Quote:
Originally posted by RocHard
I'm not trying to make an argument here - I don't download music myself. I"m trying to make a point. The record labels have finally figured out that their consumers aren't happy with the prices they are charging - and the end result is my double CD was cheap on the day it was released.
Every company, more or less, sells products with a markup. But when it costs the record labels $1.32 to get the finished product into the store and are charging $18 for it, something is wrong.
|
Ok, so they have a $16+ profit margin per unit sold. How much of a per unit profit margin do you have on your sites?
So, if someone wants to see your content and feels you charge too much to see it, they should be able to just get that content for free?
Have you even been in the music business or understand the economics of it? You not only have advertising and promotional costs but do you know how much your local music stores charges you to have a better dsiplay for your CD so you can sell mroe of them? How about other promotional costs, litigation costs, etc.
I loathe the RIAA for their tactics and wonder where this fine money will really go (the artists that were wronged or themselves, their lawyers, etc.).
On average it takes $2-3 million to get a record out, in stores and turned into a hit.
I just hate the argument that because someone can't afford something that they deserve to have it anyways (for free). And this isn't directed specifically at you RocHard, I've been invoved in quite a few different board discussions about it the last month or so ;-))
Just imagine if porn surfers felt we charged too much for memberships and decided they still wanted access to all of our content for free just because we charge too much. Oops, it's happening isn't it? Shrinking profit margins suck no matter what the industry.