Filed under: iTS, iTunes, Apple
The price of popularity: "hottest" iTunes songs will cost $1.29 on April 7
Remember in 2007 when Apple started selling "iTunes Plus" tracks as DRM-free and 256 kbps AAC files? Much later you were able to upgrade your songs on a per-track basis, if you were so inclined. Well, get ready for more pricing changes. The LA Times reports a date has been set for the kickoff of the variable pricing model Apple announced at Macworld this year: April 7. While I doubt most people care about a slightly better listening experience (seriously, have you used an FM transmitter to play music in your car?), I think simply paying more because a song is popular won't go over so well. I'm not alone in thinking there will be backlash against the policy of selling more popular songs at a higher price. Jim Guerinot, who manages Nine Inch Nails, a pretty vocal opponent to the labels' stranglehold on the industry, feels the increase in prices will only ramp up piracy -- again. I'm inclined to agree.
Yes, we knew this was coming. But the average consumer embraced the iTunes Store not only because it was Apple, or the iPod, or iTunes itself, but also because the one-price-fits-all model is easy to understand. People don't pay taxes with Zune Points or Disney Dollars, they prefer to think "Hey, it's just a buck." The psychological impact of having a price point at $0.99US for everything makes impulse shopping a no-brainer. Just ask all those fart app devs.
The only upside is that less popular songs will be priced lower. Essentially, it's the bargain bin of the iTunes store, featuring one-hit wonders and college radio flops and a random assortment of attic-dwelling musical pieces as low as $0.69. I only hope it doesn't play into the theory of perceived value, which Joel Spolsky noted when iTunes Plus tracks debuted. Apple also said at Macworld "many more songs" will be available at 69 cents versus the $1.29 price point. It'll be interesting to see what develops and if sales suffer as a result of the changes. The labels certainly love variable pricing, and they've been right about this new digital era all along, haven't they? In the meanwhile, get your Top 40 Radio fix while you can; it'll soon be a premium experience to join the "in" crowd.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Cowfodder said 7:06PM on 3-26-2009
As someone who vehemently hates most "popular" music, this is great news. Hopefully all my death metal is so "unpopular" that it all falls into the $.69 category.
Reply
grull27 said 7:28PM on 3-26-2009
Hopefully they delete your annoying, mindless death metal. :)
I know it's immature to make fun of other's music tastes but I had to :D
Dr. Spaceman said 9:33PM on 3-26-2009
Agreed. Death metal fucking sucks.
Dan said 8:51AM on 3-27-2009
I think the above two comments just prove your point about why you enjoy liking unpopular music ;) $.69 all the way
Kevin said 7:15PM on 3-26-2009
If a song I want to buy is $1.29, I'll just go to Amazon MP3. If it's $1.29 there too, well, then... blast...
Reply
Hawkman said 7:26PM on 3-26-2009
I really don't get why variable pricing seems to be such a big thing for music labels. I honestly thought that a lot of cash came through from milking the back catalogue – but it's clearly far less lucrative than I thought. Still, you're right Victor; the moment you start going into "more than a dollar" territory it suddenly looks way more expensive than 99¢, so this could backfire. Here in the UK it'll be 99p though, I believe. Psychologically better.
Ah well, suits me. I usually find a band I like and then check out their previous releases – so I'll be saving money. Score.
Also: is it just me, or does it feel like 1.29 is more of a premium over 0.99 than 0.69 is a reduction? Funny how the mind works.
Reply
Ondra Soukup said 7:28PM on 3-26-2009
luckily for me, iTunes sell no music which I listen to, nor is available in czech republic where I live...so ? Beatport and 320kbit/s MP3 win for me...
and I don't care paying $4.99 for 2 singles, still cheaper than going down to record store, buying the vinyl and spending time ripping it :]
Reply
jigme said 7:31PM on 3-26-2009
i swear the industry is run by doofuses. it's as if they don't WANT to make money. the world's changing around them and they refuse to change with it. meantime, their customers - the vast majority of whom are actually quite happy to pay if it's simple to do so and affordable - turn to piracy.
Reply
strt15 said 7:43PM on 3-26-2009
For what it's worth, Apple has been getting a lot of pressure from record companies, major artists and other music industry groups to increase prices. Will it increase piracy -- maybe a little -- but people will buy more of the $0.69 tracks so it will all probably even out. I think if Jobs had his way it would have stayed at $0.99.
Reply
Steve said 1:10PM on 3-30-2009
wait so the more some 14 year old girls like a song the more its going to cost?
I guess this isn't a problem for people who actually like to listen to music
Reply
Galley said 7:47PM on 3-26-2009
Catalog CD titles are selling for $5.00-8.00 at Amazon, so I expect there to be a lot of $0.69 tracks in the iTunes Store.
Reply
DJ said 7:49PM on 3-26-2009
I guess the most fair discussion would be for people to look at how much they spend for music a month, then how much of this money goes to singles from iTunes. As personally for me, I spend around 50$ on iTunes a month, but only 5 $ or so go to purchasing singles. So, I can't complain about paying 1 $ more a month for a couple of songs. Rest from my money go to albums, and those are staying of the same price.
Another point to be consider is that people not only buy music, but a number of people are living from selling music. iTunes is 6 years or so old, and so far as I know, it is the only shop in the world that has not been touched by inflation so far. And in my eyes - those artists even if they get 3 cents more from that 30 cent increase in price, they are worth the pay rise.
At least for me, if I spend 3 $ more a month, it is not a big deal. If it is a big deal, I will find a cheaper source (and downloads are still cheaper than CDs), but I will never justify a 30 cent price difference as a means to pirate music.
Reply
Ondra Soukup said 7:55PM on 3-26-2009
maybe the prices didn't rise...but the volume went up, that's for sure! :)
msr said 11:33PM on 3-26-2009
If you think a cent of that price increase will go to the artists, you don't understand the music industry. Independents? Maybe, but they probably won't increase their prices anyway. This is simply a way for major labels to milk their artists even more.
James Donevan said 7:56PM on 3-26-2009
The change was inevitable with record companies insisting on variable pricing to remain in iTunes Store. Buying songs at .99 may have been a no brainer for Vic but the threat of no music was a no brainer for Apple. Be thankful Apple held out as long as they did.
Reply
Andy Bewernick said 8:13PM on 3-26-2009
Meh, I don't care. If my song is $1.29 I'll just go to a torrent site or something. It's the record companies fault they just lost a customer (and probably many more).
Reply
Urby said 8:23PM on 3-26-2009
Well if most of the top-whatever cost 1.29, I'll be resorting to limewire, unless it's an artist I truly respect (and how many of those are there at the top?).
I hate the record labels.
Reply
DrWho said 8:24PM on 3-26-2009
If the song is $1.29 I'll think twice about buying it. But I would never steal it.
Reply
bernac04 said 8:27PM on 3-26-2009
"Premium" pricing for "top-40" garbage isn't gonna affect my iTunes life. Since I don't listen to rap, Britney Spears, or the Jonas Bros. and their ilk, I couldn't care less. Whatever the market will bear, I guess.
Reply
Greg said 8:30PM on 3-26-2009
I agree with less popular songs costing less, but what will define the mark fr the popular songs? Top ten? Top twenty? 100? More? If this is too big of a number, piracy will certainly go up.
Reply