Do MP3's really effect record sales?

My gut feeling is if the record companies (I'm talking about the major labels here) offered a better product then sales wouldn't be slumping --it's as simple as that. Now that there's a little competition, they just scapegoat the downloaders.

And as regards dls: the majors are becoming hopelessly out of fashion by being technologically retarded. A huge part of the reason people download music for free is because it's so unbelievably simple. I don't have to get up out of my chair, drive to Sam Goody, search around for a CD that's in the wrong section, drive back, put it on and realize I don't like it.

In some ways I'd love to work in record company marketing or market research because I'm positive I could do a better job, but I think it's on a road to nowhere.

And, if it is forward thinking at all, I'm sure the industry wants to get legal precedents set now in the age of mp3, because soon enough we'll be trading files that are identical to the sold product. (vbr mp3's are close enough)

It's true, they're waiting around for this precedents to be set while the technology is ever-improving and changing. The courts are notoriously slow in regards to technology. If the record companies don't act (I mean other than suing the bad guy), they become useless. It's a poor strategy for any business.

It's funny, I would think that slsk could be a label's most valuable marketing tool. But to utilize it would be to admit they're wrong.

the reverse if done the right away, record companies
[and that includes independent labels] - should be far more pro active in promoting their artists, by providing say 2 MP3 downloads for each album free.

Also people are driven to downloads because radio is so poor as they playlist a small amount of artists [often clustered around a few genres that work to a set formula],repeated on a heavy rotation.

in the UK when it comes to new music Radio 1, 6 Music, Xfm - are all culprits they are NOT playing the new music i want to listen [apart from a few select shows a week]

MP3s do affect WHAT I buy, though. When I can download a new album that I only really want for the purposes of reviewing it, it frees up more of my money for other, often older, music that I want more. And if I download an album that I love, I buy it anyway. It's hard to have a proper affair with a CDR.

Wait-- you mean they know how to use computers?!?

As far as making and spreading fakes the big record companies actually hire other companies to produce these things. That's amazing. Why don't they just get some intern to fart into a mic and label it "Nelly"?

I am also annoyed by the usage of the word effect. I am only posting this to be pedantic. See the following courtesy of dictionary.com:
Usage Note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of “to influence” (how smoking affects health). Effect means “to bring about or execute”: layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about

You can tell me to effuckt off now!

The amount of people with a CD writer, a fast connection and a lot of patience isn't that high that it'd be enough to dent sales that much, is it? I tend to find that downloading an album is a last resort after finding it's out of print or hard to find. As far as new stuff goes I'll either want to buy it or only be interested enough to download a couple of the singles I could have heard anywhere anyway. If I had less disposable 'income' than I do at the moment it might be a totally different story though.

I'm not opposed to the subscription services, though. Listen.com's Rhapsody (which is owned by Real, not by the record companies) has been good to me with its selection and convenience. Someone on the board mentioned Larry Young's Lawrence of Newark and I was able to call it up and hear it on Rhapsody - which was far easier than waiting around to download it.

If the industry could speed up their digital licensing, I think that'll be the right carrot to go with their stick (which is, randomly suing the shit out of college students who swap files, like some kind of reverse lottery).

This has happened to me a few times.

This just sounds a bit funny coming from someone who has about 3 kajillion cds. ;-)

But but but this is my point!

The thing that he said happened all the time when people would be going through the racks and pick something, their friend would say I or x has that disc, don't get it, I will burn it for you later.

It hasn't effected my buying habits one bit, but then again I have a dial up and downloading mp3s is as slow as dirt.

I've got a friend that pretty much has never bought music. He was one of those that used to borrow CDs and make tapes and now he downloads mp3s and burns discs. I would doubt that he has ever bought any software or computer games.

this reads right to me, or as lars said in the nightline interview during one of his 2 or 3 lucid moments, 'this isn't about money man it's about control'

the record industry's built on the premise/dream of making one album sell 5 million copies, and then cashing in on licensing the tie-in lunchboxes. they make less money when 5 records sell 1 million copies, and the future is all about 500 records selling 10,000 copies each, tinier and tinier genres splintering off and successfully finding their own micro-demographics... something that mp3's are finally enabling.

labels and radio are overcompensating in the other direction, in ways that worked for them in past decades, slimming on air playlists even further, dropping fringe artists off the roster... i.e. dooming themselves. myself, with mp3's, I'm buying more records, but they're not the records their business model depends on selling millions of copies of.

apple's changed everything with their online store; after years of record labels trying to establish $4 single downloads apple's finally offering something worth paying for. I'm not sure they can patent the technology they're using, it's a business model that the major labels will have emulated within a couple of months once they have their own watermarks figured out... there's never been a better medium for pop singles than mp3's, they'll all be happy campers before too long.

Retail sales of singles by format

Physical | Digital | Total Sales
2002 | 43.9m | - | 43.9m
2003 | 30.8m | - | 30.8m
2004 | 26.5m | 5.7m | 32.2m
2005 | 21.4m | 26.4m | 47.8m
2006 | 13.9m | 53.0m | 66.9m
2007 | 8.6m | 77.9m | 86.5m
2008 | 4.9m | 110.2m | 115.1m
2009 YTD | 1.6m | 116.0m | 117.6m

Source: The Official Charts Company.

http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/2009-is-record-year-for-uk-singles-sales.aspx

43.9m to 1.6m in 7 years for physical sales is more striking to me than the sharp downloads increase somehow. presumably it's not as steep for albums - still over 50% drop tho i'm guessing.

But overall sales have quadrupled in 5 years: 2004: 32.2 mn, 2009ytd: 117.6 mn. I find that quite surprising. Did singles sales really profit that much from the mp3 format?

album sales presumably dropping because people are going to buy individual tracks off them if they don't like every track, right? (as one of many reasons.)

as does this just mean singles or any individual tracks bought?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. This doesn't adjust for the dramatic drop in physical single production - you can't buy physically what doesn't exist!

you can't buy physically what doesn't exist!

This doesn't adjust for the dramatic drop in physical single production - you can't buy physically what doesn't exist!

true but what % of singles released this year included physical format - i would've thought it would still cover at least two thirds of the year's chart hits (top 40 if not 75) but no idea really

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64133000/gif/_64133218_uk_singles_chart624.gif

Bear in mind we're only two and a half years into the 2010's...

Mull of Kintyre? Wut is that?