What is reasonable price for CDs?

[The Six]

I don't know what discussion DavidW is trying to join, but anyway, you just don't get it. I appreciate the amount of adjectives you thought of in that post for me, but they just don't apply. I already said I have no sense of entitlement, but obviously your own opinion based on a few posts trumps that.
There's nothing selfish here. None of what I said would benefit me. It would, on the contrary, potentially hurt me financially. If anything, your retort was self-serving, if only to boast of how much you feel you know. Did you even try to read why I think the cost should be lower, or were you just eager to post a diatribe? I can only speak from my own standpoint as a musician and hope that it's good enough for others to follow - that I want as many people as possible to hear it. Selling albums at $15 each is not the reward. Now if you want to attack something, maybe go with this, it's possible that the lower price would lead to more purchases because more people can afford it, making up for the potential lost revenue.

[DavidW]

it's possible that the lower price would lead to more purchases because more people can afford it, making up for the potential lost revenue.

No the entire point is that the price is already set by the supply-demand curve, with much more care than the casual arm chair critic on an internet forum.  If they could make more profit by cutting prices, they would, they really would.  It's stupid when clueless people just assume that the industry doesn't cut prices out of some sense of stubbornness and lack of common sense.  How many times do multiple posters have to tell you this?  It's the demand that sets the price.

And I really think that you have to be a cheapskate to think that entertainment is overpriced these days.  Certainly you're older than I am, and so you should easily remember when you would spend $20+ on a vhs, and $20+ on a cd, and now you spend $5-$15 on a dvd, $10-$15 on a cd and that's not even considering inflation!!

[Todd]

There's nothing selfish here. None of what I said would benefit me...it's possible that the lower price would lead to more purchases because more people can afford it, making up for the potential lost revenue.

Wait, first you say there's nothing selfish, that you could be hurt, but then you say that lower prices could lead to lower prices thereby increasing sales, which, depending on what type of contract you have (presuming you have one) might benefit you. 

That's irrelevant.  Your posts all along have been totally selfish and whiny, capped off by a call to lower compensation all across the production chain.  That's totally arbitrary and indicates that you don't know the details of what it takes to produce and distribute music.  That you're a musician means absolutely nothing in this regard.  I've already clearly stated that I don't know the details of the specific business models, but so many different companies arrive at a similar price, and many continue in business for years, so there must be something to the models.  But no, you write of cutting expenses to arrive at a price you like.  Would this apply to labels like Onyx or Anti-, or simply to big, evil major labels?  And what, precisely, would you cut compensation to?  How would you establish your  cuts?  Have you thought long and hard on this, based on actual data, or do you just want to cut to get to price you think "reasonable"?

And all this because you feel that current prices are too high, when music and most other forms of home based entertainment are actually low by historical standards.  Oh, wait, "we should have access to certain things," like recorded music and whatnot.  Sorry, but I'm not sold on the social necessity of recordings and movies and other forms of discretionary entertainment.  I suppose you can call my writing a diatribe if you'd like, but when I see such blatant selfishness masquerading as some type stand for the masses, or artists, or whomever, against (inevitably) big, evil companies, I'm going to point it out.

[The new erato]

Anyway - discussing the demand side - what we think they should cost, without taking the supply side - at what price anybody will be interested into actually making them - is pretty stupid, and all it willl achieve is that only top 10 drivel is produced.

[The Six]

lower prices thereby increasing sales, which, depending on what type of contract you have (presuming you have one) might benefit you.

The increased sales would be a result of lower prices. There'd be no benefit because they'd cancel each other out.

And all this because you feel that current prices are too high, when music and most other forms of home based entertainment are actually low by historical standards.  Oh, wait, "we should have access to certain things," like recorded music and whatnot.  Sorry, but I'm not sold on the social necessity of recordings and movies and other forms of discretionary entertainment.  I suppose you can call my writing a diatribe if you'd like, but when I see such blatant selfishness masquerading as some type stand for the masses, or artists, or whomever, against (inevitably) big, evil companies, I'm going to point it out.

Yeah, I'm not whining about anything, just proposing something different. But at least this time you've come closer to plainly calling me a liar, which is what you've wanted to do all along, as I've said that I don't care about lower prices for myself, it's not selfish, etc. You think I would go through all this on a message board just because I don't want to pay so much? You just twist what I say into something wrong, not once did I say or infer that big companies are "evil" or in the wrong, but it helps your case that I'm a selfish liar. You seemed to have half-read my reasons, and are more concerned about the financial aspect than I am. Just "not being sold" on the importance of music doesn't really refute me.

[jimmosk]

Having been running classical CD ebay auctions for over six years now, where the bidders get to determine what the price of each CD will be, I'm still regularly surprised at how varied those prices end up being.  Discs I figure will go for $6 end up in the mid-twenties, and vice versa.  Sometimes I'll put an identical item up for auction a few months later and have bidding end at half or twice what the first one went for.  I can only conclude that "proper price" is a mirage, and that the opinions of the moment (and the passion of competitive bidding?) are what determine how much someone will pay for a CD.

For that reason I'm grateful ebay exists -- if I had to sell CDs, for a fixed price, I'd never know how much to ask for them!  (Sadly, ebay seems to be shifting in the direction of becoming an amazon clone, so auctions may not be around forever...)

-J

--
Jim Moskowitz
The Unknown Composers Page:  http://kith.org/jimmosk/TOC.html

[DavidW]

The increased sales would be a result of lower prices. There'd be no benefit because they'd cancel each other out.

That's not necessarily true.  You presume a linear relationship, where it is usually non-linear.  For example if you halved the price and four times as many people started buying you would make more profit by cutting prices.  Of course if you halved the price and 10% more people started buying then you screwed up.

[The new erato]

For example if you halved the price and four times as many people started buying you would make more profit by cutting prices. 

That is wrong. It would double your revenue, but whether it would increase profits is another matter which depends on yopur costs. If your halving of prices brought your price per unit below your cost pu, all you woukld achieve was replacing a nice profit with a large loss.

[DavidW]

That is wrong. It would double your revenue, but whether it would increase profits is another matter which depends on yopur costs. If your halving of prices brought your price per unit below your cost pu, all you woukld achieve was replacing a nice profit with a large loss.

The cost of production is negligible compared to other factors, technically you're right, but really you're wrong.

[The new erato]

The cost of production is negligible compared to other factors, technically you're right, but really you're wrong.

What do you mean by other factors? Cost is cost I'd say, whether they are cost related to manufacturig and distributing the discs, royalty payments, advertising or other overhead? As I don't understand what you mean, I would appreciate an explanation.

[DavidW]

What do you mean by other factors? Cost is cost I'd say, whether they are cost related to manufacturig and distributing the discs, royalty payments, advertising or other overhead? As I don't understand what you mean, I would appreciate an explanation.

Sorry I was stupidly vague.  I shouldn't have said "other factors" just demand.  In mass production cost is really only a serious factor in the beginning of a product, in fact it's still one that many major companies will overlook when pricing because they know in the long run they'll make up in cost down the road.

[Bu]

I almost purchased Haitnik conducting Bruckner's Seventh with the CSO.  The price was about $21.99, so not having heard it or seen criticism offered regarding the performance I declined, but if the folks over in the Abbey tell me its worth it I'll definitely buy later.

[pcrespoy]

I spend 180RMB for Bach's Cello Suite by J.Starker(RCA),as well as about 10Euro.So expensive!!!

[Christo]

I spend 180RMB for Bach's Cello Suite by J.Starker(RCA),as well as about 10Euro.So expensive!!!

My money converter informs me, that 180 RMB would even be as much as about 19 Euros. Quite expensive indeed! 

[pcrespoy]

My money converter informs me, that 180 RMB would even be as much as about 19 Euros. Quite expensive indeed! 

Wow,19Euro,it's my fault.
Exactly,so expensive!!!Although the CD is very nice.