$.99 ... Or $1.29?

After receiving a Christmas card which included a iTunes gift card earlier today, I decided it was time for me to do some shopping. When looking for the perfect album, which happened to be the Vince Guaraldi Trio's "A Charlie Brown Christmas", in case you were wondering, I noticed price differentiation in popular music and just other music. I found that music that was more popular, say in the top 50 on the iTunes charts, were a whopping $1.29, rather than the standard iTunes $.99.

I think this is very interesting. iTunes can have a 30% increase in their music sales profit simply because they are charging more for the more popular music. I looked into it a little bit more and saw that the music prices were being raised because of they quality of the music was increasing, but I am not so sure about this. I believe that if you are increasing the quality of the music and would like to charge more for it, I believe you need to offer both types of qualities for people to purchase. If you are offering both with promises that one sounds better than the other, it is more than likely that people will spend the extra 30 cents and go for the nicer quality.

In conclusion, I think that this is a great way to increase your profit on your music sales, but to not offer anything else to your consumers is definitely taking advantage of your customers. If you are not giving them as choice to spend more on your higher quality music, than I believe people will be more than likely to purchase elsewhere, or even pirate the music, in which case nobody is making profit off of the music.

So, what do you think? Should iTunes offer both qualities of music to fit peoples budget and give them a choice, or is the 30 cents not worth anything to the customers, and they will buy it anyway?

Before the Music Dies... Or Are We Too Late?

So I'm starting to feel a bit pushy about my blog posts, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary which I posted a preview for above. This is a documentary about something that I have been looking more and more into, and though my schooling in entertainment business, is something that is really scares me. Let me explain.

First up, the theory of formula. It is brought up many times in this documentary that there is a formula that goes along with music business. This is something that I was taught in school about a year ago. The idea that you could make money off of these artists while they fit the formula, and the instant they weren't selling anymore, you would dump them and start again with some new artist that fits the formula. I believe this is one of the most cruel things you could do to an artist that fits the formula. To give them a great amount of success and tell them how great they are, then dump them because they don't sell is something that could seriously hurt any artist.

Heres something I would like all of you at home to try. Open up your iTunes and search three different artists: Ke$ha, Taylor Swift and Dave Matthews Band. Ready? Go.

Ke$ha is what I like to call the, born in the record company artist. She has no background in music, no past experience, no nothing at all that would link her past music experience to the successful artist she is today. This is because she has no past experience. I'm going to be a bit bold here, but Ke$ha is merely a pretty girl that fits the successful formula of how to make money in the entertainment business. Nothing more, but probably a whole lot less.

Up next: Taylor Swift. Relatively successful in the music business scene for the past five years, successful tours under her belt, and a whole lot of money to her name. Unfortunately, I'm afraid to say it, but she's in the same boat as Ke$ha. Although Tay Tay may have a little more of a music background than Ke$ha, she's still someone who was picked up merely because she fit the pop music formula. I honestly feel sorry for Taylor, because she was really used. But, after two years of schooling and watching her grow, I can safely say that Taylor Swift is nothing more than a cash cow for the music company that had the genius idea to pick her up. Not because of her talent, but because she fit the formula. Thats. It.

Lastly, Dave Matthews Band. Although I may be a bit biased because I am from Charlottesville, I think this is still correct. Look at their albums on iTunes. Next, count how many you didn't know about. Dave Matthews Band is constantly putting out albums, wether or not they are successful or not. Dave Matthews Band is not driven by album sales or success, they are driven by their music and what they want to do. There is no conformity for this band, and this is both a strength and a weakness. They have lesser funds because they are not doing as what big record companies would want, but they are working hard on giving the fans what they want. This has worked for them for almost 20 years now, and hopefully it will keep working.

In conclusion, I believe there is still a way to change the way the music industry works, and I think it's something we all can do: Buy the right music. Don't buy the newest Ke$ha album, you will hear it enough on any Clear Channel radio station. Rather, support local music, go to concerts for some upcoming artists in the area, and help support smaller artists. Because they're the ones who need your money, not Ke$ha.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62945/before-the-music-dies

50 Cent Video Goes Really Viral

Before you do anything, watch this video. This video comes from a not so well known YouTube sensation by the username BeenerKeeKee19952. He has been known to put videos of himself lip synching, quite badly if I do say so myself, to popular music. One can understand why this is so catchy, everyone likes to see a silly kid singing songs so seriously. But when I came across this video a couple of weeks ago, my jaw literally dropped.

"50 Cent?! How in the world did this even happen?!", I said to myself in complete amazement of what I was watching. To see something that people just watch to amuse themselves, and then to see 50 Cent come of a closet, walk across this child's very dirty room, to join him in lip synching (much better) than the child. After watching this video, I could only think of one word: Genius.

Think marketing for this one. Immediately after watching this video, the first thing I did was to google search 50 Cent and see if he was coming out with any new albums, songs, etc. Not only did 50 Cent put this kid in the spotlight, he put himself in the spotlight by doing something completely out of the ordinary and joining this kid in a little rapping! I think this was a really smart way to get himself out there to a market where celebrities have tried, and most of the time failed. Viral videos are extremely difficult to make with hopes of being successful, and 50 Cent found a great opportunity to put himself in there and surprise everyone with this video. And it's now close to 10 million views at this time, and it's definitely growing.

So what did you think of the video? Are you impressed with 50 Cent's ability to put himself out there and possibly succeed? Or do you find this to be another sad attempt at a celebrity trying to get into the viral video scene? Although if we were to agree on one thing, we can decide this: This video is hilarious.

Concert Special Effects... Is It a Good Investment?

Well hello everyone, let me start by saying that this blog will not be on anything specific, but rather on some ideas I may have, no matter of what it may be about.

Lets start here. After attending a number of larger shows, averaging about 15,000 a show, I have noticed a huge increase in concert lighting, video and special effects that add to the music. Not that this is a huge deal for a concertgoer, but for a touring company it means hauling more equipment for each show and spending more and more money each night of different things, which may increase your ticket sales as well. However, I believe the return is much larger than what one would expect.

About a month ago I saw Muse at a local arena. Now I can safely say I have seen a lot of shows, but the lighting, videos and special effects for this show were some of the best I have ever seen. They were truly one of the most entertaining artists I have ever seen live, and I believe that has a lot to do with not only their stage presence, but how much they use their settings as a part of the show. From pillars that raise them up and just about every kind of laser one would imagine, Muse just rocked the concert experience. I would definitely pay another 45 bucks a ticket to see them. Anyday. Anytime.

Another cool example was U2. When they released their 360 tour, they invented this, claw-like structure for them to perform under. It was by far one of the coolest things I have ever seen. I believe this is another perfect example of how people are much more willing to spend the extra money, not because they are seeing U2, but rather because they are seeing this structure which I believe is one of the largest touring stages that has ever been created. And although I did pay about 100 a ticket, you better believe I would do it again. What an awesome show.

So what do you all think? Am I just oogling over cool lights and videos, or do you think there could possibly be a correlation between how much an artist spends on their stage effects and their revenue on tours?