 3. That figure is the bare bones minimum amount of money you need to make JUST to "break even". I.e., an item ends up costing .10 cents, you have to sell those items for .30 cents to break even. So most companies usually multiply by 4, so they have some wiggle room.
The Entertainment Industry multiplies by 1000. This is because literally only 1 in 10,000 ever hit like a Gaga or Elvis or Michael Jackson. Plus the greed factor is just so legendary a heroin eight ball with a black hole fellatio chaser just can't touch it. Soooooooo, an album really costs about.35 cents (+/- .08) to make (because they'll whore the bulk of physical production out to China or India) and crank out a bigger profit. Remember, I said they're cruel and I damn well meant it.
So for gods sake stay in school, one of you need it...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2011 @ 12:10
|
|
patrick_
Junior Member
|
13. June 2011 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
You're IQ must be less than half of mine. You seem to know economics, but too bad you suck at math - or you don't understand the word "cost".
$3.3 million on promotion (loss) + 99c for each digital sale, having a total of 662,000 digital sales, gives 5,98USD each.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. June 2011 @ 14:26 |
Link to this message
|
Both of you are so delusional they're going to have to put full faced padded masks on you two at the funny farm to keep you from 3rd degree burns from the window licking...
Do you even read the garbage you're writing? $8.40? and this quantifiable fact is from where? Left or right side of your colon? That is a made up charge, stated publicly so as to be claimed as the TOTAL LOSS for TAX PURPOSES. So "ghost", one without even a new education of a year, you should care...
patrick_ pull your head out of the tight fitting gromit you're stuck into... We're not talking about digital sales moron... physical CDs here... something you hold onto... hate me for the right reasons. Digital sales have "NO VALUE", they are of "theoretical value" only.
ghost... I haven't forgotten about you... "If they are buying at $8.40, and selling at $.99, they are taking a loss of $7.41 per unit sold. Surely you must still be following?" No shit!?! I think I can do simple math. I mentioned that early on. re-quoting me isn't helping your case.
Had you bothered to READ, NOBODY, that's a NO with a BODY attached to it. Alluding to the possibility that persons of a negative count... pay that kind of money up front per unit for a dying medium to be shipped across any country!!! Especially when any finger banging moron can have instant gratification by going down the street and have it for "X" amount of difference at another store. Wake up!!!
Don't sell us on your education, you're not.
As for Gaga giving a shit, I can't speak for her, I don't work for her. But having worked for 'some' bands in the past, they get pissed & hurt really quick and touring doesn't make it all go away. Album sales (when it all continues to go into the label's pocket) does nothing but remind the artist of that fact.
And for your information I have a PHD in life. I dare you to walk even a quarter of a mile in my shoes.
So... 1. Stand. 2. I am correct. It'll be hard to get tax records from these bastards to prove a point, but I might be able to find recording artists who'll back my claims. 3. I also have R&R swag, T-shirts, scars, DD2-14 & diplomas... what have you got? And I do care, just not for the labels.
|
|
patrick_
Junior Member
|
13. June 2011 @ 14:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Do you "think" their actually going to sell you something & NOT make any money... please.
So in economics they didn't explain you the concept of clearing stock??
Originally posted by LordRuss:
We're not talking about digital sales moron...
So you didn't read the article, or your memory can't keep thing more than 3 seconds
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Digital sales have "NO VALUE", they are of "theoretical value" only.
once again, did you really study economics?? No value? Only theoretical value? I'm sorry but I rather teach economics to my dog, because he understands better than you do.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. June 2011 @ 15:11 |
Link to this message
|
Oh patrick, or Dr. Dolittle (whichever) Amazon doesn't have a warehouse, so their little SNAFU screwed "distributers". So your 'clearing stock' idea was going to be a good argument, but sadly fell into Rover's water dish. Amazon set up the purchase plan for the "distributors" to buy the CDs & then distribute them. Then Amazon gets a cut. That's how this .Com thing works or did you think this works another way?
Moving on... Or am I moving to slow for you?
Theoretical Value... Your ego... It has no value to me. Some would say the same of your soul, thus it is theoretical. To sell me your soul would be of what value?
You replied to my cascade of valid retorts to your nonsensical points in reply to the forum, with nothing more than a nonsensical response other than to share a domicile with a quadruped with which you can carry an equally interesting conversation and then offer this as a lesson to me in Theoretical Value. A lesson in what prey tell?
Just stop now, before you embarrass yourself. You don't even need me for the job patrick. Let's not even go into spell check or proof reading or any other such nonsense of educational banter that hurts everybody's feelings.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2011 @ 15:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
13. June 2011 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Oh patrick, or Dr. Dolittle (whichever) Amazon doesn't have a warehouse
I guess that is technically true; they don't have A warehouse; they have many warehouses...even ignoring the digital warehouses (AKA file servers).
Also, the value of a digital download is only theoretical before purchase. Once a purchase is made, it is no longer theoretical.
Obviously this isn't good for distributors, and I can certainly understand their anger. It isn't even about this one event tho...they are mad because they know that their business is outdated, and that it is only a matter of time before they are nothing but a footnote on a Wikipedia page about the history of music distribution. They really have little hope; some might start selling vinyl albums as decoration...others might start catering to extreme specialty markets. One of our local CD shops recently gutted more than half the store and turned it into a small venue for live performances...the front is full of music from local artists and shirts, stickers, etc...they are not getting rich, but they are not closing down either. Oh, and this did not affect them at all...Lady Gaga is not a local artist.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. June 2011 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ghostofamzn:
AMAZON BOUGHT DIGITAL, NOT PHYSICAL CDS. Why does this simple fact seem to continually escape you. THEY BOUGHT DIGITAL ALBUMS AT $8.40 WHOLESALE PRICE.
Apologies to the mods for the CAPS parade but our resident jester "LordRuss" can't seem to understand even the most basic facts.
The original sourced article (THR) says Amazon sold 443,000 digital albums at 99 cents and took a loss of almost $3.3 million.
Let's throw some more simple math up there. 3.3 million-ish / 443,000 sold = $7.42, so I apologize, the actual wholesale price was $8.41, I missed a cent there.
if you care to continue with your window licking and continue to make yourself look like an idiot, by all means.
OK, I'll bow on the digital faux paux, somewhere in translation some wires got crossed and I got mixed between physical CDs and digital... But you aloofness can go up your ass about your one cent. Fuzzy math was used in hopes of simply moving the story forward. Massive amounts of information dictate time & this generation seem to lack the attention span. So your use of 'ish' seems to put you in my field. Is that up or down?
Phoenix was actually the school of hard knocks & your use of a thesaurus is exemplary, so let's move on...
I looked this up link and the only thing I can tell you (oh shit, I guess you'll just have to take my word) from experience, from my sources this statement was made for the public so the consequential sales would seem appropriate.
This is typical sales people. Nothing more. Store sales will suffer if on lines sale beat retail. Why do you think distributers are raising hell? But Noooo, LordRuss is an idiot & a dumbass, he don't know shit, he got his edumuhcation from Crisco... F*&$*& tards...
Amazon Lost very little. It is all Theoretical Value. No "real" money has changed hands at the moment. The retail Cds are going to take a beating though. Which may be immaterial for this particular forum.
So, NO. To take what was written in the article at THR or TWP as complete gospel is foolish and you were completely naive for doing so. Was I errant in part of fact? Yup.
Will I apologize? Who in here knows me?
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. June 2011 @ 16:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Oh patrick, or Dr. Dolittle (whichever) Amazon doesn't have a warehouse
I guess that is technically true; they don't have A warehouse; they have many warehouses...even ignoring the digital warehouses (AKA file servers).
Also, the value of a digital download is only theoretical before purchase. Once a purchase is made, it is no longer theoretical.
Weeeeellll... yeah... now the theoretical starts to take on another argument. I mean, the music you download really doesn't get downloaded per se, the ones & zeros are duplicated to your HDD in the exact order. Once completed the computer then uses those ones and zeros to tell the computer that the mess is a song. So was it really a song or a mess of 1's & 0's?
Now the debate begins, or the debate has begun, but has it ended? Or did everybody get pissed off like they did with the egg and chicken debate and throw it into the back of the closet?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
ghostofamzn
Newbie
|
13. June 2011 @ 16:35 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Amazon Lost very little. It is all Theoretical Value. No "real" money has changed hands at the moment. The retail Cds are going to take a beating though. Which may be immaterial for this particular forum.
After this I'm done with the convo because clearly "Lord" Russ lives in a fantasy world where millions of "theoretical" dollars exchange hands and no one ever makes any money since stuff trades on rainbows and unicorns.
Amazon paid fucking $8.41 per digital album from Universal. This was paid to Universal in real dollars. Digital sales don't have "theoretical value." They have REAL value. Surely this is a concept your fancy PhD mind can handle. There is no "theoretical value" here, and your absolutely hilarious quoted text above shows that you have no idea how the world works.
Amazon doesn't get to just say "Hey Universal, I think that lady gaga album is worth $1.14, so that is all I am going to pay you for it." NO. Universal sets a price and Amazon, Apple, Spotify, whoever, pays that price.
ILL SPELL THIS OUT ONE MORE TIME. AMAZON PAID REAL MONEY TO UNIVERSAL. I have no idea what world you live in where a company can offer content and not pay for it.
One final point, the fact that you think "rudimentary" is a thesaurus word is laughable and really hurts your "story" of having a PhD. I'm starting to think your PhD is "theoretical"...
|
|
