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

[NoThru22]

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.

If you think it's D then why has no one chosen D?

I think it's only hurting sales a little bit. Looking at the charts, it seems price doesn't affect sales as much as people thought it would. I thought people would be insane to release RBN songs for $2, let alone $3, but the majority of the songs in the top 50 are $2. Personally, if I'm iffy on a song, and I see that it's $1, I will go ahead and buy it, but I seem to be in the minority.

[Ralphy2009]

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?

Whether it's climbing or falling in the charts is ultimately irrelevant since there's no data for a "When I Get Home You're So Dead" priced at $1 or $2 to compare its current position to.

It's extremely difficult to gauge exactly how the price is affecting sales. I think the best way to determine pricing option effects would be for a relatively well-known artist to put out relatively well-known songs at different price options, released as closely together as possible. Otherwise, there's not much that we can really glean from the available data.

I think the obvious fact is that pricing a song at $3 will hurt the sales. The question, though, is whether the loss of sales by using that price point is offset by the amount of increased revenue for it to be worthwhile. There are many fictitious examples people use about selling 2000 songs at $2 and 1300 songs at $3 or whatever numbers they choose to make the math support their argument. While that type of "how many songs at this price" scenario is the essence of what record labels and artists are thinking about, the hard numbers are just not available.

If they think their sales at $3 will maximize profit (say the sales for popular songs are generally looking to be 2500 songs at $1, 1500 at $2, 1200 at $3), then they will use that price point. If they think their sales at $2 will maximize profit (say the sales for popular songs are generally looking to be 2500 songs at $1, 1800 at $2, 1000 at $3), then they will use that price point. Lastly, if they think their sales at $1 will maximize profit (say the sales for popular songs are generally looking to be 2500 songs at $1, 1200 at $2, 700 at $3), then they will use that price point.

That's all there is to it. As time goes by and labels/artists experiment with various price points, the sales trends for popular songs at different price points will be available for record labels and artists to consider in future pricing decisions for new songs and re-pricing current songs.

[dmbdaw]

No effect. People want it bad enough they'll get it even for $3.

[jawillroy]

It's really the wrong question, since it's impossible to answer with anything but guesswork. There's no control: everyone just sees what they want to see.

Frankly, for a band like Mayday Parade, with a big fan base, the $3 tag makes sense. They aren't using RBN to make fans: this is an additional income stream from people who are already fans.

[Sayburr]

No effect. People want it bad enough they'll get it even for $3.

Yep, that is what I decided after seeing the song remain in the chart. I thought for sure a song at $3 would be detremental for sales, but it looks like I was wrong.

I still do not plan on ever buying a song at that price level since no "Official" song charted by Harmonix has been sold at $3. Heck, I think $2 is high enough, and on the verge of being too much for a song.

Anyway, since the sales for that song seem to be fairly good I can see more songs being sold at $3.

[mbnasir6]

IMO its not too big
Did you guys know that in the UK GH DLC costs £1.60 compared to £.99 for RB tracks, so not a big deal for us

[Blasteroids]

I went for hurting sales because I have no interest in even looking at the chart since it is $3. Never heard of them, so even less likely to be bothered about it.

[folkeye]

I also agree if people like the song, they'll get it no matter the price. I haven't been following actual sales but is this the first $3.00 song?

Personally I checked it out to see if it was worth the $3.00. IMO no, it's not. I'd consider it if it was at $2.00

[weirdphil]

I bought enough $1 and $2 songs that I figure $3 every now and then ain't gonna bankrupt me. And I think the song was pretty good.

[Michelle452]

Seems like a decent track, but no way I'll ever buy it for $3. Probably wouldn't even buy it for $2 since I've never heard of the band.