Corporate America ... looking good!

MichaelG

saw this article and found it quite 'amusing'. And these are the same people that tell me I shouldn't download music off the internet and will sue me if I make copies of my cds I purchased from them and give to my brother? But seems another example of typical corporate greed?
With her death ... looks to be an easy way to make a fast buck off her and her music fans.
Just awaiting for more advertisements from Sony, Walmart, Target...etc ... to sell her Memorial or Greatest Hits - Part 2 album. Either way .. quite sad.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10394035-sony-hikes-whitney-houston-album-prices-online?chromedomain=digitallife

inlet13

MichaelG wrote:

saw this article and found it quite 'amusing'. And these are the same people that tell me I shouldn't download music off the internet and will sue me if I make copies of my cds I purchased from them and give to my brother? But seems another example of typical corporate greed?
With her death ... looks to be an easy way to make a fast buck off her and her music fans.
Just awaiting for more advertisements from Sony, Walmart, Target...etc ... to sell her Memorial or Greatest Hits - Part 2 album. Either way .. quite sad.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10394035-sony-hikes-whitney-houston-album-prices-online?chromedomain=digitallife

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

inlet13

P.S. I think what is sad is the fact that so many naive consumers celebrate death of an artist with increased demand, as if their death makes the music or art better.

That sort of herd mentality is exactly what's wrong with music, IMHO.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

It's hard to understand that people might have the expectation that a corporation subscribe to some sort of moral/ethical guidelines outside of 'if someone will buy it, I'll sell it'?

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

It's hard to understand that people might have the expectation that a corporation subscribe to some sort of moral/ethical guidelines outside of 'if someone will buy it, I'll sell it'?

don't like it don't buy it...go out and make it public and gather the outrage and voice your concerns to sony so they change. If you just lay down and take it while buying it at the new price you aren't really part of the solution.

edit*** hit submit too early

As far as a moral/ethical guidelines? what is unethical about raising the price when you know people will want it? if the people buying it wanted it so badly they should have bought it at the better price. Sony didn't kill anyone, they just saw a money making opportunity and jumped on it...just like selling tupac t-shirts

BinauralJam

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

It's hard to understand that people might have the expectation that a corporation subscribe to some sort of moral/ethical guidelines outside of 'if someone will buy it, I'll sell it'?

I'd like to, but it's near impossible when nothing but accountents run everything, when there is an actual creative person with a vision behind a product.... well there's some hope.

JTH

this isn't quite the same thing, but it reminds me of the gas stations that jacked up their prices on 9/11. There was one I stopped at regularly up until that point. I haven't been there since that day.

Hell, if my tank was empty, I'd sooner walk past that place with a gas can to get to the next gas station than patronize that place.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

It's hard to understand that people might have the expectation that a corporation subscribe to some sort of moral/ethical guidelines outside of 'if someone will buy it, I'll sell it'?

don't like it don't buy it...go out and make it public and gather the outrage and voice your concerns to sony so they change. If you just lay down and take it while buying it at the new price you aren't really part of the solution.

edit*** hit submit too early

As far as a moral/ethical guidelines? what is unethical about raising the price when you know people will want it? if the people buying it wanted it so badly they should have bought it at the better price. Sony didn't kill anyone, they just saw a money making opportunity and jumped on it...just like selling tupac t-shirts

The OP was bringing up the point of it being opportunistic greed. It seemed odd that inlet couldn't understand that and discounted it as 'common sense'. It's not really common sense, it's more a statement about capitalistic values. The only common sense thing about it is that it's expected by many that a corporation would do that.

Drowned Out

mikepegg44 wrote:

don't like it don't buy it...go out and make it public and gather the outrage and voice your concerns to sony so they change. If you just lay down and take it while buying it at the new price you aren't really part of the solution.

Isn't that what's happening here?
I think it is unethical to profit from her death the very next day....but then....we all know how well our bastardized version of capitalism and ethics work together.

inlet13 wrote:

P.S. I think what is sad is the fact that so many naive consumers celebrate death of an artist with increased demand, as if their death makes the music or art better.

That sort of herd mentality is exactly what's wrong with music, IMHO.

It's herd mentality to want to listen to the music of an artist that recently died? Come on.....
That's like saying a person is foolish for wanting to look at photos of someone who just died....it's the strongest tie people have to that artist...and a way to help them reflect and mourn. YOu're basically insulting human nature.

inlet13

Drowned Out wrote:

It's herd mentality to want to listen to the music of an artist that recently died? Come on.....
That's like saying a person is foolish for wanting to look at photos of someone who just died....it's the strongest tie people have to that artist...and a way to help them reflect and mourn. YOu're basically insulting human nature.

Do I honestly think that half these people really enjoyed her music? Nope. I think they just have expendable cash... which is what Sony knows. If they really liked it, they'd have her music now.

Listen to Ed's speech at the Grammys. He was right on. It's art. Not a contest.

Just cause everyone suddenly likes something, doesn't mean a typical person should. Unless, of course, they're a sheep. Hence... my point.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

It's hard to understand that people might have the expectation that a corporation subscribe to some sort of moral/ethical guidelines outside of 'if someone will buy it, I'll sell it'?

I know you don't like it... but, a corporation's goal is to:

maximize shareholder wealth. They can help do that by maximizing profits. When Coke raises their prices by a cent are they violating moral/ethical guidelines? Whenever anyone raises prices at all are they? Come on. That's just silly.

Thorns2010

inlet13 wrote:

MichaelG wrote:

saw this article and found it quite 'amusing'. And these are the same people that tell me I shouldn't download music off the internet and will sue me if I make copies of my cds I purchased from them and give to my brother? But seems another example of typical corporate greed?
With her death ... looks to be an easy way to make a fast buck off her and her music fans.
Just awaiting for more advertisements from Sony, Walmart, Target...etc ... to sell her Memorial or Greatest Hits - Part 2 album. Either way .. quite sad.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10394035-sony-hikes-whitney-houston-album-prices-online?chromedomain=digitallife

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

Supply and demand??? On a DIGITAL music file??

It is greed plain and simple. And yeah sure, there might be a slight increase in server usage, but for Amazon or iTunes the slight increase that this might even bring about isn't going to raise their costs.

inlet13

Thorns2010 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

MichaelG wrote:

saw this article and found it quite 'amusing'. And these are the same people that tell me I shouldn't download music off the internet and will sue me if I make copies of my cds I purchased from them and give to my brother? But seems another example of typical corporate greed?
With her death ... looks to be an easy way to make a fast buck off her and her music fans.
Just awaiting for more advertisements from Sony, Walmart, Target...etc ... to sell her Memorial or Greatest Hits - Part 2 album. Either way .. quite sad.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10394035-sony-hikes-whitney-houston-album-prices-online?chromedomain=digitallife

I get the first part of your post... the download issue is certainly debatable.

But, the part on it being greedy to hike prices? I don't understand that one. It's supply and demand. Demand increased for the product. So, why not increase the price?

Seems like common sense to me.

Supply and demand??? On a DIGITAL music file??

It is greed plain and simple. And yeah sure, there might be a slight increase in server usage, but for Amazon or iTunes the slight increase that this might even bring about isn't going to raise their costs.

Yes, supply and demand on a digital music file. I get the fact that one can argue the supply (for digital music) is simply based on server capacity (and pretty much just comes down to transaction costs), but that doesn't matter. They both are a function of how many downloads. BUT, EVEN IF YOU ARGUED SUPPLY WAS FIXED (wherever it is), the price would solely be a function of demand. Demand increases, prices should follow.

Which is what is happening here. I don't blame the record companies, I blame the idiot sheep fans.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

It's hard to understand that people might have the expectation that a corporation subscribe to some sort of moral/ethical guidelines outside of 'if someone will buy it, I'll sell it'?

don't like it don't buy it...go out and make it public and gather the outrage and voice your concerns to sony so they change. If you just lay down and take it while buying it at the new price you aren't really part of the solution.

edit*** hit submit too early

As far as a moral/ethical guidelines? what is unethical about raising the price when you know people will want it? if the people buying it wanted it so badly they should have bought it at the better price. Sony didn't kill anyone, they just saw a money making opportunity and jumped on it...just like selling tupac t-shirts

The OP was bringing up the point of it being opportunistic greed. It seemed odd that inlet couldn't understand that and discounted it as 'common sense'. It's not really common sense, it's more a statement about capitalistic values. The only common sense thing about it is that it's expected by many that a corporation would do that.

what should they have done? offered it for free? what is acceptable?
I am glad people want to celebrate her life and her music...go nuts...but if they wanted it that badly I guess they should have bought it when she was alive.
I get irritated when people make the dead larger than life.
how is raising the price of music shortly after Whitney's death any different than someone selling Tupac and Biggie prints or t-shirts?

Sludge Factory

The point with all this is, if people weren't buying, hiking the prices wouldn't work. You can blame the corporations all you want for taking advantage of the situation and hiking their prices, but what about those who take part and actual support it with their dollars? Don't like it? Vote with your wallet and don't buy it. You can go even further if you want to and not buy anything from said offending corporation or convince many other people to follow your example. Convince enough people and the price will have to go back down if no one is buying.

If you end up buying it at a higher price point then obviously that product you just paid for was actually worth it to you.

The bottom line is, if these price raising tactics are successful that means there are plenty of people out there who are fine with it.

The thing I take issue with is how these corporations get so bent out of shape over perceived lost sales over "illegal" downloading. It can't be assumed that every "illegal" download converts 1:1 into a lost sale. Once people start to look more at the business model as a service rather than a product (i.e. the service being an easily obtainable digital file, and the product the actual file) we can actually make some progress. All this protectionism over IP is a bit ridiculous to me; it stifles the inventiveness of people. How can you own and control an idea and something that isn't really a scarce resource?

Drowned Out

inlet13 wrote:

Do I honestly think that half these people really enjoyed her music? Nope. I think they just have expendable cash... which is what Sony knows. If they really liked it, they'd have her music now.

Listen to Ed's speech at the Grammys. He was right on. It's art. Not a contest.

Just cause everyone suddenly likes something, doesn't mean a typical person should. Unless, of course, they're a sheep. Hence... my point.

Not everyone is an obsessed music fan like many in this crowd...I'd say most top 40 music fans are casual listeners...most casual fans don't have every song they've listened to for the last 30 years on a 60GB ipod… there are a million different reasons for people to want her music now, while they're thinking of her and remembering what her music meant to them...yes, there probably is a segment of people buying these songs that don't know shit about her, and that is who you are directing your rant at.....maybe they're buying her music to fit in with their friends...but I'm sure that’s a small segment of 12 year olds...those idiot sheep.

Blanket statements aside…I understand how supply and demand works….but what’s the PR cost of this move? You can see in this thread that people are already saying ‘And these are the same people that tell me I shouldn't download music off the internet?”, and calling them greedy, unethical, etc….I wonder how many people said ‘f it, I’m downloading it instead’ after hearing about the price gouge…..because they really ARE greedy…as you say, that’s the point of the whole system.
Supply/demand, and ethics are often contrary concepts, that’s the root of this……

Also, I would argue that not all music is art, a lot of it is contrived crap...and there is a demand for it…obviously you know this....but I don't see how artistic integrity, Ed's comment, or the popularity contest angle factor into this conversation at all....

inlet13

Drowned Out wrote:

Not everyone is an obsessed music fan like many in this crowd...I'd say most top 40 music fans are casual listeners...most casual fans don't have every song they've listened to for the last 30 years on a 60GB ipod… there are a million different reasons for people to want her music now, while they're thinking of her and remembering what her music meant to them...yes, there probably is a segment of people buying these songs that don't know shit about her, and that is who you are directing your rant at.....maybe they're buying her music to fit in with their friends...but I'm sure that’s a small segment of 12 year olds...those idiot sheep..

I understand that not everyone is a obsessed music fan. I also understand that top 40 fans are casual listeners. Whitney Houston was a top 40 type act 10-20 years ago. She's not anymore. She's a dead person, who was really, really popular a long time ago. I understand that death increases notoriety. It's a sad fact that sales increase as soon as someone dies. My point is that they increase mostly because of the herd mentality, not because of genuine taste.

Drowned Out wrote:

Blanket statements aside…I understand how supply and demand works….but what’s the PR cost of this move? You can see in this thread that people are already saying ‘And these are the same people that tell me I shouldn't download music off the internet?”, and calling them greedy, unethical, etc….I wonder how many people said ‘f it, I’m downloading it instead’ after hearing about the price gouge…..because they really ARE greedy…as you say, that’s the point of the whole system.
Supply/demand, and ethics are often contrary concepts, that’s the root of this…….

I don't think the PR cost will be large at all for the record company, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. If it is large, then they made a mistake in raising the price (because it will effect profit). At the end of the day, it's those fans who purchase the music who decide whether the PR cost was high or low for Sony. That's kinda my point.

I think your blame of the problem is somewhat misdirected is all. It's not the market that's unethical and it's not companies who raise prices when demand increases who are unethical. These types of things happen everyday and when they do aren't considered unethical. That said, the people who suddenly want music when a person dies and the PR machine behind that push is probably somewhat distasteful and certainly could be considered unethical to some. I consider it distasteful and to me it shows deeper issues within our society.

Drowned Out wrote:

Also, I would argue that not all music is art, a lot of it is contrived crap...and there is a demand for it…obviously you know this....but I don't see how artistic integrity, Ed's comment, or the popularity contest angle factor into this conversation at all....

I would disagree. I think music is art even the stuff you or I don't like. My point on Ed's comment was simply that he basically acknowledged accolades on art shouldn't really take place. The one that tells people what to do... the one that starts the herd behavior. So, to me, that was a knock at the PR machine I mentioned earlier. The one that celebrates the death of high profile musicians. There's a distinction between celebrating the "life" of a deceased person and celebrating the death. I think Kurt Cobain's death was probably the prime example of society that celebrated death. This is another one.

Just because she's dead doesn't make her art better. It can make it more scarce, in the sense that she won't release new art, but the existing art was there all along and if we're honest no one really cared too much about her new art. In a strange way, I think we agree more than we disagree, we just blame too different elements. I blame the people who jump out of their chair to buy art when someone dies and the PR campaign that says that should happen. You blame the record company. In some ways, the record companies may play a role in that PR campaign (in my opinion), in others they don't (like raising prices when demand increases) and are just a scapegoat.