As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Posts tagged as:

ipod

For a good thirty years or so, starting in the 1950s, musicians released singles on vinyl discs called “records”. You could also buy a full album of music by one artist, and some were worth it, but you also had the option of buying just that one song that you liked, that you kept hearing on the radio.

(You’d also get a second song on the “B-side” of the record. Mostly people just considered that a bonus.)

Vinyl made way for cassettes, and the cassingle was born. Then cassettes made way for CDs, and while I remember seeing some CD singles, they were never as prevalent as those on vinyl or cassette. I believe that’s because the vinyl and cassette singles were cheaper to make than the full album version, since they used less raw material, but a CD single cost as much to make as a full CD.

Consumers, en masse, didn’t complain about the death of the single. I did, because I won’t pay $18 for two or three songs. And let’s face it: the majority of your average pop/rock album is filler material. But for some reason, I was mostly alone in my anger.

Then everything went digital, and all Heck broke loose, people were making lossless copies, yadda yadda, you know this part. Now we’re finally at a place where you can once again pay for just the music you like, for a completely reasonable 99 cents, and there’s nothing stopping you from sending a copy to, say, your wife. (See also this controversial article: “Is it Ever Okay to Steal Entertainment?“.) In the music scene, DRM is dead, and yet somehow, the recording industry still lives. Who’d've thunk it? (Me. You. Everyone without a vested interest in obscene profits from album sales.)

record-needle

Photo by stevecadman

But record companies, bless their pathetic little hearts, are still trying to find a way to sell full albums. There are at least two options in the works, something called “CMX” and Apple’s version codenamed “Cocktail”, which we’ll almost certainly learn more about at their upcoming press event on September 7th. These new digital album covers are meant to be interactive, and include videos and lyrics, and other mysterious “stuff” that has yet to be identified.

It won’t work. If I had an extra $1,000 (or even $1,000 that wasn’t extra), I would bet it all that this won’t work. These efforts will all die. Technical compatibility issues aside, people are simply done buying things that they don’t like. I’m not in the habit of feeling schadenfreude, but in this case, I am happy to sit back, point and laugh.

That all being said, when a music group proves itself to make consistently good albums of mostly-non-filler (in my opinion, people like Ben Folds, They Might Be Giants and “Weird Al” fit this description), I’ll buy a whole album. They deserve it. Also, good movie soundtracks. Music tastes are incredibly subjective, of course, but until music goes non-digital again, you’ll have very few reasons to buy a whole album.

New digital album format doesn’t have a prayer, Matt Rosof, CNET News, August 11, 2009

Cocktail part of Apple’s September event, Greg Sandoval, CNET News, August 14, 2009

{ 3 comments }



If you are interested in winning one of two iPods, today is the last day you can qualify. We’re celebrating Consumerism Commentary’s sixth anniversary by hosting a “scavenger hunt.” Four clues have been scattered throughout the website and media throughout the past couple of weeks.

The details for the scavenger hunt are here. If you are interested in having your name included in the random selection for one of the iPods, make sure you send the four clues you find, in the order that makes the most sense, to fourclues at this domain name.

As a further hint, you can find the four clues in the first post about the giveaway, the RSS feed, an episode of the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, and the most recent email newsletter. The last newsletter was sent last Sunday, so if you haven’t joined you might need an extra hint: the clue is the middle five letters of the fourth word in the title of this article about the Cash for Clunkers Program being suspended.

Good luck!

{ 6 comments }



Today is the sixth anniversary of Consumerism Commentary! Long-time readers know that this blog was one of the first of its kind to focus on personal finance and money-related topics. Thanks to the readers, we are still going strong. I have learned much about money, especially from visitors and commenters, throughout the past few years. Although I started Consumerism Commentary as a public way to hold myself accountable for my own financial decisions and share articles of interest from around the internet, the website has grown significantly and has a life of its own.

To celebrate Consumerism Commentary’s sixth anniversary (have you read our first posts from July 2003 or browsed the archives?) we are giving away two iPods: one iPod Touch and one iPod Classic. There will be two winners, and each winner has a choice of either model. In order to be considered, we will have an electronic scavenger hunt.

Starting within the next few days, four clues will be hidden around Consumerism Commentary. In order to find the clues, you will need to experience a variety of media related to Consumerism Commentary. Once you find all four clues, email your answer to fourclues at this domain name (consumerismcommentary.com). In order to win you must live in the United States and in a state where such contests are not prohibited. Not everyone who finds all clues will win, however. The names of the two winners will be randomly selected among all the correct entries. Please only submit one entry per person, and if you find any clues, don’t share them.

I imagine that if you play your chances of winning are pretty good, but that ultimately depends on how many entries we receive.

The contest will end on July 31, 2009, but all clues will be available by Sunday, July 19.

I’ll start you off with a hint towards one clue: Fourth sentence, third word, second letter through fifth letter. Good luck! If you want to win, I suggest subscribing to Consumerism Commentary in as many forms possible and listening closely.

{ 4 comments }

This is a guest post from Mrs. Micah, who maintains the blog Mrs. Micah: Finance and Life, in which the author is starting to deal responsibly with her $100,000+ debt.

Every purchase you make is an investment.

Too often we think of our purchases as consumables. Some are, like food, but even those should be adding to your quality of life. Food, for instance, is an investment in your health and gives you energy for doing better stuff.

We may not think of it that way, but it’s like buying stock. Not that the purchase increases in value, but that it proves valuable to us over a long period of time or it loses all its value because we don’t use it and don’t (or can’t) resell it.

If you see your consumption as an investment, then it takes on a purpose–the purpose of improving your current and future situation for as long as possible. That allows you to ask whether you could have gotten more value by consuming something different that would have lasted longer, been more practical, more helpful, etc.

One good investment I made recently was a winter coat. My old one, bought cheap at a thrift-store (well-used), lasted me for 4 years. Now, it’s beat-up from some hard Pennsylvania winters and some rough treatment. It wasn’t in great condition to start with, but just fine for college.

I spent $83 on the new coat but don’t regret a penny. On the way to work, I no longer feel frozen (my old coat was not workplace appropriate anymore, so I was braving the cold with a light suitcoat) nor do I get wet in the rain (umbrella helps too). In fact, I feel comfortable as I slog up the hill. Plus it looks appropriate at work and good on me.

The style is pretty classic (and I’m not very fashion conscious anyway), the material seems good, and I’ll take care of it, so I expect it to last for years.

A smaller but excellent investment was an oversize latte mug Mr. Micah bought. He uses it every morning to make his oatmeal and every night for his tea. It cost about $10 (more than I’d normally spend on a mug) but he’s had it for years and uses it so much that it was a great choice.

As investments go, it’d be like buying stock at $10 and having its value shoot up to $100 and hold. Great ROI!

On the other hand, my friend Katie likes to buy electronic gadgets but doesn’t end up using them, making her purchases a very bad investment. For example, she spent a couple hundred dollars on a PlayStation 2, thinking it’d be a lot of fun in the evenings. The PS2 never made it out of the packaging. Instead, it remained in her closet until recently, several years later, when her now-husband discovered it and was thrilled.

In the end, he got some value out of it. But if she and her husband had bought it now (even unused) they could have had it for half the price or less.

It was as though she bought stock for $250 and it immediately dropped to $0 (not counting resale value, since she didn’t think about that). Then it rose to about $100 and now it’s worth something to her again because she can use it with her husband. Not a total loss, but not a good choice either.

She had an unused digital camera (for which I offered her $20) but she ended up giving it to her dad for nothing. Again, over a hundred dollars spent with practically no return.

Fortunately, Katie learned from this. She’s decided not to buy an iPod yet (or if she does, to buy a refurbished one for less) because she might use it for a week and then put it in a drawer. Now that she’s identified which purchases she shouldn’t make, she’ll have much more money to either save or put towards things she’ll actually use.

What you’re consuming (buying) isn’t simply being used up. It’s an investment. Your job is to make sure that it’s a good one!

Read more from Mrs. Micah on her blog, Mrs. Micah: Finance and Life.

{ 14 comments }