I'd really like to know how much Universal Music donates. That's the real issue here. Who's being charitable here, the artists, the record company or the people who buy the song, or a combination of the above?
Is Apple now the only one doing the giving?

I hope this does not set a precedent (spilleng?) for other charitable songs which Apple may then feel obliged to also donate to. There are some people (the kind who have no qualms about making a fraudulent insurance claims) who do not understand big organisations have finite funds.

The PR blackmail game is stupid. You can't win it, all you do is invite more attacks by acquiescing.

And if they were really concerned about helping out the African hungry, they'd write a new song that people haven't heard for 20 years instead of taking the lazy way out.

If the companies--or, for that matter, the purchasers--are soooo generous, why not just cut a check for $20 or whatever and send it to the actual charity directly, instead of donating a whopping $1.50 and getting a song which has already been irritating people for 20 years now?

The point of this whole thing is *supposed* to be about *feeding the hungry*, not buying mediocre music, for God's sake.

/yes, I've donated more than my share to various charities this year.

I'm with BlueDjinn on this one. Go work at the humane society for a few hours a week, then, instead of maybe buying a CD or movie, shell out $20 directly. Don't cave to these guys.

Charity recordings are going to keep coming. This is just one of many.

Apple needs to devise a policy to accommodate them, otherwise it will end up either having to contribute a similar amount to future charities, or to decide that charity 'A' is to be supported, but to turn it's back on charity 'B', which would invite hostile press reports.

I believe that Apple needs to create a category for charity recordings and to offer them at variable prices. The customer should also have the option to donate more than the asking price if they choose to.

Apple would then pass on 100% of that money directly to the charitable trust, no deductions, no middle men. Apple would absorb the credit card handling charges and the cost of hosting the tracks, but Apple would presumably be able to write some expenses off as a tax loss and would also gain from increased awareness of iTMS.

The charity would benefit and Apple would be seen to be doing something for the greater good.

http://www.thehungersite.com/

I can understand Apple's initial (and ongoing) position. Their system is designed for a single price and probably cannot be changed on the spur of the moment.

Large companies do include Contributions in their annual budgets - in the 50's and 60's my father's company matched (dollar for dollar) contributions employees made to their schools. It's a part of the business community that is too often overlooked. Apple simply worked out the most logical approach to this situation for them and deserve a pat on the back.

As for the song - people enjoy getting involved in it. Let 'em enjoy the Christmas spirit.

Quote

AlanAudio wrote:
Apple needs to devise a policy to accommodate them, otherwise it will end up either having to contribute a similar amount to future charities, or to decide that charity 'A' is to be supported, but to turn it's back on charity 'B', which would invite hostile press reports.

This is such a policy. What Universal is trying to do is break Apple's policy of selling all songs at a uniform price. They want Apple to charge more for popular songs. That, in my opinion, is what this whole thing is about. And that's why it is right for Apple to hold the line, even if it's for charity. Because the next one might be a charity song, but the one after that would not.

What Apple has done here is say, fine, you want 1.49 pounds for a single song? You'll get that. And we'll still sell it at .79 pounds and attract lots of new customers who will not have to pay extra money in the future for other songs that you deem worthy of over-charging. Thanks for giving music listeners another reason to check out the iTMS!

Jerry

"A subsidy! My kingdom for a subsidy!"

Or...something. Not sure I agree with Apple's move, but it's for charity, and at least the singles pricing stayed put.

I'm not sure of the PR value of this Band Aid, lots of negative vibes:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/30/band_aid_dilemma/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4012619.stm

I agree there is an attempt to put a chink in the armour of Apple's resistance to the record companies forcing variable (more expensive) prices. Apple obviously felt it had to respond and seemingly has made a good decision. I hope the mainstream press pick up that Apple is cheaper.

It would be interesting to see what the financial breakdown is. There is no way every contribution is free, equipment hire, transportation, venues usually get paid. Pressing plants, printers and distributors usually get paid. I can't recall the record companies ever doing a charity single for free even though they benefit from the exposure. It's usually the most visible who contribute (bands, retailers) and the back end earns their profit as usual. Maybe Bob has been very persuasive this time.

Perhaps someone should point the post that AlanAudio made to Apple? It seems like a good idea to me.

Quote

Guest wrote:
This is such a policy. What Universal is trying to do is break Apple's policy of selling all songs at a uniform price.
Jerry

I too am not convinced that Universal are acting as honourably as they try to make out. It looks to me that they have another agenda ( breaking the one -price system ), but are cynically dressing it up as an act of charity.

If Apple were to create a charity record category, it would be restricted to clearly defined non-commercial tracks and there would be no compromising of the single price arrangement.

In fact it could turn the tables on any publisher who tries to retain a small amount of money for 'covering their costs' as Apple would raise the money and pass on ~all~ of it. That would show who had the biggest heart.

Apple got some very bad undeserved publicity over this matter, unless they prepare for the next one, Apple's many detractors will be using it as a stick to beat them again.

Apple have done an excellent job of turning this particular story around, the next time they should be fully prepared.

They sell albums and Audiobooks at whatever price they want.

They could have sold it for 3.00 and included the older version also, or they could have just sold it for 1.49 as a single song album.

Also, if I was a competitor I'd be upset. At .79 wih Apple donating the rest, the traffic to the iTunes site is gonna be huge. This could have big reprecussions on how all charity songs are offered. No one will be able to offer it for the original asking price, eventually they'll be given away free like in the browser wars.
: )

The issue is if Apple endorses this Charity effort what are it's criteria for future charity songs? Who defines what is a charity?

Whoever break the original story is trying to weaken Apple hold on the legal music download industry. Apple had done a good damage control job, with potential long term benefits.

It is generous of Apple to donate 70p for each song sold. I did not expect that. I thought Apple need only to forgo the distribution cost + profit.

I now wonder what portion of 79p go to charity. I am sure not all go towards the charity.

There is an album currently for sale through iTMS whose proceeds go entirely to aid for the folks in Darfur who the Sudanese government is doing its best to obliterate. Let's just call it what it is: Genocide.

The album in question is "ASAP: The Afrobeat Sudan Aid Project" and for me anyway, it has the advantage of being music I would actually listen to. Then there's the additional benefit of the album's producer not being in the pocket of any of the Big Four entertainment industrial complex megacorps.

Check it out...

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Who defines what is a charity?

The IRS

Stop being tight arses, buy the single.

innit gay?

haha