--- Shane Beers <sbeers@agencyultra.com> wrote:
quoted 9 lines Pressing a record costs money. They cannot be
> Pressing a record costs money. They cannot be
> continually pressing
> recent releases as well as re-release their old back
> catalog. That's
> why I think that old records are not re-pressed. I
> obviously do not
> really know how SKAM's record pressing works, but
> that is the most
> feasible idea I have.
Nope. Actually it costs you MORE to press small
numbers. There are many stages of pressing that have
nothing to do with how many records are pressed. You
have mastering fees, plate production fees, acetate
fees, etc. These are one time only pre-pressing
production costs. If you press more when pressing
time comes, then those costs can be distributed over
the length of the run. If you press fewer then the
individual units cost more to produce. Assume it
costs $2,000 in pre-pressing costs and it costs $1 per
record to press. If you press 200, it costs $2000/200
+ $1 = $11 per record to produce. If you press 2000,
it costs you $2000/2000 + $1 = $2 per record to
produce. Sure the total for each is different ($2000
+ 200 * $1 = $2,200 vs $2000 + 2000 * $1 = $4000), but
your profit margins are better on bigger runs. Either
way, you can only sell the record for around $10-$12
to the distributor (max). So when people make limited
runs of vinyl, they're making little to no money on
it. Pressing small numbers is purely for prestige and
elitism. The guys at SKAM know they can sell 2,000+
copies of any release. Making limited releases builds
them the reputation of being an exclusive or
collectors label. Besides most the artists are making
their money from other places like Warp or whatever.
-rbc3
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org