| |
Music News: 'Born This Way': $11.99 on iTunes; $6.99 on Amazon
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 2,187
|
'Born This Way': $11.99 on iTunes; $6.99 on Amazon
Price war at its best.
Consumers win.
A profit of $3.99 for Itunes for every album sold (assuming Itunes bought it wholesale at $9 like Amazon did).
At $6.99, Amazon is losing $2.01 for every album sold. It bought the album wholesale at $9 according to the Wall Street Journal.
Interscope must be hating Amazon right now for devaluing the value of their album OR laughing all the way to the BANK$$$.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 33,325
|
OMG AGAIN? THIS DESPERATE BITCH. WILL SHE STOP AT NOTHING FOR 1 MILL OF SALES? I CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH HER RIGHT NOW etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/22/2010
Posts: 16,134
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Guero
OMG AGAIN? THIS DESPERATE BITCH. WILL SHE STOP AT NOTHING FOR 1 MILL OF SALES? I CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH HER RIGHT NOW etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Posts: 16,089
|
Amazon just don't understand that they'll not be the winner here. Even if they attract a lot more buyers than Itunes (which will NOT be the case), they're still losing. Oh Dear Lord I feel so bad for them.
But Gaga fans are so lucky I must admit.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2009
Posts: 2,703
|
I can't @ this bitch 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2009
Posts: 6,559
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BnPac
Amazon just don't understand that they'll not be the winner here. Even if they attract a lot more buyers than Itunes (which will NOT be the case), they're still losing. Oh Dear Lord I feel so bad for them.
But Gaga fans are so lucky I must admit.
|
um, I suppose the ARE aware of the fact that they lose money. 
But their goal is awareness of their digital music store and to attract new consumers, which I think, they will.
In fact everybody wins: Gaga, the consumers, the stores.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 3/18/2009
Posts: 35,164
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BnPac
Amazon just don't understand that they'll not be the winner here. Even if they attract a lot more buyers than Itunes (which will NOT be the case), they're still losing. Oh Dear Lord I feel so bad for them.
But Gaga fans are so lucky I must admit.
|
Because this one album is going to sink the entire company? Please. Amazon is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They have been offering major price cuts on new releases for the past couple of years now, in an effort to gain more awareness and consumer loyalty to their digital music service and improve their market share against iTunes. At most, they lose a couple hundred thousand dollars on this deal; in turn, they get tons of free promotion. If it wasn't worth it for them, they clearly wouldn't have done it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 2,187
|
Quote:
Originally posted by STMG23
In fact everybody wins: Gaga, the consumers, the stores.
|
Not everybody.
Itunes loses because Amazon gains a few of Itunes customers out of this. Which is Amazon goal from the start. Instead of using $5 mil and advertise on tv, newspapers, magazine etc..., they use $5 mil to make music 'cheap' instead. And hope that this will generate 'buzz.' and returning customers.
Physical retailers like Best Buy, Target, Wal Mart also lose because Amazon took away some of their customers. I know someone who was going to buy the physical CD at the store but bought the $0.99 at Amazon instead.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/18/2010
Posts: 4,617
|
Quote:
Originally posted by supaspaz
Because this one album is going to sink the entire company? Please. Amazon is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They have been offering major price cuts on new releases for the past couple of years now, in an effort to gain more awareness and consumer loyalty to their digital music service and improve their market share against iTunes. At most, they lose a couple hundred thousand dollars on this deal; in turn, they get tons of free promotion. If it wasn't worth it for them, they clearly wouldn't have done it.
|
IDK why but something in me telling that the costumers just want its discount, not like they will oftenly buy there for normal price. iTunes > Amazon 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/11/2011
Posts: 2,248
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Guero
OMG AGAIN? THIS DESPERATE BITCH. WILL SHE STOP AT NOTHING FOR 1 MILL OF SALES? I CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH HER RIGHT NOW etc. etc.
|
ikr? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/5/2009
Posts: 9,974
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Guero
OMG AGAIN? THIS DESPERATE BITCH. WILL SHE STOP AT NOTHING FOR 1 MILL OF SALES? I CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH HER RIGHT NOW etc. etc.
|
 Amazing post.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 2,187
|
Quote:
Originally posted by supaspaz
Because this one album is going to sink the entire company? Please. Amazon is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They have been offering major price cuts on new releases for the past couple of years now, in an effort to gain more awareness and consumer loyalty to their digital music service and improve their market share against iTunes. At most, they lose a couple hundred thousand dollars on this deal; in turn, they get tons of free promotion. If it wasn't worth it for them, they clearly wouldn't have done it.
|
Yup. Amazon revenue in 2010 was $34 billion. (Apple revenue in 2010 was $65 billion).
Amazon won't go broke from this.
Amazon is also losing money for selling MP3 at $0.69. (Their best selling MP3s are sold at $0.69). But Itunes still dominate in a very large way.
$1.29 or $0.69 for On the Floor, S&M, E.T., Give Me Everything, Lazy Song, Party Rock Anthem, Run the World etc...
Most people choose to pay $1.29 on Itunes instead of $0.69 on Amazon. It's very hard to change habit. Beside you are only paying $0.60 more. That's practically nothing.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/18/2010
Posts: 4,617
|
If Amazon release its first ever music player, iMazon 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/14/2011
Posts: 283
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Guero
OMG AGAIN? THIS DESPERATE BITCH. WILL SHE STOP AT NOTHING FOR 1 MILL OF SALES? I CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH HER RIGHT NOW etc. etc.
|
Can you read? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2010
Posts: 21,811
|
Why the hell Interscope should be mad? Amazon are still paying $9 for every album sold, so it's a win-win situation for Interscope. They sell more copies for the same price but at a higher quantity.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/5/2009
Posts: 9,974
|
Quote:
Originally posted by summerKK
Can you read? |
He's being sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 33,325
|
Quote:
Originally posted by summerKK
Can you read? |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2011
Posts: 3,826
|
I'm loving this Price War!!! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Posts: 16,089
|
Quote:
Originally posted by STMG23
um, I suppose the ARE aware of the fact that they lose money.
But their goal is awareness of their digital music store and to attract new consumers, which I think, they will.
In fact everybody wins: Gaga, the consumers, the stores. |
That could be a way to see it.
Quote:
Originally posted by supaspaz
Because this one album is going to sink the entire company? Please. Amazon is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They have been offering major price cuts on new releases for the past couple of years now, in an effort to gain more awareness and consumer loyalty to their digital music service and improve their market share against iTunes. At most, they lose a couple hundred thousand dollars on this deal; in turn, they get tons of free promotion. If it wasn't worth it for them, they clearly wouldn't have done it.
|
Where in my post did I talk about sinking the entire company? I'm talking solely about this BTW's battle. But if their goal is anly awareness like the poster above mentionned then I guess they're winning.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 1,726
|
This war will have for reaching effects. What is happening has is far more important than if Gaga sells a million CD's. This could change the way music is sold. see article below.
The last 2 paragraphs is called the "Halo" effect used by on-line retailers to lure you to their site.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/blog-p...27689?page=0,0
What We Learned From Amazon's Lady Gaga Fiasco
By Michael Stroud
OK, so Amazon might have guessed that launching a one-day sale of Lady Gaga’s latest album for just 99 cents --$11 less than iTunes -- might provoke millions of rabid fans to swamp its online music store.
It has only itself to blame for its servers crashing yesterday and royally pissing off said fans, some of whom loudly told the press they won’t come back.
But that’s not the real news. Here’s the real news -- or, shall we say, the data points:
1. If you price music reasonably, people won’t bother to pirate it;
2. iTunes’ near monopoly on legal digital downloads will evaporate the moment someone comes along with a more attractive model;
3. Streaming music from the cloud will become a huge factor in music industry sales over the next year or so;
4. You don’t have to make money on digital music sales to drive your overall business to profit.
I use the term “data points” because none of my points above will surprise anyone who’s been following digital music sales over the last few years, least of all the music executives who mule-headedly continue to tie the industry’s fortunes to CD sales and $12-an-album digital downloads in the face of all countervailing evidence.
Why has the RIAA’s countless suits against pirates had virtually no impact on the “infringement” of music by non-payers?
Because it’s not a moral or legal issue in the minds of most people. It’s a supply-and-demand issue. Give the public a better alternative, and they’ll fly to it in a heartbeat. That’s point 1.
Those of us who do try to do the right thing by buying music on iTunes -- and try to force our children to do the same -- do so with gritted teeth, completely aware that most people could care less. Give us an alternative and we, too, will fly to it in a heartbeat. That’s point 2.
Point 3 is self-evident. Streaming from the cloud has arrived.
Finally, Amazon clearly didn’t do this deal because it wanted to make money -- not when Interscope presumably charged Amazon about $7 for each Lady Gaga album Amazon sold.
It probably didn’t even primarily do the promotion because, as some suggested, it wanted to get a jump on Apple’s own expected launch of a music cloud service over the next month or so.
Why then? Well, isn’t it possible that if millions of people think Amazon is a cool place to download music, they’re going to buy other stuff, too -- say, iPhones, iPods, iPads, cell phones, computers and other stuff to play all that great music on? Does Apple make most of its money from iTunes or from devices that support it?
At some point, some people decided they’d better eat the costs of their mule herd and invest in tractors to haul stuff if they wanted to survive. Which side of history is the music industry on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
