Music labels seek higher download prices, Apple's Steve Jobs "angered"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Music labels seek higher download prices
Success of Apple has some in industry worried
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7048053/

Some leading music labels are in talks with online retailers to raise wholesale prices for digital music downloads, in an attempt to capitalize on burgeoning demand for legal online music.

The moves, which suggest that the labels want a bigger slice in the fledgling market's spoils, has angered Steve Jobs, the Apple Computer chief executive who is behind the popular iTunes online music store.

But music executives expressed caution about their ability to push through unilateral price increases. Among the biggest groups, Universal Music and Sony BMG are known to be particularly reluctant to disrupt the market for downloads. One top label said it would not raise wholesale prices now because the market was not yet mature enough for a price increase.

The three other music labels which also include EMI and Warner refused to comment. Analysts, meanwhile, are warning that price rises could exacerbate Internet piracy, which is thought to cost the industry about $2.4 billion a year.

[aden_nak]

1. Those downloads cost music companies fractions of a penny. Have a heart!

[Beware the Beast Man]

2. Leave it to the suits to destroy yet another good thing.

It seems as if the industry just needs to shove their fingers deeper into the internet music pie. First Napster shuts down, then Universal buys mp3.com and turns it into utter shit, and now this. Are they that threatened by people wanting exposure for their original music, and by recording artists taking control of their own music?

[trotsky]

3. It seems to me like current pricing is at the "sweet spot."

Cheap enough - a buck a song - for people to be willing to fork over dough instead of seeking it illegally.

In their insatiable greed, the record companies will again screw themselves if they push this.

[tsakshaug]

4. the down load cost

If you figure iTunes costs $0.99 per download, and an album has about 12 tracks, that is a $11.88 cost per "album" That is similar to what you would pay in a music store. What more do they want out of us?

[NewHampshireDem]

5. Greedy freakin' SOBs

Let's see ... they don't have to pay to package, ship, display digital music ... the marketing costs are reduced, as are production costs (no CD's to press, for instance) ... yet they think 99 cents for a song or 10 bucks for an album is TOO CHEAP?

Screw 'em ... let 'em raise the prices and drive people to www.allofmp3.com or back to p2p.

Stupidity reigns in the music industry.

[NashVegas]

6. Absolutely Ridiculous

I stopped buying 45s when the price went over 99 cents. That was TWO songs for .99.

Inflation is one thing. But there is virtualy ZERO labor cost in the manufacturing of an mp3. Takes what? 10 seconds to duplicate the file? Or does the MPAA expect me to believe they are paying for iTunes, et als, bandwidth?

[short bus president]

7. 'the market is not yet mature enough for a price increase.'

I see... they're already plotting to drive people back to "piracy." Do tell, Mr. Record Exec, what additional expenses you've taken on in online music distribution to justify a price increase? And if it's not costing you more, why should it cost me more? FTR, "because we can" is NOT an acceptable answer...

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Think They'll Have A Problem Pushing This Through

It's too early in the game for price increases, and sales of hard media still outstrip the download music market. So, the demand isn't high enough to request higher margins, and the downward pressure on hard media has still not flattened out. (Seen the prices of new CD's lately. They're cheaper than they were 2 years ago, despite the 5+% inflation over those 2 years.

This is positioning for the future and won't likely take hold, especially with Apple pushing back.
The Professor