The cut that record labels get from online sales are for the most part standardized. Amazon would presumably have to pay this regardless of actual sale price.
> The similar title is selling for $11.99 at iTunes. The retailer typically keeps 30% of the sale price, meaning it owes the label and distributor the remaining 70% -- or $8.39.
That's what would happen if they did the normal thing. If there is any evidence that they did, the article does not present it. Of course, there's also no evidence that they did something different - but the fact that of the three versions of the album Amazon sells through downloads[1] two are not only cheaper than the $11.99 iTunes has it for but also cost less than what the article claims that they must pay the label suggests that this is the case (or that Amazon is taking a loss on every sale, which seems unlikely).
[1] One is just the album, one has a digital booklet, and one has the booklet as well as being a "special edition," whatever that means.
[2] One is $5.99, one is $6.99, and the third is $12.99.
It's widely rumored (with substantial reason) that Amazon MP3 got cut a much better deal from the record labels than Apple. Keep in mind when Amazon's entry first launched, iTunes was practically the only digital music sales service around. The labels were desperate to avoid Apple gaining a unassailable dominance of the market and were throwing other providers significant deals in exchange for fighting Apple. It seems entirely likely that Amazon's normal "cut" for the labels is lower than Apple's.
Comments
"Amazon will lose about $7.40, according to Billboard's calculation."
Yeah? Where the calculation? I just read this as; "We've made up some number".
The cut that record labels get from online sales are for the most part standardized. Amazon would presumably have to pay this regardless of actual sale price.
> The similar title is selling for $11.99 at iTunes. The retailer typically keeps 30% of the sale price, meaning it owes the label and distributor the remaining 70% -- or $8.39.
That's what would happen if they did the normal thing. If there is any evidence that they did, the article does not present it. Of course, there's also no evidence that they did something different - but the fact that of the three versions of the album Amazon sells through downloads[1] two are not only cheaper than the $11.99 iTunes has it for but also cost less than what the article claims that they must pay the label suggests that this is the case (or that Amazon is taking a loss on every sale, which seems unlikely).
[1] One is just the album, one has a digital booklet, and one has the booklet as well as being a "special edition," whatever that means.
[2] One is $5.99, one is $6.99, and the third is $12.99.
It's widely rumored (with substantial reason) that Amazon MP3 got cut a much better deal from the record labels than Apple. Keep in mind when Amazon's entry first launched, iTunes was practically the only digital music sales service around. The labels were desperate to avoid Apple gaining a unassailable dominance of the market and were throwing other providers significant deals in exchange for fighting Apple. It seems entirely likely that Amazon's normal "cut" for the labels is lower than Apple's.