Album Sales 'Plummeted' in 2010

[Ilikefree]

The research looked at both downloads and physical album sales and found that nine million fewer were sold in 2010 compared to 2009.

Since 2006 they have fallen by 22.5% - with CD sales being hit the hardest.

But it's not that we are all going digital, legal downloads have grown but not enough to compensate for the slow death of the Compact Disc.

And is it the messiah-style return of vinyl to the height of music cool?... Nope - they've hit rock bottom.

Predictably music bosses are blaming illegal downloads.

BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor said:

"2010 showed that the digital singles highs seen in the previous two years were no fluke - music fans continue to embrace the convenience, value and choice offered by legal download stores.

"The market for digital albums also went mainstream in 2010 with nearly a fifth of sales now coming from online services."

He added: "Yet however encouraging it is to see the digital market grow, this must be seen against the bigger picture. Despite unprecedented demand for music, and strong innovation offering consumers new ways to access music online, legal downloads are unable to offset the decline in CD sales because they are dwarfed by illegal competition."

It comes as HMV announces it is shutting 60 of its stores because of massive losses in the run up to Christmas.

The music retailer is blaming the bad weather and online competition for a slump in sales.

Source: XFM

Do you agree with Geoff Taylor saying that illegal downloading is dwarfing legal downloads? In my opinion, I think he's right.

Obviously with more people becoming 'tech-savvy', downloading is going to step forward. However, personally I think that ruins the whole idea of buying music. I love going out to a shop and buying a new album, or rushing from school to get an album I'd preordered. It feels like you actually have the album, instead of an MP3 file just sitting on your computer.

Do you think less people buy the albums in shops because of the price of the physical CD? The latest Kings of Leon album, Come Around Sundown, was selling in HMV for £13 when I saw it, compared to on iTunes for a lot cheaper. However, for people that download illegally, what benefit does anyone get from it? You have the chance of being caught and having the police deal with you, the label the artist is signed to loses money, and then the whole industry starts 'dying'.

Jamie

[Larkino]

If I'm going to buy a record I want to have the CD case, cover art and physical cd. Else, like you said, what's the difference in downloading legally and illegally? (apart from the obvious)

[Ilikefree]

Originally Posted by Larkino

If I'm going to buy a record I want to have the CD case, cover art and physical cd. Else, like you said, what's the difference in downloading legally and illegally? (apart from the obvious)

Well, apart from the slight loss of quality from CD Quality to 320kbps (if that), and the obvious, not much.

[williamblah]

Originally Posted by Ilikefree

However, personally I think that ruins the whole idea of buying music. I love going out to a shop and buying a new album, or rushing from school to get an album I'd preordered. It feels like you actually have the album, instead of an MP3 file just sitting on your computer.

For me, personally, I actually don't really like have the CD case, and the only occasion where I will be a CD is if it's a really decent compilation, in which case I normally rip it to my computer and then lose it/leave it in a mates car/throw it out. I like listening to internet radio, Last FM, YouTube compilations, and for me all that matters is there is music that will play from my speakers that is of decent quality.

I can understand people that like CD cases, physical DVDs, and people that buy band/film t-shirts, or movie/music posters etc, but while I consider myself a bit of a film buff, these things have never appealed to me - I just like the actual film or the actual piece of music, whatever format it is in.

[rob110492]

I just don't see why people would pay to download music, because if your willing to pay for it (which i am), why would you pay almost the same cost, but get nowhere near as much.

If i pay, i want something physical to show for it. The only thing that would make me move to downloading music is if the cost comes down DRAMATICALLY. I just don't like the companies like apple (Itunes) to make so much money from me, it cost them MUCH less to give you a download rather then making a CD, packaging it up, delivering it to a shop, paying the shop assistant to serve you etc.. So why isn't this reflected in the price of digital music?

I really don't understand why they don't bring the price down, then more people would be inclined to pay for their downloads..

Surely it isn't just me that thinks like this?

[williamblah]

The problem is music sold physically used to cost a lot more. I cannot remember who it was, but a certain prominant figure in either the music industry or the retail sector thought it would be a good idea to really cut the price of CDs etc.

If this happened to the price of music downloads was dropped, it would completely devalue the music, and it would be irreversable.

While this won't affect me as I don't use iTunes etc, it is a road the music industry will not want to go down.

Illegal downloading and the proliferation of sharing of music and films has completely shaken the music industry. It is not something they will be able to fight, while they try as they might to penalise and reverse the changes, for the music industry to still stay on top and take profit it will have to introduce a whole new business model - possibly subscription based, or something like Spotify, but what I believe for sure is that if they don't change the way things work, music distribution will bypass the music industry and it will no longer be a powerful force. Web 2.0 has allowed artists to become succesful and viral, without record deals and an advertising budget. This is a trend that is only going to accelerate. I very much look forward to what is going to happen over the next decade.

[Ilikefree]

Spotify is actually a good topic to raise - I'm not sure how many people may be aware of this, but for each streamed song, the original artist gets less than a penny. If all counts of illegal downloading converted to Spotify, the industry would still (sort of) be in the same boat.

[Larkino]

No the music industry is not in tatters, that is a lie. It can get along just fine without the making what little money it does from CDs. It simply has to increase gig ticket prices and prices of merch to recoup its losses, which it did years ago.

[Ilikefree]

And gig prices aren't high enough already?

For the My Chemical Romance and Green Day gigs I went to last year, they were £35-£45!

Then you've got the Lady Gaga types charging up to £80?!

[Larkino]

That's what I said... they already put up gig tickets.

Don't see why you're complaining about £45 for a Green Day ticket, they're playing stadiums.

[Ilikefree]

It was £40 for them at the O2, same price for Wembley Stadium - fine with the latter, but the first, bit much.

[FurbtasticM]

Originally Posted by rob110492

I really don't understand why they don't bring the price down, then more people would be inclined to pay for their downloads..

Surely it isn't just me that thinks like this?

Where do you draw the line? It wouldn't matter if you charged 50p or 5p, if tracks can be downloaded illegally for free, then there will always be people out there who will go down that route.

The funny thing is, I get the impression that some if not most users here see stealing music as morally acceptable....but perish the thought if someone dares to copy a website image, layout or some content. Hypocrisy FTW!

[eonbar]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

The funny thing is, I get the impression that some if not most users here see stealing music as morally acceptable....but perish the thought if someone dares to copy a website image, layout or some content. Hypocrisy FTW!

haha.
so so so true.

not saying that im void of this statement being directed at me as i too am unfortunately hypocritical, but still. hahaha

[williamblah]

I think there is a big difference between personal use and corporate use though, Furbs.

If I was using the music/films I downloaded illegally to profit somehow, like by repackaging them and selling them, or by broadcasting them on a radio station with ads, or by putting on a club night and playing them, then that is a whole different ballpark to personal use.

I would have absolutely no problem with someone using my images/layout/content without asking if it was for personal use - e.g. to learn from, or to educate others about web design, or simply as a desktop background or to print out and make a poster or t-shirt. However if someone used my content/images in order to make money, that is completely different in my eyes.

[williamblah]

Originally Posted by Ilikefree

Spotify is actually a good topic to raise - I'm not sure how many people may be aware of this, but for each streamed song, the original artist gets less than a penny. If all counts of illegal downloading converted to Spotify, the industry would still (sort of) be in the same boat.

BUT (sorry for double post) Spotify is closer to a radio station, paying royalties rather than the total cost of a song. Lots of my music has had songs listened to 80+ times, which would actually give the artist more than if I bought the song outright.

And you slightly missed the point, I'm not talking about money going to the artists, I'm talking about money going to the music industry as a whole - the people who structure and organise the production and distribution and promotion of music. I believe they are the ones that are going to lose money, and therefore there will be a restructuring as more artists turn to self funding and self promoting.

[rob110492]

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

Where do you draw the line? It wouldn't matter if you charged 50p or 5p, if tracks can be downloaded illegally for free, then there will always be people out there who will go down that route.

The funny thing is, I get the impression that some if not most users here see stealing music as morally acceptable....but perish the thought if someone dares to copy a website image, layout or some content. Hypocrisy FTW!

If not denying that there will always be people doing it. But if they cut the price down so they were making the same percentage profit on digital as Cd's, then i think this really would help. It would defiantly convert me to digital + im sure it will encourage people to start paying.

[williamblah]

You've also got to remember that will a price cut from 50p to 5p really increase the purchase of music by over tenfold?

[Schism]

It's bull**** that it's effecting the music industry that bad. Did people not used to lend CDs etc? Also the amount of music I have on my PC I would not have been able to afford to have bought anyway, so I wouldn't have bought it, so no loss there either. Also, the artists (signed up massive labels) hardly get much from a CD sale, they get paid more from the tours, so I ain't bothered about lining some millionaire's pocket any more, they can do one.

I'd feel much better knowing that more of the money went to the people that actually did the work.

The artists should be doing it for the love of music anyway. Too many people are bothered about money which is why mainstream music is so poor these days.

I also always say that if someone had £10 to spend, on my band's CD or gig, I'd say come to the gig and have the music for free.

Originally Posted by Ilikefree

Well, apart from the slight loss of quality from CD Quality to 320kbps (if that), and the obvious, not much.

Well you lose a lot more quality, but no if you download Flacs

I can't believe how much of a con iTunes really is... they charge you 99p for a song that's 128kbps, that you don't actually own, just renting it for a long time.

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

The funny thing is, I get the impression that some if not most users here see stealing music as morally acceptable....but perish the thought if someone dares to copy a website image, layout or some content. Hypocrisy FTW!

I think it's a little different to that. By ripping a website your intent would be to make money from the website, therefore making money out of something that's not your work. Downloading the website for personal viewing would be a better comparison

However if someone is downloading music and making money out of it, then that's wrong, they're the people that should be getting punished.

[Ilikefree]

Originally Posted by williamblah

And you slightly missed the point, I'm not talking about money going to the artists, I'm talking about money going to the music industry as a whole - the people who structure and organise the production and distribution and promotion of music. I believe they are the ones that are going to lose money, and therefore there will be a restructuring as more artists turn to self funding and self promoting.

Apologies - I didn't just mean to single out the artists, per stream, there's about 1p given out, and about .2 of a penny goes to the artist, with the rest distrib'd around the label.

[FurbtasticM]

Originally Posted by Schism

the amount of music I have on my PC I would not have been able to afford to have bought anyway, so I wouldn't have bought it, so no loss there either

You have grabbed a fantastic amount from freebies and could have afforded to buy at least some of that music if you had wanted to. Just because you don't want to line someone's pocket doesn't mean the industry isn't losing out.

Nor do I buy the "personal use" argument that several people have mentioned. Am I the only one here who still believes that taking something without permission is theft? It doesn't matter what the thing is, or who you are taking it from, the principle has to be the same.

Should the poor or homeless be given licence to grab their lunch from Tescos as long as it is for their own consumption? Or could they nick your PC, for personal use, because they can't afford their own? (I'm not talking about the homeless in this second example because they would have nowhere to plug it in....well, unless it is acceptable for them to break in somewhere and squat ).