Amazon has entered the world of charging $1.29 for certain songs, following the lead taken by iTunes yesterday and rendering somewhat irrelevant the snarky remarks of Diggsters. By and large, iTunes’ pricing scheme has resulted in popular songs having their prices jacked up; in contrast, if there’s some logic to which songs saw a hike on Amazon, I’m certainly not seeing it.
Scanning the top 100 downloads as of 10 a.m. Pacific, it isn’t until No. 24 that a $1.29 track appears: Jamie Foxx’s “Blame It”. This makes some sense—the track is the most popular song at urban radio right now—but after that, things just get weird.
• Two Beyonce tracks appear nearly side by side (at No. 26 and No. 28), but the slightly past its prime “Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)” is thirty cents more than “Halo”.
• The Fray singles from their first album are more expensive than the recent “You Found Me.”
• For Britney fans, “Circus” will cost you more than “If You Seek Amy.”
• Have you suffered a head injury and become a Kings Of Leon fan? Pick up “Sex On Fire” instead of “Use Somebody” and save yourself a few cents.
• If you’re running a bit behind on your musical taste, tough break: Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing” and Train’s “Drops Of Jupiter” are $1.29.
• One version of Don Mclean’s “American Pie” is $1.99 (?), while another is 99 cents. Both are the dreadful eight-minute-plus take.
The good news: Motley Crue‘s “Home Sweet Home” is a bargain at 69 cents.
Bestsellers in MP3 Downloads [Amazon Music]
I’m disappointed by Amazon tbh…I knew iTunes would have to change eventually but I’ve gotten pretty accustomed to finding better deals at Amazon’s mp3 store and thought they would see the benefit in remaining consistently the cheaper place to buy music online.
btw — is it known whether Amazon (or iTunes for that matter) is making price raises permanent or if they’re bound to change back to .99 whenever they feel like it? because maybe the strategy Amazon is going for here is to mark up the bigger long term hits that’ll sell consistently over several months/years than just what’s hot right now but might ultimately be a more minor hit?
That kind of makes sense. Charging more for the big hits and less for their crappier follow-ups. I would pay an extra .30 to not hear “Halo”.
This does seem kind of random, and I’m not sure I buy it long-term. It might just be Amazon testing the waters to see what happens if they up prices.
And I’d pay an extra .30 on every song I buy for a year if it means Dan Gibson stops taking snide potshots at modern rock. Being a fan of Kings of Leon does not automatically imply brain damage…still listening to Weezer, on the other hand…
Uhhh…”Can’t Stop Believing”? Is that supposed to be punny or is it just wrong?
@LeighBlack: I blame my allergy medicine.
@VivaLaMainstream: I don’t dislike Modern Rock as a whole (do the Killers count as modern rock?), just Kings of Leon.
Not sure if it’s a glitch or what, but the first Bat For Lashes album is only $0.99 for download on Amazon. Not a typo; the whole album is 99 cents. Hell of a deal for a fantastic record.
@10:02am: Nah, they do that a lot.
Haven’t explored it, but hypebot’s reporting that Amazon (and Wal-Mart’s) price increases are restricted to songs by Sony and their related labels.
@Halfwit: Do you know if there’s any way to find out what albums are being offered for such low prices without having to stumble on them? A search filter, a blog report?
@10:02am: You can see most of the mp3 deals on the Special MP3 Deals page:
[www.amazon.com]