AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes price changes deliver mixed results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iTunes price changes deliver mixed results

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Price increases that took effect on Apple's iTunes Store last week reportedly hurt unit sales of some of the most popular songs but ultimately managed to drive marginal increases in overall revenues for the digital download service.

For example, the 33 songs on the iTunes top 100 seller list that saw their price increase from 99 cents to $1.25 sold an average of 12.5 fewer units last week than the week before, according to an analysis conducted by Billboard [PDF], which has long served as a barometer for U.S. music sales. Meanwhile, the 67 songs in the list that remained at 99 cents saw an average unit sale increase just shy of 10 percent.

When grouped together, the 100 songs in the top seller list saw unit sales dip only half of a percent from 4.64 million units the week before the hikes to 4.62 million the week after. But with many of those tracks priced 30 percent higher, Apple actually witnessed an increase in iTunes revenues for the week.

Billboard in its report does not pinpoint this actual sales increase however, and it's not clear how precise the publication's estimates are. Instead, it presents a couple of theoretical scenarios, mainly because iTunes doesn't monopolize the digital music business entirely, leaving the possibility that some customers may have chosen to purchase some of their songs last week from an alternative service that didn't raise its prices.

For instance, if every other service raised their prices to mirror Apple's across the board, songs in the iTunes top 100 list would have generated 11.8 percent higher revenues due to lesser fluctuation in consumers' purchasing patterns. However, if other stores didn't instate the same increase, revenues from those same songs would brought in only 9.5 percent higher revenues, assuming iTunes' share of the market is 80 percent.

In the hours following the iTunes price increase, several other digital download stores -- such as Wal-Mart and Amazon MP3 -- did indeed reflect price increases themselves, but not to the same degree as iTunes. For example, 6 of the top 10 and 29 of the top 100 songs on iTunes saw their price increase to $1.29 last Tuesday, but none of the top 10 singles and only 10 of the top 100 songs reflected price inflation over 99 cents over at Amazon.

Still, a single week's worth of data isn't conclusive enough to gauge the impact of the price changes due to a number of other unrelated variables, such as the release timing of certain singles. Billboard notes that if the "expected second-week drop of Black Eyed Peas' 'Boom Pow Pow' is taken out of the calculations, the 33 songs [in the top 100] priced at $1.29 sold only 6.9 percent fewer units" compared to 12.9 percent fewer units.

Meanwhile, a few popular single tracks with fewer expected week-to-week fluctuations did show some adverse affects following the price changes, such as Akon's "Beautiful," which saw sales slide more than 8 percent compared to a 1.5 percent dip the week earlier. On the other hand, sales of Akon's entire album "Freedom" -- still priced at $8.99 and representing a better deal given that 3 of the 4 songs fetch $1.29 by themselves -- rose 18 percent.
post #2 of 42
A 30% $ increase in the sale of anything is a negative- no matter where the blame lies.
post #3 of 42
<ed: nein.>
post #4 of 42
I think record companies will realize that this was a mistake, its more phycological than actual price. Did they study any economics at all? Why they think $19.99 is more affordable than $20 item.

I think Apple should team up with all other service providers and push for c99 prices.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #5 of 42
Bottom line:

Winners- Apple, Record companies (more revenue).
Losers- Consumers (higher prices, less people download).
post #6 of 42
This all reminds me of what happens all to often at restaurants.

When things slow down, they (most) give smaller portions and charge more? Which has folks staying away, and in many cases, causing the restaurant to go out of business.

Then there are the ones that give you the same amount or even MORE, but charge for what you get, stay in business and folks say things like

"Hey, have you eaten at (X) lately"? "I went last night and the portions are even more then before" "not sure how they can do it, in these tough times, but they are, and the foods as great as ever"!

Which makes the most sense?

Skip
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

I think record companies will realize that this was a mistake, its more phycological than actual price. Did they study any economics at all? Why they think $19.99 is more affordable than $20 item.

I think Apple should team up with all other service providers and push for c99 prices.

I think it's just a temporary thing until people adjust to it. We've been used to paying 99 cents so we hesitate to pay 1.29... For now... After a while 1.29 won't seem like it's that expensive because you've been seeing 1.29 for a while now. It's pretty similar to gas actually - once something has been at a certain price for a while, even if it's higher than what it should be, you get used to it.
post #8 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

www.thepiratebay.org
www.isohunt.com

The only way to fight RIAA rape and greed is to bring them to their knees.

I don't think that honest people would agree with you.

Those sites rape as well.

By getting from them, you are ensuring that the artists get NOTHING.

But you don't care, do you? Just thinking of yourself.
post #9 of 42
Did anyone ever find any $.69 tracks? Also, has anyone ever found any HD movies for rent from iTunes (without an Apple TV)?
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't think that honest people would agree with you.

Those sites rape as well.

By getting from them, you are ensuring that the artists get NOTHING.

But you don't care, do you? Just thinking of yourself.

Why, you sound like Frodo Baggins to his Gollum.
post #11 of 42
When I paid a buck for a 45rpm - in 1977 dollars (two tracks) - was I getting ripped off?
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
post #12 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFan83 View Post

Bottom line:

Winners- Apple, Record companies (more revenue).
Losers- Consumers (higher prices, less people download).


Less people download = less revenue = losers = Apple & Record Companies & Artist & Consumer

Its the government business model of, if you are not making enough raise prices.
Instead of lowering them to encourage new users, they punish the current ones.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

When I paid a buck for a 45rpm - in 1977 dollars (two tracks) - was I getting ripped off?

No but that $8.99 8-Track tape in 1978 you were.
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

I think it's just a temporary thing until people adjust to it. We've been used to paying 99 cents so we hesitate to pay 1.29... For now... After a while 1.29 won't seem like it's that expensive because you've been seeing 1.29 for a while now. It's pretty similar to gas actually - once something has been at a certain price for a while, even if it's higher than what it should be, you get used to it.


Maybe, but there is something about crossing over that .99 cent mark.

It makes it seem like so much more, maybe even simply because it is not an even number,.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyKrz View Post

Did anyone ever find any $.69 tracks? Also, has anyone ever found any HD movies for rent from iTunes (without an Apple TV)?

While I haven't looked for 69 cent tracks, there are a number of HD movies AND Tv shows for purchase and rental.

It's right there. Go to the left side of the iTunes window. You'll see:

MORE IN MOVIES & TV

Under that title you'll see:

HD Movies (NEW)

HD TV Shows

TV Shows Just Added
post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why, you sound like Frodo Baggins to his Gollum.

You know as well as I do that what I said is true.
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

When I paid a buck for a 45rpm - in 1977 dollars (two tracks) - was I getting ripped off?

That would be $3.51 in 2008, more today.

Try this page:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

He updates it every year. It's very useful
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't think that honest people would agree with you.
Those sites rape as well.
By getting from them, you are ensuring that the artists get NOTHING.
But you don't care, do you? Just thinking of yourself.

Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

Less people download = less revenue = losers = Apple & Record Companies & Artist & Consumer

No. It depends on the mix as was shown.

In eco 101 we all learned that selling more doesn't always mean higher profits. There is a point where number of sales x price gives the highest profitability. That's never at the lowest price.
post #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That would be $3.51 in 2008, more today.

Try this page:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

He updates it every year. It's very useful


Thats cool, thanks
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

When I paid a buck for a 45rpm - in 1977 dollars (two tracks) - was I getting ripped off?

the question is: did you get ripped off when you bought it again on 8 track, cassette tape and then again on cd? if the argument by the record labels is that we don't own the music we buy, how about an 'upgrade' when new media comes out?
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasf View Post

Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.

What a screwed up excuse!

If you don't want to pay for something, then you don't get it.

If you want it, and don't pay for it, then, yes, it's rape.

If you're too poor, or too cheap, to buy it at the price offered, then you shouldn't have it.

Didn't your mother teach you anything?
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

I think Apple should team up with all other service providers and push for c99 prices.

Yeah, Apple simply said, "Okay, whatever you want to charge is fine with us".
We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.
post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No. It depends on the mix as was shown.

In eco 101 we all learned that selling more doesn't always mean higher profits. There is a point where number of sales x price gives the highest profitability. That's never at the lowest price.


Like anything, there is a moderation point. I would agree if they sold songs at $0.01 They would not be making much profit. They would have to sell 100 times more, to equal the same. I have used that graph before in calc, I forget what it is called though.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You know as well as I do that what I said is true.

You're a man of integrity. Of course I know it- to an extent. You oversimplified it a bit.
It just read funny.
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

the question is: did you get ripped off when you bought it again on 8 track, cassette tape and then again on cd? if the argument by the record labels is that we don't own the music we buy, how about an 'upgrade' when new media comes out?

That relates to Apple's prices for software such as iLife and iwork.

You pay the same for the upgrades as yu paid for the original. Most people accept that as being fine, as the price isn't that high, and presents a good value for those who want the programs.

We argue about what the right price is for music, and guys such as tomasf think that stealing it is ok because the price is too high for them (though I think they would steal it at any price).

Perhaps the price isn't too high. Perhaps its just right, and upgrades shouldn't be cheaper. After all, they almost always re-master it for a new medium.
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

You're a man of integrity. Of course I know it- to an extent. You oversimplified it a bit.
It just read funny.

It's good we can agree on something.
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.

He's too busy relaxing and listening to his iPod HI-FI's.
Seriously we know he was always against anything other than 99 cents a song. What could he say?
post #29 of 42
Stealing is stealing:

I think Ferrari is ripping me off, so the next person I see that owns one. I am going to follow home, crack on the back of the head, and steal his car.



That will show Ferrari!!!
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

While I haven't looked for 69 cent tracks, there are a number of HD movies AND Tv shows for purchase and rental.

It's right there. Go to the left side of the iTunes window. You'll see:

MORE IN MOVIES & TV

Under that title you'll see:

HD Movies (NEW)

HD TV Shows

TV Shows Just Added

The problem isn't that I can't find HD movies, but that I can't rent those movies in HD. I see that you can BUY the HD movie and I see that you can rent the same movie that is available in HD, but if you do rent the movie, it is in SD, not HD.
post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Didn't your mother teach you anything?

Your mother did a great job.

It's not just anyone that can amass 16k+ posts being a cranky, know-it-all, old man.
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

Less people download = less revenue = losers = Apple & Record Companies & Artist & Consumer

It looks like you're wrong so far. The data in the article with very a tiny bit of math shows that it is bringing more revenue on average. In this case, the increase in price more than makes up for the moderate loss in sales. Sometimes charging more brings in more money (despite a modest loss of unit sales), sometimes charging less money brings in more money because more customers are buying. It really depends on the elasticity of demand. This is basic first year Economics.
post #33 of 42
Steve Jobs has always stuck by the single pricing model and resisted the record companies variable model for so long. Finally they got their way (probably not helped by Steve's break). The variable pricing is pure GREED on the part of the labels, to fleece the consumer for 30% more. I predicted that this was too much and was so blatant. Hence the drop top track sales.

Big record label = bastards
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

A 30% $ increase in the sale of anything is a negative- no matter where the blame lies.

Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasf View Post

Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.

Until you get a clue and realize who actually sets the price, then maybe you'll understand. The Artists don't set the price, their record label does. If they are independent, that's different. New releases at Target and Wal-Mart can be obtained for $9.99 for the CD. They have never been cheaper. It wasn't long ago that CD's were $15.99 to $17.99. Single tracks for .69 to $1.29 is still far cheaper than $5-$7 for a CD single.
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.

WRONG - harm to Apple iTunes sales. People will now find it cheaper, buy a Cd or simply steal.
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.

I agree with 'teckstud' - You are wrong it's 30% increase in the top tracks which is a big increase and is easily enough to put people off. Most new music may suck, but not all of it.
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

WRONG - harm to Apple iTunes sales. People will now find it cheaper, buy a Cd or simply steal.


I started to use iTunes to buy music about three years ago. Prior to that I purchased most at Best Buy or Target for my domestic and yesasia.com for my imports. Why? 100% for the CONVENIENCE, nothing more. The ease of purchase even made up for the trouble to remove the DRM by burning and reripping.

NO MORE. With this new pricing system I have started buying my older music on CD at second-hand music stores. In addition, I have gone back to yesasia.com as well. Yes, I have to spend more effort to find music on CD and it takes longer for the CDs to arrive from Japan. All true. But, import cds are the same price and used cds are cheaper, so it works out for me.

This all comes down to principle. There is NO reason, other than greed, to raise these prices...especially in the midst of such terrible economic times.

No more iTunes (or Amazon, etc.) for me.
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I started to use iTunes to buy music about three years ago. Prior to that I purchased most at Best Buy or Target for my domestic and yesasia.com for my imports. Why? 100% for the CONVENIENCE, nothing more. The ease of purchase even made up for the trouble to remove the DRM by burning and reripping.

NO MORE. With this new pricing system I have started buying my older music on CD at second-hand music stores. In addition, I have gone back to yesasia.com as well. Yes, I have to spend more effort to find music on CD and it takes longer for the CDs to arrive from Japan. All true. But, import cds are the same price and used cds are cheaper, so it works out for me.

This all comes down to principle. There is NO reason, other than greed, to raise these prices...especially in the midst of such terrible economic times.

No more iTunes (or Amazon, etc.) for me.

Nearly everything I would be interested in remains at $.99. I don't really buy what would be considered "new and popular" music, though. I did see a few older songs, like Etta James "At Last" at a $1.29.

Don't buy 'em and the price will come down ....
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Yeah, Apple simply said, "Okay, whatever you want to charge is fine with us".
We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.

Variable pricing was one of the concession Apple gave in to to get DRM free music. And I believe Apple also got the rights to sell their iTunes music on the iPhone for the same price as buying it on a computer.

You can look at it this way. That extra $.29 is the tax all music buyers pay on downloaded music to make up for the fact that they can now easily give away copies to their friends. It's like the blank media tax many people in some European countries (and Canada) have to pay to their version of the RIAA. Everybody has to pay regardless of whether they give away their music or not.

And let's not forget that iTunes was already selling some of music for $1.29 before the Music Industry raised the price. These were the "plus" songs in a higher bit rate. But many still had DRM. So now all the songs are in the higher bit rate "plus" format and DRM free. And still for $1.29.

Would all you people whining about the extra $.29 rather still pay the $.99 for the lower bit rate (with DRM) version of it, if it were still available on iTunes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes price changes deliver mixed results