From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:05:38 +0800
To: Adam Shostack <frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
Subject: Re: Digital Watermarks (long, getting off-topic)
Message-ID: <199607251719.KAA07105@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:27 AM 7/25/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
>Duncan Frissell wrote:
>| At 10:26 AM 7/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>| 
>| >Isn't it odd that when music is sold, CD's are MORE expensive than cassette 
>| >tapes, even though you _know_ that the manufacturing cost of CD's is less?
>| 
>| CDs sell for more because buyers decided that they wanted a wider range of
>| titles with shallower sales (hence higher unit costs) rather than a narrower
>| range of titles with lower sales prices.  The number of CD titles available
>| is far greater (in general distribution) than the number of vinyl titles
>| that were available during vinyl's peak year.  This greater availability of
>| short run pressings raises average unit sales costs justifying the higher
>| prices.  Had the market decided (when physical production costs fell) that
>| it was satisfied with a Top-40 CD stock, average CD prices would have fallen
>| to vinyl levels.
>
>	Thus, my desire to listen to the Drummers of Burundi justifies
>a cost of $16.99 for the latest REM album?  If I want the wide range
>of African music thats now available (and I do), then I should be
>willing to pay a premium to get it.  No reason for Alanis Morisette
>fans to subsidise those of us with musical taste.

If what Duncan said were true, then you'd see music stores spring up which 
sell ONLY the "Top-40 stock", but sell it for pre-CD vinyl prices.  They'd 
get all that business, and OTHER record stores would sell the obscure stuff. 
 That's not happening.  

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com