Is pricing killing the vinyl resurgence?

That may also account for why their is a "Fad" or whatever word we want to use. It "Appears" to be something special if it is higher priced.

 

I had to exchange several of the KISS titles. Some I just lived with. The Beatles ones, almost perfect first shot. Also take into consideration that The Beatles records were imported from Germany and the KISS ones came locally (US). Given all these factors you would think the Beatles box would have sold for more money than the KISS records.

 

I think it is a bit of a fad that will likely not grow. I also think it will revert back almost entirely to a used market. I get the impression that right now it is mostly a college campus centered thing. Or at least centered on that age demographic.
The reality is that downloading music is just to convenient for consumers to ignore.
Which, don't get me wrong, I don't download music. It is something I have no interest in.
But realistically, the music industry can make far more money selling music that has no physical format. The cost of simply maintaining a web site or paying someone else to in order to sell music is FAR less than the cost of the manpower, materials, production, transportation, as well as the added markup of the end seller.
My point being that the music industry can make a huge profit on the relatively low cost of doing business of downloading as opposed to making and moving physical objects for sale. Labels have very little incentive to make hard copies of anything outside of an intense enough demand for them not to ignore.
Also, I suspect all it would take for the new vinyl market to go away is any extended dip in sales. I don't think the industry would tolerate a slump in vinyl demand very long at all.
I hope that is not the case, but given the fall of the importance of music in general and the huge abundance of easily obtainable music, I have got to wonder if the audiophile market will stay big enough to support vinyl, and even if audiophiles will stick with vinyl for long.

 

If people want to continue buying overpriced vinyl for it's supposed "collectibility", then go for it. If having if on vinyl is a "must have", then clearly they will charge whatever price necessary to keep the sales going.

I love vinyl, but refuse to pay these premiums for what is the same music as the cd.

Most of the independent labels/artists I listen to, sell their vinyl for a reasonable price. Yes, more than cd, but not that much more.

Neil Young is horrible for this, wasn't his 3lp album $80 or something? But clearly people will accept nothing else but vinyl, and so you're going to have to accept those prices for certain releases.

 

Online--all from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.

 

I started a previous thread about recent price rise of vinyl at Amazon. Until about 6-12 months ago I would say their prices were pretty fair but recently they are getting to the max limit of acceptability. I will still pay £24 for a double Lp I really want but these prices are close to product from the audiophile labels which remain around £26 except Mo-Fi which are £32 over here for a single LP.

I was paying £25 for audiophile label releases such as DCC, MO-Fi and Speakers Corner 20 years ago when standard LPs were £10 or under. This makes the releases from specialist labels good value today but may explain why so many titles are now 45 rpm doubles. An attempt to maintain profit margins as they can then charge around £50. It's now often cheaper to purchase standard releases (of which most boast 180g to justify cost) from independent dealers. 180 -200g does not make a pressing audiophile unless it's from a specialist label that maintains top quality mastering and pressing.

 

For KISS,you need to stick with original pressings,they are not that expensive.

 

It is for me.

 

Yeah, unless a reissue is much better sounding, or the original LP is very expensive/hard to find, then the original pressing is the way to go for any release.

 

I think one of the reasons for the disparity between CDs and LPs is the difference in manufacturing costs and return risks. CDs rarely get returned for defects so the industry doesn't have to deal with that a lot. I always felt that CDs were over priced when they started heading north of $15. I can't help but think that the music industry didn't want to lower the price of CDs because they needed to make more on each unit because of the loss of revenue from illegal d/l. Once vinyl took off they had a new/old cash cow to work with and that was followed by a continuing downward spiral in cd prices.
If the industry isn't ready to toss out the cd format then lowering the price might help reverse some of the illegal d/l.
They have a lot more cushion with cd pricing than vinyl. While I don't like paying $25 or more for a new release on vinyl, it is probably closer to the true price (mfgr + reasonable profit) than CDs and since I prefer vinyl over CDs for the most part, I find ways to reduce MY cost. I've also said no to individual titles when I think they are overpriced, Neil Young's lp recorded in the booth for instance. It is a fun experiment for him but from what I've read, SQ is not very good relative to his other releases so why would I want to pay top dollar for something that doesn't sound good?
That album is a real test for his fan's loyalty imo. I have followed Neil since his early days and he's a favorite artist of mine but I do not buy everything he releases.

 

I agree somewhat, but other than "Being" a physical product, is there any real advantage to a physical product, over a download really?

Asking more in thought, as I have a huge CD collection, but since putting most of them onto my one comp and MP3 player, find them just sitting there..

 

Play it. I have an original pressing of Songs of Leonard Cohen and it sounds great. I'm not saying the CDs sound bad, but the LP is really good. In the case of Tracy Chapman, not so much of a difference to my ears. It was a digital recording anyhow, and the CD is very dynamic, whatever edition you get (I don't think it was remastered, but just to make sure, look for an early matrix).

Most of my digital buys are collectable CDs, old OOP masterings, and the odd SACD. There are some releases where I would easily op for the LP.

 

Many of the reissues are just as good or better and much easier to find in NM condition.

 

The industry doesn't have to deal with a lot of of defects,since they don't deal with ANY defects.They stopped taking defective CDs,for any reason(including switched titles,duplicate CD in multiple CD sets,missing booklets,etc.)probably 25 years ago.CDs were over priced almost after whatever research costs were made and price structured towards popular product consistently.Throughout the history of CDs,MCA bumped cost of catalog stalwarts like Jimmy Buffet's Greatest Hits(clocking in under 45 minutes)to top or near top pricing tiers.Their response?:"How any do you want to buy?"Check a Billboard list of top catalog product from the Soundscan era and notice the suggested retail price on many(Capitol Pink Floyd,Doors GH,Eagles GH).Some of these jumped from mid-line($11.98)to top line($15.98+) overnight as manufacturing,distribution,etc. went down.All of this years before downloads existed.
It is true that the CD was a far more profit center for the labels than the sellers.CDs gave only a 30% mark-up to stores while vinyl held at least a 50% markup for stores using SRP.Add to that the ongoing lowballers,now super operations like Best Buy & Wal-Mart going beyond the vinyl era of discount operations like Two Guys or even Sam Goody on a sale day.And the labels gave extra promotional monies to the big operations with co-op ads and product placement(those cool posters didin't go up in a chaim operation until money changed hands).
Add to that the ongoing switch of catalog CDs going to the label's Special Product division.That's the bulk of the $5-7 stuff you see in Barnes & Noble & Wal-Mart's bins.Part of the reason they sell so cheap is that B&N and the rest must buy boxlots(30 of the same title)and can never return them,no matter what.This places these titles out of the reach of mom & pop operations where more than one of a title is a hardship.
As for new vinyl,the ball is in the manufacturer's court,as it always was.They take nothing back,sealed,opened or defective,do not compensate for future lower costs.They also try not to go back to the well to repress,hence the "limited edition" concept.It's as if the manufacturers have taken the behind the scenes idea of Record Store Day(limited pressings,heavier pseudo audiophile packaging,high costs and spread the bad around to all retailers.The only saving grace for the store is that they now have the old 50% cushion back,but the risk is much higher than a generation ago.

 

If you are using Amazon to compare prices with small independent music stores then your logic is flawed. Same as if you used Walmart or any other large chain/big box store. Through their large purchase power they can usually sell cheaper than an independent can buy from their source. So if you say too bad, Amazon or my local Walmart is where I will shop for music, fine. What I'df those places stop selling music or they raise their prices after the brick and mortar shops go out of business? We're already seeing it with Target and Walmart pulling way back on music as it is no longer a big money maker or even an enticement to draw customers in the store. Large businesses that sell a lot of different products can afford to sell some things at cost or a little over or even under and shift the profit to other items.
Music stores care about music. Amazon and Walmart don't, especially if it doesn't earn them income or get a customer to visit their store or website. There are hidden costs that some people don't either don't think about or it doesn't matter to them. The less competition, the less a company feels a need to compete by improving product or lowering prices.

 

Other than the obvious advantage of sound quality, there is the advantage of the artwork, of having a physical copy and not having to take the time and resources to make your own physical copy from the download. and of course the security of having an actual physical copy that cannot be lost on a bad hard drive or peripheral.
The only real down side of physical product is that it takes up space and has to be kept clean, or in a piece of furniture that needs dusted now and then.

 

I think most people who down load don't burn discs. They stick it on their phone or other device but unless they don't have a docking station of some kind in their car if they own a car, they have little use for a cdr. Now I would burn a cdr but that is me and I'm much older. I do like physical product although I do own a SanDisk player for mobile purposes so I do a little of that but I change out my music regularly. I think mine holds 8Gb which is plenty for my uses and I don't mind deleting stuff and changing music. I know I'm in the minority though.

 

First, vinyl will not be the way that most consumers enjoy music, whatever the price (even if it was free). Second, reducing prices doesn't necessarily mean an increase in sales. In fact, reducing prices could actually reduce sales if your product is now perceived as inferior to comparable products. Third, what exactly is a reasonable price. I can understand someone questioning $65 for one LP (I was put off by the £35 price tag on Built to Spill's Ultimate Alternative Wavers), but $15-$20. The OP has CDs marked up at around £10.

 

$10 for CDS
$20 for Vinyl
Seems about right.

 

Sick and tired of reading some comments about the money grab factor. These people probably have no idea what it's like to produce an album, master it, manufacture it, market it, ship it...

Do you have any idea how much it costs to manufacture a CD vs how much it costs for an LP?

LP's are 2.5 times more expensive to make than CD's. And that's "regular" 150g LP's with single sleeves printed on regular cardboard. If you move up to 180g, package it in 350g cardboard and do an insert in a gatefold, you go through the roof.
Then shipping is more expensive too.

So I know in my recent release's case, it's not a money grab like some on this thread are saying, it's the opposite: my wholesale price for Dubrising is $8 and it costs me $7 all in to make and ship. How about that for a money grab???

 

But for the most part they don't sound as good as the new reissues do.

 

Great stuff !

Same with tubes and tube amps. Some things just seem so right on some level, that no "progress" or "convenience" can totally kill them.

 

Charging $35 for a single LP release is a money grab. $20-$25 is reasonable.

 

Most of those new LPs come with a free CD, so you should detract the $ 10 or whatever peanuts cost a CD is worth today ..... makes it $ 20 - $ 25 and reasonable.

 

I am glad that some of those new limited LP runs are priced at a premium, so that I at least stand a chance of grabbing a copy before they go OOP in a few days - see some Neil Young LPs

Were they priced at $ 9.99 some a****** would buy tens of copies in the first seconds after being available and then resell at $ 50 - $ 100 apiece months later .........see concert tix