The music industry, classy as always:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/n...ccused-of-cashing-in-with-lp-price-boost.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/n...ccused-of-cashing-in-with-lp-price-boost.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Whitney dead? Let's increase the price of her albums on iTunes!
- Thread starter Cybbe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would demand for her music increase when she dies? I have never understood the logic. It is not like some rare painting of Van Gogh which is in limited quantity (much more so now that he is dead). Why, do her songs suddenly sound better now that she is dead or something? 
1. People who never heard of her want to see what all the fuss is about.
2. People who used to like her when she was at the peak of her popularity are reminded how good she was, and re-purchase their collections in digital form.
Just to name two I can think of right off the bat...
As far jacking the price up, it's capitalism. And it's not just Whitney. Look at how many times dead artists are repackaged and released posthumously... Tupac Shakur, Michael Jackson, etc.
Why would demand for her music increase when she dies? I have never understood the logic. It is not like some rare painting of Van Gogh which is in limited quantity (much more so now that he is dead). Why, do her songs suddenly sound better now that she is dead or something?
Nostalgia and curiosity, it happens almost every time someone famous dies.
Remember Michael Jackson?
The newly dead bring money, so why not cash in on it?
The record label sets the wholesale price of music in iTunes, and Apple marks it up by a fixed percentage. It's no surprise that the label is trying to cash in, since they will make more money in the next few weeks than they have in the last few years.
They are in the business of making money off their talent, dead or alive. Most contracts are written to specifically state term in the event of an artist's death...
They are in the business of making money off their talent, dead or alive. Most contracts are written to specifically state term in the event of an artist's death...
Why would demand for her music increase when she dies? I have never understood the logic. It is not like some rare painting of Van Gogh which is in limited quantity (much more so now that he is dead). Why, do her songs suddenly sound better now that she is dead or something?
Not sure if serious . . .
----------
Increased demand tends to drive up prices. Eco 101. It's got nothing to do with having "class."
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing#Demand-based_pricing
Newly dead? Elvis still rakes in the cash and he's been dead almost 35 years.
But, I guarantee you there was a huge spike in sales immediately after his death. Whitney's all over the news now. Everyone's playing clips of her songs. It sparks interest and people want to buy her albums, it's natural.
I don't agree. SCARCITY drives price up.
If we were talking CD's or vinyl records, ok. Files to be downloaded, not so much. The RIAA is and remains its despicable self.
I didn't limit it to newlydeads, I just meant, that one can cash in on them. Of course there are exceptions, that even after newlydeads are nelydeads no more, cashing in still works.
So, you think the price of the music hasn't really been increased, because the amount in circulation hasn't changed?
No, demand drives prices up. One method of increasing demand is to decrease supply until demand outstrips supply. Another is to generate "buzz" so that demand goes up. Even with infinite supply, there is always demand to pay money for something. (Otherwise the iTunes Store would never have gotten off the ground - everyone would be pirating everything.)
It's "supply and demand", not "supply and scarcity".
From an economic and business point of view, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I would encourage it. The whole point of a business is to earn revenues and profit. Short of illegal activities, anything is fair game, including this.
From a social point of view, it's disgusting. It's a large corporation that's trying to profit off of someone's death and it seems like they actually don't care about her (which, in brutal honesty, they probably didn't) or about respecting her death.
Really.
I don't bother with celebrities. If they're actors I just see them in the movies. I may recognize them but I couldn't tell you anything about them.
Singers, I only know the ones I really listen to.
I know nothing about sports stars.
So yeah, if she was an actor then maybe I've seen her in a movie, anything else, first time ever.
When citing the Guardian article on the price increase, another Mac news site (9to5) added Linksynergy affiliate/referral links to the Whitney songs in iTunes.
Double standards?
When commenting this on their site, they removed all comments.
Double standards?
When commenting this on their site, they removed all comments.
Only if you're price fixing.
The top two "Top Grossing" downloads on the Mac App Store:
1. OS X Lion: $29.99
2. Final Cut Pro: $299.99
One costs 10x as much as the other, yet is just behind it. Both are perfectly valid ways to earn money. Final Cut Pro has a smaller target market, a target market willing to pay that amount. DEMAND that is sufficient for a near $300 price tag. If Final Cut Pro were lowered to $29.99 then yes, purchase numbers would go up. But I sincerely doubt there would be 10x the volume of sales, and so its gross profits would go down. Likewise, OS X Lion does't have enough demand to be priced significantly higher. If Lion were near $300, it would tank.
Demand is about perceived value. With physical goods, scarcity can increase perceived value (see the first generation iPhone, see limited-production cars,) but with electronic goods, it's all about actual usefulness. If Final Cut Pro wasn't worth $300 to its target market, it wouldn't sell.
If Whitney Houston's Greatest Hits album wasn't worth $14.99 to its target market (people remembering she existed because she just died, and buying out of nostalgia) it wouldn't sell. A week ago, the perceived value of that album was less.
Would I pay $15 for that album? No. It doesn't have that value to me personally, but Final Cut Pro doesn't have $300 value to me, either.
Just because the pricing isn't what I would pay doesn't mean it is an invalid pricing model. It's capitalism, plain and simple.
Now, there is a difference between pricing an optional item at a market-driven price and pricing something required (or near-required) in collusion with competitors. $25 for 2 GB of internet traffic is price fixing/likely collusion. When demand is high, and all suppliers choose to offer the same basic product at inflated-compared-to-supply-costs prices, that is price fixing.