New figures out: 7% decline in sales

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by syogusr, Aug 28, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden MichiGort Staff

    Location:
    Livonia, MI
    I honestly believe that the effective shut-downs of these sites reduced the number of casual downloaders substantially, but these people were probably CD buyers anyway. I think the download-addicted high school or college kid who would not know the cost of anything but blank CD-Rs were an active subset who moved on to other things as you say. I also think it all amounted to the RIAA wasting a lot of their own money tilting at windmills and effectively destroying a medium they could have been using to promote product if they had an ounce of imagination. Ah well...

    Regards,
     
  2. syogusr

    syogusr New Member Thread Starter

    Jeffery: Last night: CNN, MSNBC, HEADLINE NEWS.

    Go to Billboard.com, click on More Daily News, look for the date August 27, 2002, there you will see a link, I noticed that in this partial news story, they do not mention music quality. I guess that Billboard being the 'bible' of the industry, this is a rather embarrassing topic! But I heard this mentioned many times. I do not hear things (yet)!!, and I NEVER make things up. And, you have to believe SOME things you hear, right?:)

    Also, on a brighter note, there is mention of a new U2 single called 'Electrical Storm' Has anyone heard it yet??
     
  3. Claviusb

    Claviusb A Serious Man

    Joe six-pack walks into Best Buy on Tuesday.

    Hmmm.... let's see what's new... same old Britney... Christina... tons of N Sync... All of these CDs are $14.99 or more... $15!! For that I can buy the latest 2 DVD special edition of something. Screw that noise!

    ...walks over to DVD aisle...

    Oh man, there's a new DVD of Gump Fiction with director commentary!! And Reservoir Hogs! Woohoo! Enough shopping for me today...
     
  4. Jeffrey

    Jeffrey Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    South Texas
    Hi,

    I think we just did a 360 b/c you mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that the source of the CNN story was the RIAA. I bet the RIAA was the source of all these stories.

    As you stated earlier, you believe every bit of it..... all I'm saying is I don't believe that everything stated by the sources you cited is a fact.

    -Jeffrey
     
  5. BradOlson

    BradOlson Country/Christian Music Maven

  6. Jeffrey

    Jeffrey Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    South Texas
    Hi,

    Please DON'T think that I'm implying that you are making this up. I know it is being circulated by the RIAA.

    -Jeffrey
     
  7. Claviusb

    Claviusb A Serious Man

    The RIAA is putting out the 7% drop story to counter-balance this story from last week.

    Report: Downloads will save music biz
    Wed Aug 14, 3:29 AM ET

    Tamara Conniff

    LOS ANGELES (The Hollywood Reporter) --- Music subscription services offering digital downloads could add more than $2 billion in new revenue for record labels by 2007, according to a new report released Tuesday from Forrester Research Inc. But, according to the survey, in order for such growth to occur, the major label groups have to allow consumers to copy and pay for music on their own terms.

    The report, titled "Downloads Save the Music Business," also claims the crash in the economy, not piracy, has caused the 15% drop in music sales during the past two years.

    "The record labels and the RIAA The RIAAclaim that piracy is the reason why they are in a slump right now, and my research demonstrates that the chances of that are close to nil," Forrester principal analyst Josh Bernoff said.

    Of the 1,000 online music consumers interviewed for the report, Bernoff said the most frequent users of digital music (those who download, rip or burn at least nine times a month) said they will only decrease their CD purchases next year by 2%. The remaining, more infrequent online users said they will buy more CDs next year.

    "We are encouraged by Forrester's projections that paid downloads will restore sales growth," an RIAA spokeswoman said. "However, we disagree with Forrester's analysis of the effects of file-sharing on sales."

    The RIAA said they are readying to release their own study showing that among those consumers who downloaded more from file-sharing services now than they did six months ago, 41% purchased less music in the past six months and only 19% purchased more music in the past six months. "By more than 2-to-1, those who say they are downloading more say they are purchasing less," the RIAA spokeswoman said.

    Bernoff added, "What nobody talks about is maybe (the labels) are just not producing the music that people want to hear."

    The Forrester survey points to a so-called digital music consumers "music bill of rights" as the solution. These expected rights include a buyer's right to find the music he or she wants in one place (most label-driven online services, such as MusicNet and pressplay, do not offer music from all five of the major label groups); the right for consumers to control how they use the music they download, whether it be burned onto a CD, an MP3 player or other digital devices (most pay services offer restricted downloading); and the right to a payment structure that is flexible (for example, many consumers may want to pay for only one song or album as opposed to an entire monthly service).

    Forrester predicts that during the next two years, the labels will continue to struggle with faulty music services and CD sales will continue to slow, which could cut music-industry revenue by another 6% next year. Additionally, the number of music fans who file-share is expected to grow to 10% of all online consumers within the next year.

    The report asserts that by 2005, labels will be forced to embrace a download system that supports the "music bill of rights," and as a result, $426 million in revenue from downloads and $105 million in subscriptions could roll in. Labels will offer content to all online music distributors and such retailers as CDNow and Amazon.com could become downloading hubs by opening up compete download sites selling $29.99 prepaid "cards."

    The survey predicts that music downloads will propel revenue in a way similar to the increased revenue generated in the music industry with the shift from LPs to CDs.
     
  8. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Because this story was on CNN doesn't mean a thing! Remember that CNN is owned by Time Warner/AOL. What? You mean they are part of the record cartel?
     
  9. syogusr

    syogusr New Member Thread Starter

    But not MSNBC, or some of the others. And it does mean something, that music quality is one of the cheif culprits of slumping sales, if people don't agree with that, they are not living in the real world.
     
  10. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!



    Maybe if they put out decent music, sales would regenerate. What a sad state the musical world is in today...I'll stick with the oldies. Can't go wrong there.
     
  11. quentincollins

    quentincollins Forum Word Nerd

    Location:
    Liverpool
    Serves the RIAA right!

    I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that it's all MP3 downloading, although that certainly is one cause. Hell, my MP3 collection is about 5 GB, but you know what? I still buy CD's :eek: Just this month alone, I bought four CD's, all of which had one thing in common: They were all originally released before 1980 (well, okay, The Best of Blue Oyster Cult was released in 2000, but the majority of the material was pre-1980). Music was simply better then. And you know what? The majority of my collection is stuff I ripped myself for easier listening convenience, since the majority of my listening is done through computer.

    But yeah, do I really want to spend $12 to go out and buy Tommy James & The Shondells Greatest Hits when I only want "I Think We're Alone Now"? No. Hell, I'm 17, I don't bring home paychecks that total over $1000 on whatever scheduled basis, and I've got to be picky about what I buy. But, if I like a certain album enough, I'll support that artist. For the record, with the sole exception of my Beatles collection, I own no complete album rips. If I like it that much, I'll buy it.

    And, in case you were wondering, my Beatles collection exists of nothing more than different mixes and versions. You know, stereo, mono, vinyl rips, etc. I certainly don't have the money to hunt down original releases from England and whatnot.

    Case in point, the RIAA and record companies at that have no room to complain until they promote better music. The majority of today's music takes advantage of the 74-80 min disc and packs it full of filler with only one or two good songs on it. It's a commonly supported observation. The music that's being heavily promoted sucks, while the artists that are making good music are stuck on indie labels that don't always have the finances to support nationwide promotion. If the record companies would stop lapping up all that crap on Top 40 radio right now and start putting out better stuff at a better price, sales would increase. It's time for a change.

    And yeah, the economy has a lot to do with it, too. Prices for most newer CD's are unreasonable for music that's of relatively low quality. Not everyone can afford it with job layoffs left and right, and some people are just choosy in general. For the record, again, those four CD's I bought this month were all from Borders during their $7.99 sale. Now that's a reasonable price for some excellent music. That's how it should be.

    Anyway, I'm rambling now. Best to call it quits before I end up going off on tangents.
     
  12. metalbob

    metalbob Senior Member

    Location:
    New Jersey
    I'd hate to break the news to you, but the Top 15 records are NOT selling 20 million copies each. Not sure where you are getting those figures from.

    BOB
     
  13. tim_neely

    tim_neely Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Central VA
    Personally, I think the RIAA is full of it.

    Every time sales go down, the major labels look for a scapegoat outside of their immediate fiefdom rather than looking at themselves.

    Going back to the Great Depression, when record sales took an obvious dive -- one figure I've read is that TOTAL record sales in 1932, from every record released that year by anyone, were only 6 million discs -- the industry blamed radio for its decline. Never mind that most people had more important things to spend their money on, such as food and shelter, in those "Brother, can you spare a dime?" days. Only when a new label, Decca, was founded with records priced at 39 cents each -- all releases, not just the stuff no one wanted -- did the industry start to revive. (It didn't hurt that one of Decca's first signings was the most popular singer of the era, Bing Crosby.) All the labels ended up reducing their prices to 39 cents from the 79-89 cents they had been charging in the 1920s. And in the end, radio saved the music industry when their records got played and acknowledged on the air.

    In the 1979-82 era, the RIAA blamed home taping, to the point of polluting some album covers with a "cassette-and-crossbones" logo that claimed "Home taping is killing music." My recollection of that period is that the economy in general was in its worst slump since the early 1930s. Once again, people had better things to spend money on than recorded music. Then MTV, which was at first completely outside the mainstream -- after all, American bands didn't make videos -- rejuvenated the industry. It introduced a whole group of mostly British artists who would have been buried forever on college radio had they not had this priceless exposure on this new, fresh cable channel.

    Today, the RIAA blames "digital piracy" for its problems, refusing to acknowledge (or downplaying) that we've got another recession going on, folks. The recording industry is not immune from the economic cycle.

    As I see it, there are ways that the RIAA is hurting itself, and until it solves its own problems, it has no room to blame anyone else:

    1. Continuing to raise list prices of new -- and especially, back-catalog -- music. $19.98 is too much for a single CD.

    2. In conjunction with (1), then turning around and selling wholesale to non-chain stores at a higher price than the consumer can buy the same stuff at Best Buy. And when consumers can buy stuff cheaper than some store owners can -- that's ridiculous.

    3. Spending way too much money on promotion and marketing and not enough on artist development.

    4. Refusing to reform its chattel-like contracts. Many artists with something to say are getting wise to the ways of the majors and taking things into their own hands or going with labels that share their artist-central view (ownership of masters, for example).

    5. Then, turning around and overpaying artists with a track record just for bragging rights. Cut the advances, improve the royalty rates instead -- and do it for EVERYONE, not just the privileged few. Pay based on performance and not merely on reputation.

    6. Killing off the single, an insidious and ongoing process that is almost complete. The RIAA claims that singles sales are way down and dropping. Well, there's a simple reason for that, and it's not that consumers aren't interested. ITS MEMBER LABELS AREN'T ISSUING THEM ANY MORE! Or if they are, it's in such limited quantities that consumers can't find them. Or they refuse to issue the most popular songs as singles.

    Try to think back when you were a kid on a limited income. Kid is looking for that cool new song on the radio. Kid goes to the local store to check out the singles rack, and can't find it, even though knowing who did it and what it's called (not an easy task today). Kid goes to the clerk du jour, and clerk tells kid, "Oh, that's not on a single -- you have to buy the whole album to get that." Kid doesn't have $15-$20 for a full-length CD. Kid walks out of the store with no music. Kid goes home to computer and downloads it instead for free, even though kid has slow Internet connection.

    I believe that the demise of the single has done more to cause people to run to the Internet than the labels will admit. If every new song promoted to radio had an accompanying single -- just as was true in every prior musical generation -- it might hurt album sales in the short run, but in the long haul, it helps the industry. After all, getting a buck or two or three for a single puts money in the labels' pockets. The last time I looked, 3 was greater than 0. And it gives kids the impression that there's something for THEM in their local music store.

    I couldn't afford albums growing up on my allowance, but I sure could afford 45s. And I bought them often. I developed the habit of going to the music department of my local department store every week to see if there were any cool new singles. Eventually, once I could afford albums, I started buying albums, too.

    I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a singles-oriented guy. I started buying new 45s in 1973 and still buy new 45s in 2002 when I can find them. It's distressing to me that I can't buy singles with ease any more. I've had to resort to the gray market -- promotional CD singles -- to keep my singles fix going. Most of the time, they're still cheaper than the whole album. And you get the added bonus of finding the same version you heard, and liked, on the radio!

    I've never downloaded any music off the Internet. I just don't believe in it. To me, it's the modern equivalent of taping songs off the radio -- you have it, but you don't really have it. I much prefer to "download" my music in a tangible form -- vinyl or CD -- and "upload" it to my turntable or CD player.

    7. And I haven't even talked about how the RIAA assumes all its customers are crooks. Or how there are more numbers-crunchers and fewer "golden ears" in management. Or the economy, stupid.

    Apologies for my magazine-article-length post. But I've got opinions on the subject, and I wanted to share them.
     
  14. Beagle

    Beagle Senior Member

    Location:
    Ottawa
    OK, not literally, but I could take an album in the top 15, which indicates sales of 4-5 million, then go ask my local retailer how many copies he has sold to date of this, and he'll go "Oh, maybe two". So I think those sales figures are somewhat inflated, to put it mildly.
     
  15. chrischross

    chrischross New Member

    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    This is just spot-on. I remember that as a kid I too would buy the 45's, which were just a tremendous way to get the hot single. If I remember correctly, the first 45 I bought was Stevie Wonder's "I Wish". I played this at home and convinced my parents to spring for the full "Songs In the Key of Life".

    Radio is also partially to blame here as well. What prompted my buying of 45's was the radio play. This level of integration just doesn't exist anymore and regular MTV and VH1 are a poor replacement for what was radio in the 70's.

    The lesson that the industry is missing here is the marketing concept of "upsell", and the single being the way to do it. Unfortunately, far too many full-length CD's contain only one or two decent songs and are not worth any price. Once a parent is burned once by buying the full-length CD for the kid, the next time they think twice before shelling out full-freight again.
     
  16. metalbob

    metalbob Senior Member

    Location:
    New Jersey
    SoundScan weighs scans at some independent stores by as many as 7 units in some cases. I think this was to compensate for non-scanning independents to be counted somehow. It is obviously a very imperfect science. To disprove your point, very few records in the Top 15 have sold 4-5 million copies PERIOD. Many of the lower 10-15 are usually first week debuts that disappear the following week.

    But, many independent urban stores are probably weighted a bit and giving a bit of a bump to some urban titles. This goes the same for rock titles, but to a bit lesser degree I think. But, not another million copies or anything that ridiculous. Stuff like Britney, Backstreet and other generic pop that doesn't typically sell well at independent rock stores and certainly not urban accounts, so out of all of them, they are probably the most accurate. There are countless other factors involved, legitimate or otherwise, but all the big titles that are in the top 10 for weeks or even months are probably within the ballpark by 10% or less.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine