On September 23, 2005 I wrote on the blog about something I saw coming down the music business pike. I commented on a curious article quoting the outcry of some music execs (specifically Warner Music Group) desperately wanting “flexibility” in the price points of online music downloads. I warned that this line of thinking would lead to inflated prices on the newest, hotest tracks by top artists. Here is an excerpt from my post:

Record executives, however, are seeking some flexibility in prices, including the ability to charge more for some songs and less for others, the way they do in the traditional retail world.

“There’s no content in the world that has doesn’t have some price flexibility,” said Warner Music Group Corp. chief executive Edgar Bronfman at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia investor conference here. “Not all songs are created equal. Not all albums are created equal.

“That’s not to say we want to raise prices across the board or that we don’t believe in a 99-cent price point for most music,” he said. “But there are some songs for which consumers would be willing to pay more. And some we’d be willing to sell for less.”

————————————————————————————————

Think about that for a second. What he is effectively communicating is that he believes that he can suck more money out of consumers for hot, popular music. He is saying that he can manipulate you, the consumer, into paying whatever he wants you to pay for your favorite artists. In theory, an artist could be an .88 cent artist one week and a $1.50 artist the next. I am begining to see what the real problem is in the music buisness. Leadership. Small-minded, money grubbing leaders.

Sony Music wants to thank you for legally purchasing their music by adding an enjoyment tax. Here’s to you, music execs! Way to ruin the party!

I don’t know when it happened but it has happened. Right now in the iTunes store some tracks have jumped to a high of $1.29 while some tracks have hit a low of .69 cents. I saw the Yeah Yeah Yeahs on SNL last week. They played an amazing performance of Zero, their first single from their latest album. I really dug it so I headed over to the iTunes store. Guess what?

Zero is the only track from the album priced at $1.29.

I began to think about that post from 2005 so I rushed over to Top Songs (this list is updated hourly). 49 out of 100 Top Songs are priced at $1.29. Out of those 49 I had purchased 5 of them in the past few months all at the original .99 cent price.

Want to hear the latest single from the Black Eyed Peas? How about that Jason Mraz/Colbie Callet duet from an album that came out this time last year? You can also stop believin’ that the classic track from Journey is only .99 cents. They will all cost you a little more.

Why? Because they are new or hot or a top seller.

These tracks will cost you a little bit more because the music industry believes that “there are some songs for which consumers would be willing to pay more. And some we’d be willing to sell for less.”

This consumer- a loyal, hardworking, music fan, downloading-for-pay-since-2003 consumer– is unwilling to buy À la carte tracks for more than .99 cents just because they’re the flavor of the week.

I hope that this is just an experiment. I hope that in the coming weeks that the new price points return back to normal. Maybe then I’ll get that song from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Maybe by then the track will be .99 cents again. You know by that time though, I might have forgotten all about the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Part of the genius and the selling benefits of downloadable music its immediacy and being able capitalize on the impulses of buyers. Right now my impulse is to say “No Way!” I wonder if the record execs took that into account?

I am refusing to pay the $1.29 price point for hot and new tracks. I will not pay an “enjoyment tax” for the latest songs. I will not play this game.

I hope you won’t either. Who’s with me?

Read the original post: Hidden Agenda