Howdy,
I realize that this thread has faithfully morphed into an Anti-Garth thread
somehow, but if I may return to the original premise for a moment... <g>
Garth's (and some other, less vocal, artists') statements about used CD
sales represent a valid concern about royalty revenues. However, as much as
I try to be in favor of artists getting paid for their creation, I find the
anti-used CD stance to be a bit weak.
Mainly because, economically, I've never seen it work. Attempts by members
of the primary market to control the secondary market have generally had the
exact opposite effect that the primary market folks hoped for.
Some boring personal background-- When I was 18, I helped launch a series of
magazines aimed at collectors of limited edition art figurines of various
artists. Picture it as a "beany babies" culture of the late '80s. The
magazines were aimed at collectors of those Emmett Kelly, Jr. clown
figurines, a god-awful line of African-American themed collectibles,
collectors of those gnome figurines that used to be all over Cracker Barrel
gift shops until angels apparently invaded, and a general interest magazine
for collectors of everything from those collectible houses (David Winter,
Dept. 56) to Precious Moments and Hummels.
Here's how the economy of that system worked-- Corporation mass produces
figurines and sells to gift shop which sells to collector. That's your
primary market.
Then the secondary market kicks in. Collectors begin selling to one another.
Harder to find items inflate in "value." We even printed a stock market-like
chart that tracked the national trends based on regular interviews with some
stores that sold "secondary market" items, highly active collectors, and
assorted sources.
The problem in the economy of the system kicked in when a few of the
companies, tried to do one of two things. Some companies tried to influence
the secondary market by purposely creating a short supply of some items. In
the short term, this works, by creating a "demand" for product, big PR, lots
of publicity about "popularity," etc. These companies were usually profiting
under the books by selling excess stock of the selected items on the
secondary market themselves. (Highly unethical and representative of the
more correct usage of the term "gray market" that a record company rep was
tossing about in an earlier Philclip.)
Eventually, this catches up to the company. Over inflated values usually
crash (Quick, anybody want to buy a beany baby? <g>) and the collectors
either quit before this happens because they can't find the items they want
or quit after the crash because they got burned.
The second instance, which I think is representative of part of the used CD
argument and the point of this thesis, involves companies trying to cut out
the secondary market altogether.
These companies did all they could to control the system and set the
secondary market values themselves. Essentially, if collector A wanted to
sell to collector B, he had to register the sell with the Corporation. The
theory here was that the corporation (arguing familiarly that the original
artist should somehow benefit from the repeated transaction) would charge a
fee to handle the transaction. The end result was people didn't use the
system, worked around it entirely and created a black market that could not
be tracked by the company or through recognized secondary market services
such as mine. In the end, the product was still traded but had become
valueless commercially.
I realize this isn't a direct match to the used CD argument, but I think
there are some interesting lessons to learn from it all. The record
companies would do just as well to find some other crusade. I think attempts
to control the secondary market will only create ill will between the labels
and the consumers. If the labels are truly worried about artists getting
proper royalties, then perhaps they should consider raising the royalty
payment on the primary transaction.
I note, with interest, that book publishers tried to pick this fight once a
while back with used book stores but eventually backed down. The publishers
eventually took the viewpoint that they'd have to reconcile themselves to
making their 40% markup on the primary transaction and let folks like
Burke's in Memphis, and McKay's in Knoxville help collectors happily buy
used and out-of-print books. I believe there was data to suggest that such
folks actually bought more *new* books than folks who didn't buy any used
books. Makes sense.
I've rambled enough. I've got some new music to listen to, along with the
used disc I also bought tonight.
Take care,
Shane Rhyne
Knoxville, TN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NP: Lone Justice, The World Is Not My Home
