slashdot does the math for the RIAA
Kerry Fitzgerald
Todd Morman wrote:
>
> I read at least one piece that
> pointed out that the major labels have been cutting back on the
> production of CD singles for a while now, a fact the RIAA didn't
> mention.
This is part of the reason why Billboard (and others) got rid of their
singles charts YEARS ago.
--kerry
Todd Morman
focus on slumping sales of CD singles? I read at least one piece that
pointed out that the major labels have been cutting back on the
production of CD singles for a while now, a fact the RIAA didn't
as usual for the RIAA.
todd headed by my least favorite lesbian on earth Hillary Rosen morman
-----Original Message-----
From: grady [mailto:gr...@metalab.unc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:49 PM
To: Chapel Hill Music Lovers
Subject: slashdot does the math for the RIAA
There was apparently a big RIAA spin-attempt press release last week
about
how far CD sales had slumped in Y2K--presumably due to Napster. Only
problem was that they hadn't--here's some analysis from Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/26/1812213
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
mazen al-najjar
> I haven't looked at the slashdot piece, but didn't the RIAA "study"
> focus on slumping sales of CD singles?
um, yeah, that was the point of the slashdot piece.
since everybody went and read the thing all at once on slashdot's little
pentium 90, you can't be faulted for not being -able- to read it,
however.
3 (still waiting for the page to reload after going "back" from
following one of the hyperlinks)
grady
(and dutifully reported by the AP & others) to make it seem like there had
been a significant drop in overall sales. I didn't bother reading the
original reportage on it because I'm so tired of the back-and-forth
bullshit, but according to the /. piece, the AP stuff that went out on the
wire led with "CD sales down 39%" and then only incongruously mentioned "CD
Singles" like 10 graphs into the thing.
I have done my part this year by buying fewer albums than in any year
since, um, 1982 I think it was. No, I haven't been Napstering them, either.
I'm catching up to my backlog of listening, listening to the radio, and
most-of-all spending a lot of time with demos of friends' bands, and with
the tapes I make of my live show every week. I encourage y'all to do the
same--speaking of which, Greg Hawks & the Tremblers, 5:00 p.m. this Sunday
3/4, WXDU 88.7FM.
xoxoxo
Ross
At 05:00 PM 2/27/2001, you wrote:
>I haven't looked at the slashdot piece, but didn't the RIAA "study"
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
grady
Todd Morman
Recording industry officials have brought forth new
evidence in their attempt to prove that Napster, the
Internet music-swapping service, has cut into their
business.
Shipments of CD singles sank by 39 percent last year,
according to data released by the Recording Industry
Association of America.
"Napster hurt record sales," said RIAA
president Hilary Rosen. In particular,
Rosen pointed to the drop in the sales
of singles, once the format that fueled
the music industry, as evidence of
Napster's affect.
[...]
Some experts trace the drop in the sale of singles back
to the record companies themselves. Industry watchers
say that record companies have cut production of an
unprofitable product that no longer serves the needs of
the industry.
Singles, a mainstay of the industry in the 1950s and 60s,
have fallen out of favor as a tool to inflate sales figures
and influence radio programming, said Roy Lott,
president of EMI Group's Capitol label. Even so, Napster
is the "prime culprit" for the drop in sales, he said.
Industry analysts said the drop in sales can be
attributed to a number of factors, including economic
factors and a weak year for music releases.
"Napster alone doesn't seem like a fair alibi," said Michael
Nathanson, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford C.
Bernstein & Co. "It's a combination of things. Softness in
consumer spending. The hit titles were for such a narrow
(audience) that it was a very thin year, and lastly, the
Napster factor. You can't put your finger on it."
"To be honest, it wasn't a great music year," said
Andreas Schmidt, chief of the e-commerce group at
Bertelsmann, which has a financial stake in Napster.
"There were some isolated events, but we didn't put
that much good stuff out."
todd Hilary Rosen what a liar morman
Walter Davis
>
> todd Hilary Rosen what a liar morman
I hate to sound like an RIAA defender but ...
The slashdot piece is pretty sloppy too. Among other
things, the article had to be corrected I think 3 times
within the first 4 hours it was up. Bless em they kept
the correction notices up so you can track that.
Also, according to the RIAA numbers linked by the
slashdot article, _revenue_ from cd sales is reported to
have risen 3.1% between 99 and 00. In the article, this
is reported as a 3.1% increase in _profits_.
That 3.1% increase in revenue comes to about $400
million. The article notes, and the RIAA numbers
confirm, that cassette sales revenue dropped by an even
larger $435 million. Based on faulty (IMHO) reasoning,
they claim that since napster is digital, it doesn't
affect sales of an analog media like cassettes. I'm not
so sure -- why pay for a album recorded on shitty tape
when you can get it for free on your computer. I can
see where you'd still want a cd even with napster around
-- better sound quality perhaps, you get the nice
booklet -- but those advantages don't really exist with
cassettes. I'd imagine a good deal of cassette sales
were to people who bought them to listen to at work ...
where they can now listen to stuff they download/copy.
I'm not saying napster did hurt cassette sales, but I
think the notion of "hey napster's digital so it could
only possibly hurt sales of digital media" is incredibly
weak.
Although the slashdot article does mention it, let's
just say they don't play up the RIAA numbers showing an
overall revenue decrease of 1.8% between 99 and 00, due
to sizeable dropoffs in every other revenue stream but
DVD's. [Note, those other revenue streams are puny
compared to cd sales, so big dropoffs equal small
overall dropoffs. This was the fact which the RIAA used
to try to mislead folks.] Overall retail sales revenue
(not broken down by category) was down 2.6%.
Now these other categories are things like cassette
singles, cd singles, music videos, etc. The slashdot
rationale for why sales have declined in these
categories is "hey, nobody wants to buy this stuff."
Well, in 98, cassette singles generated $94 million in
revenue, in 2000 that number was $4.6 million. So two
years ago, somebody was buying those babies. That $435
million drop in cassette sales from 99 to 00 followed a
$350 million drop in cassette sales in 98 to 99. CD
singles actually saw a slight increase in revenue from
98 to 99 (though significantly down from where they'd
been in 97), before dropping by 36% from 99 to 00.
So something caused the change in sales of cassettes and
cd/cassette singles. Maybe they did just stop producing
them as (Todd?) claimed or maybe demand went down
dramatically in the space of about a year. Seems to me
that singles is where one would most likely first find
the effects of napster....but then I've never understood
who was buying singles these days, what they were
buying, nor why, so who am I to say.
John Bigboote
>
>Now these other categories are things like cassette
>singles, cd singles, music videos, etc. The slashdot
>rationale for why sales have declined in these
>categories is "hey, nobody wants to buy this stuff."
>Well, in 98, cassette singles generated $94 million in
>revenue, in 2000 that number was $4.6 million. So two
>years ago, somebody was buying those babies. That $435
>million drop in cassette sales from 99 to 00 followed a
>$350 million drop in cassette sales in 98 to 99. CD
>singles actually saw a slight increase in revenue from
>98 to 99 (though significantly down from where they'd
>been in 97), before dropping by 36% from 99 to 00.
>
>So something caused the change in sales of cassettes and
>cd/cassette singles. Maybe they did just stop producing
>them as (Todd?) claimed or maybe demand went down
>dramatically in the space of about a year. Seems to me
>that singles is where one would most likely first find
>the effects of napster....but then I've never understood
>who was buying singles these days, what they were
>buying, nor why, so who am I to say.
>
well, clearly people don't much want any type of cassette anymore, as seen
in the precipitous drop in sales for the last several years. walter mentions
1998 as a hopeful, plentiful time in the cassingle world, the salad days, if
you will, but in 1993 that industry segment was shipping 66 times the number
of cassssssingles as in 2000, at a $300 million/year clip (three times the
dollar value than even 1998). similar story with full-length cassettes,
revenue for which has dropped by about $400 million or more per year since
1994. the decline of cassettes was evident and inevitable before napster was
a gleam in his father's eye. or, for that matter, before that guy hit
puberty.
it's obvious to me what happened here: cassettes are clearly inferior,
they're not even that much cheaper than cds, and more and more people have
cd players at home, at work, on their computers, in their cars. the goddamn
things are ubiquitous -- you'll probably find one lying on the sidewalk on
your way home today, or get one free when you open a new checking account.
as for cassette singles, i am shocked that this was ever a viable industry,
let alone a $300/year racket. my guess is that the bottom fell out of the
market when mcdonald's stopped giving the little fuckers away with happy
meals. seriously. anyone here ever buy one? even 6-year olds know that
tapes suck, and will demand something better.
the drop in cd singles still takes some explaining. but before pinning it
all on napster, i'd have to question how revealing the riaa's little table (
http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf ) actually is. note that the main
body of the table gives figures, categorized by recording medium, for units
shipped and their "dollar value," but then at the bottom we're given totals
(not broken down by medium) for "retail units" and "retail value" for
1997-2000, which shows that for each of those years the industry is shipping
out 250-300 million units that aren't sold at retail. i'm willing to bet
that a shitload of these are cd singles that aren't ever *intended* to be
sold at retail; ask any radio station music director or check out the
freebie bin at any record store -there's no shortage of "promo only" cd
singles floating around out there, worthless to just about everybody.
all of which is not to say that napster isn't taking some small bite out of
cd single sales, such as they may be. but is the point of making singles to
turn a profit, or is it to sell albums? any more, i'd have to say it's
mainly the latter. aside from "loser," i can't think of a non-album single
that did anything commercially in the last yipty-five years. or so.
Adam
unless of course i'm remembering wrong about "loser," in which case
nevermind
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
grady
picturediscs. At least that's what I recall from my mid-late 80s
record-store days . . .
At 04:24 PM 2/28/2001, you wrote:
>John Bigboote wrote:
> > anyone here ever buy one?
>
>why, yes. my collection is second to none. there's nothing what can
>touch samantha foxx on cassingle.
>
>3
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
Todd Morman
> Overall retail sales revenue
> (not broken down by category) was down 2.6%.
Not being snotty here, but is there a reason I should uncritically
accept RIAA-derived sales figures, which you seem to do, Walt? Does
anyone really believe the RIAA isn't engaged in the same type of
creative accounting that Hollywood uses? In short, they can make those
numbers do whatever they like, and don't hesitate for a second to do so.
A bit more skepticism is called for when analyzing them, I think.
> Well, in 98, cassette singles generated $94 million in
> revenue, in 2000 that number was $4.6 million. So two
> years ago, somebody was buying those babies. That $435
> million drop in cassette sales from 99 to 00 followed a
> $350 million drop in cassette sales in 98 to 99. CD
> singles actually saw a slight increase in revenue from
> 98 to 99 (though significantly down from where they'd
> been in 97), before dropping by 36% from 99 to 00.
> So something caused the change in sales of cassettes and
> cd/cassette singles. Maybe they did just stop producing
> them as (Todd?) claimed or maybe demand went down
> dramatically in the space of about a year.
Did you see the AP article I posted? It quoted Capitol's pres to the
effect that singles had "fallen out of favor as a tool" of the industry.
Soft consumer spending, and a "thin" year for music with narrowly
targeted hits were also mentioned. Did the RIAA mention any of that in
its "study"? I'm so tired of corporate spin bullshit.
todd Hilary Rosen is still a fucking liar morman
mazen al-najjar
> Huh. I thought the ultimate Samantha Fox format was import topless
> picturediscs. At least that's what I recall from my mid-late 80s
> record-store days . . .
idunno. the only picture discs around in my mid-late 80s record store
days were by king diamond. i think that was a function of the coworkers
in the record store in which i worked.
i still have a samantha foxx lapel button, however. i can't imagine
anyone wearing it. but such things were made.
3
Stiglitz, Tony [NC1:6H71:EXCH]
Todd Morman wrote:
>
> ... I'm so tired of corporate spin bullshit.
Loved the Presidential spew to congress last night then did ya?...
grady
shield your eyes & open them slowly & carefully. You have been warned.
At 04:44 PM 2/28/2001, you wrote:
>grady wrote:
> > Huh. I thought the ultimate Samantha Fox format was import topless
> > picturediscs. At least that's what I recall from my mid-late 80s
> > record-store days . . .
>
>idunno. the only picture discs around in my mid-late 80s record store
>days were by king diamond. i think that was a function of the coworkers
>in the record store in which i worked.
>
>i still have a samantha foxx lapel button, however. i can't imagine
>anyone wearing it. but such things were made.
>
>3
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
Walter Davis
>
> it's obvious to me what happened here: cassettes are clearly inferior,
> they're not even that much cheaper than cds, and more and more people have
> cd players at home, at work, on their computers, in their cars. the goddamn
> things are ubiquitous -- you'll probably find one lying on the sidewalk on
> your way home today, or get one free when you open a new checking account.
>
million jump in cd sales that coincides with a $435
million drop in cassette sales suggests that these are
just switchovers. Slashdot presents that $400 million
jump as a big increase in sales which, if anything, may
be due to napster. More likely, it's due to people
junking their tape decks....or the labels pushing people
to cd's by restricting cassette supply (which is what
they did to lp's way back when).
> the drop in cd singles still takes some explaining. but before pinning it
> all on napster,
I'm not really trying to pin any of it on napster. Like
I said, I don't know who was buying these or why. But
it does make sense to me that someone who buys a single
is probably thinking "I really like that song but I
don't want the whole album". Well, shit, with napster
around, who would buy the song? They'd have to be
stupider than the folks who were buying singles. :-)
>i'd have to question how revealing the riaa's little table (
> http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf ) actually is. note that the main
> body of the table gives figures, categorized by recording medium, for units
> shipped and their "dollar value," but then at the bottom we're given totals
> (not broken down by medium) for "retail units" and "retail value" for
> 1997-2000, which shows that for each of those years the industry is shipping
> out 250-300 million units that aren't sold at retail. i'm willing to bet
> that a shitload of these are cd singles that aren't ever *intended* to be
> sold at retail; ask any radio station music director or check out the
> freebie bin at any record store -there's no shortage of "promo only" cd
> singles floating around out there, worthless to just about everybody.
>
It would be nice if they broke the retail numbers down.
I was thinking that 'retail' excludes record clubs and
such, which if I remember right in label parlance are
'promotional' so they can justify reducing artist
royalties on such sales (bastards!). One problem I see
with your theory is that the dollar/unit on the singles
is around $3 (cassette) to $4 (cd), not what you'd think
if the giveaways are included. Unless it's a tax thing
and the 'dollar value' doesn't represent actual revenue.
It's trivial either way, as singles have been a small
piece of the pie for some time.
Anyway, yes I'm certainly tired of the RIAA, but I'm
almost as tired of articles like the one on slashdot
which are rather sloppily suggesting that sales are
increasing dramatically due to napster. 3.1% in the
record industry isn't that big (they practically doubled
in terms of units and sales between 91 and 94) and that
$400 million increase in cd's is offset by a $435
million decrease in cassettes. Now maybe if we dig
behind the numbers, and especially if we had access to
profit numbers, we'd see big increases. But the
slashdot article certainly didn't do that.
walt media critic for a day davis
grady
have a similarly damaging effect on you, so feel free to look if you want a
reminder of why the 80s were so . . . 80s.
At 05:14 PM 2/28/2001, you wrote:
>No way, motherfucker. That kind of warning is usually a prelude to a
>near-seizure and a half-hour headache, induced by rapidly flashing red
>and black blocks of color. Once-bitten thrice-shy, man.
>
>todd and in sentient toilet news:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59582-2001Feb26.html
>morman
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: grady [mailto:gr...@metalab.unc.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:09 PM
>To: Chapel Hill Music Lovers
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
Todd Morman
Todd Morman
> reminder of why the 80s were so . . . 80s.
Oh, it was just tits. That's fine, I can handle tits and music together.
Speaking of which, here's something I found at Inside.com yesterday:
AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A PORN THANG
Tuesday, February 27 11:06 a.m.
What's been going on at the Dogg house might make some blush, but
Hustler's Larry Flynt is hoping it'll make him a pile of money. Snoop
Dogg's Doggystyle, billed as a "historic first" in a Hustler Video press
release, is a cross between a rap video and an adult film. Snoop debuts
11 previously unreleased tracks and six new music videos that alternate
with raunchy scenes, all filmed at Snoop's crib by hip-hop video
director Michael Martin (Snoop, Master P, OutKast). Fellow rappers Tray
Deee and Goldi-Loc of Snoop side-project Tha Eastsidaz and cousin Nate
Dogg join Snoop on the rap tracks, while Snoop himself "handpicked" the
actors and actresses who take on the adult roles (Snoop himself doesn't
participate in the porn). Priority/No Limit Records, Snoop's label, had
no involvement in the project, according to a company spokesman. The
collection goes on sale today, and footage for a Doggystyle 2 is already
in the can. Snoop's more traditional fare, his CD Tha Last Meal,
released in December, is now No. 19 on the Billboard charts with 1.2
million in sales.
todd one wonders what the hell took them so long morman
mazen al-najjar
> shield your eyes & open them slowly & carefully. You have been warned.
man, do i ever miss the 80s.
3
John Bigboote
>Walter Davis <aim...@altavista.net> wrote:
>It would be nice if they broke the retail numbers down.
>I was thinking that 'retail' excludes record clubs and
>such, which if I remember right in label parlance are
>'promotional' so they can justify reducing artist
>royalties on such sales (bastards!). One problem I see
>with your theory is that the dollar/unit on the singles
>is around $3 (cassette) to $4 (cd), not what you'd think
>if the giveaways are included. Unless it's a tax thing
>and the 'dollar value' doesn't represent actual revenue.
>
i'd suspect the "dollar value" has not at all to do with revenue, but is
definitely put forward to look like revenue, probably solely for the purpose
of confusing the issue related to their recent press release. it'd be
pretty ballsy to try to pass off something like that for tax purposes.
(could also be handy for confusing possible investors, i guess)
iddim
mazen al-najjar
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59582-2001Feb26.html
o god! i gotta have me onna those!
3
Walter Davis
>
> Walt wrote:
>
> > Overall retail sales revenue
> > (not broken down by category) was down 2.6%.
>
> Not being snotty here, but is there a reason I should uncritically
> accept RIAA-derived sales figures, which you seem to do, Walt?
No there isn't. Nor do I uncritically accept them. The
article on slashdot uses those numbers to make its case
so it's perfectly fair for me to use those numbers to
criticize that article. If they or you or I have a
problem with the numbers, we should explain that problem
and it would be nice to provide better numbers.
> Does
> anyone really believe the RIAA isn't engaged in the same type of
> creative accounting that Hollywood uses?
Maybe yes, maybe no. The RIAA is the industry rep, not
a corporation that sells anything. Well, I guess they
do some licensing stuff. The accounting magic is
definitely going on at the labels. I should never
underestimate the laziness of the media (especially the
entertainment media), but I would hope that if the
RIAA's numbers differed much from the label's numbers,
someone in the media would raise a red flag.
> In short, they can make those
> numbers do whatever they like, and don't hesitate for a second to do so.
> A bit more skepticism is called for when analyzing them, I think.
>
Agreed, but skepticism in the absence of alternative
data doesn't get us very far. We should be skeptical of
these numbers until we have independent numbers (not
holding my breath). Until then, I don't believe your
numbers because they don't fit my beliefs isn't that
much better than I believe your numbers because they fit
my beliefs.
But I'm not sure they would have had the 98 to 99 data
show a 6-7% jump in overall revenue and 12% jump in cd
revenue or cd sales are up 3.1% in 2000 if their goal
was to show that napster is hurting sales. What we do
know they do, based on previous actions including what
the slashdot article rightly criticizes them for, is
selectively highlight data to make their case. They
usually do this very clumsily like in this case where
they tried to slip 'cd singles' by the media (assuming
it wasn't the AP reporter who screwed it up) or their
press release last year about drops in sales at record
stores near college campuses (or whatever that was).
I completely agree with slashdot criticizing the RIAA
for their pathetic attempt to spin the data. My point
is that slashdot engaged in similar selectivity. They
highlight that $400 million increase in cd sales
revenue, call it profit (which it may mostly be given
the tiny increase in units sold, but that's their job to
show that), then downplay a $435 million drop in
cassette sales. If $400 million is big, then $435
million is big. If $400 million is big, then $80
million (the alleged drop in cd single sales) and $44
million (the alleged drop in cassette single sales) are
not trivial.
To me, $400 million (well, 3.1%) isn't a big deal either
way. A 1.8% drop in overall revenues isn't a big deal.
At least not in this industry. So to me the story,
based on the numbers on which the RIAA, AP, and slashdot
are all basing their stories, is "record industry sales
stagnant; people continue shift from analog to digital
media; no discernible napster effect either way." The
RIAA doesn't think that's an interesting story ... but
apparently neither does slashdot.
Me, I hate the RIAA. But I also hate Napster the
corporation which only wants to become part of the
record industry distribution stream so they can take
their cut. They've shown no more concern for musicians
than the majors have. Napster the software has
tremendous potential for finally giving control over the
distribution of music to the musicians themselves, where
I think it belongs. But I don't see much of anybody
seriously working toward that goal.
I think it is a mistake for those of us who support the
notion that artists should be able to profit off their
work (at least until the glorious socialist revolution)
to get cornered into defending the RIAA. But I think it
is also a mistake for those of us who support the notion
of alternative music distribution especially over the
internet to get cornered into defending/promoting the
corporation Napster. RIAA v. Napster is not "the man"
v. "the people", it's "a big man" v. "a smaller man" but
they're both "the man". And with Bertelsmann (y'know,
one of those evil RIAA members) involved in Napster,
they're even more distasteful. Fuck 'em both, I hope
they both collapse.
And what the hell, I'll say this. "Value" of course is
a tricky thing. But I have no problem whatsoever paying
$14 for a cd, I think I get more than enough in return
to justify that price. Especially when I compare that
to paying $7 for a pound of sliced turkey at the grocery
store, or $6 for a movie, or $10 for a paperback book
(much less $22+ for a hardcover). I don't think the
labels are ripping off consumers so much as they're
ripping off musicians and their other employees -- just
like most other industries in consumer capitalism.
> Did you see the AP article I posted?
Nope, didn't follow up on it. Repost or e-mail it to me
and maybe I'll check it out. But then, isn't that the
very article that the slashdot piece was criticizing?
> todd Hilary Rosen is still a fucking liar morman
you betcha....not like Napster's CEO.
Walter Davis
>
> >Walter Davis <aim...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
> >It would be nice if they broke the retail numbers down.
> >I was thinking that 'retail' excludes record clubs and
> >such, which if I remember right in label parlance are
> >'promotional' so they can justify reducing artist
> >royalties on such sales (bastards!). One problem I see
> >with your theory is that the dollar/unit on the singles
> >is around $3 (cassette) to $4 (cd), not what you'd think
> >if the giveaways are included. Unless it's a tax thing
> >and the 'dollar value' doesn't represent actual revenue.
> >
>
> i'd suspect the "dollar value" has not at all to do with revenue, but is
> definitely put forward to look like revenue, probably solely for the purpose
> of confusing the issue related to their recent press release.
Well, it's definitely not to confuse _just_ related to
their recent press release. This table is just an
updated version of the table that's always been
available on the RIAA website, just with new numbers for
2000. Now confusing the issue for all press releases
over these many years, that I can believe.
And of course if the 'retail' numbers are more
believable, they show an even bigger drop in overall
sales since 99, so....
By the way, there is a 'useful' piece on the RIAA
website -- a gold and platinum search engine.
bo...@ecru.propagation.net
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, grady wrote:
> At 03:26 PM 2/28/2001, you wrote:
>
> >as for cassette singles, i am shocked that this was ever a viable
> >industry, let alone a $300/year racket. my guess is that the bottom fell
> >out of the market when mcdonald's stopped giving the little fuckers away
> >with happy meals. seriously. anyone here ever buy one? even 6-year olds
> >know that tapes suck, and will demand something better.
>
> Um, yeah. It was, uh, 1989 or 1990, I think, and I was road-tripping from
> Houston to South Carolina in a tape-deck-equipped car. In a moment of
> weakness/desperation (in Mobile AL, I think it was), I purchased the
> cassingle of Young MC's "Bust A Move."
>
>
>
> ------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
>
mazen al-najjar
3
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: slashdot does the math for the RIAA
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:17:00 -0500
From: mazen al-najjar <ifo...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: ifo...@yahoo.com
Organization: am big you as ink
To: ch-s...@listserv.unc.edu
References:
<2F46A3E16D4BD311905...@knuckles.alienskin.com>
<3A9D44ED...@altavista.net>
Walter Davis wrote:
> The slashdot
> rationale for why sales have declined in these
> categories is "hey, nobody wants to buy this stuff."
> Well, in 98, cassette singles generated $94 million in
> revenue, in 2000 that number was $4.6 million. So two
> years ago, somebody was buying those babies.
[...]
> but then I've never understood
> who was buying singles these days, what they were
> buying, nor why, so who am I to say.
since yesterday, the onion seems to have removed the article to which
the words "nobody wants them" in the slashdot article were hyperlinked.
that would have explained everything for you. but alas, no more. such is
the web. such is the onion.
that slashdot performed corrections on their remarks derived from wading
through a ream of disinformative riaa statistics..., well, i wouldn't
exactly call that "sloppy." i'd call it cleaning up a little mess which
resulted from cleaning up a much larger mess. if really you hate
sounding like the riaa defender, nobody's forcing such a
characterization as "sloppy" upon you.
if you have other corrections, slashdot seems more than willing to take
such advice and publicly distribute the corrections. their methods are
fairly delphic. i wish all analysis outlets were so forthcoming. about
topics other than linux, that is.
3
grady
Awwwwww, yeahhhhh.
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
mazen al-najjar
> anyone here ever buy one?
why, yes. my collection is second to none. there's nothing what can
James Hepler
Sir Mix-a-Lot, My Posse's on Broadway
Metallica, One
James Hepler
grady
>as for cassette singles, i am shocked that this was ever a viable
>industry, let alone a $300/year racket. my guess is that the bottom fell
>out of the market when mcdonald's stopped giving the little fuckers away
>with happy meals. seriously. anyone here ever buy one? even 6-year olds
>know that tapes suck, and will demand something better.
Um, yeah. It was, uh, 1989 or 1990, I think, and I was road-tripping from