$12 for the regular version, $15 for the deluxe. Two CDs of fairly comparable length but one treated as the main material and the other as bonus. While I do not have a strong opinion on either of these moves as definitively "good" or "bad," I do think they are interesting decisions to say the least.
The low price point has some merit to it, as most of us can probably remember plotting supply and demand curves to get the optimal price to quantity sold to generate maximum revenue. It makes sense for price to drop in light of the availability and ease of illegal downloading (and the reduced demand for physical albums given the new technological options) to find the new equilibrium. I think there is also merit to favoring quantity sold over price, because you can treat quantity sold as advertising (if one person buys an album at $20 whereas two would have at $10 you pull in the same revenue...but if everyone who bought the album goes to the concert, the latter is better). That said, there is always a lurking concern that a low price point makes an album appear cheap, which can hurt sales. I tend to think the former has far more weight than the latter, but it is far from an exact science.
The two disc format has similar pros and cons. You get to capitalize on that whole "well, if I'm spending $12 no matter what I may as well toss the extra $3 for a ton more content" effect. You also get to appeal to both the cheapskates and the die-hards by providing more options. With that said, you dramatically impact the effect of the "album as a unit." It varies from band to band and album to album, but often times an album is supposed to be more than just the disparate tracks that happened to be recorded around the same time. Iconoclast is supposed to have a technology theme, meaning there is a thread connecting the songs, and so you have to present them in a way that reflects that structure. Having a number of "optional" tracks on another disc diminishes that impact, and instead tends to say "here's all the garbage that came out of this studio session without any discretion for how tracks work together or which tracks are really worth presenting to the public." On this issue, I think the cons are more influential than they are on the price point.
I like that the band tried a new approach; I think music needs to be sold much differently these days than it was in the past. In truth, the record industry kept prices inflated over intrinsic value for so long that the consumer skepticism towards paying much for music these days is its own fault (how many times did you drop $20 on an album that was complete crap, or only had a few good tracks pre-Napster?). However, I'm not sure if the approach Symphony X took with this album will turn out to be right, or in the right direction at least.
Thoughts on these issues?
The low price point has some merit to it, as most of us can probably remember plotting supply and demand curves to get the optimal price to quantity sold to generate maximum revenue. It makes sense for price to drop in light of the availability and ease of illegal downloading (and the reduced demand for physical albums given the new technological options) to find the new equilibrium. I think there is also merit to favoring quantity sold over price, because you can treat quantity sold as advertising (if one person buys an album at $20 whereas two would have at $10 you pull in the same revenue...but if everyone who bought the album goes to the concert, the latter is better). That said, there is always a lurking concern that a low price point makes an album appear cheap, which can hurt sales. I tend to think the former has far more weight than the latter, but it is far from an exact science.
The two disc format has similar pros and cons. You get to capitalize on that whole "well, if I'm spending $12 no matter what I may as well toss the extra $3 for a ton more content" effect. You also get to appeal to both the cheapskates and the die-hards by providing more options. With that said, you dramatically impact the effect of the "album as a unit." It varies from band to band and album to album, but often times an album is supposed to be more than just the disparate tracks that happened to be recorded around the same time. Iconoclast is supposed to have a technology theme, meaning there is a thread connecting the songs, and so you have to present them in a way that reflects that structure. Having a number of "optional" tracks on another disc diminishes that impact, and instead tends to say "here's all the garbage that came out of this studio session without any discretion for how tracks work together or which tracks are really worth presenting to the public." On this issue, I think the cons are more influential than they are on the price point.
I like that the band tried a new approach; I think music needs to be sold much differently these days than it was in the past. In truth, the record industry kept prices inflated over intrinsic value for so long that the consumer skepticism towards paying much for music these days is its own fault (how many times did you drop $20 on an album that was complete crap, or only had a few good tracks pre-Napster?). However, I'm not sure if the approach Symphony X took with this album will turn out to be right, or in the right direction at least.
Thoughts on these issues?
