I think that ** Futile Gesture’s ** response should be required reading for any future “this is too expensive” postings. Very consise and dead on target.
Now, my little question is slightly different. The last time I paid attention to the CD/RIAA market, they lost a anti-trust lawsuit and were determined to be a monopoly manipulating the market.
Well, some people are willing to pay those prices. A lot of people are very resentful of the prices that are out there. Prices that offer a good value for your money don’t generally create resentment. I don’t know many people who think that $15 for a CD is a good value, they’ll pay it because they have to if they want the music.
To hear the RIAA’s chicken little impression, this is exactly what is happening. Only instead of the alternative being no music, the alternative is ‘free’ music.
Rather than change their business model to offer more value, they attack the very people they want as customers. People understand value, sell a DVD player for $30 and they’ll literally trample each other to get one. Sell a 7 year old album from a middle of the road band for $15 and people get pissed because that is their only option.
Inflate prices the way these guys do, and people will scramble for alternatives, legal and illegal.
Yes it is. If the record companies see a decrease in demand, the price will go down.
Ever seen the discount bin with $1.99 CDs? Wanna know why they’re still not $15?
In a free market the prices of goods are determined by supply and demand. Period. You may not like the price of a particular item, but the price is exactly what it should be.
It’s not a free market. Copyright laws give exclusive rights to the publisher. You want the latest Britney Spears album, there is one and only one source, her record company. A Christina Aguilera album is NOT a direct substitute for it, nor is the $1.99 copy of Shatner sings the Blues.
There is a level of competition there, for sure, but it’s nothing like a true free market. In a true free market, where everyone could produce and sell the same album, they’d go for a couple of bucks each, max.
Oh for crying-out-loud. We can’t have a week go by without someone saying, “the price of such-n-such has nothing to do with supply and demand.”
Let’s pretend a Britney Spears album is priced at $1000. How many people will buy it? How many people will purchase a Christina Aguilera album instead? What if Spears’ new album were priced at $5? Would not more people buy it?
The entertainment business is the most competitive on earth. And you’re saying supply and demand has nothing to do with the price of an album, video, or concert ticket??
People who are ignorant on economic principles believe the reason something is “overpriced” is because the seller is evil and greedy, which is nothing more than an extension of the “us against them” mentality. But such is not reality.
It’s not completely unrelated to supply and demand, nothing is, but it’s nothing like a commodity market either.
People don’t put “A CD” on their xmas lists, they put the exact album or artist they want. A girl who puts Britney on their list and gets Shatner instead will be MAD, because she didn’t get what she wanted. They are imperfect substitutes.
Some people will switch if the price is too high, as opposed to a competitive market where everyone will switch. The market is not ‘free’ because laws restrict who can and can’t sell the product. The product being album/song X.
Take diamonds, deBeers keeps the price artificially high even though there are cubic zirconia, moissainite, synthetic diamonds, etc. available. The reason is that these are imperfect substitutes for a natural gem-quality diamond. The existance of an imperfect substitute does not guarantee a competitve marketplace.
Sure it does. Even with restricting the supply side of the equation there are still alternatives. DeBeers markets well to keep demand up only for the product they control.
Me, I bought a ruby as an engagement ring.
What Britney’s label has done is develop a product (some specific set of songs on a CD). They then put it out there and market it. If it’s good and priced properly compared to competing products people will buy it. If not they won’t. Simple as that.
Saying ‘they have a monopoly on Britney’s music’ like it’s unfair is simply silly. They also have a monopoly on the costs of developing Britney’s music. Why should someone else have the ability to profit from their effort?
I resent that VW Beetles are too expensive for me. You know just how much this worries VW? As long as they can sell as many as they need to maximize their profit to other people they care not a jot about my resentment. VW Beetles are not essentials for life, so I have no legal or moral right to one.
Dear VW,
I stole the Beetle from outside your showroom because of your inflated prices. You have only your outdated business model to blame for this because technology advances now makes it easy for me to do it. If you want me to stop stealing your Beetles you’ll have to come up with a method of selling them to me at a price cheaper than me stealing it for nothing.
I’ve no idea how you are possibly going to do this, but just don’t get any ideas about making it harder for me to steal Beetles. We mustn’t lose sight of the most important issue here, and that is that I have a right to a VW Beetle. Any problems you have about how I get one are your problems and shouldn’t infringe my rights.
You know, sometimes life’s unfair. If Britney’s CDs are too expensive then they’re just not going to appear underneath the tree and people are just going to have to make-do with an imperfect substitute, no matter how inferior. Perhaps Kylie’s new CD would suffice?
Such is life. You make do with what you can afford. Why should CDs be different?
How about enough to keep the prices where they are.
**
Not enough to effect change though
**
Your seem to fit the Poster B profile. Unless the resentment affects their bottom line, they don’t care, and they shouldn’t. As far as a good value, what obligation do they have to provide one?
**
If their current business model works, why change it?
**
You may have some Poster A in you as well.
**
So they don’t buy it and it ends up in the bargain bin.
**
Well they may bitch and moan, but IIRC the entertainment industry has been pulling down record numbers the past few years.
I don’t mean to imply that the Record Co’s copyright is unfair, just that it does absolutely affect the prices they can charge for the product.
Let me put it this way “The existance of copyright changes the nature of the market, allowing companies to charge prices higher than in a market without copyright protection.”
If you’d like to dispute this, feel free.
One can also state that a good substitute for Britney’s music, like free online downloads, will have an effect on her sales. More effect, IMHO, than a lousy substitute like someone else’s music.
I also don’t want to imply that the companies shouldn’t try to maximize profit, that IS their job. However, when your profit maximizing strategy causes inevitable switching to other products (like illegal copies) one shouldn’t whine like little bitches when sales are down
With respect to the VW example, rather than stealing one off the lot, how about if I (and thousands of my friends) just build exact duplicates in our garages for a tenth of your price?
There’s an old story of someone doing that, you know. I might have the date slightly off, but as it happened, there was this guy with a '51 Chevy. And then his neighbor came home with a shiny new Corvette. Well, he looked at it. Measured the wheelbase. And realized that under the skin, they were about the same. So what he did was make a mold of the fiberglass around the car, made new panels, and rebuilt his own car into a corvette.
The car thing’s been done to death already. If you’re using this as an analogy to P2P, then at least include a cloning ray. Basically, the analogy was used by the con-P2P side to accuse P2P users of stealing. It fails because the original stays on the sharer’s hard drive.
Then I guess the word “stolen” is even less appropriate than you thought, huh? Copyright infringement isn’t “stealing” any more than it is “rape” or “jaywalking”; it’s perfectly normal to have different words for different crimes.
Someone who downloads a song from Kazaa isn’t taking anything away from anyone, and the person who “owns” the song isn’t even involved in the transaction. Any analogy between illegal downloading and theft is ridiculous.