The effect of the $3 price tag for "When I Get Home You're So Dead"

[kingtonyx]

Okay, question of the day...

What effect is the $3 price tag having on "When I Get Home You're So Dead" by Mayday Parade?

For a look at how it's doing you can look here.

As you can see, this track is hanging on at a pretty respectable level actually going up the chart this week instead of downwards like many of the songs around it. So what does that $3 price tag mean?

Is it...
A) Hurting the sales of the track big time, this track would be in the top 20 at a normal $2 price point!
B) Hurting the sales slightly, maybe dropping it 10 or so spots than regular.
C) Not having an effect. The sales are decent just as they should be.
D) Helping the sales of this track. People may be checking out what the $3 hype is all about.

[SystemSCSnake]

I personally believe it's D. This track, being the only track on the market that is $3, makes people want to see why it is $3. As more and more tracks become available on RBN as $3, it will eventually turn into A, unless it's a song by someone like god-like like Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin.

[axelkothe]

I think it's definately hurting the songs sales, but not as much as I would have expected. Myself I never even downloaded the demo because I will not pay $3 for a song, period (Most of my songs are $1, and only a few well chosen ones were $2. I prefer giving two $1 songs a chance instead of buying one for $2). But I think it overall doesn't really make a difference in the amount of money earned in the end.

[kitlerc]

I didn't really like the song anyway and probably wouldn't have bought it no matter the price.

[T-Hybrid]

So kingtonyx points to the thread that shows the song is actually continuing it's climb up the charts...and people still think it's "hurting" the sales?

If it's having any affect, it's negligible...

[axelkothe]

So kingtonyx points to the thread that shows the song is actually continuing it's climb up the charts...and people still think it's "hurting" the sales?

Well it has about 1600 scores. Thats good, but not incredible. I think theres a good chance at $2 it would have 2000 or more. So yes. It's definately hurting the sales. Wether it would sell 1.5 times the numbers it does now (to make the same amount of money), nobody knows.

less sales - sure
less/more money - unclear

[Lady Siara]

So kingtonyx points to the thread that shows the song is actually continuing it's climb up the charts...and people still think it's "hurting" the sales?

If it's having any affect, it's negligible...

To be fair, we'll never know either way because this thread is purely hypothetical.

I can definitely say that I have no interest in the song when I can get 3 songs for the same price. This might change depending on if an artist that I really like comes out and charges 3 dollars per song, but for now, I'm not buying any 3 dollar song.

[T-Hybrid]

Well it has about 1600 scores. Thats good, but not incredible. I think theres a good chance at $2 it would have 2000 or more. So yes. It's definately hurting the sales. Wether it would sell 1.5 times the numbers it does now (to make the same amount of money), nobody knows.

So really then...this isn't a discussion, it's just an attempt to "prove" that $3 is a bad price?

Great.

To be fair, we'll never know either way because this thread is purely hypothetical.

The way I look at it, the song appears to already be in the top 50. Out of what, 200 songs? That's a pretty good showing considering how many people here were flying off the handle about "OMG $3!"

I'm also waiting for the chicken little scenario that those people were throwing out about how all RBN songs were going to be $3...or for those people to admit that they were way off mark with their vitrol.

[Kariodude]

The problem with price discussions is that it's all up to the person looking through the RBN store. You can't just say $3 is a bad idea in general because some songs for some people are worth $3. Just because you say to yourself "I'd never buy a $3 song" doesn't mean that no one will. I personally don't want to spend $3 on a song but if the right song came along I'd definitely shell out the cash.

[silentknell]

Given that there is no way to know what could have happened if it was sold for $2, I'm going to go ahead and predict that those who have already expressed fear about some sort of trickling effect of $3 songs in the past (or those who just plainly detest the $3 pricing) are going to vote that it is hurting their sales, and those who have stated that artists and labels have the right to charge what they want are going to say that it either doesn't make any difference or it is helping their sales.

Basically, people are just going to continue to vote with their prior preconceived notion about the issue, and not change their minds about anything.