Amazon’s $5 MP3-album pricing: a grande gulpfull of guilt?
November 21st, 2010 by Rural_RoseEarlier this fall, Sufjan Stevens’ record company issued a statement arguing that consumers should think twice before taking advantage of Amazon.com’s five-dollar pricing. (See the Nov. 2010 list of multi-genre cheap albums here.)
Sufjan’s company was wise to say in the statement that it’s a plus when a low price helps fans discover new music. But, according to their argument, artists’ effort and creative product–such as Stevens’ most recent album–”is worth more than a cost of a latte.”
On one hand, I totally get where they’re coming from. To be honest, I was surprised when Amazon started doing its $5 pricing, (or at least when I first discovered it, a couple of months ag0), there wasn’t more of an uproar from the recording artists. (Where are you on this one, Lars Ulrich?!).
An Sufjan Stevens, with his creativity and originality represents the very kind of non-corporate artist I dig.
By the time his company made that fuss, I had already realized that my instant Amazon purchase of the Arcade Fire‘s The Suburbs– the week it was released, for five bucks–was the equivalent of buying something at Wal-Mart because it was easy and cheap, even if I don’t believe in the values of the Wal-Mart way. I knew that as I sat at my computer contemplating the purchase, I should probably log off, walk up the street, and pay $10 or $12 for the tangible album at The Phoenix, (which, true to its name, has arisen multiple times and endured in several different locations around Macomb, but which I fear is surely struggling.)
So the comment from the Sufjan camp did cause me to stop and think.
But then I was done thinking about it. “Purchase with one click?” Why yes, Amazon, thank you, I believe will!
And so I basically ripped off an artist I like and respect (not to mention a local store owner). Just like I’ve done over the last couple months, when I bought the latest albums by
- Broken Bells
- Yeasayer
- The Hold Steady
- Band of Horses
- My Morning Jacket
- LCD Soundsystem
- The Avett Brothers
- The Weepies
and others.
In other words, I’ve purchased more new music in the last few months than I have in the last couple of years–or maybe since I became an adult.
It’s like a floodgate has opened after a drought–a drought so long and severe that I had resigned myself to the idea that it was permanent.
Depressingly, my lifelong passion and devotion for pop music began to wane as soon as I had to start facing such things as, say, an electric bill.
For the music fan, everything about adulthood slowly begins to take you away from what you love. From being able to go out and comb used-CD stores every weekend to discover that gem that’s going to change your life. From racing out to get the latest from your favorite band on the day it’s released. From going to shows, which require tanks of gas to get there, Ticketmaster fees, overnight accommodations, etc. (And btw, Sufjan, I did go to see you in St. Louis a couple years ago, and those tickets cost me at least a week’s worth of lattes.)
So does five-dollar pricing suddenly change all this and turn you into a teenager again?
Well, no. But it makes a difference.
It allows work-pants-wearing, responsible adults like me to feel like they can stay connected to their passions without worrying about whether they’re exhibiting arrested development by purchasing the new hyped Gorillas album when they’re supposed to be buying a hypoallergenic heater filter.
Somehow, even though it’s not that huge a difference, spending $5 rather than $15 or $20 seems like something I don’t have to feel financially guilty over.
But then we’re back to the ripping-off-the-artists problem.
I certainly want artists like Sufjan and The Weepies and the Avett Brothers to be able to make a living by creating, and not having to work crappy jobs to support themselves. But the company’s decision to issue a statement feels sort of akin to parents leaving for the weekend and saying to their teenagers, “Hey, that beer in the fridge? We know you want to experiment, but…it’s wrong, okay?”
I can’t pretend to have any real answer for how the music business can continue to make money, or the legitimate concern about artists not receiving what’s due to them.
But when it comes to easy-access digital music being Good for Fans vs. Bad for the Company, isn’t the horse already a long way out of the barn?
I wouldn’t have heard any of these new albums listed above if it weren’t for Amazon’s new deal–unless a friend pressed a ripped copy into my hands. Which would mean zero dollars for the artist or the company. Maybe the price of a latte is better than nothing at all.
What do you think? What’s your stance? Support artists and local stores, but go broke trying? Amazon and Wal-Mart to be the death of independent artists? Leave me a comment below, or like/share/comment on Facebook or Twitter.

I’m certainly no expert in the music industry, but the few artists I have had the pleasure of speaking too (all indie artists btw) mention that they make so little on actual album purchases that they really don’t care if people rip their CDs and share with friends. Most of their living is made from live concerts and merchandise sold at said concerts. They would rather you hear their music and become a fan. Then, if you can make it to a live show, buy a ticket and a shirt, or maybe even their cd at the show itself, where the profits are nearly all going into their own pockets.
Thank you, MT. It’s good to hear that point of view. Now let’s hope Amazon doesn’t start selling the merch. Oh wait, can’t you already get fake concert tees at Wal-Mart…?;)
P.S. , I just bought The Gorillaz latest, “Plastic Beach,” for $1.99. The madness continues.
Okay I hate to break out ECON 301, but let’s think about this…..
Let’s say that The Phoenix has a customer base of all of McDonough County, which is approximately 33,000 people and for arguments sake let’s say the worlds population is 6 billion people.
Now let’s say you are a local band…..You can sell your $12 CD at the PHX for a profit of let’s say $4 or you can sell your $5 CD on Amazon.com for a profit of $.50 per CD.
Now the for arguments sake if 1% of the population owns your CD (FYI…Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” has sold approximately 110 Million albums so approximately 2% of the world owns Thriller). So, you can sell your CD at the PHX to 330 people for a profit of $1650 or you can sell to 1% of the world for a profit of $30 Million.
I don’t know about you but if I am an Indie band I will take my chance that the web (ituens, amazaon.com) is going to do a better job of selling to more people than the PHX any day of the week. It’s the bands job (or bands agent) to maket themselves in a way that the world knows who they are.
So, in reality the big artist aren’t getting hurt financially they just lowered their price and expanded their customer base (maximum cost = maximum benefit) and the local bands now how an easy outlet for selling their music…who knows they might become an internet sensation where before they didn’t have a chance.
Thank you for the interesting economic breakdown, NTG. Interesting.
(Also, is this just your mathematical way of saying I do not need to feel Lutheran guilt for downloading?;)