Universal Music to Cut CD Prices to Under $13

[Swinging Swede]

Universal already dropped the list on the jazz LPRs from $17.99 on the first batch to $11.99 for the subsequent ones.

Those figures surprise me. In Sweden the LPRs are priced 79 crowns at cdon.com (the largest Swedish online CD store), which equals 9.47 U.S. dollars, and that's the price they've had since the first batch. It's also the price of the VBRs and the Impulses except the Coltranes. There have also been a couple of drives for several months when the VMEs have had that price (it's usually higher). I have no idea what the reason for this price difference is. But I can't complain of course!

Edited September 5, 2003 by Swinging Swede

[A Lark Ascending]

Whilst the thought of cheaper CDs might seem a cause for rejoicing I think Chuck's point needs noting.

A company like Universal has reduced its new issues down to a trickle (and if they're charging less I can't see them upping the amount the spend on developing new music); whereas its repackaging of the past grows continually. I suspect most of us rely on the smaller labels to hear new jazz.

Given the choice between a Coltrane or Rollins 'classic' at $12 and a new recording at, say $15, the draw to the former will be still greater to anyone not setting out with a very clear intention.

I feel a right whinger complaining about a drop in record prices, but...

[Simon Weil]

The other thing that bears thinking about is the amazing succession of "cheap" Jazz offers (such as zweitausendeins mega-sale). I just can't believe, in the long term, this bodes well for Jazz. Maybe a year or so ago I started noticing what seemed like fire-sales on Jazz stock in bricks and mortar stores, and, to me, it feels we're still in that zone. Basically I believe that wholesalers are cutting down on the level of Jazz stock they carry, with the view that the Jazz market is now permanently smaller than it was.

That's also how I read these price-slashing deals. The labels themselves believe that the market for Jazz has shrunk in some real and permanent way, and they're doing their best to bring it back (anyway for themselves). I know people will say, well, all music sales are down - But my instinct is different.

Ever the bearer of the bleak view.

Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

And yet there seem to be endless reissue programmes. Open any issue of Jazzwise or Jazz Review and you'll see huge adds for the latest reissues from Warners, Universal or Columbia. I'm not sure you bring out masses of new issues in order to clear stock.

It just seems the majors have decided new jazz is too difficult to sell. But the old stuff still goes in heaps...and charged a little less may sell heaps more.

After all, it's the youth market that's shrinking. The future of CD sales lies with we oldies. Very hard to sell Evan Parker to all but a fraction of that market; but it would appear the majors see potential for increasing the sales of the Coltranes and Fitzgeralds and Davis'. After all, these all now have reputations and visibility coming close to comparability with Jane Austin, Dickens or Hemmingway. They've got tradition on their side and widespread cultural acceptance. I suspect there are plenty of 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 somethings curious for new musical experiences who might explore here.

Universal etc can feed that very nicely with their vaults and minimum reissue costs. Cutting prices won't hurt them much at all.

I suspects that's what all those 'sales' in HMV and Virgin are all about too. A few years back you'd only get pop records in such sales. The HMV in Leeds has these regularly with the jazz/classical/folk having a sales area all its own upstairs.

If I was starting a record collection from scratch today I could buy an awful lot of excellent old recordings very cheaply. I wonder if I'd be able to see past them to the much more expensive (and as yet unvalidated by years of critical approval) issues on the smaller labels?

Old jazz is with is for a long time to come. It seems it's going to be the small labels, dedicated internet sites and musicians who put out their own CDs that keep the new stuff alive.

Edited September 6, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[Simon Weil]

I'm guessing the industry views Jazz as old news.

Simon Weil

Edited September 6, 2003 by Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

Funny way of showing it.

The Complete Jack Johnson, Cellar Door.....

[Joe M]

I'm guessing the industry views Jazz as old news.

Simon Weil

Well, yes and no. The days of the big labels putting out new hard bop records by young, relatively talented young lions is over. For example, Verve wouldn't release any Harper Brothers records in this era. You have to be either a big name (Wayne or Herbie or Brecker) or have some crossover appeal, for the most part. Or be a vocalist.

Still, while you may not see as large of a jazz section in stores today, from what people in the business tell me, the jazz imprints at the major labels are holding their own, in many cases far better than their pop counterparts. There's money to be made in jazz, even for the big guys, they just can't go out and start signing Marlon Jordans and Javon Jacksons to multi record deals anymore.

Edited September 6, 2003 by Joe M

[Simon Weil]

I'm guessing the industry views Jazz as old news.

Simon Weil

Well, yes and no. The days of the big labels putting out new hard bop records by young, relatively talented young lions is over. For example, Verve wouldn't release any Harper Brothers records in this era. You have to be either a big name (Wayne or Herbie or Brecker) or have some crossover appeal, for the most part. Or be a vocalist.

Still, while you may not see as large of a jazz section in stores today, from what people in the business tell me, the jazz imprints at the major labels are holding their own, in many cases far better than their pop counterparts. There's money to be made in jazz, even for the big guys, they just can't go out and start signing Marlon Jordans and Javon Jacksons to multi record deals anymore.

That sounds altogether plausible. I think "holding their own" is a phrase that tells a story, though. It does speak of rather lowered expectations.

Funny way of showing it.

The Complete Jack Johnson, Cellar Door.....

Oh c'mon Bev. That's kinda the point. It's old music. Once it was new music - You know thirty years ago (in the case of Jack Johnson). "Jazz is old news". Geddit?

Simon Weil

Edited September 6, 2003 by Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm afraid you confused me Simon.

Basically I believe that wholesalers are cutting down on the level of Jazz stock they carry, with the view that the Jazz market is now permanently smaller than it was.

I assumed you meant ALL jazz here. I now see you meant NEW jazz.

There's probably more old jazz on sale than there's ever been. But the majors have given up on all but the most commercial in the new.

Which is my point. The price drop at Universal is only good news if you are in the market for purchasing lots of back catalogue.

It's going to make it harder for the wonderful little companies who continue to put out the new.

[Simon Weil]

I'm afraid you confused me Simon.

Basically I believe that wholesalers are cutting down on the level of Jazz stock they carry, with the view that the Jazz market is now permanently smaller than it was.

I assumed you meant ALL jazz here. I now see you meant NEW jazz.

There's probably more old jazz on sale than there's ever been. But the majors have given up on all but the most commercial in the new.

Which is my point. The price drop at Universal is only good news if you are in the market for purchasing lots of back catalogue.

It's going to make it harder for the wonderful little companies who continue to put out the new.

I was really trying to convey the idea that the majors have, in some important sense, lost faith in Jazz. That is expressed in them moving from boosting new artists to boosting back catalogue. But in the back of my mind is also the idea that, of all the "Jazz" sales in the last few years "Smooth" played a large part - so that, although "Jazz" as a whole "held its own", "Jazz" as most people would understand it went backwards. This is distinct from the fall in music sales as a whole - and is despite Ken Burns' Jazz which was supposed to bring people back to the music - and didn't. If one looks at Ken Burns' series as an attempt at marketing Jazz which failed (which is true on some level, surely), the industry conclusion might easily be: this is not a music that is going to increase its market share any time soon. In other words Burns might have worked out as bad for Jazz.

Now I'm just guessing, but my feeling is that the sales of Jazz going backwards in that way has resulted in wholesalers dumping stocks (because they've decided that's a permanent thing) - and labels (i.e. manufacturers as opposed to wholesalers) deciding to retrench in some major way. That is they're going to bring down prices - which they hope will bring up sales; cut out developing new artists; and concentrate on selling what they know people will buy, reissues.

Altogether it's a conservative "old news" strategy (but, of course, I'm guessing).

Simon Weil

Edited September 6, 2003 by Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

I suspect we're saying similar things!

[Jazzmoose]

Being a latecomer to jazz myself, what you two are saying makes a lot of sense. When I made the decision to seriously explore jazz about five years ago, I started with the classic jazz recordings, and until the last couple of years, new jazz just didn't show up on my shelves. While most people new to rock, pop, or hiphop start with the current artists and work their way back if they become "hardcore fans", with jazz it seems to flow in the opposite direction for many, particularly the older, CD buying segment of music fans. I also notice that now that I'm exploring new jazz, labels other than Blue Note, OJC, Columbia, etc. are starting to show up on my shelves. The buyer who just wants a representative collection of jazz isn't going to pursue current jazz, and won't feel any need to bother with these labels. At that point, they stop buying anyway, so the big labels lose nothing.

[A Lark Ascending]

Yes, thats exactly how I see it.

It's interesting to compare this with the book trade. You can pick up a George Elliott or Melville for next to nothing with those very cheap imprints; yet go into most bookshops and its the new novel, invariably pricier even when discounted or 3-for-2-ed, that sell and hit the best seller lists. In that world people seem to be looking for something of their own time.

When it comes to jazz there seems to have been an overwhelming failure to present the music as something vital for our own time. Those of us who love the thrill of the just released, just recorded know that great new music is out there. But that just isn't being communicated.

I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that the big recording contracts have tended to go to musicians who are simply working within the tradition? If the new jazz on sale is Josh Redman or Roy Hargrove it can't be long before new listeners start to think, 'Well I can hear this all done much more cheaply by the people who started it.'

I know I only give the Universal, Warners and Columbia adds a cursory glance these days. The newly recorded jazz that catches my imagination comes from elsewhere.

Edited September 7, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[Simon Weil]

When it comes to jazz there seems to have been an overwhelming failure to present the music as something vital for our own time. Those of us who love the thrill of the just released, just recorded know that great new music is out there. But that just isn't being communicated.

I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that the big recording contracts have tended to go to musicians who are simply working within the tradition? If the new jazz on sale is Josh Redman or Roy Hargrove it can't be long before new listeners start to think, 'Well I can hear this all done much more cheaply by the people who started it.'

Right, this is where I was going with my comments about Burns. That series presented Jazz as essentially a past music. It was also, in my opinion, boring. To me, that's where the leading edge of Jazz - at least in its public face - has been for the last 20 years. Stylish but rather boring, worthy music living in the past.

In that its public image has been Wynton Marsalis.

Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

Music industry changes its tune to avert piracy threat

By Alison Beard and Tim Burt

Financial Times; Sep 09, 2003

A short drive from Jimmy Carter Boulevard, nearthe Chucky Cheese restaurant, Craig Freireich is counting the costs of the music industry's latest bid to kickstart sales.

The owner of Eat More Records, in suburban Atlanta, was among thousands of US retailers who learned last week that Universal Music, the world's largest record company, was slashing wholesale CD prices by up to 24 per cent.

The price cuts - depriving retailers of promotional advertising and cash discounts - coincided with news that Sony, the Japanese consumer electronics and entertainment giant, plans to follow Apple and Microsoft by launching an online music service.

Mr Freireich regards Universal's action as an admission that lower prices are vital to curb internet piracy. "I've said all along that if the industry lowers the prices it will kill [illegal] downloading," he says.

But Sony's plan poses a greater potential threat. Mr Freireich asks: "If the record labels are offering the product online, why bother having stores?"

The music industry is not about to abandon over-the-counter retailing, though three years of falling sales are forcing the sector to rethink its sales model. Nor is it about to admit defeat in the war against internet piracy.

The Recording Industry Association of America yesterday said its members had filed the first wave of what could be thousands of civil lawsuits against computer users accused of illegally copying songs.

Sony last week claimed piracy had cost the industry $7bn (£4.4bn) in the past two years.

Piracy has contributed to a marked drop in sales. Last year global music revenues fell 7 per cent to $32bn, and are still declining. In the first half of this year, sales in the US tumbled 9 per cent. Stock deliveries to retailers were down almost 16 per cent to 336m CDs, cassettes and records.

The impact has been felt around the world. British music sales were down 3.7 per cent at £1.18bn (€1.68bn) last year, while big markets including Japan both fell 9 per cent.

Faced with that sort of decline, Universal, Sony and other leading labels have reacted aggressively - albeit in different directions.

Universal, which handles almost 30 per cent of US album sales, is cutting wholesale CD prices from $12 to $9, and reducing the "manufacturer's suggested retail price" from about $18 to $12.98.

"We believe that when prices are dramatically reduced on so many titles, we will drive consumers back to stores and bolster music sales," says Doug Morris, chairman of Universal.

Sony is more cautious. Sir Howard Stringer, group vice-chairman ,predicts the industry will only turn the corner in two years with the launch of more online services.

"None of us are making a lot of money in music but I think there will be a recovery as legitimate downloading takes hold," he says.

Before then, continued pressures on sales could force an industry shake-out. Already, Bertelsmann of Germany and AOL Time Warner are discussing a merger of their recorded music divisions. Senior executives are due to meet in London today to seek an agreement. Pending regulatory approval, such a merger would reduce the so-called music majors from five to four and put pressure on Britain's EMI to join the industry mating dance.

Universal is too big to swallow any of its rivals. But it, too, could be sold if its latest strategy fails to deliver benefits to Vivendi Universal, its debt burdened French parent. Sony likewise, is looking for a better performance in music after cutting 1,000 jobs and appointing a new divisional chief executive this year.

Sir Howard says the Japanese group is confident of a turnaround. But he admits that benefits from Sony's online initiative may not be visible for some time, and may be only through increased sales of internet- linked electronic devices.

Universal's tactics will have a more immediate effect, and other labels may have to follow suit. "All record companies will be obliged to bring their published wholesale prices down to the lowest common denominator," says Helen Snell at UBS in London.

A strategy of sacrificing price for volume is a gamble in any industry. In music retailing it could prompt resistance from specialist stores which will see their margins squeezed. But some analysts regard the measure as tinkering with a failing business model. Large retailers are already selling CDs below wholesale prices. Traditional retailers are struggling to contend with price discounting and a new generation of consumers who prefer to use the internet.

According to Apple, Microsoft and now Sony, digital downloading is the future. Apple yesterday said its four month old iTunes online music store sold its ten millionth song last week.

http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?i...arch&state=Form

Slightly different angle.

Simon Weil

[Guest Chaney]

This purloined from the Hoffman forum:

(Robert Nolan is co-owner of Rubber Soul Records in Ypsilanti, MI.)

Don't believe the hype. This is a pretty disgusting attempt by one of the majors to further stick it to the small retailers and the one-stop wholesalers who have helped to make these f***ers fat and rich over the years. Earlier this week, Universal Music gave our independent record coalition an early look at this "great deal." The details are pretty offensive. They advertise a big cut in the list price and hype this great savings to consumers. In reality the actual cost to wholesalers is dropped a buck and a half or so.

Retailers who aren't direct with the majors (95% of us) will still get stuff through a one-stop who will have to compensate for their own shrinking margin by adjusting prices to us. We may ultimately pay a buck less for discs and are now faced with an already cynical, downloading public who saw the news reports and now thinks they shouldn't have to pay more than $10 or $11.99 for a cd.

Long story short: record stores end up looking even more like the bad guys. Best Buy will still sell stuff at or below the already unfair cost price they get from these f***ers. On top of all that, Universal plans to use this move as an excuse to cut program incentives and co-op advertising dollars to retailers. Now we can't even get some of the ad dollars that have been available to us. They even have the balls to make it sound like they are doing us a favor.

"Our new pricing model will enable U.S. retailers to offer music at a much more appealing price point in comparison to other entertainment products," said Jim Urie, president of Universal Music & Video Distribution. "We are confident this pricing approach will drive music fans back into retail stores."

I hate to get completely preachy here but...if you love music (and I know you guys do) you need to support record stores. These labels are evil b******s who would love nothing more than to completely eliminate us from the process. They could care less if the only place to buy music is Best Buy, Circuit City, Borders and through their own online methods. And half of these label reps are too stupid to realize that if this happens it's going to eliminate most of their jobs as well. No accounts to service means no need for account reps.

Yesterday an old friend who owns and operates a great store called Desirable Discs called to tell me that she was closing her doors after 25 years of doing business in the Dearborn area. This was one of the greatest record stores in the history of Michigan record stores. As recently as a year ago they had three stores, the flagship being a 4000+ square foot store loaded with mostly independent CDs and an amazing collection of vinyl. Record freaks and store owners ranging from NRBQ's Tom Ardolino & Terry Adams to high end Japanese dealers went out of their way to get to this store. They closed one store, then another, moved their last location to a much smaller spot and finally decided to call it quits yesterday. Look around. This is happening in your town too.

If you only care about sitting at your computer and ordering from Amazon or think saving two bucks on a new release justifies shopping at Best Buy and Target (great music store), then ignore all this s***. But if you are at all like me and you love shopping in record stores, seriously reconsider your buying habits. I seriously believe that the erosion of real stores will ultimately mean the erosion of lots of the real music out there.

—Robert Nolan

[mgraham333]

up for news, comments, experiences....

anyone spotted lower prices yet?

[BruceH]

No, but I buy a lot of reissues.

[CJ Shearn]

nope mgraham333. I went to B&N and Coconuts in the same plaza the other day looking for Richard Bona's new record, the new Brecker, some Jarrett and whatever ECM Metheny I don't have, no price drop. I'm sure if I ask either store they will reply (even though I know some cats over there really well) that they never heard of the drop. The FYE in the mall, which I hardly ever go to, sells CD's at the disgusting price of $19.99, since it's in the mall and spaces are more expensive to rent, they will always be higher I guess, I dunno.

[ghost of miles]

Having worked as a music-store manager, I'd say that most stores are probably waiting for the word/date from either Universal or their corporate headquarters to go ahead and re-sticker Universal CDs which previously listed at $17.99--a massive project, I can assure you, at brick-and-mortar level.

[Jazzmoose]

So has anyone heard, from news sources or others what exactly the drop is, after they take away co-op advertising and incentives to retailers? Is there a drop?

[GA Russell]

Music industry changes its tune to avert piracy threat

By Alison Beard and Tim Burt

Financial Times; Sep 09, 2003

A short drive from Jimmy Carter Boulevard, nearthe Chucky Cheese restaurant, Craig Freireich is counting the costs of the music industry's latest bid to kickstart sales.

The owner of Eat More Records, in suburban Atlanta, was among thousands of US retailers who learned last week that Universal Music, the world's largest record company, was slashing wholesale CD prices by up to 24 per cent.

I used to live on Jimmy Carter Blvd. and shopped a few times at Eat More Records.

I remember that I bought Don Ellis's Shock Treatment, Happiness is a Warm Sue Raney and three Manfred Mann singles there!

This was at least ten years ago. Small world!

[Jazzdog]

There was an article in the recent Billboard about this supposed price drop. If it does even happen it wont be until at least the new year according to this article IIRC. There is still some haggling between the majors and the big distributors. I wouldnt hold out finding anything from these lables at the reduced price until all the details get hammered out. Also, Ghost, I would be the poor sucka in charge of restickering all of these titles, something I am REALLY looking forawrd to!

[jacman]

'We're not blind to the fact that [file-sharing] services have ravaged our industry....

yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that an artist will cut a record, and there will be one song with a hook. ya buy the CD and that one song is the only one worth listening to. for $20? fuck that.

i was listening to CSN&Y's Deja Vu. IMO every song on that CD is great, same goes for most of their output, plus the Beatles, Stones...

[ghost of miles]

Also, Ghost, I would be the poor sucka in charge of restickering all of these titles, something I am REALLY looking forawrd to!

Lord have mercy! I remember those endless spools of tan & white BINC stickers... Have to say I'm quite happy to be free of either doing or assigning that task.