So what is the excuse for all proceeds from every other Haiti charity related song going to charity yet this one is oh so different as it has Simon Cowell behind it.

 

You are just thinking of every excuse in the book.

 

So far all other Haiti singles have been download only and on some of them itunes have wavered their fee so more of the money goes to charity. All proceeds means all the profit. Say if you downloaded the Stranded song not all of that 99p will go to Haiti releif.

If they made it download only it would sell less, this way more money is donated. Even £1 per CD is better than nothing from no cds. And of course £1 is more than the cost of the download...

Edited February 4, 201015 yr by outlook

So far all other Haiti singles have been download only and on some of them itunes have wavered their fee so more of the money goes to charity. All proceeds means all the profit. Say if you downloaded the Stranded song not all of that 99p will go to Haiti releif.

 

Then explain this to me. Why is this single 3.99 when only 1 pound is going to charity.

 

There are plenty of singles out there that are sold for 0.99 that still manage to pay all these fees and end up in stores perfectly fine.

 

It is clearly obvious that Syco will profit from this in some way.

Exactly if this song wasn't available on cd single then they would have made more yet they wouldn't be lining the pockets of factories [aka Simon Cowell].

They will make more profit from the CDs all of those profits will be going to the charity. The fact that it's atleast £1 going to the relief efforts could also mean they will be losing money if the song doesn't sell well enough.

They will make more profit from the CDs all of those profits will be going to the charity. The fact that it's atleast £1 going to the relief efforts could also mean they will be losing money if the song doesn't sell well enough.

 

What is the excuse for the 3.99 price tag?

 

Explain that one.

Then explain this to me. Why is this single 3.99 when only 1 pound is going to charity.

 

There are plenty of singles out there that are sold for 0.99 that still manage to pay all these fees and end up in stores perfectly fine.

 

It is clearly obvious that Syco will profit from this in some way.

 

The will profit from the exposure of their artists but that is all. The VAT wouldn't have been wavered if any of the profit was going to the record company.

Exactly if this song wasn't available on cd single then they would have made more yet they wouldn't be lining the pockets of factories [aka Simon Cowell].

Rubbish, because if the single was download only then exactly how would all the grannies, and the majority of older parents who don't have the first clue how to download a track, be able to purchase it?

 

The exposure through having a CD single available for these kinds of things available in supermarkets and other high-street stores is hugely beneficial in the UK.

Rubbish, because if the single was download only then exactly how would all the grannies, and the majority of older parents who don't have the first clue how to download a track, be able to purchase it?

 

The exposure through having a CD single available for these kinds of things available in supermarkets and other high-street stores is hugely beneficial in the UK.

 

Oh please grannies know how to use iTunes.

 

You really have just made a hugely ignorant comment.

Thats pretty low that the whole thing does not go to charity- unless by 'at least a pound', they mean 50p will not go to charity

 

I wont be buying the song- I would rather see all of my money go to charity, so I will donate myself

What is the excuse for the 3.99 price tag?

 

Explain that one.

 

It will have cost a lot of money to hire the many studios that were used around the world, a lot of money to organise all the artist to get to the recording studios (as in peoples wages). Plus all the manufacturing costs does cost quite a bit. Also the higher the price the more likely they will give more than £1 to charity the more it sells.

Then explain this to me. Why is this single 3.99 when only 1 pound is going to charity.

 

There are plenty of singles out there that are sold for 0.99 that still manage to pay all these fees and end up in stores perfectly fine.

 

It is clearly obvious that Syco will profit from this in some way.

Because the £0.99 singles are sold as loss-leaders to get sales/high chart positions which then provide exposure for an album which is where the money is (used to be) really made.

 

Its been widely known for some time that singles do not make a lot of money, unless priced at a high(er) price point.

If the song sells enough it could mean that £3 or more could go to charity from the sale of each CD.

Oh please grannies know how to use iTunes.

 

:rofl: Maybe yours does but I'd be astonished if even 10% of grannies can work a computer, let alone iTunes!!! :rofl:

 

You really have just made a hugely ignorant comment.

Its in good company given the amount of posts you have made in this thread ;)

It will have cost a lot of money to hire the many studios that were used around the world, a lot of money to organise all the artist to get to the recording studios (as in peoples wages). Plus all the manufacturing costs does cost quite a bit. Also the higher the price the more likely they will give more than £1 to charity the more it sells.

 

All the studios waived their fees.

 

Then this renders the whole charity aspect pointless, instead of Simon Cowell creating a media circus and exposing himself then why didn't he just donate 1 million pounds to charity instead of lining the pockets of factories and everyone else. These people are effectively profiting from a human disaster.

:rofl: Maybe yours does but I'd be astonished if even 10% of grannies can work a computer, let alone iTunes!!! :rofl:

Its in good company given the amount of posts you have made in this thread ;)

 

No it is most likely that the majority of this forum is under some sort of spell from Simon Cowell when he is an A grade twat.

All the studios waived their fees.

 

Then this renders the whole charity aspect pointless, instead of Simon Cowell creating a media circus and exposing himself then why didn't he just donate 1 million pounds to charity instead of lining the pockets of factories and everyone else. These people are effectively profiting from a human disaster.

 

I certainly wouldn't waive my fee if I was someone on minimum wage who can't afford to work a day without pay.

All the studios waived their fees.

 

Then this renders the whole charity aspect pointless, instead of Simon Cowell creating a media circus and exposing himself then why didn't he just donate 1 million pounds to charity instead of lining the pockets of factories and everyone else. These people are effectively profiting from a human disaster.

:manson::manson::manson:

 

You're economically illiterate. The price is £3.99 to cover the costs and allow £1 to go to charity in the first place. THERE IS NO PROFIT BEING MADE, ALL PROFITS GO TO CHARITY. The vast amount of singles sold at 79/99p are loss-leaders to promote albums and rarely make a profit.

 

For the record, he has donated money. I'm no fan of Simon Cowell but you can't accuse him of profiting from THIS. You can accuse him of profiting from the subsequent exposure (which is pretty doubtful anyway - I can't really think of any artists who gained a subsequent boost in their record sales as a result of going on Band Aid etc.? Their inclusion was more of a selling tactic for the single itself...), but not at all from this when you clearly have no knowledge of how marketing works and instead insist on peddling the same broken loonish arguments.

No it is most likely that the majority of this forum is under some sort of spell from Simon Cowell when he is an A grade twat.

Rich much? I can't think of many people who would claim to be fans of Simon Cowell on here. We just have the sense to see that he's doing something here from which he can't gain much profit, and the little profit he gains is indirect.

:manson::manson::manson:

 

You're economically illiterate. The price is £3.99 to cover the costs and allow £1 to go to charity in the first place. THERE IS NO PROFIT BEING MADE, ALL PROFITS GO TO CHARITY. The vast amount of singles sold at 79/99p are loss-leaders to promote albums and rarely make a profit.

 

For the record, he has donated money. I'm no fan of Simon Cowell but you can't accuse him of profiting from THIS. You can accuse him of profiting from the subsequent exposure (which is pretty doubtful anyway - I can't really think of any artists who gained a subsequent boost in their record sales as a result of going on Band Aid etc.? Their inclusion was more of a selling tactic for the single itself...), but not at all from this when you clearly have no knowledge of how marketing works and instead insist on peddling the same broken loonish arguments.

 

I can accuse him of whatever I think he has done.

 

You have a cheek to insult anyone's intelligence.

 

Looking at your profile and your age I am pretty sure I have a higher academic level than you.

Edited February 4, 201015 yr by Jedward are vile

I can accuse him of whatever I think he has done.

 

You have a cheek to insult anyone's intelligence.

 

You've done exactly the same thing.