apple to introduce itunes tiered pricing Options

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/16/apple-emi...facescan08.html

[*incoherent*]

hmm...i wonder if any will be less than $.99.

it was kinda weird having every song the same price, especially depending on the time the song ran.

[hi-C]

I agree with a lower price for songs that aren't in demand but I don't agree with raising the price of an in demand single. The only way this would work is if other legal downloading services adjusted their prices to iTunes's tiered system. If I had to pay $2 on iTunes for "My Humps" for example, I'd buy it off Napster for a buck.

[Eryi]

Thank goodness I don't buy my songs.
If I had to buy a song for more than a buck, no way.

[*mipadi*]

Thank goodness I don't buy my songs. 
If I had to buy a song for more than a buck, no way.

And that's exactly why this is a bad idea, and a bad move for the record industry. Consumers have reached a point where they can tolerate the whims of the recording industry, but the record executives need to remember that consumers drive the market, not producers. I think an increase in prices will just drive people back to illegitimate music downloads.

[artislife90]

And that's exactly why this is a bad idea, and a bad move for the record industry. Consumers have reached a point where they can tolerate the whims of the recording industry, but the record executives need to remember that consumers drive the market, not producers. I think an increase in prices will just drive people back to illegitimate music downloads.

Could not have said it better myself.

[*mipadi*]

Interesting analysis on Slashdot today:

Joel on Software has an interesting piece on why Big Content is making loud noises about moving from 'flat fee' to 'tiered' pricing models on the ITMS. According to Joel, it's not about pricing songs commensurate with their economic value; rather, it's about allowing the labels to manipulate public perception of value through pricing." From the article: "And now when a musician gets uppity, all the recording industry has to do is threaten to release their next single straight into the $0.99 category, which will kill it dead no matter how good it is. And suddenly the music industry has a lot more leverage over their artists in negotiations: the kind of leverage they are used to having. Their favorite kind of leverage. The "we won't promote your music if you don't let us put rootkits on your CDs" kind of leverage.

(Source)

[*tweeak*]

In general, tiering probably won't be a good idea because price increases would drive people away even more, but it would be wise for them to apply some consideratios to their pricing. It doesn't make sense to have a cd such as The Tain (which consists of one 18 minute track) selling for $6, and then be able to buy it "individually" for the regular $.99. No one is going to buy it as an album, so they should have it as $.99 period (since it also wouldn't make sense to charge more than $.99 for one song, even if it is long)

I've seen some other similar discrepencies as well. I can imagine the pricing owuld be complex, as short albums often cost as much as if not more than long ones, but to sell songs alone for a set price, it should be based accoringly. But then, it's also aggrivating to have the only tracks for sale by album only, when you only want those couple of tracks and can't afford the rest. I understand the theory, but it's quite aggrivating.

[*mipadi*]

The iTunes Music Store will not have tiered pricing.