Record Store Day 2015

[Supersonic Scientist]

Yesterday, while heading down to Little Five Points in Atlanta to meet friends for an early dinner before going to the Zappa Plays Zappa show, I past a used Record store and remembered that it was RSD. After parking, I headed over to check it out. Once inside I noticed there was this Blues band made-up of a bunch of very young (late teen/early 20's) guys BURNING through a bunch of tunes, The harmonica player was blowing his brains out (in a good way of course) I was quite pleased to see the Blues being embraced by a bunch of young cats. The store was PACKED with both shoppers and listeners. I had no time to really flip through the stacks but I'm glad I stopped in for the experience.


BTW: The ZPZ show was phenomenal!!!

[Patelena396]

ooooh, I actually think RSD would be a fine initiative, if it was done properly and it didn't snob the CD medium, which still amounts to over 60% of the total sales (whereas vinyls - and singles - are only up to 3%). And doing it twice a year, while we're at it.

And as I said , at least in Brussels, most of the places that participated on saturday are not even real record stores, patroned by hipsters ... So basically, it misses the target

I see your point and I agree with you. It should be a day to celebrate music stores in general and not just focused on the vinyl medium. Personally, I have never missed vinyl. Too many first listens of classic 70s albums tarnished by pops and scratches. To this day, when i listen to an album from the 70s on CD, I sometimes remember a moment that contained a scratch on my original vinyl copy way back when. I know the vinyl fans would tell me that I am wrong, but I will take a CD or digital version of an album any day over a vinyl edition.

[Birdy]

It was a fun day Saturday. Busy all day here at the store, our busiest day since Dec.24, sold a LOT of vinyl and had a lot of good friends and regular customers come in to spend some time. The sun was shining, the door was open all day and no "hipsters" to be found. Thanks to all that came out!

[Esoteric]

actually I agree with you on this about vinyl! I also think you should be allowed to hold 30% of your print back for mail order and fansites etc. It annoys me when we have some real hardened fans (and we def have some with some of our bands) who cant get hold of RSD things they would like at the "proper" cost because they dont happen to live in a major city that still has the odd record shop, whereas some Johnny come lately "tout" goes round buying stuff up for ebay because he DOES happen to live on the doorstep of shops that take stock..

[Facelift]

actually I agree with you on this about vinyl! I also think you should be allowed to hold 30% of your print back for mail order and fansites etc. It annoys me when we have some real hardened fans (and we def have some with some of our bands) who cant get hold of RSD things they would like at the "proper" cost because they dont happen to live in a major city that still has the odd record shop, whereas some Johnny come lately "tout" goes round buying stuff up for ebay because he DOES happen to live on the doorstep of shops that take stock..

What is "proper cost" any more?

The RSD price creep has has been significant over the last few years. Although some (many?) stores add a dollar or two or three to their sale price over the suggested retail price, the suggested retail prices on many items are already pretty high, and seem to take the secondary market into account.

I understand that if items are regularly flying off ebay at 2-3X the retail price soon after RSD, then there might be a temptation by the labels to appropriate some of that for themselves in the form of higher retail prices, but this is misguided. In reality the E-bay stock of any particular item the week after release is quite low compared to the total number pressed. The vast majority of the people waiting in line at a record store before it opens on Saturday morning of RSD are NOT flipping any of it. So the people getting gouged are the fans. There's always going to be a secondary market for limited quantity things like RSD releases and in the age of Youtube and downloads, many people who buy RSD items will keep them in collectible condition... just in case.

By deliberately under-producing, the labels have security from the effects of over-producing, which would result in costing them money. Underproducing something by 25% does not entitle adding 50% to the cost of what did get produced, though. Well, I mean, they can set the retail prices at whatever they want, but I don't have to buy it. And the stores that sell above retail (in violation of their RSD agreement), well, hopefully they get reported enough times to be refused stock next year.

I did leave a few things on the table just because of ridiculous prices. $15-$20 for 7" singles? Piss off.

[Esoteric]

I have seen lots of items at quite ludicrous Mark up at retail, bearing in mind I know what the label has charged, whether it's the distributor or retailer marking up so high, I couldn't say

[strawberrybrick]

Record Store Day is kinda like New Year's Eve. It's the day all the non-professional record buyers|drinkers go out record buying|drinking!

[spacefreak]

Record Store Day is kinda like New Year's Eve. It's the day all the non-professional record buyers|drinkers go out record buying|drinking!

Exactly.

[Trane]

By deliberately under-producing, the labels have security from the effects of over-producing, which would result in costing them money. Underproducing something by 25% does not entitle adding 50% to the cost of what did get produced, though.

Vicky could maybe help me on this issue, because she works for a "big" label, as opposed to Steve or Ken or Moonjune

for a big label, I'd say that it's pretty difficult to say how much to produce of each album.

For decades, labels used to enthusiastically over-produced in the hope it would sell it all, and if not, it would go to stock for residual sales (called back-catalogues), and eventually whatever didn't disppear would find itself in the bargain cut-out bins. AFAIK, very few releases were destroyed (unlike books, music are not nearly as easily recycled when going for distruction, and I suspect that extra environemental taxes are added for destroying un-recyclabe CDs.

Unfortunately, storage costs have for some reasons soared through the roof - or its costs deemed a liability in modern management rules. So nowadays, how much one manufactures of each object is a primordial question, in order not to raise the storage question. IMHO, I'm pretty sure that some labels only count on distributors to deal with storage costs and gladly unloads that burden on them.

So I suspect that under-producing such and such album is not done to be able to jack up prices, but to ensure that everything is gne within its front window life, thus never finding its way onto temporary storage shelves (and its costs). Big labels now prefer under-producng albums, because they'll prefer a second repress than having storage costs, most likely because the presses still have in memory all of the fiddlings and doodlings of the first pressing in mind. And if not, it's stored somewhere, can be uploaded on a USB stick and transferred into a different press or even a different plant. So unlike the 70's where a second pressing's costs was equally expensive than the first, nowadays, most of those first pressings' costs disappear with second (or third) pressings, because the ùachine does the job tin seconds when humans did that in hours.

We've seen Steve's Cuneiform's storage warehouse in the first RW documentray, and no doubt Laser's Edge, ProgQuebec or Moonjune's respective storage must look similar to that, because all three manage much of the distribution as well. I'd be curious tpo see if Cherry Red/Esoteric (or Universal or Sony or BMG) has such a warehouse at all.

I did leave a few things on the table just because of ridiculous prices. $15-$20 for 7" singles? Piss off

yu know, once a vinyl reaches over 20.00 (beit $,€ or £) it totally cools me off tho even pick it up in my hands and look onto the back cover. Sooooorrryyyy, but I see absolutely no reasons hy a vinyl should be more extensive than a CD. When the two lived alongside in the second half of the 80's, CDs were substantially more expensive than vinyls, so there is no reasons that this should be reversed nowadays.

[LASERCD]

yu know, once a vinyl reaches over 20.00 (beit $,€ or £) it totally cools me off tho even pick it up in my hands and look onto the back cover. Sooooorrryyyy, but I see absolutely no reasons hy a vinyl should be more extensive than a CD. When the two lived alongside in the second half of the 80's, CDs were substantially more expensive than vinyls, so there is no reasons that this should be reversed nowadays.

If yesterday wasn't 4/20 I would have thought you were serious. Funny post to read though.

[Trane]

If yesterday wasn't 4/20 I would have thought you were serious. Funny post to read though.

not sure what you mean?!?
Is it funny because I'm totally off in my reasoning?

AFAIK, most of the vinyl pressing machines are still the machines that existed back then and survived until today's vinyl revival... so it's not like they costed zillions to buy and set up (unlike the SACD or Blue-Ray machines that may not be amortized or paid-off yet).

[alucard]

Like for most things you have the best and the worst for RSD. In Paris there was a big event Place de la République which was boring, a couple of "hip" labels with some stars for autographe session, a big stage for the evening and not much else, but then we moved on and to an interesting Rough Trade event with interesting ( but overpriced re-editions) and concerts on a small stage. Saw JJ Johanson for half an hour and around the corner was a place with tents for smaller labels and second hand records. Went away with a near mint first Weather Report LP.

[LASERCD]

not sure what you mean?!?
Is it funny because I'm totally off in my reasoning?

AFAIK, most of the vinyl pressing machines are still the machines that existed back then and survived until today's vinyl revival... so it's not like they costed zillions to buy and set up (unlike the SACD or Blue-Ray machines that may not be amortized or paid-off yet).

Yes. You have no clue about the subject.

Sorry man I didn't know you were serious. I thought you were just kidding around or stoned.

[spacefreak]

Sooooorrryyyy, but I see absolutely no reasons hy a vinyl should be more extensive than a CD. When the two lived alongside in the second half of the 80's, CDs were substantially more expensive than vinyls, so there is no reasons that this should be reversed nowadays.

Trane,

a 500 CD pressing can be done at less than 1 euro factory cost per item (covers included)
a 500 LP pressing costs 3.5 euros factory cost per item (regular, not GF cover)

This probably explains why.

PS. In the 80s, the "inteligent/greedy" market strategy of the majors was to artificially overprice the CD and cut-down on vinyl production in order to skyrocket profit margins. By no means this reflected actual production costs + their rational mark-ups.

[Dan Marsh]

Well, I am happy with what I got at RSD.

[Facelift]

So I suspect that under-producing such and such album is not done to be able to jack up prices, but to ensure that everything is gne within its front window life, thus never finding its way onto temporary storage shelves (and its costs). Big labels now prefer under-producng albums, because they'll prefer a second repress than having storage costs, most likely because the presses still have in memory all of the fiddlings and doodlings of the first pressing in mind. And if not, it's stored somewhere, can be uploaded on a USB stick and transferred into a different press or even a different plant. So unlike the 70's where a second pressing's costs was equally expensive than the first, nowadays, most of those first pressings' costs disappear with second (or third) pressings, because the ùachine does the job tin seconds when humans did that in hours.

We've seen Steve's Cuneiform's storage warehouse in the first RW documentray, and no doubt Laser's Edge, ProgQuebec or Moonjune's respective storage must look similar to that, because all three manage much of the distribution as well. I'd be curious tpo see if Cherry Red/Esoteric (or Universal or Sony or BMG) has such a warehouse at all.
.

I think your points are valid for regular vinyl releases, but RSD is something different. Deliberate underproduction is part of the reason why there are lines and high ebay resale prices. Underproducing is part and parcel of RSD - and even then, there are numerous titles that don't sell out. But, it's hard to tell in advance what those might be. For example, I have a feeling that the Flaming Lips 10"s weren't expected by the label to still be sitting around at a lot of RSD locations, but that is the case. Maybe not if this was RSD 2010, but it isn't.

[Steve F.]

To answer Trane's question about 'under producing'.

There used to be a market for us for 'catalog' items. There was about 10% of our catalog that sold very well and steadily every year.

Now, almost without any exception, if the physical copy isn't sold within two years, it will never sell.

That's a huge difference in planning and strategy that is required to deal with that.

[Trane]

Yes. You have no clue about the subject.

Sorry man I didn't know you were serious. I thought you were just kidding around or stoned.

No problems. Definitely not a professional.

Trane,

a 500 CD pressing can be done at less than 1 euro factory cost per item (covers included)
a 500 LP pressing costs 3.5 euros factory cost per item (regular, not GF cover)

This probably explains why.

had no idea, thanks

But I still won't buy a vinyl over 20.00 whatever ($£€), period

PS. In the 80s, the "inteligent/greedy" market strategy of the majors was to artificially overprice the CD and cut-down on vinyl production in order to skyrocket profit margins. By no means this reflected actual production costs + their rational mark-ups.

That's part of the Killing-the-vinyl conspiracy, IMHO.... Why take the chance to kill the new baby by overpricing it and drown your main moneymaker... doesn't make much sense... especially that cassettes were the grabbing much sales as well in the 80's (FTM, cassettes killed the vinyl, and CDs killed the cassette)

To answer Trane's question about 'under producing'.

There used to be a market for us for 'catalog' items. There was about 10% of our catalog that sold very well and steadily every year.

Now, almost without any exception, if the physical copy isn't sold within two years, it will never sell.

That's a huge difference in planning and strategy that is required to deal with that.

ok, thanks

[spacefreak]

Now, almost without any exception, if the physical copy isn't sold within two years, it will never sell.

That's a huge difference in planning and strategy that is required to deal with that.

I somewhat disagree. Not within two but within ONE year.

The smaller you are as a label, the faster you need to sell, to keep yourself afloat in the ocean of new releases.