Feanor
12-16-02, 03:44 PM
And these figures take their argument about it being due to music downloads, and throw it a major curve ball. Because the figures indicate that CD production has gone down and that the demand among the fewer titles produced by them still remains quite high. Reminds me of when the math teacher in high school pre-calc brought up how numbers can be used to deceive (or here the presentation of only some figures, but not those that would tend to suggest a different explenation for the cited phenominon) and the chemistry teacher mentioned how by manipulating the parameters for a given graph one could give a certain eye picture (with the same given data set) that to the casual observer...
Further suggestion is that based on the figures that are there "Perhaps because the RIAA's version of the truth doesn't fit with the facts. Zieman points out that only 3,000 sales of each of the missing 12,000 titles would have been enough to see overall growth continue to grow." That being the case, had they not cut production, so the argument goes, they would be making more money in CD sales now and not less.
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html
Missing RIAA figures shoot down "piracy" canard
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 16/12/2002 at 20:15 GMT
Research by George Zieman gives the true reason for falling CD sales: the major labels have slashed production by 25 per cent in the past two years, he argues.
After keeping the figure rather quiet for two years, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) says the industry released around 27,000 titles in 2001, down from a peak of 38,900 in 1999. Since year-on-year unit sales have dropped a mere 10.3 per cent, it's clear that demand has held up extremely well: despite higher prices, consumers retain the CD buying habit.
Increasingly hysterical comments from RIAA chairperson and chief random-number-generator Hilary Rosen suggest that many billions of potential sales have been lost.
In August analysts Forrester attributed the decline in sales to the economy, citing historical precedent, and argued that music downloads could revive the industry.
So why isn't the RIAA trumpeting this affirmation in music sales, and something of a renaissance in its business efficiency?
Perhaps because the RIAA's version of the truth doesn't fit with the facts. Zieman points out that only 3,000 sales of each of the missing 12,000 titles would have been enough to see overall growth continue to grow.
Heavens, you'd be forgiven for thinking the labels slashed investment with the intention of seeing overall demand decline. Perhaps there's a more benign explanation, however: A&R budgets are set well in advance, and with Napster causing a mighty panic amongst industry executives a couple years ago, they decided to cut the rosters, close their eyes and wait for a bomb that never went off. But far from being besieged by CD-burning vandals, the music industry is seeing astonishingly resilient demand.
For years the independent labels chaffed at the RIAA's sanctioned monopoly on representing recording artists, and dreamt that a mighty, populist wave of artists seeking more equitable treatment, and a public seeking more interesting music, would wash it away overnight.
That doesn't seem necessary. The RIAA appears to be imploding without any assistance at all, under the weight of its own logic. ®
Further suggestion is that based on the figures that are there "Perhaps because the RIAA's version of the truth doesn't fit with the facts. Zieman points out that only 3,000 sales of each of the missing 12,000 titles would have been enough to see overall growth continue to grow." That being the case, had they not cut production, so the argument goes, they would be making more money in CD sales now and not less.
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html
Missing RIAA figures shoot down "piracy" canard
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 16/12/2002 at 20:15 GMT
Research by George Zieman gives the true reason for falling CD sales: the major labels have slashed production by 25 per cent in the past two years, he argues.
After keeping the figure rather quiet for two years, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) says the industry released around 27,000 titles in 2001, down from a peak of 38,900 in 1999. Since year-on-year unit sales have dropped a mere 10.3 per cent, it's clear that demand has held up extremely well: despite higher prices, consumers retain the CD buying habit.
Increasingly hysterical comments from RIAA chairperson and chief random-number-generator Hilary Rosen suggest that many billions of potential sales have been lost.
In August analysts Forrester attributed the decline in sales to the economy, citing historical precedent, and argued that music downloads could revive the industry.
So why isn't the RIAA trumpeting this affirmation in music sales, and something of a renaissance in its business efficiency?
Perhaps because the RIAA's version of the truth doesn't fit with the facts. Zieman points out that only 3,000 sales of each of the missing 12,000 titles would have been enough to see overall growth continue to grow.
Heavens, you'd be forgiven for thinking the labels slashed investment with the intention of seeing overall demand decline. Perhaps there's a more benign explanation, however: A&R budgets are set well in advance, and with Napster causing a mighty panic amongst industry executives a couple years ago, they decided to cut the rosters, close their eyes and wait for a bomb that never went off. But far from being besieged by CD-burning vandals, the music industry is seeing astonishingly resilient demand.
For years the independent labels chaffed at the RIAA's sanctioned monopoly on representing recording artists, and dreamt that a mighty, populist wave of artists seeking more equitable treatment, and a public seeking more interesting music, would wash it away overnight.
That doesn't seem necessary. The RIAA appears to be imploding without any assistance at all, under the weight of its own logic. ®