Upset About Beyonce Going Digital, Target Refuses To Stock New Album
from the stupidity-in-action dept
As you may have heard, Beyonce took much of the music world by surprise by launching her new album on iTunes only with no buildup. It was an incredibly successful promotion, garnering a ton of sales, and showing that she recognizes that digital is where the music world is these days. However, in a show of pure spite and jealousy, retailer Target responded by saying that it won’t sell her physical CD once it comes out, because they don’t want to encourage this sort of “going digital” behavior:
“At Target we focus on offering our guests a wide assortment of physical CDs, and when a new album is available digitally before it is available physically, it impacts demand and sales projections,” Target spokesperson Erica Julkowski tells Billboard.
She continues, “While there are many aspects that contribute to our approach and we have appreciated partnering with Beyonce in the past, we are primarily focused on offering CDs that will be available in a physical format at the same time as all other formats. At this time, Target will not be carrying Beyonce’s new self-titled album ‘Beyonce.'”
This reminds me of the petulant and childish response of movie theaters when filmmakers started trying to release films online at the same time they were in the theaters. Like in that situation, these “brick and mortar” guys are fighting back against the tide, looking out of touch and childish at the same time. I would imagine that the basic reaction to Target’s decision is to shrug. It’s likely that people care a lot more about Beyonce than they do about Target, and if Target wants to send them elsewhere to get the music they want, those people just won’t shop at Target. I’m not sure how Target wins in that situation.
Where this gets even more bizarre is that, generally speaking, CDs and such are low margin, or even loss leaders, for retailers like Target. They don’t make their profit there, but rather use the CDs to bring people in to sell them much higher margin goods. Yet, in this case, they won’t even get that benefit, all because they think they can prevent the natural tide of the move to digital? Oh, and looking childish and petty in the process. Who at Target thought that was a good idea?
Filed Under: beyonce, digital, loss leaders, music, retail, strategy
Companies: target
Comments on “Upset About Beyonce Going Digital, Target Refuses To Stock New Album”
I guess you could say...
That they’re going to miss their Target quota for the month.
Re: I guess you could say...
The Target quota for iTunes sales just went up a bit.
Good for them
If they like leaving money at the table every time they don’t get their way, good for them. And they wonder why they are losing at the game of Capitalism.
Re: Good for them
Are they going to stop selling itunes gift cards as well?
At Target we focus on offering our guests a wide assortment of physical CDs
Translation: we haven’t stepped into the new millennium yet.
and when a new album is available digitally before it is available physically, it impacts demand and sales projections
Translation: we think we can control what people want
At this time, Target will not be carrying Beyonce’s new self-titled album ‘Beyonce.’
Translation: we are throwing a tantrum because the last part is unfeasible and thus we’ll leave money on the table so the people wiser than us can take it. Like Beyonce?
Where this gets even more bizarre is that, generally speaking, CDs and such are low margin, or even loss leaders, for retailers like Target.
Derp.
Who at Target thought that was a good idea?
Probably someone the MAFIAA would hire.
Re: Re:
Oddly, though, when it comes to creepy spying through data mining they’re right on the cutting edge: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
Re: Re: Re:
I went to a DELL seminar awhile back and they described how their products are used to make predictions like this. Everyone who enters the store is cataloged via facial recognition software that monitors their every movement in the store and also monitors their eye movement and how long their eyes pause on each product they look at. The next time they are in the store, the same facial recognition software looks up their previous visits and logs the new visit. It’s very interesting stuff but also very creepy.
Re: Re: Re:
I saw that one. And this sort of behavior is creeping people the heck out. I’ve heard stories of people that stopped using the sites or paying with credit card because of such thing.
These days some creep called me from some lame College asking me if I was interested in attending any course. I recently paid to take the test of an University so my guess is that somewhere at some point my data was sold out. I went ballistic with the telemarketing dude and now I’m not gonna attend that College ever even if it’s good because of this invasion.
So... Windowing is bad?
So Target is saying windowing is bad and anti-consumer? Heck, I agree with them. I think Beyonce should have offered a physical CD at the same time she released online. I also think her album shouldn’t have been an iTunes exclusive, but should have been available via all online music services.
I hope Target will apply this newly enlightened view to the movie studios holding back DVD releases and in their new involvement in the Ultraviolet consortium.
Re: So... Windowing is bad?
Yeah, it reminds me about the shop that wanted to stop people window shopping and then buy it online, and then started to demand entry fee for people to enter the shop, which they would get back if they bought something, but not if they didn’t.
Talking about shooting yourself in the foot. Instead of trying to get with the times, they try to force people to buy from them. Yeah, no thanks.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If this cd is a loss leader to get people in the door, then it makes sense for them to not bother with it when it does come out. If the bulk of impulse shoppers have already purchased it online, what benefit would it be to target to sell it at a loss any longer? We all talk about how we “dont own anything” anymore. Yet we defend digital distribution that can be revoked at any time. Amazons 1984 or the more recent Disney release being 2 examples.
Having worked at target during the x-mas season unloading trucks, I am not a fan of theirs, but at some point I am sure it gets irritating to those who provide jobs, and property taxes to a community to see their market removed from them without notice or at least the opportunity to compete for customers at the same time.
Re: Re:
iTunes songs are DRM-free, you DL them and they’re yours. They can’t be “taken back.” That’s the GOOD kind of digital distribution we all want for everything.
Re: Re: Re:
iTunes songs are DRM-free, you DL them and they’re yours.
There was a long time in which they weren’t.
And iTunes videos are still DRM’d. I still haven’t been able to figure out how to play the Nerdist episodes I purchased on iTunes on a Linux box, but then again I haven’t been trying recently. I was able to watch them on a Windoze virtual machine once.
Re: Re: Re:
Are they all DRM free? I was under the impression it was a mix.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All music is DRM-free, most if not all else is DRM’d.
Re: Re: Re:
A lot of the older iTunes catalog is absolutely still DRM’d. I know because I had to spend a bunch of time stripping the DRM out of a bunch of songs so I could play them on a non-Apple machine without iTunes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two things come to mind here:
1. Are you sure it was DRM rather than the other machine simply having problems with the AAC format (i.e. did you try with something like VLC, which can play most things unless there’s DRM?)? Apple do still favour their own format, but it’s not actually DRM.
2. Were these fresh downloads or something from the stored library? I doubt they’d become DRM-free unless they’re re-downloaded after the requirement was lifted.
Either way, I’m pretty sure anything that’s been added to iTunes in the last few years is DRM-free.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
2. Fresh downloads
You’re right, though. As I said, I found the DRM in the songs that had been added a number of years back.
Re: Re:
Well said
What? Is Beyonce SELLING music instead of T-shirts? HOW 20th century!
Meanwhile, Mike avoids noticing that his own notions about artists selling directly — actually giving away the music and selling “scarcity” was Mike’s notion. — but just selling directly, no middlemen at all, has definitely been proved complete hooey. In fact, only a new bunch of middlemen are rising to grift off artists, and rest of the music biz continues along the ancient lines of heavily promoting a few like Beyonce for the key target demographic.
So except for lack of records and now CDs, what’s new since teh internets? — That while playing music, YOU’RE SPIED ON!
Just because a lot of people have gotten a lot of easy money off teh internets doesn’t make it a plus overall: at the very least, the Internet enables spying on scale and in detail as never before.
05:28:25[g-785-7]
Missed the Target
I had no idea Target sells CDs. I guess it makes sense they do, though.
But so what they don’t carry this one; so much easier to pre-order from Amazon anyway and just have it show up at my door.
Re: Missed the Target
So you are saying that this is a bold marketing move on Target’s behalf?
1. Let everyone know they have (some) CDs
2. ???
3. Profit!!
Personally I was disappointed that the only place I could buy the new Beyonce album was on iTunes. I regularly shop around online for my digital music collection, and I usually end-up at Amazon Mp3 for their prices. Being forced to pay $15.99 for a music/video collection was not something I’d choose to do again. Good for Beyonce from a business perspective, but the whole thing seems pretty bad from a consumer perspective.
I don’t think Target is saying “STOP THE DIGITAL MUSIC SALES!” I think they’re just saying, give everyone an equal chance to sell your album on release-day at a price that retailers feel comfortable selling it (including online shops). But if only one company gets to sell it on release, then we get a $15.99 price tag (yes I know there’s “additional content” that I will personally never use and would have not preferred paying for). 1996 called and it wants its CD pricing back!
Re: Re:
Or you could simply wait until it’s available elsewhere. The fact that you’ll pay more for the exclusive is what makes these exclusive offers possible.
Re: Re:
No, what Target is really saying is “You didn’t give US the exclusive, you b***h!”
Re: Re:
“Personally I was disappointed that the only place I could buy the new Beyonce album was on iTunes”
Personally I was disappointed that she released another album!
Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft and others thanks Target’s move.
Target really, really wants to become the next “Blockbuster” store.
Compact Discs
People still purchase CDs? Beyonce should release her new album on LP, cassette and 8-track for Target. It seems they are still stuck in the past. Who exactly is Target targeting? My grandparents?
Re: Compact Discs
I really hate it when hipster dufuses think they are being so cool and modern by saying this. It doesn’t make you relevant; it makes you boorish. I still buy CDs, as well as DVDs. There are a lot of advantages by actually having a piece of physical media.
Re: Re: Compact Discs
For starters, it’s usually cheaper to order a used CD online than to download the mp3s. Buy it, rip it, sell it – most albums are just a dollar or two.
Re: Re: Re: Compact Discs
Exactly right. I buy most of my CDs from Second Spin, then rip them to FLAC.
Re: Compact Discs
I still purchase CDs when I can get the music I want on them. They’re much better that digital files: I rip them, so I have them digitally, without any worries about DRM, I have a physical backup I can use in case of disaster, and I have a disc that I can play if I’m somewhere where playing a digital file is inconvenient.
The only reason I don’t buy digital albums is because the bitrate was decided for me. I want the source of the music either in CD or FLAC form only. I still buy CDs today for that very reason. At least with iTunes you do own your tracks and they can’t take them away from you.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
True, iTunes is quite simply awful. The Windows version, anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, iTunes is quite simply awful. The Windows version, anyway.
The Mac version isn’t much better, and could be far worse once you realize that you just spent $1500 more on a machine that will be obsolete and no longer supported in 6 months.
Of course, that was before I realized that Debian/Mint runs awesome on a 6 year old MacBook Pro. Faster than MacOS X (that isn’t able to run the latest MacOS X software.)
Re: Re: Re:
Well its not Apple’s fault you didn’t back up your music collection. I lost my library once as well and it took 5 months to re-import it. I have no problem with iTunes and I use it on my Win7 machine. My library now sits at 31,000+ tracks which totals at 260gb+. iTunes doesn’t seem to have a problem with my library. Needless to say I have around 4 backup copies of my entire library so I don’t lose it again.
Re: Re: Re:
…because I couldn’t pull it off my ipod,
Open Source to the rescue!
I’ve used gtkpod to rescue my wife’s music from her iPod after her computer’s hard drive took a dump. Rythmbox also supports iPod management using libgpod. I know it works for older iPods, not so sure about newer ones though.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This can also be done from the command line with just a little bit of Unix/Linux expertise. Apple, in its colossal arrogance, has made iTunes really, really hard to work with, but it IS possible to work around it.
Who the hell buys CDs from Target anyway?
So….protesting online sale of music by forcing people to go online and buy…
This one time in 1997 I bought a CD from target.
I don't see the problem here
This is the same as street dates for video games. Certain stores don’t get to release the games first, everyone has to release at the same time. The reasons for this are pretty basic and not hard to figure out.
Target is right.
Sounds like a kid who wants to take their ball and go home. The only problem with this childish behavior in this instance is that all of the other kids are playing video games and won’t even miss the ball.
Reminiscing
It might be “like in that situation” were Target seeking to have their physical copies released in advance of the Itunes release, but the fact they are objecting to not receiving equal treatment suggests it’s a rather different situation and hardly deserving of being called petulant and childish.
Re: Reminiscing
The thing is that this wasn’t a digital-only release. This was a case of an exclusive pre-release. The medium it was on is completely irrelevant to the business case.
Beyonce did an exclusive release through iTunes, that’s why Target was left out — it’s part of the “exclusive” bit. Target has been on the good end of the exclusive stick and didn’t have a problem with it when they were. Now, Target comes off as having a bad case of sour grapes. They wanted the exclusive deal and didn’t get it. I call that petulant.
On the other hand, is Target’s position that had Beyonce release a physical CD exclusively through Amazon first, Target would still carry the CD once the exclusive period ended? It sure sounds like it. In which case, Target is being crazy and petulant.
LOL
Beyonce blows all of Masnick’s silly theories out of the water in a single weekend.
Excellent job of windowing there, girl.
Re: Re:
You should actually make some kind of reasoned argument here instead of just spouting off some kind of nonsequitor assertion. that way we can understand what you’re actually trying to say (assuming that you have a point beyond “TD sucks”.)
How does this release “blow all of Masnick’s silly theories out of the water”? Which silly theories are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re:
You know, where Mike states that the Studio middlemen are no longer required. Where, giving the fans what they want in a format they want results in a higher income for the artist.
Yeah, it is horrible, she only had 828,773 worldwide sales in 3 days
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Studio middlemen”
yeah, I’m sure she made this album by herself on a laptop in her dining room lol.
You pirate douchebags are so funny when you try to act like you know what you’re talking about.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No that’s not a peg leg in my pocket ..and yes I’m happy to see you
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The people she made the album with are not “middlemen”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are we reading the same site here?
I’ve seen Mike and other TD writers claim that ‘middlemen’ that act as gatekeepers are no longer required, and in fact are something to be avoided, but not that middlemen entirely are bad. In fact there are several articles discussing the difference between the two(usually worded as ‘gatekeepers’ vs ‘enablers’), and talking about how middlemen do have their place, and can be helpful, but only when they are helping the creators, rather than controlling them.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=middlemen
I'm gonna hold my breath until I pass out!!!
Seems like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face (or substitute any other body parts you choose). They would make $$ by selling her albut but instead they’re gonna stamp their feet and NOT make money? idgits!
Surely you mean Online, not Digital
Surely where ‘Digital’ was written in this story ‘Online’ was meant?
CD’s themselves being digital technology the word does not distinguish them from downloaded media also in a digital format.
Is this a thing generlally in the U.S? Confusing ‘digital’ with online (or streamed)?
Re: Surely you mean Online, not Digital
Yes, common US slang for downloaded or streamed is “digital”.
Re: Surely you mean Online, not Digital
It’s basically a buzzword. Hollywood calls official paid downloads “digital” to make them much more hi-tech then CDs and DVDs (both authorized and unauthorized) and unlicensed media.
But I think the most important question is...
Will anyone be stocking it on vinyl?
Skip the plastic, ink and cardboard
and the checkout line!
I think you might have misinterpreted what they were saying just a little.
i.e.: Target doesn’t think those particular physical CDs will sell as well with the online version out, so it doesn’t want to buy stock that will just sit around, because it doesn’t think that’s productive.
Now, it is still a little stupid since the CDs could have sold after all if they’d actually decided to carry them, but not the same kind of stupid.
If I owned stock in Target I would in all seriousness immediately dump it. They could not have demonstrated any more clearly that they are on a dead end road.
You might ask yourselves who the MAFIAA is paying, and how much, to make statements like that. Target won’t lose much anyway. I mean who buys plastic disks now anyway, especially from Target? If I need one, I MAKE one.
“”At Target we focus on offering our guests a wide assortment of physical CDs, and when a new album is available digitally before it is available physically, it impacts demand and sales projections”
I always laugh when things like this come out. Pure marketing bullshit speak.
To translate: they don’t give a crap about what their consumers actually want. They make projections about their ideal profit level, and if they think that’s not going to be reached they opt to offer nothing. As in they’re “offering (their) guests” what they want to give and the actual wishes of their “guests” be damned.
Their prerogative, of course, as long as they don’t then start bitching about piracy when their overall CD sales fall below expectations.
Has Techdirt’s brain gone out to lunch on this one?
Oh boy! Bad Target! Bad Bad Target!
Imagine…wanting to sell somebody music on hard media so anyone could play it anywhere, loan it to anybody, reencode it to play on any – and as many – devices as they like, and even sell it to somebody else. Much better to require them to buy an expensive appliance locked into a single company store if they want to hear a certain song.
Yeah, that really sucks. Target is acting like a child by not being willing to go along with Apple/RIAA’s new vision of reality (i.e. distribution monopoly) people like Beyonce have so obviously signed onto.
Yes indeed. It’s perfectly fair and grownup to say “my bat, my ball, my rules” if you’re Apple. But not if you’re a retailer who would rather not encourage or give silent unintended support to the practice of single sourcing music.
DRM-Digital is not the wave of the future. It’s a throwback to the days when records were only playable on specific record players – and each record player manufacturer was busy signing exclusive contracts with as many musicians as possible. Want Caruso? Buy Victorola. Want Jolson? Buy Westinghouse. Want to listen to everything? Plan on buying several players.
Sometimes the more things change, the sooner they go back to what they used to be.
Re: Re:
“Imagine…wanting to sell somebody music on hard media so anyone could play it anywhere, loan it to anybody, reencode it to play on any – and as many – devices as they like, and even sell it to somebody else. “
Nobody is forcing them not to sell the CD. Nothing about the digital release prevents them from doing so, and other retailers are indeed selling the CD. Hell, even Amazon is selling the CD despite them apparently having been locked out of being able to sell the digital version. The only thing they were prevented from doing was selling a specific version at a specific time, and to that I say welcome to the world of licencing and marketing deals – which have been here for decades and I’ll bet that Target don’t whine when they’re the ones with an exclusive.
They’re only whining because people could buy the digital version first, so instead of adapting to that reality they’ve decided not to sell anything. Refusing to sell a product at all because a competitor managed to get a first bite of the cherry really isn’t good business, and definitely nothing to do with what you’re implying.
“DRM-Digital is not the wave of the future.”
I agree, which is why pretty much anyone here who’s not on the RIAA payroll has supported non-DRM media for years, and why it’s been removed from most, if not all, purchased music files. Which purchased music services still force DRM, and why do you think anyone here supports it?
Do you have a point, or did you just want to kick the crap out of a handy strawman?
Just another example
Of the Music Industry and their sympathizers failing to adjust to changing times, and doesn’t Target have an e-store, ie, digital/cyber shopping mechanism? The music industry model deserves to fail.
I say good for her. (Beyonce)
Why is Beyonce still selling infinite goods? This is the 21st century, dammit. Get with the program. Learn from Masnick.
I bought Lady Gaga’s “Artpop” CD at Best Buy a few days ago. Cost me $18.00. Eighteen dollars for a CD, and they wonder why people download so much?!
Re: Re:
… the fact that despite the insane price you still bought it shows why they are willing to price that high. People pirating their crap isn’t going to ‘show them’, they just use that as an excuse to whine to their pet lawmakers about how they need more laws, and tougher enforcement of the laws to ‘protect’ them.
Want to get them to cut that crap out? Stop buying their insanely overpriced crap, and don’t pirate it either. Give your money and attention to other artists and services that offer reasonable prices and terms.
TARGETED
Seems you’ve been TARGETED – they fed you some Beyonc? – spin to bury the real story: “Dec. 19: 8:20 a.m. ET: Target released a statement this morning confirming a breach, saying that 40 million credit and debit card accounts may have been impacted between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15, 2013.”
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/12/sources-target-investigating-data-breach/