99 cents a cut still means more $ for the average CD @ iTunes, so die-hard fans any particular artist will still create a demand for albums. Creating compilations around music genres, philanthropic causes (think 2004 Band AID "Do They Know It's Christmas")---the .orgs are boundless and beyond the ordinary holiday these days!, and other novelties (niche marketing), "Link" advertising with consumer sales tags and profiling via iTunes, and multiple debuts from each new album release (people are more prone to buy albums with a hook of 4 or more feature tunes) are all strategies to enhance album sales.
Since the evolution of song distribution, I think video DVD albums are a great opportunity to add value. Some artists are distributing DVDs of their songs with texts of the songs with chords for richer experience by their audience.
I don't think it all about a full record being sold now. It's about an artist as a name brand. Like clothing brands, perfumes, v.i.p. access on artist websites, etc. The record labels need to take a piece of that too. Singles on iTunes is weeding out all the crap artist also. A one hit wonder is not going to sell a whole albumn now. I'll still buy a CD as a whole but it better have a more than 4 or 5 good songs on it. Then I'll just decide it's worth the whole CD.
My first reply is a simply why should we care but I can only assume that you already know we don't or at least I have no idea why we should. However, if we are pretending...they can put better albums together. Don't crank out two song albums with 8-10 parts crap. Put out samplers similar to the pick of the week thing iTunes does. Give us some of the best a studio thinks they have and if there is more of something we like then we can go get it.
Producing quality albums with more than one hit single on them would be my first suggestion. Stop signing crap bands and over producing decent ones would be my second. The labels are at fault here. Don't blame iTunes.
First of all, it almost sounds like, "why don't we help Polaroid sell more cameras. Times are changing, go with the flow. If the labels didn't have past and current artist sell their souls to be a part of a "label", then they might not have come to this. The real solution, as with any other truly successful and forward thinking business is to get a better handle on what the wants and needs are of the consumers that like the artist. Why do labels want to sell walkman's when ipod's are flying off the shelves.
The music industry needs to wake up finally and realize that times have changed. Some music execs are still so stubborn that they won't acknowledge that iTunes is THE music store of the 21st century and they only way they are going to make any money. For example, Kid Rock recently refused to sell his singles or albums on iTunes, because as he says, "ITunes takes the money, the record company takes the money, and they don't give it to the artists." (http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/kid-rock-boycot.html) They don't realize that if they just ignore iTunes and similar online music stores, they are basically just asking people to download them illegally via Bit Torrent or LimeWire.
The answer: They can't. The music industry resisted the pay-per-song model way before the iphone and iPod (it debuted in large chains in the early 90's I believe) and fought against the Mp3 with all their might. They had an opportunity to control the playing field, and they just whined instead while the unlikely Apple corp took the lead with a "killer app."
I never understood why Time-Warner, with all their built-in cable and AOL customers didn't just offer a monthly add-on of even $5 for x number of music downloads on a customer's cable or ISP bill. Seemed like a no-brainer to this marketer -- and that could have happened LONG BEFORE the iPod came along. $5 subscription add-ons x millions a month is not a bad business model IMHO
I don't think that album sales will ever be what they once were. The recording industry has to evolve to meet the needs of the modern public, or not sell the downloads to iTunes. Kid Rock is having a great year with the release of his album, but they did not sell each song individually on iTunes. So, buying the album was the only means of hearing the songs. Rock N Roll Jesus is an awesome album, and no one would have heard the other great songs if they were depending on iTunes and singles.
They don't need to sell albums, they need to raise prices on their best singles.
Fixed, or socialized, prices are killing all content industries. As video, film and tv go digital, this will become abundantly clear. Already the most affluent consumers go without any meaningful content--this we think of as normal but it's just a function of the market.
There weren't any cars for rich folks in Russia either. Except here in the US, pretty much all of us are rich enough to afford premium content.
The money to be made from premium content once this market is established will make the internet boom look like penny ante nonsense. In a very real way, the internet is the pipeline through which vast supplies of content "oil" will flow.
If it's like other pipelines, that being pumped will be worth some twenty times the value of the pipeline.
Albums? Whats an album? The only reason people made albums in the past was because of restrictions with the medium: vinyl, tape, cd, etc... It was expensive to produce, stock, ship, sell albums in the past so better "fit" as much as you can for you fans in one shot. Next question: What is a music industry? ;) http://www.kompoz.com
The same way they did in the late 80's when the same labels started to release single cassette tapes.
It's just another avenue to get customers that want a lower price point to get exactly what they want. I bet there are statistics out there somewhere that state that iTunes has increased the revenues of labels because of single track sales. Not to mention whole album sales, since you now have the opportunity to hear a snippet of each song before you buy it.
iTunes did not force the industry into a singles-driven business. That simply isn't true. The 'strong single' model has been in place for years (80s or earlier) with the rise of radio and television. Singles have been used to make people aware of an artist and generate interest so that the consumer would want to hear more and buy albums (highest profit margin).
Three important things happened over time. First, record labels started to really benefit from consumer behavior of buying albums after hearing 1 or 2 good singles. People hoped the rest would be as good. So, labels and artists went with it. They didn’t always invest enough to make sure that the music was good past those few singles. Second, consumer behavior began to change. If there are only a few good songs, maybe I should just buy the single. Third, lots of consumers stopped seeing the album as a complete piece of art or entertainment that was intended to be consumed as a whole.
iTunes is a growing business, but digital download is still not the dominant method for labels to earn revenue. A staggering (and rapidly declining) number of physical cd's are still sold each year, but that is actually almost bad news. As more and more people move to digital music, they are also becoming a singles only consumer which makes it hard to make real profits.
The combination of digital music AND buying full albums is the ideal situation. If labels could convince the average person that the quality of the art / full album is going to be high again, it is possible to reverse the trend... it just should be offered digitally. The business model is still great. An average of $10 for a product with very little manufacturing and distribution overhead sold on a mass scale.
As an earlier person commented, you can't stop change. I have two average children, 7 and 12. They don't ask to go to Wal-Mart to buy a CD. They want to download music to play on their MP3 players. Sorry, that was last year! They want to RIP music to their new cellphones, which didn't cost us anything, except $25 to add to our phone plan.
Personally, I think the music industry already made enough money and should promote smaller bands with smaller budgets. So don`t cry like a baby!The World is changing and the music industry needs to change too.
They can just forget it. The people are not interested any more in buying albums. Why buy one album with just one song you like on it for 15 dollars, when you can download just the songs you like from iTunes and that for 99cents??? If the labels want to make money, they have to change their business model. The customer is king, the best solution is just doing what the customer wants. A new time has come, in which albums have no place in the market anymore, just like the VHS, Polaroid and CD players before...(yeah Peter :)...)...
Incentivize albums, and then discount them. For example and itunes single is .99 cents. To sell albums, include about 12 songs, 2 music videos, some cross platform ring tones, and a few .jpgs or gifs that people can use on their cell phones. Then price the digital download album at 75% of the cost of the 12 singles, since there is no cost for a CD or packaging.
They need to sell custom made albums, I mean, people wants to get CD's with singles and music from different artists. People is getting tired to buy a complete album with not too many good songs. Labels will also have to include videos on their albums too.
Albums are a thing of the past already. There are fewer and fewer artists who produce quality stuff and devote enough attention to every single in an album. Remixes, featuring artists, instrumentals, what comes next to fill in the gaps? The industry has to adapt, just like any other industry for that matter.
25 Total
September 3, 2008 at 5:27pm by Bailey King
99 cents a cut still means more $ for the average CD @ iTunes, so die-hard fans any particular artist will still create a demand for albums. Creating compilations around music genres, philanthropic causes (think 2004 Band AID "Do They Know It's Christmas")---the .orgs are boundless and beyond the ordinary holiday these days!, and other novelties (niche marketing), "Link" advertising with consumer sales tags and profiling via iTunes, and multiple debuts from each new album release (people are more prone to buy albums with a hook of 4 or more feature tunes) are all strategies to enhance album sales.
September 3, 2008 at 5:30pm by Michael Chase
Since the evolution of song distribution, I think video DVD albums are a great opportunity to add value. Some artists are distributing DVDs of their songs with texts of the songs with chords for richer experience by their audience.
September 3, 2008 at 5:36pm by Ryan Foster
I don't think it all about a full record being sold now. It's about an artist as a name brand. Like clothing brands, perfumes, v.i.p. access on artist websites, etc. The record labels need to take a piece of that too. Singles on iTunes is weeding out all the crap artist also. A one hit wonder is not going to sell a whole albumn now. I'll still buy a CD as a whole but it better have a more than 4 or 5 good songs on it. Then I'll just decide it's worth the whole CD.
September 3, 2008 at 7:07pm by J Heavens
My first reply is a simply why should we care but I can only assume that you already know we don't or at least I have no idea why we should. However, if we are pretending...they can put better albums together. Don't crank out two song albums with 8-10 parts crap. Put out samplers similar to the pick of the week thing iTunes does. Give us some of the best a studio thinks they have and if there is more of something we like then we can go get it.
September 3, 2008 at 9:07pm by Sammy Sturkie
Producing quality albums with more than one hit single on them would be my first suggestion. Stop signing crap bands and over producing decent ones would be my second. The labels are at fault here. Don't blame iTunes.
September 3, 2008 at 10:11pm by Peter Castillo
First of all, it almost sounds like, "why don't we help Polaroid sell more cameras. Times are changing, go with the flow. If the labels didn't have past and current artist sell their souls to be a part of a "label", then they might not have come to this. The real solution, as with any other truly successful and forward thinking business is to get a better handle on what the wants and needs are of the consumers that like the artist. Why do labels want to sell walkman's when ipod's are flying off the shelves.
September 4, 2008 at 10:32am by Rachel King
The music industry needs to wake up finally and realize that times have changed. Some music execs are still so stubborn that they won't acknowledge that iTunes is THE music store of the 21st century and they only way they are going to make any money. For example, Kid Rock recently refused to sell his singles or albums on iTunes, because as he says, "ITunes takes the money, the record company takes the money, and they don't give it to the artists." (http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/kid-rock-boycot.html) They don't realize that if they just ignore iTunes and similar online music stores, they are basically just asking people to download them illegally via Bit Torrent or LimeWire.
September 4, 2008 at 11:25am by Justin Boland
Good music and a large ad budget? Never fails.
September 4, 2008 at 11:48am by Karma Martell
The answer: They can't. The music industry resisted the pay-per-song model way before the iphone and iPod (it debuted in large chains in the early 90's I believe) and fought against the Mp3 with all their might. They had an opportunity to control the playing field, and they just whined instead while the unlikely Apple corp took the lead with a "killer app."
I never understood why Time-Warner, with all their built-in cable and AOL customers didn't just offer a monthly add-on of even $5 for x number of music downloads on a customer's cable or ISP bill. Seemed like a no-brainer to this marketer -- and that could have happened LONG BEFORE the iPod came along. $5 subscription add-ons x millions a month is not a bad business model IMHO
Karma Martell
KarmaCom Inc
www.karmacom.com
September 4, 2008 at 1:01pm by Megan DaGata
I don't think that album sales will ever be what they once were. The recording industry has to evolve to meet the needs of the modern public, or not sell the downloads to iTunes. Kid Rock is having a great year with the release of his album, but they did not sell each song individually on iTunes. So, buying the album was the only means of hearing the songs. Rock N Roll Jesus is an awesome album, and no one would have heard the other great songs if they were depending on iTunes and singles.
September 4, 2008 at 4:59pm by Eben C
They don't need to sell albums, they need to raise prices on their best singles.
Fixed, or socialized, prices are killing all content industries. As video, film and tv go digital, this will become abundantly clear. Already the most affluent consumers go without any meaningful content--this we think of as normal but it's just a function of the market.
There weren't any cars for rich folks in Russia either. Except here in the US, pretty much all of us are rich enough to afford premium content.
The money to be made from premium content once this market is established will make the internet boom look like penny ante nonsense. In a very real way, the internet is the pipeline through which vast supplies of content "oil" will flow.
If it's like other pipelines, that being pumped will be worth some twenty times the value of the pipeline.
For more info: whiteg.com
September 4, 2008 at 6:49pm by Scott Williams
Albums? Whats an album? The only reason people made albums in the past was because of restrictions with the medium: vinyl, tape, cd, etc... It was expensive to produce, stock, ship, sell albums in the past so better "fit" as much as you can for you fans in one shot. Next question: What is a music industry? ;) http://www.kompoz.com
September 4, 2008 at 7:52pm by Gary Mason
The same way they did in the late 80's when the same labels started to release single cassette tapes.
It's just another avenue to get customers that want a lower price point to get exactly what they want. I bet there are statistics out there somewhere that state that iTunes has increased the revenues of labels because of single track sales. Not to mention whole album sales, since you now have the opportunity to hear a snippet of each song before you buy it.
September 5, 2008 at 11:54am by D Benders
iTunes did not force the industry into a singles-driven business. That simply isn't true. The 'strong single' model has been in place for years (80s or earlier) with the rise of radio and television. Singles have been used to make people aware of an artist and generate interest so that the consumer would want to hear more and buy albums (highest profit margin).
Three important things happened over time. First, record labels started to really benefit from consumer behavior of buying albums after hearing 1 or 2 good singles. People hoped the rest would be as good. So, labels and artists went with it. They didn’t always invest enough to make sure that the music was good past those few singles. Second, consumer behavior began to change. If there are only a few good songs, maybe I should just buy the single. Third, lots of consumers stopped seeing the album as a complete piece of art or entertainment that was intended to be consumed as a whole.
iTunes is a growing business, but digital download is still not the dominant method for labels to earn revenue. A staggering (and rapidly declining) number of physical cd's are still sold each year, but that is actually almost bad news. As more and more people move to digital music, they are also becoming a singles only consumer which makes it hard to make real profits.
The combination of digital music AND buying full albums is the ideal situation. If labels could convince the average person that the quality of the art / full album is going to be high again, it is possible to reverse the trend... it just should be offered digitally. The business model is still great. An average of $10 for a product with very little manufacturing and distribution overhead sold on a mass scale.
September 7, 2008 at 7:19pm by Gary Stafford
As an earlier person commented, you can't stop change. I have two average children, 7 and 12. They don't ask to go to Wal-Mart to buy a CD. They want to download music to play on their MP3 players. Sorry, that was last year! They want to RIP music to their new cellphones, which didn't cost us anything, except $25 to add to our phone plan.
September 8, 2008 at 10:15pm by Jimbolaya Matthews
Labels should promote musical pop artists who understand album-long concepts, with songs that over lap and have continuity.
September 9, 2008 at 3:14pm by Valerie Schweingruber
Personally, I think the music industry already made enough money and should promote smaller bands with smaller budgets. So don`t cry like a baby!The World is changing and the music industry needs to change too.
September 9, 2008 at 3:16pm by Nadine Chammartin
They can just forget it. The people are not interested any more in buying albums. Why buy one album with just one song you like on it for 15 dollars, when you can download just the songs you like from iTunes and that for 99cents??? If the labels want to make money, they have to change their business model. The customer is king, the best solution is just doing what the customer wants. A new time has come, in which albums have no place in the market anymore, just like the VHS, Polaroid and CD players before...(yeah Peter :)...)...
September 14, 2008 at 12:12am by Robin Monroe
Incentivize albums, and then discount them. For example and itunes single is .99 cents. To sell albums, include about 12 songs, 2 music videos, some cross platform ring tones, and a few .jpgs or gifs that people can use on their cell phones. Then price the digital download album at 75% of the cost of the 12 singles, since there is no cost for a CD or packaging.
September 26, 2008 at 9:51am by Clemens Bartlome
e-mail clients sort e-mails by date. but is "time" really the best factor to sort messages?
September 27, 2008 at 10:39pm by Jose Miguel Ferrer
They need to sell custom made albums, I mean, people wants to get CD's with singles and music from different artists. People is getting tired to buy a complete album with not too many good songs. Labels will also have to include videos on their albums too.
September 28, 2008 at 6:35pm by Tommy Ye
Get rid of RIAA, stop suing software developments and act more courteously.
October 3, 2008 at 5:54pm by Andrew Owen
Why can't record labels allow customers to create their own albums (i.e. a "mixtape)? Maybe there's an market for bundling singles into albums?
October 9, 2008 at 3:28pm by David Mullings
It was a singles-driven business before iTunes, hence the payola for songs on radio.
The difference was that consumers were forced to buy the whole album to get the few good singles.
Labels can sell albums by making albums filled with good singles rather than filler for 60-75% of it.
Those days have been long gone and the labels are at fault.
October 14, 2008 at 10:33am by Yavor Atanasov
Albums are a thing of the past already. There are fewer and fewer artists who produce quality stuff and devote enough attention to every single in an album. Remixes, featuring artists, instrumentals, what comes next to fill in the gaps? The industry has to adapt, just like any other industry for that matter.