Unofficial "We Refuse to Spend $3 On One Song" Thread

[onduvalst]

What if I'm cold, it's dark and I have some hay to move?

Well in that case......

[T-Hybrid]

I know you're going to defend the price point, Henry, its your job. No problem there.

That's really really sad that you will dismiss a completely valid point just because an HMXer said it. What was the point of entering this conversation if you're just going to use that as your argument?

[Banky71]

That's really really sad that you will dismiss a completely valid point just because an HMXer said it. What was the point of entering this conversation if you're just going to use that as your argument?

I'm pretty sure Henry can defend himself and would have if he felt the need.

[jimbury]

thin end of the wedge, if people pay it for this track you'll get a flood of tracks charging the same.

[FatWilma]

Man, this thread is classic! Definitely worth $3.

As far as $3 songs go, I would be inclined not to buy them unless it meets ALL the right criteria and I just couldn't play RB without it. I'm thinking those songs are going to be few and far between, and if one does come along and it really is a song I couldn't play RB without, I would then have no problem paying $3.

[Apples]

To play devil's advocate, there were quite a few prognosticators who expected $1 songs to be the runaway standard and fan favorite. And yet a cursory glance at the top 30 shows it chock full of $2 songs.

This is basic economics at work. If something is perceived as too expensive, people won't buy it. In the face of this failure, sellers can choose to lower their price, or continue failing.

I don't see that this subject is really all that controversial. I wouldn't buy a $3 song, but if the artist/author thinks they can make it work, good luck.

[cherokeesam]

This is all speculative. The 3$ pricing will most likely fail and EMI will of course drop price to met consumer expectation.

Really....?
This is EMI.... a company that's so far in debt they can't even dig their way out; a company that was hijacked by a private equity group 3 years ago that's run by a tax-exile corporate raider; a company that has alienated almost all of its talent; a company whose CEO just walked out on them without warning or explanation just a few days ago; a company who put up Pink Floyd's discography on iTunes without their consent, and is now in ungodly debt to that band because of the inevitable lawsuit; a company that's on the verge of a merger with Warners to try to erase its debt....

....and you think they're willing to drop their prices if raising the baseline doesn't pay off....?

It's not rocket science, people. It's greedy record labels, same old story. Who here believes EMI came to RBN with good intentions, show of hands.....

[bermuddy]

i think henry should join one of our XBL parties so he gets to know us better.

[Ultrace]

Any group that doesn't mind suing a 6 year old for something so stupid, due to greed, certainly isn't concerned about raising their prices a dollar.

I have yet to see anyone in this post or another post, justify why a label should be concerned about raising their prices a dollar. If they price it that way and it sells, then why shouldn't they? Are songs like "Atomic" or "Bohemian Like You" -- or any songs, for that matter -- necessities? Do the labels have anyone by the neck, forcing them to pay their prices?

All DLC is optional. As a consumer, you have every right to be upset at the pricing of songs, but I don't see anyone pointing out why, if you're not going to buy it, the label should care about whether you're happy with that or not.

I say all this as someone who does not intend to pay $3 for either of the two songs listed above. We like them--and like the Dandy Warhols song an awful lot--but I like the as-of-yet-unpurchased "Paper Valentines" + one of the many fenceline $2 songs a lot more.

[bermuddy]

aaaaaaaaand back to general.