This morning, I had breakfast at a local diner. My brain doesn’t really move too fast in the morning, and the slow act of reading a newspaper, sipping my coffee, and having a couple eggs ‘n’ toast seems to ease the pain of transition.
Picking up my copy of the Herald (hey, slow transition…), I noticed that it was now 75 cents. News that’s free on the Internet (and more up to date!), suddenly costs me 50% more than it did a few weeks ago. I can’t think of another product that justifies a 50% cost increase.
This got me to thinking about music. The actual cost of music is seemingly becoming cheaper and cheaper as the Internet supposedly levels the playing field between indie and major label acts. The theory goes that music is simply the delivery mechanism which drives people to buy your concert tickets and merch.
I say that’s a load of crap.
If you make a good product, people want it. Here’s an interesting thought: Music used to cost more, but it also used to sell a lot more!
What’s that you say? It can’t be! Surely music cost less 20 years ago, surely people are buying more with things like iTunes in the mix. Nay nay …
Y’see, when adjusted for the times, the average LP (today’s equivalent – CD) cost more.
Minimum wage 1977: $2.30/hour; Average LP cost 1977: $7.98
Minimum Wage 2008: $6.55; Average CD cost 2008: $12.99
In 1977, you’d have to work 3.5 hours to afford an LP (leaving taxes and stuff out of it.)
In 2008, you’d have to work 1.9 hours to afford a CD (again, leaving taxes out).
Using this math, music costs nearly half of what it did 30 years ago. And if your average music consumer is someone who hasn’t graduated from college (i.e. the youth market…), then you see where the dilemma comes in. If people are earning more, why aren’t they buying more music?
Another example:
The top selling album of 1977 was Rumours (Fleetwood Mac) – It sold 10 million copies.
The top selling album of 2007 was Noel (Josh Groban) – It sold 2.7 million copies.
Are the record companies responsible because they keep raising prices? Or maybe because they’re releasing (and promoting!) sub-standard music which crowds the field?
Is the general public responsible because they’d rather download it illegally — because they can (even if it’s wrong…)?
Am I just a cranky, cynical guy who rants for no good reason?
