The price of music albums should be slashed to around £1, a former major record label boss has suggested.

 

Rob Dickins, who ran Warner Music in the UK for 15 years, said "radically" lowering prices would help beat piracy and lead to a rapid sales rise.

 

Mr Dickins was in charge of the label from 1983-98, working with acts like Madonna, REM and Simply Red.

 

But his "revolution" in album prices has been met with scepticism from many in the music business.

 

Speaking at the In The City music conference in Manchester, Mr Dickins said album prices had already been pushed down by price wars and declining demand, and were likely to fall further.

 

"What we need is a revolution. What we've got is an erosion. When I was running Warners, a chart CD could be £12.99. A chart CD now can be £6.99, maybe even £5.99."

 

Some major album downloads currently sell for as little as £3.99 through retailers such as Amazon.

 

If record labels made the decision to charge much less, fans would not think twice about buying an album on impulse and the resulting sales boost would make up for the price drop, he predicted.

 

Making the comments during a debate with REM manager Bertis Downs, Mr Dickins advocated a "micro-economy" in which fans would make many small payments.

 

He said: "If you're a fan of REM and you've got 10 albums and there's a new album coming out, you've got to make that decision about whether you want it or not.

 

"If we lived in a micro-economy, that wouldn't be a decision. You'd just say 'I like REM' and you'd buy it."

 

Major albums would sell 200 million copies, he predicted. Last year's global best-seller, Susan Boyle's I Dreamed A Dream, sold eight million.

 

He added: "To a degree it solves piracy because if it's such a small amount people are more likely to pay it than [download for]free."

 

In his scenario, record labels would be able to make "big money" from other sources such as gig tickets and merchandising.

 

Mr Dickins said Prince went down this route when he gave his album Planet Earth away with the Mail on Sunday newspaper in 2007.

 

Fans had to pay a relatively small amount - the cost of the newspaper - but it generated enough interest to sell out 21 nights at the O2 arena in London.

Continue reading the main story

 

Mr Dickins chaired the BPI, which represents UK record labels and stages the Brit Awards, four times between 1986 and 2002 and was made a CBE when he stepped down.

 

But he was dismissed by some at In The City as being out of touch and his idea is unlikely to be embraced by the current music industry.

 

Paul Quirk, chairman of the Entertainment Retailers Association, said: "Rob Dickins is part of the generation of executives who benefited from the age of £14 CDs and gave the music business a bad name.

 

"So it is ironic to hear him espouse the cause of the £1 album. Basic arithmetic indicates that this is a non-starter."

 

Jonathan Shalit, who discovered Charlotte Church and manages N Dubz and Russell Watson, described it as a "totally ridiculous suggestion".

 

"Right now if you buy a bottle of water it's £1," he said. "A piece of music is a valuable form of art. If you want the person to respect it and value it, it's got to cost them not a huge sum of money but a significant sum of money."

 

Chris Cooke, editor of music industry newsletter CMU, predicted that the major labels would "resist it hugely".

 

"It is a gamble," he said. "Once you've slashed the price of an album you can't really go back. It's a big risk and the record companies will resist it. But he's not alone, outside the record companies, in saying perhaps that is the future."

 

sorry if this is the wrong place but thought it might be interesting to some/get a little debate going

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11547279

Think this was posted elsewhere already? Sure the threads could easily be merged if so :)

oops sorry, i tried searching for it but nothing came up

Much as I would LOVE to be able to buy albums for £1, surely they'd be making a loss there? Which really would kill the industry?

Much as I would LOVE to be able to buy albums for £1, surely they'd be making a loss there? Which really would kill the industry?

 

It depends I guess, they certainly don't make anything from illegal downloads. It will just depend if enough people who usually illegally download will be enticed to buy it for £1 to compensate those who usually buy it for £7, £8, £9 - it is an appealing offer - getting an album in a higher quality, god knows how much single downloads would be though? 10p?

 

I think the first artist to this would reap the benifits though, once its the norm, it would be alot harder

Edited October 23, 201014 yr by Knightr634

reducing album prices simply devalues music in peoples eyes even more so - albums should be more than a fiver always!!

That would be amazing, but it would have a serious effect on the total sales and album chart :lol:

 

then again, a lot more people would buy them

£1 is just ludicrous really :lol: I think £4.99 would be a better psychological starting point really.

Agree with this point:

 

"Right now if you buy a bottle of water it's £1," he said. "A piece of music is a valuable form of art. If you want the person to respect it and value it, it's got to cost them not a huge sum of money but a significant sum of money."

But I do think if Albums were a £1 people would buy more frequently.

 

I buy albums by Artists I like, and I know I'll be getting my money's worth.

I'd be more tempted to try other Artists at that price.

 

A fiver seems reasonable though.

Surely physical albums at £1 would be making massive losses for everyone that isn't a typical million-selling artist? £5 would probably stimulate album sales a lot more without such huge risk...

So an album would coust as much as a single?

Here where I live (Croatia) albums cost 18-20 ponds, it's just crazy. And we're not as nearly rich as UK.

So an album would coust as much as a single?

Here where I live (Croatia) albums cost 18-20 ponds, it's just crazy. And we're not as nearly rich as UK.

 

You have to pay in large pools of water?

 

Gosh.

 

:kink:

Maybe if artists like same difference or leon jackson did this they would have sold more than they did.

 

Oh no how do I remember them names :unsure:

Edited October 24, 201014 yr by Jmh123

This wouldn't work as a physical model, but for a download I think it would be a really excellent idea. That Veronicas album being mispriced on iTunes earlier this year certainly gave them a boost in sales, and maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem that you get as good value with a download as for a physical, at least with albums...

*Poor student's view point* :P

 

The standard price of a new album is about £8.99, maybe a few pennies lower depending on the store. Handing over a tenner for a new album (and getting a bit of change) is not something I do lightly, so I don't buy albums regularly at all. The odd one when I feel like 'treating' myself. That totally depends on the artist and if their single(s) have enticed me enough. I'm sure lots of people feel the same, that buying an album is an occasional treat, and perhaps even a bit of a 'weighing up the pros and cons' experience. For example, I wasn't convinced to buy Pixie Lott's album after two singles, at full price. If it'd been retailing for £3.99 or £4.99, I more than likely would have thought "why the hell not?".

 

Labels/stores should definitely consider an alteration to the prices they sell new releases at. I for one would be willing to take "more risks" on discovering different albums, if the price didn't alarm me into thinking I'd be wasting money.

 

The £3.99 downloads for Robbie Williams and Kings Of Leon were fantastic strategies, and in the case of Kings Of Leon it's been proven that such a low price attracted a huge number of buyers who may not have been swayed by a normal priced download, or an £8.99 CD, but took advantage of a worthwhile bargain.

 

While I think £1 would be somewhat extreme, I don't see how a trial run at a lower price could all that detrimental. If the experience of buying an album/albums shifted from being a once in a while affair, to becoming a regular occurrence, that'd surely translate into increased interest, higher sales, more profit. I'm sure no one would lose out if this theory was put on trial. Album sales are so lacklustre for most of the year that you'd think labels would be extremely keen to see if they could increase profits.

 

*Rambling* :lol:

If an album at £1 sold 10 times as much (yea extreme) anyway that would surely make up the money they would make on a normal priced album, and the more people who hear an artist album the more chance there is of increased revenue for tour sell outs etc

Edited October 25, 201014 yr by Jmh123

The trouble with charging £1 is a lot of people would take advantage and buy multiple copies.

 

An album at £10 usually means it's less than £1 for a song, it's hardly a lot of money is it?

 

Also, most people who download illegally would still do it even if it only costs 10p for an album.

Edited October 25, 201014 yr by andyboiuk

if albums were only £1, I would have way too many CDs in my room!

and the artist would have about 20pence for every CD they sold..

but it probably would stop piracy and higher sales figures!

Just think if albums were £1 sales would be 10x bigger, the charts would change forever.

That being said albums are being sold for as little as £4 in some places..

Imagine if the whole Top 40 sold 100k+ :lol:

 

I know that if albums were £1 I'd buy numerous albums every week. Guess it'll never happen though.