When the label won't release the CD

Here we are again with another CD is dying /dead clamor. I've brushed over this topic countless times, in every thread-form imaginable, during my five years here as a member. Before that, I'd been hearing the supposed death-knell for decades. Last week I just bought 37 new CDs released in the last two months.

There are more new CD releases & reissues now at my local than ever before - and for a business that has thrived in my city since 1952, they just opened a second location and that's after expanding the floor space of their original location to double it's square footage of customer floor space.

I already know the numbers; already know that a ton of used-to-be CD-buyers are now streaming, and a lot of youngsters don't even know what a CD is.
When I was 6 years old I knew what an Edison cylinder was, so I can only deduce that these kids have been chained to the furnace instead of being allowed to live outside in the world of good people.
As long as the millions of us who buy CDs continue buying them, CDs will continue to be made. That is until the corporations decide they don't need us any more)

 

What is the agenda?

I believe digital is better than analog. That said, the product we get today is often substandard. This isn't a problem with digital, it's a problem with the idiots making these recordings, mixing them, engineering them, producing them. It's a great irony that given access to higher dynamic range, exact copies, and a lower sound floor - the industry chose to SHRINK all these thingsby compressing audio, rather than expand them. It's a collective madness that has helped kill off the medium. But too often people say "digital is bad", when what they're really saying is that a producer or mastering engineer has done a poor job.

Of course, the big problem CD has is streaming. When CD's came out they were playable on the go, while walking, in cars, etc. They were durable, and smaller than vinyl. Decades later we have streaming, and talk about "on the go"! Now you can carry your listening from device to device. Durable? Not a worry. Size? Not a problem. So the masses adopt this new system because frankly, it beats CD at a lot of things. Along with that, Streaming has opened up a new sales model where you don't have to pay $10 a CD, you pay $10 for a monthly subscription to...... everything!

I don't think this problem has much of anything to do with sound quality. I think the main drivers are convenience, cost, and access to a large library on demand. My sister listens to tons of music on the radio and streaming, in the more than 60 years I've known her she's never once worried about the quality, never once bemoaned sibilance. That's the masses.

Then look at these forums. We're a small number of people (relatively). We're also very demanding. We are not typical, and our wants and needs are larger. When someone wants to claim "that's not what the masses want!", I think they miss this point - the people here don't represent the masses. We're different. Few of us care what the masses are doing, either with music or anything else. A lot of people here are audiophiles - strange, weird creatures with super-sonic ears and vibrational detectors built into our earings.

We're also, largely, a group of collectors. We enjoy collecting music. Physical media isn't simply a transport, it's an object of beauty. Those into streaming couldn't care less, and that's fine - but don't compare yourself to collectors. A hard disc of several Tb of music files will never be a "collection", it'll always remain a hard disc of files. Are photo's of stamps sufficient for stamp collectors? Are collectors of World War II memorabilia happy to buy plastic trucks and cars from Toys-R-Us? I think not.

The thing about the artist in question in the OP is that they have simply ignored CD. We can speculate why, but I can't help thinking we've gone off in wild directions. Hell, not that I'd buy it, but they haven't even bothered doing an "on demand" deal. It does seem short-sighted, imo. But then, they get to do whatever they want with their music.

 

Because there are manufacturing COSTS involved in making CDs beyond the recording and mastering time/ costs to prepare a release for bandcamp.

Also in selling a CD (or vinyl record) there is the cost of distributors taking a cut if someone wants to sell their CDs in stores. Distributors take a large percentage. Just another factor that if someone sells 300 CDs at $10 each, they are not making $3000 profit.

 

Cd’s aren’t dying, they’re just not nearly as mainstream. Vinyl never went away in the early
90’s, it went underground. And now look at vinyl. Life goes in cycles.

 

Sorry, but need to correct you. The OP stated the costs for making 300 CDs at 1100 $ and stated further to break even if selling 80 to 90 units which means he sells the unit for something between 12.22 and 13.75 retail costs not to be taken into account here as it is the price he receives. So we can conclude he would make a profit of between 2.5 and 3 k depending on his actual price. So still I do not see how a digital release on bandcamp selling 300 units would be far more profitable....

 

You are not factoring the additional costs that I have stated again and again into this equation.

Hobbyist labels that are admitting to paying nothing or very little for studio time or graphic design are not an accurate metric for measuring the actual costs of making and releasing an album in physical formats for the music business at large.

Since you are continuing to ignore the reality of this, and ignoring the costs involved in production, art, distribution, and using one example of how one label is claiming to be profitable, I will not be engaging in any further argument baiting from you.


The reality of this situation is that labels and artists with business sense are abandoning the CD format. They are ‘in the trenches’ and are making business decisions based on actual metrics of the business. That $900 used to make CDs is far better spent in the gas tank going on tour for most indie artists. Or making t shirts, which sell far better than physical media on the road.

They will eventually win, when production of all physical media ceases, and profits are not tied into manufacturing costs and inventory storage.

 

The reason I think CDs will be phased out is that they are simply small computer disks. If I download an identical sampling rate file from HD Tracks for a title I have on CD and do a bit to bit comparison, they are identical. Aside from the desire to physically possess the album, and to continue using CD hardware you bought, it's just one delivery system vs another for the same thing.

I've got my CD collection - it isn't going away. But if I want to listen to one, I tend to rip it first and stream it thru my DAC. Makes it more convenient for the future, same sound.

 

"Sigh" @GimiSomeTruth thx for your pleasant remarks. But frankly speakin' me earning my living for more than 30 years as an accoutant I honestly have my doubts being the ignorant part of our discussion. If one buys a product at 3.67 per piece and sells it for 13.75 a piece he is making a profit of 10.08 per piece. If he is selling to a consumer using the product or a retailer who may sell it for 25 or 2 per piece does not matter for his profit. I do assume and hope rightfully so that prodcution costs for a file either sold directly as that or pressed on a physical cd are same.

For the last time no offense intended from my side and I would suggest that we leave it at this.

 

There's a little more to this than the convenience metric, though.

The inherent problem with streaming vs. CDs is that the profit-sharing model is worse than the most predatory label arrangement in the "old days." Being perfectly frank, streaming for an artist is barely better than busking. Your average artist might make more money busking on a Friday night, frankly. It's borderline piracy, if we're looking at earnings for most artists. Even established artists with large fan-bases complain about the pittances they receive from Spotify and their ilk.

If nothing else, one area where CD works better than what's proposed to replace is that units sold equate to a more (relatively) sizeable payout for artists. There's a one-time transaction between listener and artist wherein the artist is directly compensated for their work. Vinyl does this too, but the lower product cost and sale price of CD does give it at least a nod if we're just counting beans here. Streaming barely generates any revenue even after hundreds of thousands of streams. Sell hundreds of thousands of CDs or even physical singles and you're on your way to buying that private island. Granted, not many artists get there with physical product either, but the internet age worship of "exposure" hardly keeps the lights on and relegates all performers to one of three categories: legacy artists with established audiences, anointed younger artists who are pushed beyond their actual market value, or hobbyists. Some of the second and third category organically become the first, but it's less likely, which means most everyone's return on investment sucks - except for the labels.

Downloads kind of alleviate the problem, but since it's a crap shoot whether your download provider will remain online, will allow repeat downloads of the same thing you "bought" if you suffer data loss, or will maintain access to a given artist's catalog, you wind up with a less convenient user experience.

 

Perhaps this is a language barrier, but once again, the manufacturing cost DOES NOT INCLUDE the costs of recording, mixing, mastering. Nor does it include the cost of employees, that labels employ. Nor does it include the cost of management. Etc.

There are no retailers selling anything for double the price of what an artist or labels website is selling it for. Distributors typically sell to stores for an average of 30% off list price. List price is established by what the label or artist sells it for on their website. So to sell to a distributor, that CD now has a significantly higher cost and lower profit margin.

There is no possible way for the cost of a file to be equal to a manufactured physical product unless there is free labor, free studio time involved.

 

It’s always been that way. An average selling artist will always make more from touring.

Here’s one real world example. Luna is still in debt with Elektra for over 1,000,000. They don’t make any money from streaming, at all. They also made zero royalties from physical sales due to the debt. This is common, and I use them as an example because Dean Wareham discusses it at length in his book. Yet Luna still tours, and makes money off of t shirt sales, and the revenue from their post-elektra recordings of which they own the masters. However, Dean’s previous band (Galaxie 500) bought back their masters when Rough Trade went out of business. Their music has taken on a whole new generation of fans, and their streaming numbers are in the multi millions, which makes far more revenue for them than any possibility of physical media.

 

I think what you are missing is the fact that these costs are already accounted for once the music is made available for streaming. Pressing CDs would simply require the file to be sent to a replication plant and the CDs delivered.

 

As mentioned above,your not factoring in the costs involved to produce the cd.

 

Rough Trade probably treated him better than Elektra. Major labels would press a million CDs and charge the band for the cost, with no hope of them selling anything like a million CDs.

 

He already gave a cost of 3.67 per unit. Frankly, €/£/$3.67 is closer to the cost of manufacturing an LP.

 

Not at all. Rough Trade filed bankruptcy and didn’t pay literally millions of dollars owed in royalties to their artist roster.

Elektra treated them very well (especially their A&R rep, the legendary Terry Tolkin). Huge studio budgets, video budgets, tour support, expensive dinners and partying charged to the expense account (‘billed to Metallica’ on Terry’s corporate credit card)

all detailed in Dean’s book.

 

Not always. There’s plenty of examples of streaming masters being different than those used on CD. Being as streaming uses their own volume normalization, there are some streaming examples that are mastered with less limiting than the CDs.

There is no possible way to have LPs manufactured for $3.67 in 2022. Even 10,000 units. That figure is WAY off base, and can be disproven by going to the website of any pressing plant to get a quote.

 

That's a long story with a long answer I didn't want to have to drag into this thread, but it's basically about the "hit job" articles newspapers used to print when their ad sales competitors, radio, would start touting their use of CD on the air, using the articles to sell adds to local used LP shops, and challenge the credibility of their competition. Again, not a part of this thread, but my "find all content by" doesn't search further back than August of this year, so I can't easily link to how many times I've told this story.

 

Bonus points for the Edison cylinder analogy!

For the record, this isn't about "CD's are dying", so much about when the label won't bring them to life in the first place.

 

Everyone who hates when a band releases vinyl but no CD version should just start listening to metal. Almost every single new metal album gets released on CD, whether by a bigger label or a small label or a band self-releasing through bandcamp or wherever. Metalheads like CDs, and the metal labels and bands do too.

 

As a wise man once said, their appeal is becoming more selective.

 

My favorite album of the 2000s has never been released in any format, even though Sony owns it. The band, Annetenna (formally Ednaswap) released it digitally in low-bit-rate MP3, and that's all I have.

 

You're going out of your way to invent costs that don't exist. Sure you could make the mastering different, that doesn't mean you must or should. You could also include the cost of ice cream you eat while ordering the CDs printed. But it is not required. Also not required is spending thousands on CD-specific graphic design. You can if you want just put black comic sans on the disc and a single sheet insert. Surely if you were worried about the costs of CD being hard to recoup then you would be looking for ways to reduce them, not making up ways to spend even more.

If you are already selling vinyl and download you've already done the recording, mixing, art, etc. and then the decision is "should I have some CDs made" and not "should I make an album at all?" From this starting point it is not appropriate to include all of those other costs.

If you're an indie artist doing things your self the then costs are your time. Master it yourself, produce the CD booklet yourself etc. This is no different to any other small business eg shop owner doing their own bookkeeping and designing their own signage.

If you're a label then you probably have someone in house to do the more technical things so you don't have to pay through the nose for it. For instance it should take a pro only a few minutes to colour convert and align some cover art for printing and copy paste some credits and tracklisting into a template.

I don't think it has anything to do with costs at all, CDs are way cheaper to produce than vinyl, cheaper to store, cheaper to ship, lower defect rate, and your risk is much lower if they don't sell. They are dirt cheap to make and you wouldn't have to sell many to make you're money back. If the problem was costs they wouldn't produce vinyl either.

If there's a financial consideration it's can we sell these CDs at all. If they would sell the profit would be enough, it's not a matter of margins but will it actually sell. CDs simply aren't in the public consciousness anymore. Mainstream department stores that used to have large music sections now have none at all, you have to go looking for CDs, they are an enthusiast item. Vinyl is too but is currently in the middle of a fad. CDs are actually unusable to most people with no CD players anywhere in the modern world, and you need somewhat specialised knowledge to make them usable by ripping to PC and then transferring to phone or maintaining a local streaming setup or something. Most normal people never knew how to do this even at the height of CDs and simply re-bought their music online and threw out their CDs, literally into the rubbish. A CD isn't something you buy in 2022 it's something you throw into the rubbish ten years ago.

Present company excepted of course, I still buy CDs.

 

Right, even if I am inventing costs as you say, here you are mentioning labels that have inhouse graphic designers, etc. Are these people working for the label for free? Nope. Nor did anyone say it costs ‘thousands’, although pro independent graphic designers typically charge around $150/ hour.

CDs are not cheaper to ship, at least in the US with media mail, nor are they any less expensive to store by any measurable metric.

Going DIY on things like graphic design and mastering will guarantee that the product looks and sounds like amateur hour.

Beyond all of these factors, the music business has already decided that it’s the end of the era with CDs. A few vocal proponents on an audio specific forum are not the reality of consumers.

But hey, what do I know? I’m only involved with the retail end, the manufacturing end, and the touring end of music and see all of this firsthand. It certainly isn’t good news for my business, but there are plenty of ways to adapt. Which is why the music BUSINESS is moving away from all physical media. Because people/ companies with business sense do what is most profitable to stay in business.

If it were profitable for artists to make the CDs for their demographic audience, they would. Losing a handful of sales from CD (or, to be fair, vinyl diehards) is not something that registers on the business mind.

 

I would be very surprised if any indie label has an inhouse graphic designer these days. It's a cost they could do without.

I've seen a few poor album covers, including LPs with sleeves that look like a blown up jpeg file.