YAARIAAT: So does anyone know how much CDs really cost to make?

[her209]

So I see a CD single that sells for $1-2.

And then I see the CD album that has teh same song along with about 10-12 other ones that sells for $12-14.

Now can we safely assume that it takes the same amount of time to press the CD single as it does the CD album?

Can we also assume that the music labels are making money off of the CD singles because who would sell something for under cost?

So why such a big gap in the prices? Does a CD album really cost $10 more per CD to make?

 

[Freejack2]

I think it only costs 25 cents to make the album, and another 25 cents goes to the artists. The rest of it goes to the Record companies and the RIAA so they can sue 12 year old kids.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

marketing
sound engineering
mastering
art design
etc

you're paying for content, not for oil and plastic.

 

[Lager]

Congrats her209 for making "lifer" status.

 

[Yomicron]

CD Cost Breakdown

 

[jfall]

The same thing can be said about a lot of things. Look at cars for example, they only cost a fraction of the final price to actually produce. And lets not forget your Nike shoes that cost a few dollars to make and sell for 80+ It's business

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Yomicron
CD Cost Breakdown

Hmm, why do I have a hard time beliving that the label gets less per sale than the artist does... Either complete bs or some creative acounting at work here. I wonder how much the industry paid Billboard to publish that breakdown

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: coldcut
Congrats her209 for making "lifer" status.

Thanks

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Yomicron
CD Cost Breakdown

Hmm, why do I have a hard time beliving that the label gets less per sale than the artist does... Either complete bs or some creative acounting at work here. I wonder how much the industry paid Billboard to publish that breakdown

Yup, that graph sure is questionable.

 

[kyutip]

There is no way label get less than artist.
I thing artist get less than 50c for each CD.
I read somewhere that an album needs to sell at least 500k for the artist to break even with label.

 

[tcsenter]

How much of the CD manufacturing process are you including?

The cost to master (etch) the pressing glass? Pressing and sealing? Design and artwork? Printing and packaging? Shipping and distribution? The whole nine yards?

Obviously the cost to manufacture the plastic disc is the same whether there is one song or twelve on the CD.

Did you think that you were paying for only the costs of making a little piece of plastic but not the costs of producing the content that resides on the little piece of plastic?

That would be a bit like asking 'how much does it cost to transmit a television show via airwaves' but not the costs to produce the television show (paying the cast and crew, writers, directors, production sets, catering, legal fees and lawyers, etc.).

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: kyutip
There is no way label get less than artist.
I thing artist get less than 50c for each CD.
I read somewhere that an album needs to sell at least 500k for the artist to break even with label.

Actually, that's one convenient thing they forgot to mention. (Usually) the artist pays the cost of production. They neglected to mention that for some reason...

 

[kyutip]

Actually, that's one convenient thing they forgot to mention. (Usually) the artist pays the cost of production. They neglected to mention that for some reason...

Yeah, that's why if you fail to sell around 1M you probably will still owe the label some money.

 

[tcsenter]

There is no way label get less than artist.
I thing artist get less than 50c for each CD.

100% of the artist royalty goes to the label or promotor until they have paid-off any cash advances, new equipment purchases (instruments, amps, etc) and other costs of production. After they have squared away with the label and promoter (and whoever else they owe), they start seeing the royalty.

So that $1.99 may 'technically' be the artist's, but the artist won't see any of it until they've paid off their debt. Everyone else takes their cut and the artist "gets" what's left, that's why artists complain they don't get a royalty. Or, the artist takes the total amount of royalties they actually get to pocket and divide it by the number of CDs sold, which obviously isn't going to equal $1.99 per CD.

That would be like me deducting from my monthly gross earnings taxes, rent, utilities, car payment, insurance, gas, and other costs, dividing what's left by the number of hours I worked, then complaining that I don't make the $18.00/hour that it says on my check, I only make $4.23/hour (just using those numbers as an illustration).

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: her209
So I see a CD single that sells for $1-2.

And then I see the CD album that has teh same song along with about 10-12 other ones that sells for $12-14.

Now can we safely assume that it takes the same amount of time to press the CD single as it does the CD album?

Can we also assume that the music labels are making money off of the CD singles because who would sell something for under cost?

So why such a big gap in the prices? Does a CD album really cost $10 more per CD to make?

i've read it costs about 3 cents to make a CD.


that is without liner notes, printing on the CD or the jewel case.

 

[bandana163]

I've seen discs for less than 10 cents, so not much.

 

[tcsenter]

Actually, that's one convenient thing they forgot to mention. (Usually) the artist pays the cost of production. They neglected to mention that for some reason...

Because its assumed that everyone understands the artist pays for everything. Someone else puts all the money up front, but the artist has to pay it back.

I wouldn't think it necessary to disclose in the itemized break-down of a monthly mortgage payment that the home buyer is the one who has to pay for all that stuff.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
How much of the CD manufacturing process are you including?

The original assumption was to compare the cost of everything, albeit, very simplified.

The cost to master (etch) the pressing glass? Pressing and sealing? Design and artwork? Printing and packaging? Shipping and distribution? The whole nine yards?

Definitely correct me if I'm wrong here... In regards to the etching glass, whether the glass is reusable or not is irrelevant but where there is difference is the time it takes to etch. Logic dictates that it takes to more time to etch more data than it does less data. How much of a difference this makes, I cannot tell you. As stated earlier, pressing and sealing is the same for both. Design and artwork would be more for an album due to the fact that the majority of them have inserts. Printing and packaging of albums cost more as well. Shipping and distribution is harder to say. But you get my drift?

Obviously the cost to manufacture the plastic disc is the same whether there is one song or twelve on the CD.

Did we come to the same conclusion in terms of manufacturing costs?

Did you think that you were paying for only the costs of making a little piece of plastic but not the costs of producing the content that resides on the little piece of plastic?

I was thinking of the whole process. See response below.

That would be a bit like asking 'how much does it cost to transmit a television show via airwaves' but not the costs to produce the television show (paying the cast and crew, writers, directors, production sets, catering, legal fees and lawyers, etc.).

Due to the fact that a lot of the costs involved in terms are overlapping it is hard to quantify numbers for each of the groups of people. For example, will you agree with me that large businesses usually hire their own lawyers and pay them salaries? Therefore, the costs of the lawyer whether he is working on 12 CD singles or an an album, I don't know if there would be any difference at all.

I think a better question would be, "How much does it cost to produce and air a 30 min show versus a, say, 4 hour show?"