people bitching about the price of records

[flood]

not to mention... labels like no idea/dischord/etc get better rates than smaller labels. I know i'm paying a hell of a lot cheaper rates now than what i was when i started doing vinyl.. you also have to factor in a release bombing / distributor going belly up and killing you..

[Guest afsdan]

I like Allison more and more every day.

Open up VLV, ONLY for her.

[vinyljunkie]

First of all, I'm not saying that record prices should be high. I'm just explaining how you can set a lower retail price by putting out more records. I don't understand why I even have to explain this. It seems way too simple to necessitate an explanation!

Say you put out 1 record per year at 500 copies. This costs $2500.

-$5 per record cost to you.

-$10 retail price.

You profit $2500. Of course this doesn't include selling to distros, giving copies to the band, etc etc so it's not quite realistic, but simpler for explaining.

Say you put out 5 records a year.

$12,500 profit.

In the simplest terms, that's how you make more money off of more releases (if they're good releases). But if you put out 5 shitty releases a year, you won't make money (which isn't the point of the current discussion).

Say you do the same as 1), but retail price is $15.

You profit $5000 instead of $2,500.

but you just proved your own point wrong. A label, putting out 1 single release, is still making 2500 dollars (yes i know thats an oversimplified term, etc. but was used for the sake of easy math).

and in your own estimation, the label that puts out one single record could also sell their LP for 10 dollars and make money. Which i thought was the exact opposite of your original point you made of a label putting out one single release not being able to sell as cheap.

So the one release label is still making the exact same percentage of money that the larger label is making. the larger label is making more GROSS, but because the costs are higher for them in releasing more records, they arent making any higher NET profit per release.

ultimately it doesnt matter if you have 1 or 1000 releases. Your 50th release doesnt magically get pressed for free, and allow you to sell it for 2 dollars. It still costs 5 bucks, and lets say for example every release has cost the same to put out and you have kept your same markup, the 50th release will still have the same retail as the first.

[ihprstl]

[Guest afsdan]

this thread is blowing my mind, in a depressing way. no wonder I barely sell records, they're only $8! No variants! People here seem to hate saving money.

[lonesomexloveus]

sometimes when i post on this board, i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

[darknesscomesalive]

Not to play devil's advocate, but...

No Idea charges $8 for an LP before shipping.

I usually charge no more than $11.99 ppd.

They've been around for 25 years, and I've been around for 15. We all make very, very, very comfortable livings.

If you're paying $17 for an LP, you're a sucker and deserve to be parted from your money. Real talk.

Game.

Set.

Match.

[jhulud]

sometimes when i post on this board, i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

[lonesomexloveus]

i can't see that photo since i'm at work, but my right click tells me it has something to do with mugatu. AND I LIKE THAT.

[Shitty Rambo]

I like that people are actually agreeing with ComaChameleon. This board is terrible.

Right? They'll gladly keep feeding the greedy companies their money while the rest of us have reluctantly moved on from the physical medium due to skyrocketing prices.

Least I'm not a "dude" who adds a question mark to the end of the word 'right' when it's not regarding directions.

[hickey]

[mygreatdevastator]

Right? They'll gladly keep feeding the greedy companies their money while the rest of us have reluctantly moved on from the physical medium due to skyrocketing prices.

Least I'm not a "dude" who adds a question mark to the end of the word 'right' when it's not regarding directions.

Nah, you're the asshole who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

[rtw88]

Right? They'll gladly keep feeding the greedy companies their money while the rest of us have reluctantly moved on from the physical medium due to skyrocketing prices.

Least I'm not a "dude" who adds a question mark to the end of the word 'right' when it's not regarding directions.

ZINGER

[Guest]

Oh my god, everyone should shut the fuck up. Just put on your favorite Ramones album and dance your pants off. Who gives a shit about all this? Seriously.

[Guest afsdan]

ramones reissues are too expensive, sorry

[gmoney]

ramones reissues are too expensive, sorry

12.99. If Amazon is indeed a legit site.

[ihprstl]

ramones reissues are too expensive, sorry

Perfect.

[porchlight]

but you just proved your own point wrong. A label, putting out 1 single release, is still making 2500 dollars (yes i know thats an oversimplified term, etc. but was used for the sake of easy math).

and in your own estimation, the label that puts out one single record could also sell their LP for 10 dollars and make money. Which i thought was the exact opposite of your original point you made of a label putting out one single release not being able to sell as cheap.

So the one release label is still making the exact same percentage of money that the larger label is making. the larger label is making more GROSS, but because the costs are higher for them in releasing more records, they arent making any higher NET profit per release.

ultimately it doesnt matter if you have 1 or 1000 releases. Your 50th release doesnt magically get pressed for free, and allow you to sell it for 2 dollars. It still costs 5 bucks, and lets say for example every release has cost the same to put out and you have kept your same markup, the 50th release will still have the same retail as the first.

THAT IS ALL THAT I AM SAYING. JEEEESUS FUUUUCKING CHRIIIIST. The larger label is making more gross because they have more releases out at the same time. I'm not saying it's better or worse, it is just more profitable at a lower cost per unit to the consumer.

[Shitty Rambo]

Least I'm not a "dude" who adds a question mark to the end of the word 'right' when it's not regarding directions.

Nah, you're the asshole who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

Hahaha, you mad?

[hollisbrown]

I sell Ramones reissues on colored vinyl and 180 gram for $13.

[Guest]

ramones reissues are too expensive, sorry

+1

[mygreatdevastator]

Nah, you're the asshole who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

Hahaha, you mad?

Never been more less angry. I would just like it if you thought for 5 seconds before opening your mouth.

[xadamhudsonx]

Hahaha, you mad?

Never been more less angry. I would just like it if you thought for 5 seconds before opening your mouth.

...and typing things with it.

[vinyljunkie]

THAT IS ALL THAT I AM SAYING. JEEEESUS FUUUUCKING CHRIIIIST. The larger label is making more gross because they have more releases out at the same time. I'm not saying it's better or worse, it is just more profitable at a lower cost per unit to the consumer.

thats not all you are saying. your original statement and point was that a label putting out a single record cannot afford to sell a record as cheaply as a label that puts out records with more frequency. Which you ultimately proved to be completely false, by showing that a label with even one release can sell a record for cheap and still profit off it (provided the pressing sells out, etc).

moreover by saying that because the established label will earn more total money, you are insinuating that an upstart label who puts out a single release is entitled to make more money PER RELEASE than a label who put out 5 releases and spent 5 times the work, energy, effort, money up front, etc.

if anything it should be the opposite, labels with one release should be selling their titles for CHEAPER, because the one release label put in a handful of hours of work in their spare time, and the label churning out those frequent releases quit their job to focus on the label full time.

[lonesomexloveus]

THAT IS ALL THAT I AM SAYING. JEEEESUS FUUUUCKING CHRIIIIST. The larger label is making more gross because they have more releases out at the same time. I'm not saying it's better or worse, it is just more profitable at a lower cost per unit to the consumer.

thats not all you are saying. your original statement and point was that a label putting out a single record cannot afford to sell a record as cheaply as a label that puts out records with more frequency. Which you ultimately proved to be completely false, by showing that a label with even one release can sell a record for cheap and still profit off it (provided the pressing sells out, etc).