Apple cashes in on Whitneys' death

OMFG a corporate making money, how dare they.
What next a new compilation of her hits, those greedy b@stards:wtf:
 
za1 said:
OMFG a corporate making money, how dare they.
What next a new compilation of her hits, those greedy b@stards:wtf:
Click to expand...

There's a difference between making money and this. This is just pure exploitation of the highest order.
 
They had to make money of that wailing at some point. Hey even old Kevin will score a dolla or two.
 
pezulu said:
Apple have raised the prices of Whitney Houston albums from $3 to $7.99 following the death of the singer.
[/URL]
Click to expand...

I would prefer it if they charged US$1 000 000 per song then hopefully we never have to listen to that crap again :D
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...lly-parton-estate-record-sales_n_1273323.html

After the untimely death of Michael Jackson, his estate made a fortune due to a sudden renewed interest in his catalogue. According to insiders, however, the same will not happen with Whitney Houston.

"She was broke -- her label gave her advances," a record company insider told me. "And unlike Michael, you have to remember that Whitney didn't write any of those massive hits. They were songs that Clive Davis told her to sing and she did."

One of Houston's biggest hits, "I Will Always Love You," was actually written by Dolly Parton, who will receive the writer's and publisher's rates when the song undoubtedly gets a boost in radio and television performances.

"On records, the typical mechanical royalty paid to the writer/publisher is about 8 cents per radio performance," a successful songwriter told me. "That would all go to Dolly. Whitney is only the singer. She receives an advance from the record company based upon anticipated album sales. Figure that's around $2.00 per album. But all of the costs to record the album, promote the album, videos, etc. are all recouped from the artist's share."

As in Houston's case, it is very possible for artists to sell millions of records and end up owing the record label money. In fact, most artists don't make money from record sales, but rather from ticket sales -- a revenue stream that will no longer be a source of income for Whitney's estate.

"Whitney was living off of advances -- loans from the record company -- and had been [for] quite some time," the insider said. "Most likely the estate owes the record company a ton and future sales will be used to pay back that loan before any money goes to the estate. The songwriters, however, will make a bundle."
Click to expand...

So if Ninja'd has this right her estate is still screwed.
 
SiriS said:
Yeah, the bedrock of the free market system - supply and demand.
Click to expand...

No this is purely based on just demand...supply of digital copies does not change no matter how much demand rises it does not get exhausted.
 
False headline

Should be Sony cashes in on Whitneys' death (Apple scores 30%)

And Iyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee will never buy her music :)
 
Last edited:
JungleBoy said:
No this is purely based on just demand...supply of digital copies does not change no matter how much demand rises it does not get exhausted.
Click to expand...

The underlying economic principle is generally referred to as "supply and demand". Obviously in this scenario the price increase is not due to a decrease in supply, but rather an increase in demand.
 
SiriS said:
The underlying economic principle is generally referred to as "supply and demand". Obviously in this scenario the price increase is not due to a decrease in supply, but rather an increase in demand.
Click to expand...
I know that. However, in pure market economy, price is determined by supply AND demand. What Sony is doing here is driven by pure greed as they only consider demand-price relationship without any consideration to the supply, AKA cashing in.:D
 
JungleBoy said:
I know that. However, in pure market economy, price is determined by supply AND demand. What Sony is doing here is driven by pure greed as they only consider demand-price relationship without any consideration to the supply, AKA cashing in.:D
Click to expand...

You probably mean in a classical market economy. With most digital goods (books, music, videos) supply is almost infinite and prices demand driven.

Interesting article and comments about it -

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/07/supply-curves-for-digital-goods.html

Sony is just doing what any free enterprise should be doing - maximising return by finding the best equilibrium between demand and price. They are still at risk of out-pricing themselves and decreasing total return, people have a choice whether or not to buy the music.

Introducing the emotional factor of the death of an artist/entertainer (who's ultimate goal was to sell you stuff at the maximum price possible) is whingeing girly talk. :D
 
I have no problem with what Sony is doing. If you don't like it, buy somewhere else that hasn't hiked its prices. That's what free market capitalism is all about: supply, demand, and choice.
 
My 2c,

1. I'm not her greatest fan but she was one of the music worlds greats, her vocal range was amazing and her album sales pretty much speak for themselves. Everyone coming on and "omg she sucked" should really grow up, everyone knows that music tastes vary and your favourite band/singer totally sucks to someone else

2. I see no problem in raising the price of her content, if people are willing to pay that then its worth it for them. The simple economic principle will explain that an increase in the demand for a product will lead to an increase in the cost of the said product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X