Compact discs are now cheaper than downloading
Filed under: Bargains, Extracurriculars, Technology
We knew this day would come, but unfortunately for the music industry, it was a little too late. Compact discs are finally affordable. I just got back from the CD store near me, and for disc after disc, all of them new releases, the price of an actual compact disc was lower than the price for downloading it online.Here's a sampling. Kelly Clarkson's new album (the top seller in America) is $9.99 on Amazon.com but $10.99 on iTunes and $12.99 to download through Amazon. The "deluxe version" of the new Indigo Girls album costs $14.99 at Amazon.com as a CD and iTunes as files, but $11.99 at my local CD store. The soundtrack CD to Twilight is 3¢ cheaper on BarnesandNoble.com than it is on iTunes.
There are still some holdouts, and mega-retailers like Wal-Mart have the buying power to price CDs a few cents cheaper than everyone because they know any loss will serve to get people into their stores, but usually, the price difference isn't wide. India.Arie's new album is $9.99 on iTunes, but to get the CD with liner notes and cover art and the security of owning a physical copy you can re-import forever, you'll pay just 70¢ more on BarnesandNoble.com. The same goes for Kanye West. Worth it, I'd say.
A few years back, the New York Times reported that compact discs cost 100 times more than the materials used to manufacture them. A price tag of $19, which a year ago was the dominant retail price for a non-sale CD, forced millions to online purchase instead, or to illegally downloading. If the record companies had priced their items more sensibly, they wouldn't find themselves so betrayed by customers.
Apple's iTunes boomed when it offered albums for $9.99 and songs for 99 cents. On April 7, that will change and the going rate will vary from label to artist, with the hottest songs going for $1.29 each, a 30% increase. Pretty stupid timing, if you ask me, since people are spending less and sales for online song downloads have plateaued. But the pricing change is widely seen as a sop to the record industry, which has made concessions in allowing songs to be copied freely between computers once they've been sold. So even for this price increase, we can blame the record companies.
My price comparisons were taken before the pricing change, but even afterward, they're going to be just as good, if not better. Rascal Flatts' new album comes out the day of the switch. Amazon.com is selling it for $9.99. iTunes hasn't released its price, but given the increase, it's a good chance that the CD price will be lower, if not match.
I wouldn't expect this oddity to last long, mostly because soon there won't be a CD store to visit. Record stores (as some still call them) are dying. Virgin will close all of its Megastores by the summer, although most of them will be selling new releases up until the end.
Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer compact discs. They're a tangible item, I like the liner notes, and I like having the option of selling my recording later on. When it comes to downloaded music, I've been burned by data corruption before, and DRM has just left me with music industry trust issues, and a probably irrational fear that the rights holders can pull my right to own my copy anytime they want.
The biggest reason people say they don't like compact discs (that they take up space) doesn't really move me. They really don't take up much space. If you jettison the jewel case and just keep the disc and liner notes, you can fit your entire music collection in a single box. Chairs take up space. Appliances take up space. Discs really don't, unless you're sloppy.



Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-30-2009 @ 3:15PM
Senna said...
I rarely buy entire cd's unless they are of the classical genre because it is so rare that I like every single song on a cd. I use itunes but most people tend to use limewire. I used to love buying cd's but now I don't want to waste five dollars on songs I dislike! I like discs and I turn most of my itunes songs into playlists that I play in my cd player in my room. I use both but if I had to choose I would pay a monthly fee and use an online service where I could download all of the music I want. I don't know of a good service however... that's the problem. I love saving money!
Reply
3-30-2009 @ 3:58PM
Jeff Burgess said...
This story is so true. The music industry priced the CD above reasonable affordibility.
Even when Napster first came around, if CD's were priced then at 7 to 9 dollars most people wouldn't have been so inclined to steal music.
Thank god for stores like Amoeba that still exist.
But I wonder for how much longer?
Reply
4-01-2009 @ 7:09AM
Kim said...
I rarely buy CDs, because usually like only 2-3 songs from it. Thus, my source for finding good music and movies is Internet - as for music I am used to downloading it from rapidshare using http://rapidqueen.com rapidshare search engine and as for films - http://file.sh - rich datebase of torrents helps to get the desired film. Economy and pleasure... No need to pay more.
Reply
4-20-2009 @ 4:51PM
damayor said...
It doesn't matter what price record stores charged. "FREE" is always a price cheap people would have chosen via illegal downloads over record stores. So, I disagree with the suggestion that pricing forced people to illegally download music. However, artists do deserve to be paid, so hopefully recording companies can reduce illegal downloading.
As for the size of CD's, I can listen to my entire music collection in my car. Why would I want any CD's or cases cluttering up space in my car? And why would the author want to choose environmentally wasteful CD's over MP3's?
CD's will die out. The only thing keeping them alive are older people who don't know the new technology, and people who can't play MP3's in their cars.
Reply