[新聞] BB: 99-cent的BTW對Gaga唱片公司的傷害

看板WesternMusic作者 (那時 所謂的永遠...)時間15年前 (2011/06/15 10:55), 編輯推噓7(7034)
留言41則, 8人參與, 最新討論串1/1
※ [本文轉錄自 LadyGaga 看板 #1D-1vJty ] Billboard的另外一篇關於Amazon 99-cent銷售的文章 探討Amazon的廉價促銷對Gaga所屬唱片公司所帶來的傷害 論點: 唱片公司鋪貨高達210萬張 如果唱片公司提前得知Amazon的低價促銷的話 他們一定會降低鋪貨量 一般而言 鋪貨量多為首週實體唱片預估銷售數字的兩倍之內 在Gaga這個例子則是達到了4.7比1 由於太多銷售量都被Amazon搶去 實體CD銷量降低 零售商店為了要庫存管理及提高現金 將會有大量退貨的現象 各家唱片公司對於Amazon的做法都感到不滿 Amazon主管 "Gaga專輯的價值當然超過99 cents, 所以當它被以99 cents的價格促銷的時候 大家才會瘋狂搶購-------如果不是這樣, 根本不會有人在意的...." Let's get one thing straight. The Lady Gaga 99 cent sale for 'Born This Way' was a great thing for the artist, and for Amazon. On a short-term basis, you could even make the case that it was great for the industry. The 99 cent sale was big mainstream-media news, and that certainly benefited everyone, including other retailers. The album sold 1.1 million units--662,000 digital, 449,000 physical--in its debut week ending May 29, according to Nielsen SoundScan. The story lasted all week in the press. It worked the same way that Target and Best Buy circulars work: driving traffic to everyone's stores, not just those two big-box chains, or, in this case, Amazon's site. I'd argue that the glitch arising when Amazon's overwhelmed servers couldn't satisfy customer demand was a good thing, too, since it made the sale even bigger news. Given Amazon's impeccable service reputation, that blip won't hurt it long term. For the cost of $3.3 million-that is, $8.40 wholesale minus 99 cents retail times 443,000 scans during the two-day sale-Amazon put itself on the map as a digital music merchant, in a way that the same amount of money spent on traditional advertising could never have bought. But whether the sale helps Interscope remains to be seen. First, Interscope and Universal Music Group Distribution (UMGD) shipped 2.1 million album units before street date. If they knew in advance of Amazon's sale, you can bet they would've cut back on the initial CD allotment. As is, Interscope has an inventory liability, with some merchants saying they need to return product. And if some of that talk comes from a few retail accounts being miffed over the Amazon deal, some is also due to simple math. The CD album sold 449,000 units of the 2.1 million shipped, for a 21.4 percent sell-through. Second-week sales are at 174,000 units (136,000 CDs), or 27.8 percent sell-through. A decade ago, major-label shipment formulas called for shipping three units for everyone expected to be scanned in the first week. Nowadays, with a more efficient inventory replenishment, the ratio has dipped under 2-to-1. But in Lady Gaga's case, UMGD shipped 4.7 units for each first-week scan. Even another big hit single, which would ensure a sooner sell-through of all 2.1 million units, won't stop merchants now from returning the album to improve their cash position. Interscope is probably looking at a few hundred thousand returns, depending on whether the label comes up with a sweetener to keep inventory in stores. Competing labels and distributors may be even angrier than merchants about the sale. "This was a really bad move," the head of an independent distributor says. "Ninety-nine cents is almost free." "If this happened in the 1990s, there would have been a big hue and cry from retail, even bigger than what it was this time," the head of sales at a major label says. But these are different times. And in the digital world, "there are going to be times when music is the toy in the Happy Meal," a UMG executive says. Another Universal exec adds, "If Amazon tries to turn 99 cent superstar albums into a regular thing, I would be outraged." Yet, some suggest that a few label marketers themselves may now start pushing such a pricing strategy to break an artist, or get an album into the No. 1 spot. Others say that, in the '90s, that inevitably would've followed-but not in today's market, when profit trumps chart success. For all the talk about how the industry has evolved, though, former distribution executive Jim Caparro says, "It is shocking how consistent the industry is with the past. Today, it is almost parallel to how traditional music retail acted back then, with big accounts looking to steal market share by pricing." But one executive familiar with Amazon's thinking says the Gaga pricing won't hurt the industry. "Of course 'Born This Way' is worth more than 99 cents," the executive says. "That's why it created such retail excitement and buzz, when it was offered for 99 cents ... If it wasn't actually worth more, no one would have cared." -- 所謂真相 其實都只是表相... http://friend.top1069.com/user/mistylake -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 69.140.81.243

06/15 10:55, , 1F
我覺得文章中沒有提到因為99 cent所帶來的銷售量增加
06/15 10:55, 1F
※ 編輯: mistylake 來自: 69.140.81.243 (06/15 10:57)

06/15 13:24, , 2F
我比較好奇文中提到的總數位銷量662,000,Amazon佔了多少
06/15 13:24, 2F

06/15 14:16, , 3F
唱片公司舖210萬張是代表原本他們就預估不算阿馬爽
06/15 14:16, 3F

06/15 14:17, , 4F
促銷也能破百萬張?似乎有點高估..
06/15 14:17, 4F

06/15 18:12, , 5F
可能覺得她上張專輯賣很好 期待度很高吧...
06/15 18:12, 5F

06/15 18:13, , 6F
若用首天預測的80萬來計算 210萬的鋪貨量是接近2:1的
06/15 18:13, 6F

06/15 18:14, , 7F
而原PO文中的4.7:1 是果 不是因吧?撰文者有點倒果為因
06/15 18:14, 7F

06/15 18:16, , 8F
能推敲的只有一點 本來要買15.99的人流到0.99的還不少
06/15 18:16, 8F

06/15 18:45, , 9F
Amazon約佔44萬張~
06/15 18:45, 9F

06/15 19:10, , 10F
恩 撰文者的意思是 鋪貨鋪這麼多是因為沒有預期Amazon會
06/15 19:10, 10F

06/15 19:11, , 11F
賤價出售 如果唱片公司早知道的話就不會鋪貨鋪到4.7:1
06/15 19:11, 11F

06/15 19:11, , 12F
這種離譜的比例
06/15 19:11, 12F

06/15 19:23, , 13F
我覺得文中第四段頗玩味的 XDD 哈哈 XDD
06/15 19:23, 13F

06/15 22:13, , 14F
之前陰謀論成那樣,這篇新聞一出來現在顯得格外愚蠢。
06/15 22:13, 14F

06/15 22:18, , 15F
請問樓上看的懂嗎? 我想你所謂的陰謀論指的是我的文章
06/15 22:18, 15F

06/15 22:19, , 16F
跟我所言的"陰謀論"之臨時 並無矛盾之處耶...
06/15 22:19, 16F

06/15 22:20, , 17F
沒有自知之明當然不產生矛盾。但也不奇怪,要是有自知
06/15 22:20, 17F

06/15 22:21, , 18F
之明,也不會抓著沒有根據的論點一直回文了。
06/15 22:21, 18F

06/15 22:22, , 19F
一路看下來,無論產業新聞或娛樂新聞都在打陰謀論者的
06/15 22:22, 19F

06/15 22:22, , 20F
那請你說說你的高見吧? :)
06/15 22:22, 20F

06/15 22:22, , 21F
臉,可笑非常。
06/15 22:22, 21F

06/15 22:23, , 22F
又開始了...唉
06/15 22:23, 22F

06/15 22:23, , 23F
我的高見和billloung很類似,但我想你就是看不懂啊。XD
06/15 22:23, 23F

06/15 22:24, , 24F
因為這一切一定都是唱片公司和Amazon合力搞出來的,絕
06/15 22:24, 24F

06/15 22:24, , 25F
對不是Amazon破壞行情的行銷手法喔~一切都是唱片公司
06/15 22:24, 25F

06/15 22:25, , 26F
的陰謀。→結果沒幾天就被BB打臉。XDDD
06/15 22:25, 26F

06/15 22:26, , 27F
以台灣人的性格,無法了解這種行銷手法也是自然。:)
06/15 22:26, 27F

06/15 22:28, , 28F
你心平氣和後去翻翻舊文吧 沒人這樣搞行銷的 :)
06/15 22:28, 28F

06/15 22:29, , 29F
本文第四段都說 你還在堅持什麼?
06/15 22:29, 29F

06/15 22:29, , 30F
你數日前的諷刺推文 我就當眼不見為淨了
06/15 22:29, 30F

06/15 22:30, , 31F
當然,我相信台灣人是絕對不會懂這種行銷手法。:)
06/15 22:30, 31F

06/15 22:30, , 32F
懂不懂是你的事 但你今天的酸 讓人感到無奈啊 哈哈
06/15 22:30, 32F

06/15 22:31, , 33F
你也不用假裝看不見,因為我是真心這樣看你。
06/15 22:31, 33F

06/15 22:32, , 34F
連商業互利原則都不理解的論點 要成立 很難說服啊...
06/15 22:32, 34F

06/15 22:32, , 35F
第四段只說了傳統廣告不會花這樣的錢,但這次很顯然並
06/15 22:32, 35F

06/15 22:32, , 36F
不是傳統廣告...XDDD
06/15 22:32, 36F

06/15 22:35, , 37F
都說了 沒人這樣搞 你要認為這是"非傳統"也行啦...
06/15 22:35, 37F

06/15 22:37, , 38F
夏蟲不可語冰,真是浪費時間。不過這些新聞陸續出來,
06/15 22:37, 38F

06/15 22:37, , 39F
對比前後態度,真是格外諷刺。XD
06/15 22:37, 39F

06/15 22:42, , 40F
彼此 彼此 :)
06/15 22:42, 40F

06/17 10:19, , 41F
IAmFreeAndU真的不膩喔?到現在還在吵這個...=___="
06/17 10:19, 41F
文章代碼(AID): #1D-1yC39 (WesternMusic)
文章代碼(AID): #1D-1yC39 (WesternMusic)