Shouldn’t a band’s records be sold slightly cheaper at their gigs? I assume the artist is selling it themselves so there’s no retailer to act as a middleman. This alone should make it slightly cheaper. It would also possibly encourage perople to go to their gigs if they knew there would be competitively priced merch on sale. The only reason I can think of for pricing this stuff so high at gigs is that it exploits the people who have just seen the band, had a few beers, really enjoyed it, and want the “just take my money” impulse purchase on their way out of the venue. I’m all for supporitng the artist directly, but when they’re selling the standard version album on their merch table for £25 when I can buy it at a retailer for £18 there’s no chance.
coz it helps them stay alive on tour. it also costs money to cart them around and store them properly.
Because you know the extra is going straight to the band rather than to Amazon or whatever so a lot of people are willing to pay a bit more
low level gigs often make very little money. merch is where bands make up for that.
reading the OP, you’re probs talking about bigger bands. in which case idk.
Not sure if it’s something that’s changed with the advent of streaming services/downloads but now that I rarely spend money on music I’m much more likely to buy merch at gigs to support the artist
god why does this music cost 3 pounds extra i can buy this at amazon for less money and free dlivery with my prime account!!
they make all their money from touring and merch these days anyway
Well yeah, I mean this would put me off buying the record at the gig and I would order it on amazon. If however the record was the same price I would buy it at the gig. If a band priced their merch more competitively with retailers then they stand a much higher chance of people buying it, and they would get more money. don’t see why they can’t do this if they’re not using a retailer to sell their stuff at the gig.
I like to buy records it’s a small hobby I have, but I can’t afford to buy many and I have small a budget each month for this. If I can save £3 by not buying at the gig of course I’m going to go for the cheaper option, so in the long run I can afford to buy more records. If the artist can shave a few quid off their records at gig which I’m sure they can do then they’ll get my money instead of amazon.
I guess they’ve just got to hope that the majority of people at their gigs aren’t tories
Or are fortunate enough to have personal financial circumstances that allow them to buy records at unnaturally inflated prices
Thank goodness for amazon!
Pyramid scheme innit m9, rotten all the way to the top
Is this even a thing? I can’t remember seeing merch at gigs priced higher than online.
And even if it was a couple of quid more, I’d much rather pay that and have it go direct to the band. As that means they’re more likely to tour again, which being as I’m wanting to buy their stuff, is probably something I’d like them to do.
any idea why multinational tax-dodging corporations are able to charge a few quid less?
I don’t buy CDs anymore. All my stuff is via legal downloads. Endlessly downloading stuff has made me go to more smaller gigs due to more music discoveries. I tend to buy t-shirts/totes bags/badges to try and support the artists in some small way.
Ok, so the inspiration for starting this thread was an Afghan Whigs concert recently where the record being sold on the merch table for £25 that could be bought from a retailer (an independent local record shop no less) for £18 was the standard edition of their recently released album.
This is a band that I really doubt is struggling to make ends meet, are an established band with a strong fanbase and have had a successful career. I had already paid £25 for a ticket to the show (money well spent it was great). I felt them charging over the odds for their records like that was exploitative and unnecessary.
I understand your defense of smaller bands charging more for their vinyl and it warms my heart to read about you all supporting less established bands like this and for this reason maybe you are better music lovers than me, well done.
So would your views on this hold if the band in question was a lot more successful and therefore in lesser need of money? Where would you draw the line before it begins to take the piss? Afghan Whigs-sucess-level-band? The National? Radiohead?
If you’re buying Afghan Whigs records then that’s your first mistake.