eMusic General

Hi Everyone: We're here, and we're reading every word. We feel as passionately about eMusic as you do and would not have made this decision if we did not feel strongly that it will be beneficial to everyone involved. We've given it a lot of thought, and we're confident that we can integrate Sony music in a way that does justice to eMusic -- and not just eMusic as a business, but eMusic as those of us who use it every day know and love it. Obviously, a lot of comments have been about the pricing. The Great Recession of 2009 is not the best time to be doing this. We own up to that. However, we - and our labels - simply cannot sustain some of the lowest cost plans that many of you currently have. The price increase is not just about Sony, it is for all of our labels, including the ones that have left over the years and those we have yet to sign. We appreciate you, our most loyal customers, and we understand that people have naturally reacted strongly to yesterday's news. All that we can ask is that you show some patience, that you see how we go about handling this catalogue. We have a lot to offer real music fans. We have since 1998, we do today, and we will once Sony launches. That will not change. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We will continue to check back. Cathy Halgas Nevins eMusic

Oldest First Newest First

Topic Outline

* RE: eMusic responds posted by DanielEsq on Jun 2 at 11:28 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Yancey on Jun 2 at 2:55 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bluesboy on Jun 2 at 3:10 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Kez on Jun 2 at 3:27 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJRon on Jun 4 at 6:32 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by qwynwyn on Jun 2 at 3:15 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 8 at 10:39 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by JMac on Jun 2 at 3:34 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bad-Thoughts on Jun 2 at 9:24 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by NankerPhledge on Jun 2 at 3:36 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by TBob on Jun 2 at 4:04 PM EDT     * hooray for the community...wait. posted by 68stationwagon on Jun 2 at 4:06 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by brothermarcus on Jun 2 at 4:16 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 2 at 4:21 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by tlmucla on Jun 2 at 4:21 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Latch on Jun 2 at 4:23 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 2 at 5:23 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJAdequate on Jun 2 at 5:37 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by the12thplaya on Jun 2 at 5:52 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 2 at 7:20 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by the12thplaya on Jun 3 at 4:59 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Drooch on Jun 2 at 4:24 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by PlayItAgain on Jun 2 at 4:24 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Drooch on Jun 2 at 4:32 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by Doofy on Jun 2 at 4:49 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 2 at 5:02 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by CaptWhiffle on Jun 2 at 6:38 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 2 at 4:58 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Mmarsupilami on Jun 2 at 5:01 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJ Wren on Jun 2 at 10:01 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by frankvdz on Jun 2 at 6:27 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 3 at 3:20 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 2 at 7:40 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 2 at 7:44 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by cryptowave on Jun 2 at 7:55 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 2 at 7:56 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 2 at 8:08 PM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 2 at 8:14 PM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 2 at 8:20 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bluespicker on Jun 2 at 8:12 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by thw on Jun 2 at 10:00 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by scrivener on Jun 2 at 11:37 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by BRet on Jun 3 at 12:47 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 3 at 1:50 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by MrCloud on Jun 3 at 2:43 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by tlmucla on Jun 3 at 9:48 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by ModernGuise on Jun 3 at 6:32 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by ken-e on Jun 3 at 6:53 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by KatwomanProgger on Jun 3 at 10:05 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by discokvn on Jun 4 at 12:04 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by geowil11 on Jun 4 at 3:07 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJRon on Jun 4 at 6:25 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by geowil11 on Jun 4 at 6:31 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Alohamora on Jun 6 at 11:04 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Jinx on Jun 13 at 8:16 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Hurkle on Jun 16 at 11:39 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Shaesplace on Jun 7 at 9:51 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 7 at 10:43 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by qwynwyn on Jun 2 at 11:30 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by indieb0i on Jul 23 at 2:14 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by indieb0i on Jul 16 at 11:32 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by kosmo on Jun 2 at 11:34 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 2 at 11:50 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by DonF on Jun 2 at 11:38 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by TomW on Jun 2 at 11:43 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 2 at 8:03 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 2 at 8:06 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by PhoneyBasler on Jun 2 at 11:54 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by EVDebs on Jun 2 at 11:45 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by BillyGoatBlue on Jun 2 at 11:48 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by the12thplaya on Jun 2 at 12:42 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 2 at 12:33 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by JB713 on Jun 3 at 3:02 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 3 at 4:11 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Melodia on Jun 3 at 7:02 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJAdequate on Jun 3 at 1:04 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by sweeneybd on Jun 3 at 1:15 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Nereffid on Jun 3 at 1:23 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJAdequate on Jun 3 at 4:15 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by JB713 on Jun 3 at 2:05 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 3 at 3:32 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJAdequate on Jun 3 at 4:26 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by JB713 on Jun 3 at 5:05 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by DeathByZamboni on Jun 12 at 11:18 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by semtex on Jun 2 at 11:49 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by jamieshanks on Jun 2 at 11:58 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by umax_2015 on Jun 2 at 12:01 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Mmarsupilami on Jun 2 at 12:06 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by Mmarsupilami on Jun 2 at 12:07 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by Mmarsupilami on Jun 2 at 12:07 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by Mmarsupilami on Jun 2 at 12:13 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by alecm on Jun 13 at 7:30 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by jls on Jun 2 at 12:07 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by otakuj462 on Jun 6 at 10:21 AM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by KatwomanProgger on Jun 6 at 5:23 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by Jake in SF on Jun 7 at 3:34 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 7 at 5:56 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by the12thplaya on Jun 2 at 12:09 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by garzamayer on Jun 2 at 5:32 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by btx on Jun 2 at 11:49 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 2 at 7:05 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by btx on Jun 2 at 10:46 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by TagoMago on Jun 2 at 11:52 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by umax_2015 on Jun 2 at 11:53 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bluesboy on Jun 2 at 12:03 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bigbigpop on Jun 2 at 12:25 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by electric-monk on Jun 2 at 12:24 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by yond on Jun 2 at 8:45 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jun 9 at 9:54 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jun 9 at 10:08 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by JTO on Jun 2 at 12:16 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by oakroom on Jun 2 at 12:26 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by noun on Jun 2 at 12:42 PM EDT * :) posted by amclark2 on Jun 8 at 10:41 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by JMac on Jun 2 at 12:45 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by yy.eric on Jun 2 at 2:34 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Lloyd (2K Club) on Jun 2 at 1:17 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Nereffid on Jun 2 at 1:30 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by PlayItAgain on Jun 2 at 1:47 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by 40gigsandamule on Jun 2 at 1:56 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJAdequate on Jun 2 at 2:08 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by TheTruthoftheMatter on Jun 2 at 2:57 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Shaesplace on Jun 7 at 10:05 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by nancypants on Jun 2 at 8:59 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by ChronoSquall14 on Jun 2 at 9:35 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Dirt Kahuna on Jun 2 at 2:08 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by BigD-Bluez on Jun 2 at 4:16 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Cazneau on Jun 2 at 7:17 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Hurkle on Jun 8 at 2:51 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 2 at 3:17 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by fduniho on Jun 2 at 3:26 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ZachCarstensen on Jun 2 at 3:38 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by vaneckert on Jun 2 at 4:14 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by yy.eric on Jun 2 at 5:20 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by MrCloud on Jun 2 at 5:42 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by the12thplaya on Jun 2 at 5:44 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by frogkopf on Jun 2 at 5:57 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by qwynwyn on Jun 2 at 6:00 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by NankerPhledge on Jun 2 at 5:47 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by davebgimp on Jun 2 at 6:04 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by bravelittletoaster on Jun 2 at 6:16 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Porieux on Jun 2 at 7:15 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by gmu599 on Jun 2 at 7:46 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by PocketMumble on Jun 2 at 8:00 PM EDT * I pay 157% more for 61% less? posted by bravelittletoaster on Jun 2 at 8:09 PM EDT * Reparations posted by CarbonPhoenix on Jun 2 at 8:37 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by kamilaht on Jun 2 at 8:46 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Stingyjack on Jun 2 at 8:58 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Lou1970 on Jun 2 at 10:51 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by KatwomanProgger on Jun 2 at 11:15 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by spinninginair on Jun 2 at 11:17 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Smoking-Frog on Jun 2 at 11:50 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by NigelTufnel on Jun 3 at 1:54 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by cowboykris on Jun 3 at 4:30 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Babbo on Jun 3 at 7:07 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by coughie on Jun 3 at 7:20 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by midcoastmaine on Jun 3 at 7:41 AM EDT * What about a NON-Sony plan!? posted by talen888 on Jun 3 at 7:50 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by lymang on Jun 3 at 8:06 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Scully on Jun 3 at 9:16 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by sweeneybd on Jun 3 at 1:07 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by bill-m on Jun 3 at 11:51 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by frogkopf on Jun 3 at 11:58 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by flatfive on Jun 3 at 12:26 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by newmusicbass on Jun 3 at 12:56 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Melodia on Jun 3 at 12:59 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by sweeneybd on Jun 3 at 1:12 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by mommio on Jun 3 at 1:24 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Melodia on Jun 3 at 1:21 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Smurlin on Jun 3 at 1:28 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by maxl on Jun 3 at 5:25 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by marimbapipe on Jun 3 at 5:26 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by djc on Jun 3 at 5:53 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by IndieRockSnob on Jun 3 at 6:09 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by alguien on Jun 3 at 6:31 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 3 at 6:40 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by alguien on Jun 3 at 6:50 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by IG88 on Jun 3 at 9:50 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by dougm on Jun 3 at 10:16 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by KellyRamsey on Jun 3 at 11:01 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by discokvn on Jun 3 at 10:40 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by 68stationwagon on Jun 3 at 11:12 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by gerrrgity on Jun 3 at 11:43 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Steve57 on Jun 4 at 12:54 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by BonsaiSamurai on Jun 4 at 7:54 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by PocketMumble on Jun 4 at 8:05 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by RudeCastro on Jun 4 at 11:41 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by frogkopf on Jun 4 at 11:44 AM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by riotcoming on Jun 4 at 11:45 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by BonsaiSamurai on Jun 5 at 4:06 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 4 at 11:21 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by riotcoming on Jun 4 at 11:44 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by FilmFan on Jun 4 at 1:47 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by 68stationwagon on Jun 4 at 2:45 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by reuszer on Jun 4 at 4:39 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bloozeandbeach on Jun 4 at 6:08 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJRon on Jun 4 at 6:18 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by marimbapipe on Jun 4 at 7:15 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Memphis on Jun 4 at 7:49 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by baddj on Jun 4 at 9:06 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by DanielEsq on Jun 4 at 9:27 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 4 at 9:34 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jonahpwll on Jun 4 at 9:43 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by tjlandcad on Jun 4 at 10:06 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 8 at 10:42 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 8 at 10:43 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by BroWren on Jun 4 at 10:11 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 8 at 10:45 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by K9disc on Jun 5 at 12:49 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 5 at 1:20 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by jamieshanks on Jun 5 at 1:54 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 5 at 11:04 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by EMUSIC-00B2A124 on Jun 5 at 2:17 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by daud on Jun 5 at 2:32 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by cmonkey on Jun 5 at 2:57 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by kshear on Jun 5 at 3:51 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by probnz on Jun 5 at 5:01 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ajg on Jun 5 at 8:42 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bagpuss on Jun 5 at 9:48 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by color-blind on Jun 5 at 11:08 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wesley on Jun 5 at 11:42 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by color-blind on Jun 5 at 1:33 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 5 at 11:08 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jamartinjr on Jun 5 at 11:15 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by RockinDaddio on Jun 5 at 12:02 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jjordan370 on Jun 5 at 12:03 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by chrnoble on Jun 5 at 1:48 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by TheLogLady on Jun 5 at 2:02 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by singe-volant on Jun 6 at 2:40 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jun 7 at 1:22 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by eddiel on Jun 6 at 8:47 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Serra on Jun 6 at 9:46 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by abeer on Jun 6 at 10:56 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ChevalBlanc on Jun 6 at 3:48 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by EMUSIC-00B2A124 on Jun 6 at 4:36 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ShinyShinyMagpie on Jun 6 at 5:48 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 6 at 6:01 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by GrizzlyAdams on Jun 6 at 7:16 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by thegreatcurve on Jun 7 at 12:54 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 7 at 5:57 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by KinkyMcDoogleEsq on Jun 7 at 9:06 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by fernandoq on Jun 7 at 10:50 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 7 at 11:04 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by 68stationwagon on Jun 7 at 1:07 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 7 at 10:36 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ToasKokopelli on Jun 7 at 1:23 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by kshear on Jun 7 at 2:34 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 7 at 3:58 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 8 at 10:47 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 7 at 10:38 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 7 at 11:09 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 8 at 10:10 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 8 at 10:13 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Hurkle on Jun 8 at 2:24 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Moelle on Jun 8 at 3:57 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by xtrev on Jun 8 at 8:24 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by ColtraneWasGod on Jun 8 at 1:31 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Moelle on Jun 8 at 8:25 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ElectricMayhem on Jun 8 at 8:09 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by chigley_skins on Jun 8 at 1:41 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by JanMar on Jun 8 at 1:53 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by chigley_skins on Jun 9 at 5:58 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by beachdog67[club2000] on Jun 8 at 1:57 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by 68stationwagon on Jun 8 at 2:13 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by beachdog67[club2000] on Jun 8 at 2:49 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by beachdog67[club2000] on Jun 8 at 3:30 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bluesboy on Jun 8 at 3:42 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 8 at 3:20 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by AmberV on Jun 8 at 3:27 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by Hurkle on Jun 10 at 1:15 PM EDT           * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 10 at 4:35 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bluesboy on Jun 10 at 6:22 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by eclectricity on Jun 10 at 6:46 PM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 11 at 11:50 AM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by panchodog on Jun 10 at 7:14 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by ShadowBoy on Jun 10 at 8:20 PM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by tlmucla on Jun 10 at 9:17 PM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by ShadowBoy on Jun 10 at 10:34 PM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by EvS on Jun 10 at 10:52 PM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by zoka on Jun 11 at 12:11 AM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by tlmucla on Jun 10 at 9:41 PM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 11 at 11:52 AM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by tlmucla on Jun 11 at 1:08 PM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by NankerPhledge on Jun 11 at 6:06 PM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 12 at 10:18 AM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Melodia on Jun 12 at 10:40 AM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by rfgilles on Jun 13 at 8:07 AM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by jcolton on Jun 13 at 4:19 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by Hurkle on Jun 11 at 12:57 AM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by beachdog67[club2000] on Jun 11 at 2:31 AM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 11 at 12:04 PM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by Music Lover on Jun 11 at 12:56 PM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 12 at 10:14 AM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Music Lover on Jun 12 at 10:27 AM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Bluesboy on Jun 12 at 11:09 AM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by Wanderer on Jun 11 at 4:17 PM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by EvS on Jun 11 at 8:26 PM EDT                 * RE: eMusic responds posted by Hurkle on Jun 11 at 9:42 PM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by zoka on Jun 11 at 11:57 PM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by jzzbassman on Jun 12 at 1:09 AM EDT                   * RE: eMusic responds posted by tlmucla on Jun 12 at 1:14 AM EDT                     * RE: eMusic responds posted by trondeg on Jun 12 at 4:53 AM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by gerrrgity on Jun 11 at 3:02 AM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by JFLL on Jun 11 at 7:09 AM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by jcolton on Jun 11 at 3:27 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jun 11 at 9:53 PM EDT             * RE: eMusic responds posted by Escalante on Jun 12 at 1:37 AM EDT               * RE: eMusic responds posted by mtbush on Jun 12 at 6:30 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jun 8 at 8:30 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by jahula on Jun 8 at 10:15 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by sweeneybd on Jun 8 at 4:53 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by nemo on Jun 9 at 1:12 AM EDT * Customer poll posted by Centurion on Jun 9 at 1:39 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by StabbedintheBack on Jun 9 at 1:53 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Amateur on Jun 9 at 2:47 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Amateur on Jun 9 at 2:51 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jun 9 at 11:50 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Music Lover on Jun 9 at 2:47 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Grosho on Jun 9 at 8:59 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by DJAdequate on Jun 9 at 9:16 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Grosho on Jun 9 at 9:49 PM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Leafsfool on Jun 10 at 9:14 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jun 10 at 9:22 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by beachdog67[club2000] on Jun 9 at 9:25 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by JohnnyV on Jun 9 at 10:30 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 10 at 4:18 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Nereffid on Jun 10 at 4:43 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Jun 10 at 6:08 AM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by 68stationwagon on Jun 10 at 6:48 AM EDT           * what other schwag? posted by Katrina on Jun 10 at 7:06 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by beachdog67[club2000] on Jun 10 at 8:42 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by CathyHN on Jun 11 at 11:51 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Rodenstein on Jun 9 at 11:08 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by NankerPhledge on Jun 10 at 4:38 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by gorgon on Jun 10 at 6:37 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jazzrail on Jun 11 at 8:45 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Vruink on Jun 12 at 3:29 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Music Lover on Jun 12 at 9:36 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by honeycut on Jun 12 at 9:46 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by rong on Jun 12 at 5:54 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by mommio on Jun 13 at 10:19 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jun 13 at 4:51 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Evil_Eye22 on Jun 13 at 5:20 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by zorca on Jun 13 at 2:59 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Music Lover on Jun 13 at 3:32 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by amclark2 on Jun 13 at 10:57 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jun 14 at 10:42 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Raymond23 on Jun 14 at 11:09 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Carissa on Jun 14 at 11:16 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by newmango on Jun 16 at 5:12 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by Smurlin on Jun 18 at 12:44 PM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by ranthon on Jun 18 at 3:26 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by SuperTallRich on Jun 26 at 1:11 PM EDT * Virgin to offer unlimited mp3 downloads (was RE: eMusic r... posted by RayC on Jun 17 at 1:56 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by bwicklander on Jun 17 at 4:36 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by jcolton on Jun 17 at 5:09 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by cowrun on Jun 17 at 10:19 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by fishmonster on Jun 18 at 7:14 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by zoka on Jun 18 at 11:39 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by huggable rhino on Jun 18 at 4:49 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by StormyMonday on Jun 24 at 1:33 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by fishmonster on Jun 25 at 3:38 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by BobALou on Jul 1 at 1:52 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by tonygeno on Jun 21 at 7:49 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by bwicklander on Jun 23 at 12:11 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Kez on Jun 23 at 12:27 AM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by DanielEsq on Jun 23 at 12:35 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Kez on Jun 23 at 1:15 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by BleedMusic on Jun 25 at 12:00 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by SuperTallRich on Jun 26 at 1:18 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by _db_ on Jun 26 at 5:41 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by ears2hear on Jun 27 at 9:01 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by BobALou on Jul 1 at 1:46 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jul 2 at 2:39 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jul 2 at 6:33 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by discokvn on Jul 2 at 11:42 PM EDT * Heart breaken and betrayed (was RE: eMusic responds) posted by RayC on Jul 3 at 2:35 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jul 3 at 2:58 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by koo on Jul 3 at 12:02 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by dukerayburn on Jul 17 at 4:15 AM EDT * A promise broken posted by GoCatGo on Jul 17 at 4:49 AM EDT   * RE: A promise broken posted by GoCatGo on Jul 17 at 5:00 AM EDT     * RE: A promise broken posted by eclectricity on Jul 17 at 6:33 AM EDT       * RE: A promise broken posted by wmshax on Jul 17 at 10:34 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Catman63 on Jul 26 at 7:44 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Jul 27 at 1:45 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Plong42 on Jul 27 at 8:56 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by pchem311 on Jul 29 at 12:15 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by OatmealMan on Jul 29 at 10:12 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by SuperTallRich on Jul 30 at 12:01 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by GAWD on Aug 1 at 12:42 AM EDT     * RE: eMusic responds posted by Shadow23 on Aug 1 at 2:20 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by Katrina on Aug 1 at 2:52 AM EDT       * RE: eMusic responds posted by frogkopf on Aug 1 at 7:01 PM EDT         * RE: eMusic responds posted by huggable rhino on Aug 1 at 11:33 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by mishar on Aug 2 at 11:46 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by VenomLord on Aug 3 at 3:35 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Aug 3 at 6:57 PM EDT   * RE: eMusic responds posted by tjlandcad on Aug 20 at 10:58 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by StabbedintheBack on Aug 24 at 9:24 PM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by RayC on Aug 26 at 8:20 AM EDT * RE: eMusic responds posted by Space_ on Aug 26 at 3:51 PM EDT

DanielEsq Jun 2 at 11:28 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Thank you. Are you going to attempt, using the new pricing structure as an incentive, to (a) attract top-shelf indie labels that aren't already here (e.g., SubPop) or left (e.g., Drag City), (b) get big indie-labels that are already here to make their new product available on street date (discs like the latest from Camera Obscura and Grizzly Bear), and/or (c) get big indie-labels that are already here to commit more of their catalogue to the site (e.g., Kompakt)?

qwynwyn Jun 2 at 11:30 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Thank you for the response. I was wondering when there would be an official eMusic response. I'm sticking around at least until April because of my annual subscription. I'm curious to see how the changes work out.

indieb0i Jul 23 at 2:14 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN .

kosmo Jun 2 at 11:34 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Can we get a better explanation for the new album pricing policy? i.e. providing specific album titles that would be available under the new plan would be very helpful.... and it might be helpful to post this information over on facebook as well and start a dialog there.

Katrina Jun 2 at 11:50 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Oh, you're the lucky one chosen to respond! That 'slight' increase mentioned in the NY Times was an outright lie for many of us. Nobody likes getting lied to. It's not just the pricing, it's also fewer downloads. LA Times reports there's no actual date for the roll-out, yet it's implied elsewhere that it will be July 1. Seemingly random assignments of the number of tracks in the free August booster packs. A link to an expansion FAQ in white font on a light blue background - this should have been positioned far more prominently, and included info for non-USA accounts. Please bring back Anti and Rykodisc. An advance email to subscribers might have taken out some of this sting.

DonF Jun 2 at 11:38 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Here are some more details from an online blog "Sony Music has just agreed to make their catalog (two years or older) available to the online music store eMusic, one of the largest music retailers on the Internet with 400,000 subscribers paying $11.99 a month to download 30 songs. That comes out to about 40 cents a song. Far less than iTunes or any other online music site. The eMusic folks have been trying to get the major labels for years and continue to talk to Warner, Universal and EMI now that they have landed Sony. Of course, they landed Sony at a price as you'll see in a moment. The head of eMusic says many of the independent labels have been pressuring him to raise their prices. Perhaps you can see where all this is going. The major labels hold out for the best deal. And eMusic relents and raises its prices. After all, the labels finally succeeded at hoodwinking Apple to adopt variable pricing (older songs 79 cents and new tracks for $1.29) and as I have reported recently, all legal download sales at iTunes have declined as a result."

TomW Jun 2 at 11:43 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DonF Here's the link to that blog post.

PhoneyBasler Jun 2 at 11:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Kudos for sticking your head above the parapet. Given that a 'new eMu' is being rolled out, how much wriggle-room do you have to reflect the voice of some of the longstanding eMu customers in the new structure/policies? Are there plans to rollout Sony - and other new labels, whoever they might be - outside of the US? I reckon some early indication of this would be useful to me and to others. Will the 'new eMu' consider a more customer-friendly approach to new arrivals (i.e. publish lists of titles and dates rather than 'teasers') and titles leaving the site (e.g. couple of weeks notice)? There are a number of issues customers have 'endured' in the past (e.g. labels being pulled with no warning; bad/corrupt/128K tracks; website malfunctions; and so on) and endured without much complaint given the good value of the service. With a significant increase in price I'll bet that people are not going to be prepared to be so forgiving.

EVDebs Jun 2 at 11:45 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Much of the anger expressed at 17dots and elsewhere flows from the rampant dishonesty that has marked emusic's communication strategy regarding this price increase and the seeming contempt with which you have treated your longtime subscribers. You have made it much, much harder for yourselves to make a convincing argument that this price increase was anything but a result of your questionable decision to focus on bringing major labels on board. The problem with any strategy built on lies is that even the truth ends up sounding like a lie once everyone has caught on to the fact that you've been lying. It's nice that you acknowledge our passion. But that's really neither here nor there. The first step toward correcting the marketing disaster of the last couple days (think New Coke) is, minimally, to publicly acknowledge the dishonesty of emusic's communication's approach and take corrective action. But I suspect that solving this problem will take something more than simply putting this sour wine into a more honest bottle. Again: think New Coke. Offer longtime subscribers (and others) an opportunity to purchase cheaper, major-label-free plans ("emusic classic"). And then prepare for the failure of the major-label-inclusive "emusic II" that you offer as your "premiere" service.

BillyGoatBlue Jun 2 at 11:48 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN How much effort does eMusic put into getting new labels worldwide, rather than just concentrating on the US version (this year alone the US has got Domino, Saddle Creek, Death Row, Hydra Head and now Sony)? Most people on here are music Junkies so why reduce everyones DL allowance, why not have a resonable price increase (20% or less). Or have variable pricing i.e 2 credits for new tracks, Sony stuff etc and 1 credit for albums over 6 months (a bit like paperback vs hardback)? My football club asked for pricing suggestions for the upcoming season, from its fans. Why did eMusic not include us in this whole process, a compromise could have been reached whereby profits are better for eMusic/artists/labels plus your loyal customers would not feel as shafted as I do right now?

semtex Jun 2 at 11:49 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN So... will eMusic members outside the USA have to subsidize the Americans who get access to Sony while we don't?

btx Jun 2 at 11:49 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Fair enough. For me, the equation is simple. If you aren't selling gas, food, or medicine -- I'm unlikely to withstand an 80% price increase for ANYTHING for ANY reason -- ESPECIALLY in a recession. A reasonable increase in price without Sony is probably something I would have swallowed. It may not *just* be about Sony, but the fact the timing is coinciding with Sony is no coincidence.

TagoMago Jun 2 at 11:52 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I'm fairly new to the service ... and love the alternative angle. I'm not overly amused, however, that I'll have to pay .10 cents or more per track to accommodated a number of newly acquired mainstream tracks by folks like ... Michael Jackson. Sure, Miles Davis is cool. But Michael Jackson? I would be willing to pay .10 cents more to accommodate more German rock bands from the 1970s ... or maybe Captain Beefheart ... but I'm not sure it's fair to boost the price of cool off-beat music (which is mostly what I'll keep downloading)... to accommodate Bruce Springsteen and the Dixie Chicks. If you told me that my extra cash was going to artists like Sufjan Stevens and record labels like Kill Rock Stars ... I'd happily fork over .15 extra cents per track ... but my guess is that the extra money--.10 or more cents for every track--will be going into the coffers of companies like Columbia ... So if I keep the service and keep downloading the same kind of tracks (the ones that emusic was making a profit from at .30 cents a track), I'll be helping to support lots of big labels that support lots of crappy music. How 'bout a new pricing system that matches musical tastes? We can have the Hipster Plan that allows cool people to keep downloading alternative music at .30 cents a track ... and then we can have the Middle of the Road Plan that charges .50 cents per track for the less imaginative listener who cannot afford iTunes. I could go on ...

umax_2015 Jun 2 at 11:53 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I would like more details about the 12 song cap for some albums. This makes a 30 dollar monthly plan quite viable since albums wont be over 5 bucks, which is still a bargain. BUt just how many albums will be like this? will it just be sony? or will others also be effected? this is a great little but of negotiating that you guys did and has the potential to save a lot of members. also, I hope you guys are scrambling to attract great indies with this new price point, especially Sub Pop and and ANTI-

jamieshanks Jun 2 at 11:58 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by semtex So... will eMusic members outside the USA have to subsidize the Americans who get access to Sony while we don't? I'd second this. Anyone?

umax_2015 Jun 2 at 12:01 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jamieshanks likewise

Bluesboy Jun 2 at 12:03 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I will echo some of the comments put forth by others. It's not just that there is a "slight" price increase, it's that there is also a decrease in the number of downloads available on plans. When I compare my current cost per download to the best plan I could possibly get, it comes to an increase of 128% (apologies for having an incorrect number in other posts). I can't come up with a way to do the math and have this be a "slight" increase. My bigger concern, however, is that this change was put on the website where users had to find it, and not delivered via email (or post). I've been a customer here for the better part of 7 years, have encouraged nearly everyone I know to try out eMusic (all without begging for the referral bonuses), and have staunchly defended eMusic as a place to find all sorts of music. To learn of a "slight" increase of 128% by just happening to click on the home page is poor customer service through-and-through. I'll also repeat a suggestion myself and many others have brought up before. It would be of great benefit to treat the Sony (and any other major label) catalog as a "premium" service, much like Audiobooks, and maintain the indie labels as they are, with a moderate rate increase to reflect the needs of the market. My other significant concern about the Sony catalog is the influence that a corporate megalith will have on the "Indie" mindset around here. Others have made that point far more passionately and eloquently than I could, but I bring it up all the same. Please take the time to listen and consider your long-time customer base if eMusic truly wants to keep that base. If not, we get the message, and off we'll go to whatever pops up to fill the niche that eMusic has filled so well for the last 10 or so years.

Mmarsupilami Jun 2 at 12:06 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by umax_2015 Perhaps you can offer an Opel with Sony?

Mmarsupilami Jun 2 at 12:07 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Mmarsupilami A mercedes?

jls Jun 2 at 12:07 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by umax_2015 Cathy, You seem to have neglected to address the numerous emusic subscribers who were promised their current plan in perpetuity as long as they maintained an active membership. I believe "guaranteed" was the operative word. A plain, unambigious promise, with no wiggle room whatsover. Care to tackle that one?

Mmarsupilami Jun 2 at 12:07 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Mmarsupilami A free account in Citibank?

the12thplaya Jun 2 at 12:09 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jamieshanks Me too...

Mmarsupilami Jun 2 at 12:13 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Mmarsupilami cannot sustain some of the lowest cost plans that many of you currently have. I am member here since september 2002. And, now, what are you saying!?!?!?!?!? You cannot sustain ME. Can you sustain the 1500 bucks (and certainly more with all the booster packs of these three last years!) I put in your business during these seven years?

Bigbigpop Jun 2 at 12:25 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Bluesboy Deleted - I misunderstood something, and I'm too angry to recompose.

JTO Jun 2 at 12:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I suppose all this is going to happen for the UK soon? Are everyone's subscription plans going to change? I wouldn't mind paying a bit more if it brings in more indie labels (new & those that left) (as well as Sony - I'm interested to see what lesser known releases will turn up from them...any more Japanese artists?).

electric-monk Jun 2 at 12:24 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Bluesboy If the indie labels are going to see the same amount of cash per track that the majors are going to see, then I have no problem with the increase in terms of an "unfair to hip bands" angle. At the current rate, your beloved indie label is probably seeing about what, $1.50 per album sold on emusic? With the per-track cost on here, its easy to understand why labels wouldn't want to put their catalogs on emusic.

oakroom Jun 2 at 12:26 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN A single post doesn't really count as "responding". You're going to need to get in here and answer some specific questions to satisfy people.

the12thplaya Jun 2 at 12:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by BillyGoatBlue Is anyone seeing 27+ posts on this thread or have they been deleted/lost? Not sure if it's a fault just for me but I know of at least 3 messages (mine included) which aren't showing anymore and there's only about 10 replies left, but 27 on the front page. Edit: Sorry, just ignore me! It must have been a browser/cookie problem as it looks fine when checking it in another browser.

Katrina Jun 2 at 12:33 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by the12thplaya the12thplaya, all I see is this one post from you, whether viewing oldest or newest first. oakroom, exactly!

noun Jun 2 at 12:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN This would be easier to swallow if you have two different plans: One for users that would like access to Sony's catalog, and one for users that have no interest in Sony's catalog. You can already segregate users by region, you should be able to do so by label as well. This would allow you to keep the users on their current plan while still catering to the new requirements Sony mandated.

amclark2 Jun 8 at 10:41 PM EDT

:)

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN .

JMac Jun 2 at 12:45 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Thanks for the response, Cathy. Just to reiterate what I've said on other threads: things that would make this more acceptable to me include: ECM available in the US, full liner notes, and a fairly wide application of the "selected" 12-track cap on greater-than-12-track albums. That last could be a major sweetener, depending on what's available that way. It would reduce the pain of the almost two-thirds reduction in the number of my monthly downloads for roughly the same dollar amount. I'm frankly a little surprised at my low interest in the Sony catalog. Yes, there's lots of essential stuff there, but I already have all the landmark works--the Dylan, Springsteen, Miles-Davis level of stuff. By the way, a question to which you might at this point have a definite answer: is the 12-track thing exclusively a Sony deal, or will other labels have this option? And if the latter, do you know whether any have plans to use it?

yy.eric Jun 2 at 2:34 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Cathy, The reason I joined Premium Annual was because there was a NOTICEABLE price difference for my loyalty. I am gutted as you try to retire my JUST RENEWED annual plan, and slashed my downloads in half. You may "simply cannot sustain SOME of the lowest cost plans", it does not mean you can hike up ALL OF YOUR PLANS UP TO 95%. What hurt us most is that the way you treat your LOYAL CUSTOMERS, those who have ANNUAL COMMITMENTS to eMusic. To what extent "The price increase is not just about Sony"? Why raise our plans, and launch Sony on the same date then? if it's not just about Sony, why don't you have them available right now, at the time we have more download credits? I am so disgusted by your CEO's reassurance from 17dots on April 7. "If you like what you hear, additional downloads start as low as 40 cents per track. We remain committed to offering customers what they want: music that plays on any device at a great value." http://17dots.com/2009/04/07/keeping-emusic-different/ And today, eMusic has broken its 40 cents promise. none of your plans per track are 40 cents. We will see how eMusic "go about handling this catalogue". But we are NOT PAYING to see. One more thing, as this price increase is to some extent about Sony, as since Sony is a US-only deal, eMusic users from other countries should not bear this cost whatsoever as these materials are not available for them anyway. Eric Lau Hong Kong http://makechoice.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/makechoice

Lloyd (2K Club) Jun 2 at 1:17 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Ok, I am willing to give this a shot. I am committed to stay with emu until November when my yearly subscription expires. At that point I will evaluate and decide if I am willing to stay or not.

Nereffid Jun 2 at 1:30 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN "show some patience". Considering how bloody quick eMusic was to implement these changes, I think that's a bit cheeky. What about the answers to: Is Sony coming to Europe? When? Will I be de-grandfathered? What's this "selected albums above 12 tracks" malarkey?

PlayItAgain Jun 2 at 1:47 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN How about at least creating a table of your plans that makes it clear what period of time the price quoted covers? You know, is it a monthly fee? An annual fee? What exactly are those quarterly and biannual plans? I realize that the time periods are implied in the names but under the current circumstances I would like a clear and unambiguous statement of them. It is not too much to ask for a clear explanation of how each of the new pricing plans would hit our credit cards. The price per download provides useful information, but since it plans on hitting me with a 150% increase in my price per download eMusic should at least be willing to create a plan price table that doesn't require me to do any math.

40gigsandamule Jun 2 at 1:56 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I just took my grandfathered per-track price, multiplied by 225%, got my* new price. And I have zero interest in major-label back catalog. Yes, 225%. ____________ * when I say "my", I mean he/she who shall replace me

DJAdequate Jun 2 at 2:08 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by 40gigsandamule I don't know this counts as responding, but thanks for at least acknowledging those who are troubled. Even better would be to answer some of the questions—like how will the addition of new mainstream tracks + decreased downloads not push out the smaller labels. Everyone is fighting for a percentage of each months downloads, and it seems like this move will make it very had for small labels to compete.

Dirt Kahuna Jun 2 at 2:08 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Sell out.

Yancey Jun 2 at 2:55 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DanielEsq A few things to note: The new pricing benefits everyone. Existing indie labels, future labels (indie and major), etc. It's not just for Sony. Regarding the grandfathering plans, it definitely sucks to see your downloads cut. But this isn't out of a lack of loyalty: this is because those plans, which we have grandfathered for a few years, would now be priced at a loss. We changed what some of you spend per-track so that it was equal to what everyone else spends. Whether Sony happened or not, this was an eventuality. An eventuality that stinks, yes, but one all the same. The majority of folks saw very few to no changes in their plan. The plans that did see changes were the ones whose pricing was far below what we pay out. We just couldn't continue subsidizing those accounts. It's more math than anything else. The broader question of how Sony incorporates into eMusic is one that I have been thinking about quite a bit. And I'll be honest: there are some definite challenges and we'll be figuring them out as we go along. But as I said in the 17 Dots post, our taste and our values -- and here I'm talking about me, Joe, Alex, Maris, Jayson, our writers and the tone of the site that you help define -- is the same. All of you regulars in particular I hope will recognize how deeply we hold our beliefs, and how much we love indie music. The idea that any of us would ever abandon that... just not going to happen. The last 36 hours have sucked. I went quiet as I waited for tempers to cool a bit. I've been getting a lot of emails from folks saying that yesterday was a range of emotions, and that while they still aren't sure how they feel about this move, they're going to see how things shake out. And that's a completely rational way to approach this, and I can't argue with it at all. I'm crossing my fingers that that's what can happen this week. I'm going to be posting a new arrivals on 17 Dots soon. God knows what will happen in the comments, but there are great new records to talk about and I don't want us to overlook them over our inside-baseball stuff. So if you read this and are feeling like talking about music, I'd appreciate a comment or two. If you don't feel like it, totally cool. Yancey PS: I am going on vacation on Thursday and will be gone about two weeks. Completely unrelated to all of this. PPS: It seems a meme has developed around this "slight" word. The NY Times wrote that, not us. PPPS: With album pricing and all of that: this will not just be Sony titles. All labels will be able to opt in (and we will introduce it to the UK, EU and Canada later on). I don't have many more details yet, but when we do we will share them. This will be a good thing for everyone.

BigD-Bluez Jun 2 at 4:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Rather than reiterate the whole response I only refer to my reply on Yancey's 17 Dots post - suffice to say I am not happy and don't see a good future in this. Here 'tis: For me this deal squashes the whole point of my eMusic membership - being able to find NEW music that I liked at a price-point that made experimentation practical. This new set-up is giving me 50% of my current DL's at 80% of the price. I feel I'm being screwed here for the benefit of a Sony back catalog that I am not really interested in - I've already got the good stuff. And at the new price-point I am way less likely to throw some DLs at something that is an unknown quantity. Right now I often follow the recommendations of other members whose taste I've gotten a feel for, sometimes for better, sometimes not so much, but the new plan is going to make me way more conservative, which was not the point of the whole exercise, and may I add , not your major point in selling the eMusic concept. Also as the per track price rises the desirability of old jazz/blues/folk music decreases as a DL possibility because it is approaching the price at which you can have the real CD with the real liner notes which not having is a real downside of the DL experience. You are heading into dangerous waters here where you may be pricing yourself out of the market - at a higher price point I am not going to be so willing to forgive all the glitches and gremlins that plague your site, which I now choose to live with because I felt I got good value for the money.

TheTruthoftheMatter Jun 2 at 2:57 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by 40gigsandamule I'm grandfathered too. I couldn't believe the dramatic change in price per track. We don't even know if they are offering the entire Sony catalogue. Even so, the Sony catalogue is pretty shitty for the alternative/independent fan. Bruce Springsteen? Michael Jackson? Please....this is garbage. Since when does the recession of 2009 cause you to suddenly raise the prices 225%? You realize there will be a huge exodus of subscribers as this goes down. And it will be the independent artists most hurt by this terrible business fumble.

Bluesboy Jun 2 at 3:10 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey, it's good to hear your voice of reason on this, but there are still a couple of things that rub the wrong way: 1) The way this was rolled out. I know full well that my pricing doesn't contribute to profit for eMusic. What I don't want to hear is a blanket statement that covers everyone. I think I can speak for at least some of the other grandfathers here in that an email from eMusic a few days in advance of the rollout would have gone a long way to soothing this particular issue. 2) Danny's posting on 17dots didn't address pricing at all. That would have been a perfect opportunity to address the "Slight" comment made by the NYT and maybe pre-empt the justified outrage that many of us are feeling right now. 3) The fact of the matter is that eMusic is now a corporate partner of Sony Music, who for the most part is not a champion of "the little man". Sony is out to make money, period, and has a long history of sticking it to their artists, customers, and anyone else that gets within arm's reach. The outward appearance of what Sony stands for and what eMusic has stood for over the last 10 years are diametrically opposed. I would like to think that you and your team have a lot of integrity, but I wonder how soon there will be pressure from Sony to push their product over that of smaller labels. Again, I'm glad to see your post. I haven't yet made a decision about leaving or staying, but as I've said before, the new pricing model pushes me more toward buying used CD's where I can, which makes the Sony catalog pretty much non-essential to me.

qwynwyn Jun 2 at 3:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey hey Yancey - Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand the grandfathered plans probably weren't financially viable for eMusic. I'm glad I was able to enjoy it as much I have, and I will keep on doing that at least until April. Now is a good time to take a vacation, no? ;o)

Wanderer Jun 2 at 3:17 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Dear Cathy: Thank you for addressing the issues. This could not have been easy. I think the changes to the pricing structure were probably necessary and I hope that the changes lead to some of the desired outcomes. Your words confirmed my feelings that these changes were not simply the results of arrangements to woo a few major labels to the site but were also necessary to provide adequate incentives for maintenance and/or return of numerous independent labels and artists. The loss of labels and artists that were here two to four years ago has been a major complaint of mine during the past year and was the primary reason I didn't intend to renew when my annual subscription expired. Now that E Music is taking the steps they feel are necessary to be competitive with the producers of music, I am anxious to see the results. If the catalogue is expanded as a result of these decisions, the increase in my view is a reasonable price to pay for the benefits.

Kez Jun 2 at 3:27 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Bluesboy The fact of the matter is that eMusic is now a corporate partner of Sony Music, who for the most part is not a champion of "the little man". Sony is out to make money, period, and has a long history of sticking it to their artists, customers, and anyone else that gets within arm's reach. The outward appearance of what Sony stands for and what eMusic has stood for over the last 10 years are diametrically opposed. I would like to think that you and your team have a lot of integrity, but I wonder how soon there will be pressure from Sony to push their product over that of smaller labels. I agree with Bluesboy. I will probably give it one month, but I am plenty worried things are not going to be as good for the smaller independent labels after this. I would rather see Red House Records return than gain Sony. Ditto Bluesboy's reservations about Sony.

amclark2 Jun 8 at 10:39 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey .

fduniho Jun 2 at 3:26 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN We feel as passionately about eMusic as you do and would not have made this decision if we did not feel strongly that it will be beneficial to everyone involved. Is that why the decision was so thoughtless? If you had thought about the matter, you would have realized that it would not be beneficial to everyone involved. It certainly won't be beneficial to me to have to pay exorbitantly more for considerably less. Nor will it be beneficial for me to lose the excellent source of music emusic has been for me. I doubt it will be beneficial to you to stop receiving my money, yet that's what is going to happen if things don't change. Nor will it be beneficial for you to tarnish emusic's good name by reneging on the guarantees you made about letting us keep our grandfathered plans as long as we remain members in good standing. I suppose it will be beneficial for your competitors, though, since that's where more of my money will be going. I suppose it will also be beneficial for Sony-BMG to screw up emusic with this Faustian bargain.

JMac Jun 2 at 3:34 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey "With album pricing and all of that: this will not just be Sony titles. All labels will be able to opt in..." This is good. Potentially very good. I need at least one more recording of the Goldberg Variations. Seriously. Though I suppose I'll have to get that on cd.

Bad-Thoughts Jun 2 at 9:24 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Dear Yancey, I'm not grandfathered in like others, so they may not share my opinion. I can respect that prices may rise, perhaps even drastically, in troubled times to keep the service competitive. 88% (in my case) is more than an insignificant increase. Indeed, it might be tolerable given adequate compensation. Offering Sony's backcatalog is not adequate. The people who are angry already have/don't want/have turned their back on the music that Sony would offer. Indeed, offering Sony will attract new customers, but will not satisfy longtime customers. To make matters worse, pricing at eMusic will now be in competition with other outlets. Amazon's daily and weekly specials will often be below eMusic's cost per track. Strategic use of Amie Street will also help beat eMusic prices. The smart shopper will ration their entertainment budget among these outlets, rather than spend them all at eMusic. The 12 dl cap on some albums is barely adequate. Fewer downloads at eMusic, less experimentation, less money for small labels. Less loyalty and community. Less for eMusic Selects. Ultimately, you need to find something more to make the new price structure palatable.

NankerPhledge Jun 2 at 3:36 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey, Cathy, Somebody, please answer this question which has been posed repeatedly.: Will people outside the US but using the US store (ie in Australia, NZ, etc) be getting a) some, b) all or c) none of the Sony catalogue? Thanks in advance for clearing this up this urgent issue.

ZachCarstensen Jun 2 at 3:38 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I have mixed feelings about the addition of Sony. As a classical music fan, collector, and writer, the Sony back catalog could be nice -- assuming its all there. I am another person who benefited from grandfathering. I understand pricing needs to change. What I don't understand is why the download limits each month needed to change. Mashing download plans to meet price points is not helpful to a collector like me. Why not keep the connoisseur plans with the same dl's but new pricing?

TBob Jun 2 at 4:04 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Dear Cathy and Yancey, Three things make me feel good about your responses. 1. Your reasonable tone which I read as sincere and attentive to us. (What else could you do, really? But I still take it as well intended.) 2. Your reassurance that all labels will benefit from these price changes. This is one thing I am willing to pay more for. 3. Your assertion that you're reading every word of all our posts, painful as that may be. My main worry is the one expressed by Bluesboy about the corporate influence of Sony. My fingers are crossed on this so hard my knuckles are white. I still have questions about details and wrinkles, but I'm willing to see what unfolds as information continues to roll out. I plan to remain as a member at least through August and see how things develop. P.S. Yancey, sorry the last 36 hours have sucked, and have a good vacation.

68stationwagon Jun 2 at 4:06 PM EDT

hooray for the community...wait.

in response to the message by Yancey But as I said in the 17 Dots post, our taste and our values -- and here I'm talking about me, Joe, Alex, Maris, Jayson, our writers and the tone of the site that you help define -- is the same. All of you regulars in particular I hope will recognize how deeply we hold our beliefs, and how much we love indie music. yancey, the inevitable inevitable is that emusic will start to look more like everything else that panders to the big labels. on your side of the innernet, you'll have to cover the sony acts and that will pull away from time for the smaller labels. on this side of the innernet folks will have less dl's and will be inclined to dl tracks rather than albums - a pattern of consumption that is markedly in line with itunes and out of line with the emusic community. at the community level, you have folks like porieux urging "vaporize content." at my end, i need to move on as well. i like writing here + have made some great connections - but i'd be stoopid to stick here for the flux of new model subscribers who i anticipate will be significantly less avid than the folks currently in-house. i'm not saying "death to emusic"...and i don't question your values/beliefs. the model has changed and we all have to read it for what it is. i'm not a track junkie + i have no interest in the sony catalog - i'm out of dl's + i have yet to decide where that final story will go. in case i don't catch you after the vacation, good luck. chas

vaneckert Jun 2 at 4:14 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN So what about the promises made to folks on non-standard programs?

brothermarcus Jun 2 at 4:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey The new pricing benefits everyone. Everyone except for your soon to be former subscribers. And sure, yeah, it is all just a conicidence that the prices went up at the same time Sony's two years and older music collection is going to be added. With the arrogance that eMusic has exhibited in this change, and in the stupid form letters we get in response to our complaints, I really have to wonder if I haven't been deceived all along. Have fun being the dumping ground for Sony's bargain bin material. I'm sure whoever is left around will love reading the 12 Essential Pieces of Crap That are The Reason You Get Less Downloads.

Katrina Jun 2 at 4:21 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey The NY Times wrote that, not us. I call bullshit. eMu's marketing dept had every means to control this comment. A price increase could easily have been mentioned in the 17dots CEO post, the FAQ link for the new content could be available on more pages and a LOT more visible, and non-USA customers could have their questions answered on it, even if the answer is 'we don't know yet'. I'm surprised you waded in here, frankly - the marketing dept should be posting here, although it's good to see you. Have a good vacation!

tlmucla Jun 2 at 4:21 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey, Thanks for your response. I have been waiting for a cool head to explain the situation. Now that I have had 24 hours to think about this, I've calmed down somewhat, but not much. It must not be pleasant to read through hundreds of vitriolic posts. But, if there is one common thread through all of these angry posts, it is this: the roll out was badly handled. I believe you are right that a majority of plans were not altered, but those that were altered were you most loyal customers. The pricing of those plans may not have been sustainable, and I'm okay with that. If eMu would have informed us that it would be necessary to increase prices in order to attract other indie labels and get some of our labels to release their albums to us on release day, we would have grumbled but accepted it. I would gladly pay more to get Sub-pop on here, be able to download the New Pornographers' new album on release day, get Anti back, or prevent another big indie label from leaving. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of us that agree. But, to roll out this big price restructuring in order to justify signing a deal with a major label shows a gross misunderstanding of your customers. Most of us don't care about major labels. I agree that it would be cool to download Born to Run or Blonde on Blonde, but not at the expense of losing what made eMu different and special - the opportunity to discover new music. The new price plans discourage that sort of experimentation and pervert eMu into a low-rent iTunes with poorer selection. I'm not going anywhere. I hope that the new pricing schedule helps bring back the indie labels that left and bring in new labels. Even at the increased prices, it is a bargain compared to iTunes and Amazon. But, the way in which this handles does not bode well for eMusic remaining a service for dedicated music lovers to explore and discover new music.

Latch Jun 2 at 4:23 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yo Yancey - what would you do if your cable company, wireless phone service, magazine/ newspaper subscription, etc suddenly told you that they were going to add a service you didn't ask for, & that you would have your channels, minutes, issues, etc cut in half AT THE SAME PRICE. And then they proceed to tell you how it's a great thing & it was inevitable & you should be excited. Give me a friggin break - nobody does that to their customers & expects them to just take it sitting down. There is clearly a better way to handle this. Whether emusic chooses to fall on their sword & figure that out remains to be seen. If they don't, I am quite sure that they will lose a high % of affected customers. I'll stick around for July & maybe August to get the free DL's & then it's more than likely hasta la vista baby. Why should I/ we stick around any longer? Better update that resume while you're on vacation, dude.

Drooch Jun 2 at 4:24 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey "Regarding the grandfathering plans, it definitely sucks to see your downloads cut. But this isn't out of a lack of loyalty: this is because those plans, which we have grandfathered for a few years, would now be priced at a loss." As one of those who was grandfathered, I understand the necessity of a price hike. I haven't decided exactly what I'll do once the new price scheme takes effect, but given my economic situation, I can safely say that it will result in me taking less music from this site. I think it will be that way for many others. It's just reality. "But as I said in the 17 Dots post, our taste and our values -- and here I'm talking about me, Joe, Alex, Maris, Jayson, our writers and the tone of the site that you help define -- is the same." That's great, but again, reality: EMusic as a site will not be defined nearly as much by your, and our, taste and values as it has been. It's just not a practical outcome of these developments. I think you'd agree that, necessary as these moves may be to eMusic's ultimate survival, this roll-out has been handled poorly from a PR perspective. The decision to link the price hike directly to the Sony "merger" was a bad idea, and demonstrates just how tone-deaf eMusic's management is regarding this community. There are many ways you could have softened the blow and made the transition to the new order more palatable for more of your core customers. Instead, eMusic chose to just sock it to everybody, and the results are predictable.

PlayItAgain Jun 2 at 4:24 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey The new pricing plans offer very little incentive to choose an annual plan over a monthly plan. The price discount for signing up for and paying in advance for an annual plan is small. Without a real incentive to pick an annual plan a larger percentage of your customers will choose monthly plans. This could greatly increase the volatility of eMusic's customer base. I doubt very much that will be to eMusic's benefit. While offering monthly subscriptions that can be canceled any month is an excellent way to get people to try eMusic it is not an excellent way to get people to stay with eMusic. I think that this is a great weakness in the new pricing plans. The way the announcement of the pricing change has been announced has been disgraceful. As of this time I have not yet received an email telling me about the change nor has a month-to-month member I know who only visits the site occasionally. This creates the appearance that eMusic is hoping for a windfall month when all the monthly members who only come to the site occasionally will discover that the number of downloads that they are getting has been reduced only after they have paid for the transition month in advance. It makes sense to me that the prices had to go up and I would have accepted a reasonable or probably a substantial price increase without much complaint. But a price increase of 150% is massive. I cannot recall ever having been asked to accept such a price increase for anything that I purchase. Given that I have the alternative of buying the music that I want when I want and where I want rather than being tied to the limitations of a subscription, it is an unreasonable increase.

CaptWhiffle Jun 2 at 6:38 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Thanks for responding, Yancey. It really does mean a lot when eMusic tries to address our concerns. While Sony may not be the only reason for the pricing restructure, I think that it is obvious to everyone that it is the motivating reason for the change. The note I see on the homepage makes clear that this is a cause (Sony catalog) / effect (changes to your account) scenario: "Important: In July, we'll be rolling out a major expansion to our music catalog. Please read the announcement for details on how this change affects your account." A more gradual introduction to price increases would have made much more sense and would have been a much more ethical way of handling the price hike. And I'm still flummoxed by the 12-75 download cap. There was no way to create subscription plans that increased the price per track and allowed people to download more than 75 tracks per month? It just seems bizarre to say "hey! you're gonna love the huge new array of choices you will have when Sony arrives," while at the same time saying "you get fewer downloads per month with which to enjoy that huge new array of choices!" The one thing that could make this sting less--full album pricing--is the one aspect that eMusic failed to work out. It seems that, given the general lack of enthusiasm for Sony's back catalog--which you must have known an indie fanbase would feel--you would have wanted a strong second selling point to pitch alongside the Sony announcement. Those of us who aren't thrilled about Sony's arrival aren't being given much to hold on to. In fact, the only detail that appears to be fully worked out is the price hike. What eMusic's product and service will look like in a month? Not so much, apparently. My plan expires early July. I have no idea if the new catalog will have rolled out by then. I guess I just have to chalk it up to bad timing, but I don't have the luxury of waiting to see how I like it and then deciding when my plan expires.

Drooch Jun 2 at 4:32 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by PlayItAgain "The new pricing plans offer very little incentive to choose an annual plan over a monthly plan. The price discount for signing up for and paying in advance for an annual plan is small. Without a real incentive to pick an annual plan a larger percentage of your customers will choose monthly plans. This could greatly increase the volatility of eMusic's customer base. I doubt very much that will be to eMusic's benefit." I was thinking exactly the same thing, but didn't get around to articulating it.

Doofy Jun 2 at 4:49 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Drooch The new pricing benefits everyone. Yeah, that's pretty good...Like when they say they're putting you on hold to serve you better! Easy to say in retrospect, but if it's true the grandfathered accounts needed to go, it's too bad that got tied up with the Sony business. Though I'm obviously not thrilled with my price increase (actually DL reduction), it's of a different order of magnitude that some of the cuts to you old granddads out there. These should have been handled as separate issues. I'm hoping the pricing structure gets a re-think in the weeks ahead...as is, there is not much incentive to "buy up." The pricing on the booster packs is really puzzling...it's as if they don't actually want people to buy them. I think the "bargain bin" comment is about right...the number of "Ripp-Off" complaints is going to be unchanged, as free-trial people discover they can't get the newest releases, plus while they can get Mariah they can't get Justin or Kanye (or whoever the hell is on the other labels). I'd strongly recommend putting in a one-time "Your Card Is About to Be Charged" pop-up, as suggested in a recent thread. I am looking forward to seeing the new stuff, though I already own London Calling and don't really want Nebraska! :-) ECM would be really good. It would be nice if we could get at least some info on how many "selected" 12+ track albums are going to be included in the new offer, as that may affect buying decisions over the next few weeks. I also think the European customers deserve a timely response to their concerns.

Katrina Jun 2 at 4:58 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CaptWhiffle And I'm still flummoxed at the 12-75 download cap. I've decided it's diabolical marketing to raise the number of subscribers they can report.

Mmarsupilami Jun 2 at 5:01 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey : The majority of folks saw very few to no changes in their plan... I guess it's a joke. And a poor defense... Sure, there was a subsiding of grandfathering plans. But the prices are growing for everyone... By the way, I understand you might change old plans. But don't forget why they were existing : you already changed your model without warning your customers...

Wanderer Jun 2 at 5:02 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by PlayItAgain "The new pricing plans offer very little incentive to choose an annual plan over a monthly plan." That is an interesting development of the new pricing structure and increased volatility, as you say, may be an adverse result. I was wondering "why" there isn't much incentive for longer term plans. If you look at the proposed pricing structure, there is a relatively narrow range with per track prices starting around 40 or 41 cents and increasing to close to 50 cents. E Music simply may have been unwilling to go below an average track price of 40 cents. If they would have gone below that amount, they might have had to inch shorter term plans more toward the 50 cent per track limit to meet their projected revenue targets. Maybe they felt that price adjustment would be a little too dramatic and decided against giving much pricing incentives to longer plans.

yy.eric Jun 2 at 5:20 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN i got an email like this: Hello: Thank you for contacting eMusic Customer Support. We were experiencing a temporary issue with the site. This issue has been resolved. Some of our subscribers who live in other countries, but are listed under the US region were sent emails regarding an upcoming price change. Because only subscribers who are US residents will be affected, you do not have to be concerned with experiencing an increase in your subscription plan. Thank you for your patience while we resolved this issue! Regards, Abbey eMusic Support --- Original Message --- Received: 6/2/09 12:06:15 AM EDT To: cs@help.emusic.com Subject: Other Questions / Comments Issue: Cancel my account ---------------------------------------------- Contents: When does my plan expire? But I have NOT received any email announcements from eMusic, i was informed by this "IMPORTANT" price change from the website. This is very confusing. BTW, Day 2. I got the eMusic "Latest Soundtracks" email today, but still no price announcement directly to me.

Wanderer Jun 2 at 5:23 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Latch "Yo Yancey - what would you do if your cable company, wireless phone service, magazine/ newspaper subscription, etc suddenly told you that they were going to add a service you didn't ask for, & that you would have your channels, minutes, issues, etc cut in half AT THE SAME PRICE." Yo, you, I have deluxe and pricey cable and internet subscription and I've had it for some years. I can tell you that the cable companies (and I've had a number of them during my relocations over the years) always charge handsomely (unless you have the most stripped down basic TV only option) for their products. They regularly raise their prices which could hardly ever be called cheap before the raises. And there's no such thing as getting grandfathered in for five years.

garzamayer Jun 2 at 5:32 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jamieshanks So... will eMusic members outside the USA have to subsidize the Americans who get access to Sony while we don't? I'd second this. Anyone? I want an answer to this also

DJAdequate Jun 2 at 5:37 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wanderer And there's no such thing as getting grandfathered in for five years. Gosh, Wanderer. What a surprise to find you here. (Apparently, you are rich and like paying high prices all around. I guess that explains a lot about you.) Actually, when you sign up for cable/internet access you usually do get some kind of a grandfather claus--or rather, a discounted rate for signing a longer term contract. They do that because it's better for them to lock you in long term that make more per month, but risk having you change. Still knowing you like to miss the point: Would it have hurt emusic in any way to send an email to those with older accounts saying, "We're sorry, but we can no longer afford to offer you these rates. We appreciate your loyalty and understand this will come as a blow. But we feel if you stick with us, we'll still give you the best value in music." Voila, we aren't pissed off. Sad maybe. Some would cancel. But emusic tried to sell this as an upgrade to us by hiding it in the sony announcement. If you are happy, fine. But you are not going to argue those that aren't into being happy. So get another hobby.

the12thplaya Jun 2 at 5:52 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wanderer "Yo Yancey - what would you do if your cable company, wireless phone service, magazine/ newspaper subscription, etc suddenly told you that they were going to add a service you didn't ask for, & that you would have your channels, minutes, issues, etc cut in half AT THE SAME PRICE." - Latch "Yo, you, I have deluxe and pricey cable and internet subscription and I've had it for some years. I can tell you that the cable companies (and I've had a number of them during my relocations over the years) always charge handsomely (unless you have the most stripped down basic TV only option) for their products. They regularly raise their prices which could hardly ever be called cheap before the raises. And there's no such thing as getting grandfathered in for five years." - Wanderer Erm, Latch never said that Cable was cheap or that they didn't raise their prices. What he was saying was how would Yancey like it if his Cable or some other service he has signed up for shits on him from a great height like eMusic are doing by halving the service but not the price (in some cases they seem to be almost doubling their prices). And besides with cable and most if not all companies, they raise the price gradually over months and years and they generally allow you to keep the same package. I'm a member of a cinema in the UK which takes a monthly payment of £13.99 which allows me to watch unlimited films for free at this chain of cinemas. Their prices have gone up several times over the year or two as it originally started at £10.99. It's a little annoying it keeps going up but I understand that it needs to do that to survive and I accept that as it's a small increase each time and think this is the way eMusic should have gone if they do need to charge more to survive. The good thing is with this cinema is that when they change prices they send out letters months in advance just like cable companies would.

MrCloud Jun 2 at 5:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by yy.eric Thank you for posting this. Some of our subscribers who live in other countries, but are listed under the US region were sent emails regarding an upcoming price change. Because only subscribers who are US residents will be affected, you do not have to be concerned with experiencing an increase in your subscription plan. So it looks like people outside the US don't have to worry about their oldstyle subscription plans. Based on this email I'd guess you could ask for a refund if you're charged, perhaps eMusic didn't factor in the people who are outside the US but using the US website? Thing is, I thought the Sony deal had nothing to do with the price increase (as recently stated by eMusic)? So even if Sony do come over here we'll still pay the same as now? Was all this done to even out the difference in price plans between the "slightly" cheaper US subs and the rest of world? It would be very nice to get some extra clarification on the board.

the12thplaya Jun 2 at 5:44 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by yy.eric "Some of our subscribers who live in other countries, but are listed under the US region were sent emails regarding an upcoming price change. Because only subscribers who are US residents will be affected, you do not have to be concerned with experiencing an increase in your subscription plan." - Customer Service I disagree with this because the UK have already lost all of the decent plans, ok we might not have been forced to change yet but our plans are now non standard and if we do get forced to another plan then there isn't anything decent to change to so we are affected as well.

NankerPhledge Jun 2 at 5:47 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by yy.eric From CS :Because only subscribers who are US residents will be affected, you do not have to be concerned with experiencing an increase in your subscription plan. Excuse me, WHAT? This is my situation and the announcement on the front page of my account clearly says I will be "experiencing" an increase.

frogkopf Jun 2 at 5:57 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by the12thplaya I didn't receive emails to any of the 3 addresses on my accounts regarding the upcoming price change either. I guess those were only sent out to people AREN'T AFFECTED?!?!?! It's pretty obvious eMu were trying to sneak one by on current members by only listing it on a page the most people by pass when visiting the site. Pretty scuzzy!

qwynwyn Jun 2 at 6:00 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by frogkopf Yeah, I was wondering why we weren't emailed about the upcoming changes. I'm guessing that not all eMusic subscribers check the eMusic main page, the 17dots blog, or facebook.

davebgimp Jun 2 at 6:04 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I really could care less about most of the catalog you're adding. All I know is I'm getting less for my money and that really angers me. I've been a good customer for several years and now you're shafting me. I'm looking for an alternative music provider. If I find one, goodbye.

bravelittletoaster Jun 2 at 6:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I'm extremely disappointed to see that you're reducing my monthly downloads by more than half, and you're not even reducing the price. I don't care about Sony artists. That's not why I'm an emusic customer.

frankvdz Jun 2 at 6:27 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey "The new pricing benefits everyone. Existing indie labels, future labels (indie and major), etc." Yancey, remarkably significant you forgot to mention the subscribers in the sentence quoted above. Moreover, I very much doubt these benefits, at least for existing and future indie labels. I think that many of us have "wasted" quite a lot of downloads on indie albums we would never have bought or downloaded otherwise. This concept of exploring music will no longer be affordable. Furthermore, I think that many of us have "comercially" bought emusic-unavailable albums by indie artists we discovered here. This we will no longer do when we are cut off from a relatively cheap opportunity to explore new music. And now I am only speaking about those of us who'll stay... I am not an economist but I was good at highschool maths. It is clear that less downloads times less subscribers times a higher pay per download will never match the existing situation (more downloads times more subscribers times a lower pay per download). What happens next? Sony will be disappointed, forcing a further increase of the pay per download, etc. A vicious circle. E-music probably does not yet realise it, but it appears obvious it has just committed suicide. I sincerely hope the planned change will be cancelled. If not, I hope that the process of self-destruction will be fast so that we do not have to wait too long for the resurrection of an emusic-like download service.

Wesley Jun 2 at 7:05 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by btx I'm starting to believe the biggest mistake Emusic made was grandfathering us in with the last price increase. If they had made a modest hike to .30 then and now to .35-.40 I'm not sure the complaints would have been so strong. Now they have to catch us up to everyone else with this 80%+ increase and absorbing that at one time seems jarring.

Porieux Jun 2 at 7:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN eMusic responds with a pathetic attempt at damage control that shows how out of touch they really are. How sad.

Cazneau Jun 2 at 7:17 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by BigD-Bluez "The majority of folks saw very few to no changes in their plan." Do you really have to make it worse by lying?

Wanderer Jun 2 at 7:20 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by the12thplaya Well, good for you, but my example had to do with cable. My monthly cable bill (an enhanced package with internet) costs about $194 per month US. Maybe you'll understand why I don't think E Music's new prices are so expensive. Things you want cost money. That's the way it goes. If you can't or won't pay what they cost, then learn to want less. Yes, they raise their prices gradually but they are NEVER CHEAP if you want anything but the lowest programming options. If the cable company kept their prices ridiculously low for many customers for years, I suspect you might see some occasional sharp jumps in pricing.

Porieux Jun 3 at 3:20 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey sigh

Wesley Jun 2 at 7:40 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Porieux Sorry, but you are wrong. I have a second account and this is my message: As a loyal eMusic member, you've been grandfathered into your current Basic monthly plan and will continue to get 30 downloads every 30 days for $11.99. Your plan gives you 25% more downloads than new Basic monthly subscribers. It's our way of saying thanks for being an eMusic member! I believe the majority of users start with the basic plan and stay with it. Anyone who signed up with this deal will not see any change.

Porieux Jun 2 at 7:44 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley The 11.99 plan was 50 downloads now it's 30 that's not grandfathering. If you were paying 11.99 for 30 then you already got suckered before this.

gmu599 Jun 2 at 7:46 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Piss poor eMusic...during a recession for that matter.

cryptowave Jun 2 at 7:55 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Porieux The rant of a long time customer - I have been subscribed to the "Connoisseur" (100 downloads) plan for quite some time, at a rate of $24.99 monthly. In July, to get the same plan, it will cost $40.99. Now here is the problem with this, and it isn't entirely about costing more money. I took a look, at the genres I listen to, at what will be offered by the "new" emusic. Nothing much I like. Keep in mind, the Highlights were supposed to be the PR selected picks to lure people in to keeping their subscription. With the exception of Pearl Jam, none appeal to me. What appealed to me about emusic was that I was able to explore new music at a fair price. Now I get to explore music at a not so fair price (in my opinion). I downloaded a lot of rubbish with my 100/month plan, but it didn't bother me much because of the price. If I pay more money, I will be much more picky. In fact, I will be so more picky that I will only pay for a subscription when I have located enough quality music to fill the download bucket fully. This could be every few months, perhaps longer. If Emusic has so much faith in their new program, how about they offer 55c downloads (discounts for entire albums)? If your new music selection will be so good, you shouldn't have any problem getting my money - right?

Wesley Jun 2 at 7:56 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Porieux Wrong again. It's been 30/11.99 for months now and the new plan announced yesterday is 24 for 11.99. The 50 plan was an old grandfathered one before the last price hike. So when Emusic says people aren't affected they mean from the fees they had been charging recently. So they are correct. A large number of people will not see a rate increase. You and I haven't been paying these prices because we were grandfathered when the last hike took affect.

PocketMumble Jun 2 at 8:00 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I'm sorry but for me the most important question still needs to be addressed, and has been raised again here by NankerPhledge and others... Can you please confirm for those of us who are subscribers to eMusic US but who are not resident in the US (which I would assume is everyone outside of the US, UK and EU....which despite what US businesses seem to think is quite a large percentage of the world's population) whether we will have access to the new content we are now being asked to pay extra for, or, like last.fm, are people in those countries being hit with a price increase to cover benefits for other users? I would suspect the answer to this question will be a deciding factor for many people when it comes to staying or not. Can I also ask, if the answer is we can't access the new content whether there are any efforts being made to change this. And please no meaningless "we are working on this", which tells us nothing. If you are making efforts can we please have some indication of the timeline for this....I'm not going to hang around for years with some vague brush-off of "we're working on it". If eMusic can't provide a decent service outside of the US then maybe it should stop accepting money from users outside of the US.

Porieux Jun 2 at 8:03 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DonF (from some random blog) "That comes out to about 40 cents a song. Far less than iTunes or any other online music site. " People keep repeating this bullcrap, but it's simply not true if you are buying albums.

Porieux Jun 2 at 8:08 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley OK Wesley, but there is no way that the majority of subscribers are on the very newest plan. If that is true then their churn rate is so bad that they will be out of business soon either way. 30 for 11.99 is already too expensive. Going to 24 tracks for 11.99 is flat out stupid. You could buy one album with 24 tracks and spend $12 or buy it at iTunes for $9.99 and have a better experience in every possible way. (no subscription required, no broken website, previews that work, broken tracks that get fixed, etc etc etc) And of course in that scenario the best deal is just to buy a CD and have something to show for it.

Wesley Jun 2 at 8:06 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Porieux We have to hope the 12 credit cap is applied generously.

bravelittletoaster Jun 2 at 8:09 PM EDT

I pay 157% more for 61% less?

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Do you really expect me to pay 157% more for 61% less? And all so I have the option to download Billy Joel? That's absurd. This is no way to treat loyal customers. I stuck with you guys after you did away with unlimited downloads. This is really disappointing.

Bluespicker Jun 2 at 8:12 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley This emusic grandfather doesn't give a shit about anything Sony has to offer. I joined this site to get away from all the big label crapola.....I'm not sure if I'll stay or go after next month but I'm done extolling the virtues of emusic to people.....giving me the bums rush with even a reach around does that to me.

Wesley Jun 2 at 8:14 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Porieux What's very sad is the 30/11.99 deal is slightly better than my now 37 for 14.99 deal. I've been a member since March of 2004 without a break and I get a worse deal than someone who signed up last week. That's some gratitude.

Porieux Jun 2 at 8:20 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley Yeah. The issue is not that they could never ever raise prices period. However it can only be done gradually and in ways that make sense for the business AND the customer. The regime that is in charge now simply has no idea how to run this business (other than into the ground apparently). I still can't even rate an album, that's how broken this site is. They want to charge champagne prices for Miller Lite.

CarbonPhoenix Jun 2 at 8:37 PM EDT

Reparations

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN what emusic hes neglected is a satisfactory way to make reparations and 25 free downloads doesn't come close. I understand that changes must be made over time but you guys have really screwed over your customers. There are several solutions that customers have responded with that could possibly repair the situation such as letting us keep our unused credits (seeing as we did pay for them in the first place). Get on the ball, it's already been a couple of days and I don't think people are gonna feel better about the firestorm that you guys are all hiding out from. I dont't want to lose emusic but i'm not staying like this Please digg the main article at http://digg.com/d1snDo

yond Jun 2 at 8:45 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Bluesboy too bad so sad… crap crap crap. I am sorely disappointed. More disappointed than when I had to change from a $9.99 per month sub with UNLIMITED downloads (those were the days, my friends) to a grandfathered 300 track-per-month download package plan for “their most loyal customers.” I guess I am no longer considered one of their most loyal customers — I have been cut back to 100 downloads per month, and frankly that ticks me off even more than the price hike (which for me is a 2/3 increase). Well, times are tough. Too bad they didn’t offer us an added library of Sony artists for extra money… keeping our current plans and tacking on what we download from Sony as an added fee. They might even have lured me over the fence into the Sony stable a few times. Had they given me a choice. But they didn’t. It sounds like they want iPod’s market, and I have been left out in the cold.

kamilaht Jun 2 at 8:46 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN It's not just that you cut the number of downloads per month without warning. It's that you've done so and I'm still waiting to get contacted. How dare you change our subscription plan without having the decency to contact us, the customers, the ones that are keeping eMusic alive. I was reading a totally different article and stumbled across the news. What is that? How can you treat your customers like this? I've had issues with your customer service in the past, and this is just one more thing that's making me consider canceling my service. In fact, the minute I realise that the reduced number of downloads are not enough, I'm canceling, because I am not giving you more money when you didn't even have the decency to tell your customers that you were changing their plans.

Stingyjack Jun 2 at 8:58 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by kamilaht Is anyone aware of an alternative to emusic that caters to independent music fans? Is there a somewhat comparable rival that I can send my money to instead? My guess in no.

nancypants Jun 2 at 8:59 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by 40gigsandamule Word. Same for me. Bye, emusic, it was... sort of good for a while.

ChronoSquall14 Jun 2 at 9:35 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by nancypants As I mentioned on the blog, I apparently have a very long time to decide what to do with my account, as eMusic is honorably keeping my annual subscription at the agreed upon rate until it runs out next February. As it stands I find it hard to believe I'd re-up simply because the limitations inherent in eMusic make it less attractive when the price is comparable to Amazon and iTunes' cheaper albums and specials. That being said, my experience with eMusic thus far has been nothing short of exemplary, and I hope the site gives me reason to continue onward come next February when I must make my decision. I have the advantage of waiting to see what I like and don't like, which many folks unfortunately don't have, which is a real shame.

thw Jun 2 at 10:00 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey, If you had sent an email to subscribers saying that you couldn't continue to support the existing pricing and needed to increase revenue to make ends meet, you would have met with some complainers, but I'm guessing most people would have been sympathetic. What you did was too more than double the prices for your oldest subscribers under false pretenses and act like you were doing us a favor. I apologize for losing my temper, but it's your method of communicating the change that is total crap. While you are on vacation, why don't you look in the mirror and consider that, even though your hands may have been tied, you maybe, just maybe, managed this whole thing very poorly. Just my opinion, Tom

DJ Wren Jun 2 at 10:01 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Mmarsupilami i bet there is some "truth" to this statement as maybe today few saw changes, but over the next 24 months lots of people's plans will be changed...

btx Jun 2 at 10:46 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley I didn't ask to be grandfathered before. I am smart enough to evaluate the cost vs benefit of anything I buy. During the last time they raised prices, I remember thinking to myself that if I had been subjected to that increase, I would have seriously considered pulling the plug. I didn't download any music nor did I buy CDs for a few years before I came to emusic because I tired of the way some of the labels were choosing to do business. It wasn't that bad, and I will do it again. Emusic's current form broadened my tastes and had me spending more on music than I ever had--and did so for years.

Lou1970 Jun 2 at 10:51 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Thanks for the response Cathy, but it's not about the catalog. I'm not here for Sony, or any other RIAA-supporting major label. I've been here for years, discovering new music, from cool labels and artists that I'd never have gotten to experience at the new price points. After October, it'll be cd's & vinyl of stuff I already like. And eMusic, the small labels, and the talented artists that it takes some work to find will be the poorer for it.

KatwomanProgger Jun 2 at 11:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Lou1970 Double my rate by charging me the same price for six months instead of a year and give me less downloads? Its the double wammy that will definitely be the end of my sub when it expires. Its been great discovering new artists I never heard of and will never find again and were able to try at a good price. I don't want crap music by the major labels at any price. NOT ONE PENNY of my money should go to support SONY and the music dinosars that distroyed the music industry and are now trying to push into Emusic. If I wanted Major label music I have many choices but I don't like it at all which is why we are here at Emusic in the first place.....to AVOID Sony, BMG Warner and the likes. I'll just go to the artists themselves now and skip the corporate money grab. Hello My Space, CD baby, Pandora, last FM, imeem, etc.

spinninginair Jun 2 at 11:17 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Lou1970 I think eMusic has really screwed up ... and that customer loyalty seems to be irrelevant to the people signing "deals." Like many other subscribers, I came here *because you offer music from independent labels at reasonable prices.* Unfortunately, that's all in the past tense now. What a shame. Cancelling after my June downloads are used up.

scrivener Jun 2 at 11:37 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Add mine to those reasonable voices who say they understand the more generous, grandfathered plans were perhaps too good to last. I certainly don't expect my patronage to be supplemented by other customers or the ownership, but some time ago before a price increase, I was encouraged to upgrade my plan, taking many more downloads for slightly more money. It was a good deal and I've never regretted it. If my accepting this plan (resulting in my paying more per month) turned out to be less profitable for the company, it's difficult for me to feel too bad: I was only accepting an offer I was encouraged to accept. I have hit the max (500 albums) in the Save for Later list a few times recently, meaning of course that even without the addition of the Sony catalog, there was more stuff here (and more new stuff coming all the time) than I was ever reasonably going to get around to purchasing. I won't lie and say I'm not interested in the Sony catalog, but at this price? Your solution to the fact that grandfathered accounts were being honored at a loss was to bring these loyal customers in line with brand-new customers so that everyone's paying the same. Forgive me for saying so, but this is no way to thank your long-time, loyal customers, those customers who are feeling bitter about this whole thing. It soothes things a bit to know that the artists I support will be getting more of the pie, but how do they feel knowing that I'm only going to be able to afford one of their albums rather than two? I'd like to think it matters.

Smoking-Frog Jun 2 at 11:50 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Yea, like many others I'm real disappointed about the changes here. I could have accepted this better if I was told that the price increases were going help the indie artists. I'd have been sorry about getting less music for the same price but I would have felt better about it if it came with the return of some of the big indie names that left us. But when you tell me that I'm getting less music and at the same time sweetening it by giving me Michael Jackson, Dixie Chicks, Bruce Springsteen and the rest of Sony, WTF? The core of eMusic fans, who maintained their subscriptions year after year didn't do so because they wanted the crap from the major labels. The people calling for that music never stuck around past their trial subscription. They aren't going to be happy now either because they only want what's currently being spoon-fed them on the radio. Some indie artists may be better off for this change but I don't think most will. My chances of finding and supporting new or under appreciated artists has now decreased by 50 percent. Sony will undoubtedly get a part of eMusic's pie which ultimately means less of a share for the indies. I'll probably stick around for a couple of months and see what's up but eMusic has lost my unquestioned loyalty. I'm now open to checking out the competition and looking for alternatives.

BRet Jun 3 at 12:47 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey The dishonesty continues. Looking at other articles, blogs, and the first member comments to Stein's insulting letter, it seems obvious that you rolled out the pricing details hours after sending the press release and posting the notice on the site with only the "good" news.

Katrina Jun 3 at 1:50 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by BRet BRet, I was unaware of any price changes when I replied on 17dots, and it should have been mentioned there. What a cowardly CEO!

NigelTufnel Jun 3 at 1:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Honestly, people, including myself, are angry. This is more outrageous than the gouging at the pump from the last couple years. I like music, but gas is just a necessity. I think most people will take this personally.

MrCloud Jun 3 at 2:43 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Based on a comment above, am I correct in thinking that it's only grandfathered accounts from around 2004 and before that are being changed? People from 2005 and after will keep the subs they signed up for, whatever country they're from? I'm giving rough dates, I haven't checked everyones details. If so couldn't you soften the blow for your long term customers by moving the old-old grandfathers onto the 2005 sub rates instead of the harsher Sony-driven ones?

JB713 Jun 3 at 3:02 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by BillyGoatBlue I find it amazing how irrational some of you are. As a self-proclaimed music junky i cannot possibly scour the web for hours looking for the best deal on desired albums. How much time do you all have on your hands? How does the trek to best buy/target to purchase a sigle cd for two dollars less have any benefit over using eMu? Instead I can preview and selectively purchase music from the comfort of my home. Also I do not think many of you realize how much cheaper eMusic is still going to be compared to competitors. Sure the prices have been increased and the dl amount is lower but if you are indeed a fan of good independent music and the benefits that eMusic has provided for years then the extra money is well worth it. The true meaning and mission of eMusic is unfortunately being clouded by the refusal of cheap members to pay for the new rates. These members would rather bitch and complain about how much eMu has "let them down". In reality, however, eMu has gone out of its way to expand and offer more content to loyal users.

Porieux Jun 3 at 4:11 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JB713 Actually finding things you want on eMusic can take a lot longer than comparing prices for CDs of something you already know you want. Which is not to say it isn't rewarding in its own right. Also I think getting out to the CD store once in a while is a good thing. To hell with places like Best Buy or Walmart though. I'm not cheap at all, I just spent 2k on a new effects processor. However I won't support a business that treats me like I'm some sort of moron.

cowboykris Jun 3 at 4:30 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Hello there, I'm not so sure adding Sony is such a bad move. But it is if the Sony catalogue only will be available in the US. And the rest of us have to pay for it. Is that the case? Kris.

the12thplaya Jun 3 at 4:59 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wanderer Wanderer, so if your cable company does either of the following in one go and with LITTLE TO NO NOTICE, you'll be ok with it?: 1. Change your charge to $300-400 per month (based on the rough percentage increases people have experienced/mentioned so far with the eMusic changes) 2. Keep your bill at $194 a month but takes away your enhanced package by giving you a much slower internet connection and almost halve your TV package and restrictions/limits/increased call charges on your phone line (if you have one with your cable company). That's the point Latch was making! If you'd be happy with either of the above then that's weird but some people do have more money than sense I guess...

Melodia Jun 3 at 7:02 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JB713 he benefits that eMusic has provided for years then the extra money is well worth it. To you maybe. There's a price point where people are willing to pay for lossy music with no notes (and often lack of info), combined with both a forced amount (or lose moeny) and a maximum amount. For many of us, eMusic crossed over the threshhold. It doesn't MATTER if it's still cheaper, what matter is if we are willing to pay the end price for what we get.

Babbo Jun 3 at 7:07 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN In all fairness, I do sympathize with eMusic's financial situation regarding the grandfathered plans, but not enough to swallow an increase from 23 cents a track to 41 cents (I'm currently on the 65/$14.99 plan). I'm hoping there can be a middle ground, along the lines of 30 to 35 cents per track, even if it means foregoing the major-label additions; I have to think that would be better in the long run for eMusic than having us old-timers leave in droves, which I'm certainly prepared to do if and when my plan changes as currently outlined.

coughie Jun 3 at 7:20 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Yeah, I know what an mp3 file is worth to me, and that's why I signed up. I will go back to not buying digital music if this goes through. Simple as that. I'm more than happy to opt-out of the Sony stuff and keep my old plan though. Call me!

midcoastmaine Jun 3 at 7:41 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I realize that emusic wants to become something other than it is (although I don't know why), but the economics don't work for a lot of us. My plan gives me 100 songs a month. The new plan will increase my costs by approximately 60%. I can't afford it. It isn't that I'm outraged by paying $.41 a song, that's not unreasonable - I just can't afford it. And I know the obvious solution is to get a less expensive plan, but that's like trying to buy a pair of jeans and settling for a couple of yards of denim. I will be sorry to go, but emusic has forgotten something very important. When companies stop asking their customers what they want, and start telling them what they can have, they're done.

talen888 Jun 3 at 7:50 AM EDT

What about a NON-Sony plan!?

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN The last thing I'm looking for is Sony's back catalogue. I understand many people might be happy to have access to it, but I'm sure there's many people who, like me, couldn't give a rats about it. I'm all for supporting the artists - that's part of the reason I've been subscribing to Emusic for so long. But I'm much more for supporting independant, smaller label artists, rather than those that are rung through the Sony Music Machine, for good or for bad. Not sure this was a wise move, emusic. just my 2c

lymang Jun 3 at 8:06 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Seriously? That's the best you can do? I've been a customer since 2005 and I just don't think I can justify the price increase (double the price if I want roughly the same downloads I'm getting now) AND I can't do a yearly sub it appears from the options now showing to me. Seriously, I have LOVED emusic but doubling the rates during the recession, Sony or no Sony, is just ridiculous.

Scully Jun 3 at 9:16 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Hello I haven't had the time to read everything that's going on here, all I know is that if my plan goes up in price, I'm off. It's alright going on about how labels can't afford to keep their prices so low (remember, we're talking about Internet delivery here, so they're not that low) - well, how are they going to feel when people stop their subscription and just move back to bit torrent, paying nothing? I'm surprised that you've been going this long and have yet to understand your own business model. Putting your prices up will drive away your existing customers in droves (who obviously aren't here for the big labels) while attracting very few new ones. Hope you guys either continue to honour your existing price plans or wake up or something. Unless you really think that you're going to take on iTunes, Amazon, Play.com, etc, etc, etc with a subscription model? If that's the case, good luck with that and good luck with whatever you're smoking! At the end of the day, there's a free alternative out there that's just a little more hastle. Aaron

tlmucla Jun 3 at 9:48 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by MrCloud Nope, my plan is not grandfathered circa 2004. I upgraded to a plan last summer that gives/gave me 100 downloads for $24.99. Now, I'm being forced into a plan that gives me 50 downloads for $19.99. That's a jump of $.25 per track to $.40 per track.

sweeneybd Jun 3 at 1:07 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN .

bill-m Jun 3 at 11:51 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN My thoughts before canceling: >beneficial to everyone involved. I think this either extremely naive, a (feeble) attempt to put on a positive spin, or an outright lie. I find it hard to believe that you (Emusic) didn't consider that the sudden, significant price increases and inclusion of a major label would be deal breakers to a fair number of existing members. While browsing your catalog expansion FAQ I noticed the following: >The number one request we hear from our customers is: give us more >music from artists we know and love. This is a half-truth at best; how many of those customers wanted an expanded selection with 33%-50% (or more) fewer downloads per month? For me, even though I'm saddened by the (IMO) sellout to Sony, the dealbreakers are the significant price increase and the insincerity (read: smoke blown up my posterior) displayed by eMusic in the communications regarding these changes. >All that we can ask is that you show some patience, that you see how >we go about handling this catalogue I don't see why I should. I liked the price and catalog the way it was. Drop me a line if you bring back my current (pre-catalog-expansion, post-grandfathered) plan. - A soon-to-be-former-member

frogkopf Jun 3 at 11:58 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by bill-m beneficial to everyone involved. When people say nonsense like this, they lose all credibility. It's like the landlord, who hasn't bothered to fix the heat or the leaky toilet for six months, coming over and planting a few flowers in the front window sill, and then saying to you "now, doesn't that make everything much better...by the way, your rent is doubling starting next month"

flatfive Jun 3 at 12:26 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I think eMusic could have done these small things and saved a lot of anger from loyal subscribers: - acknowledged immediately that we're seeing big price increases - given clearer information about how the price increases are going to benefit the indie labels - tried to soften the blow to loyal customers by giving at least a six-month period at an intermediate rate between current and new pricing I think the crux of the anger for many of us is the suspicion that all or most all of the increase is for Sony, and that eMusic seems oblivious to the fact that very many "adventurous" music listeners don't care about Sony's back catalog.

newmusicbass Jun 3 at 12:56 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN As a label owner, I make more from emusic than itunes precisely because of the fair prices. People are choosing between emusic and free. This choice is going to screw labels of all sizes because everyone knows they can just download what they want for free. I won't leave emusic as a listener but I going to be less likely to take chances on an album I am not sure about.

Melodia Jun 3 at 12:59 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by newmusicbass Actually I've gotten a lot from eMusic that in no way I would EVER be able to get for free -- more fringe stuff (in any genre) is less likely to be found, especially since so much of it is older OOP stuff from other countries. I doubt I'm the only one either.

DJAdequate Jun 3 at 1:04 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JB713 These members would rather bitch and complain about how much eMu has "let them down". In reality, however, eMu has gone out of its way to expand and offer more content to loyal users. So says JB713, who has been a member since April 2009. Who has contributed no reviews, no ratings, and no lists to the community. Obviously a far more loyal customer than those of us who have been members for years and years. More loyal the people who provided, say, a list of the daily new releases, or classical music guides (just to point out two who are leaving.) Welcome to the new face of emusic.

sweeneybd Jun 3 at 1:12 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN "The Great Recession of 2009 is not the best time to be doing this. We own up to that. However, we - and our labels - simply cannot sustain some of the lowest cost plans that many of you currently have." See this is b.s. Because I have only been a customer since January 09 and my prices are shooting up. I have never been on a grandfathered plan. (yeah if you look it up it says I am a member since '06 but that is due to a free trial back in the day--I've only been a member for a few months.)

sweeneybd Jun 3 at 1:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJAdequate .

mommio Jun 3 at 1:24 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I have been an eMusic subscriber since December 2001 with no break. I learned of the change from the message board because I don't read 17 Dots and rarely visit my eMu home page. I have now read the revised TOS, 17 Dots CEO letter, new pricing structure, etc. I will be sticking around through my annual term, which ends on October 22nd. At this time, I cannot imagine that I will stick around after that. I wwould pay 68% less for a year's term, and I wwould lose 55 downloads in every 30 day period. Okay, so eMusic was losing money on me. Why do I have to learn that in this astounding way? How much more palatable it would have been to have been contacted by email, possibly with more gradual increases over time than to see such a huge increase in my cost. I have received no email regarding these changes from eMusic. I am not interested in the Sony additions. I have enjoyed eMusic because of the independent labels, artists that don't get played on mainstream radio, and classical music. I didn't know a lot about classical music, and it has been through comments and recommendations from Nereffid, SoNotASonata, Melodia, RonanM, and others that have been responsible for most of my classical downloads. I am not a track downloader. I download albums. The new pricing structure doesn't make this seem too attractive today. I now have lots and lots of music and don't really need more. It was the thrill of finding artists I would never have found otherwise that kept me here. I'm not angry. I'm just sad. Surprised at how sad I feel. By October, I will know whether or not it is worth my while to stick around, but I'm thinking I would rather spend my $172 on something else. Yes, I could go to a lower rate, but darned if I want to spend the search time for so few downloads.

Melodia Jun 3 at 1:21 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by mommio Really, classical is probably the best (maybe second best) genre that would be served by Sony being here, mainly because of the nature of classical music. But it not being here doesn't hurt much on the flip side... Just saying.

Nereffid Jun 3 at 1:23 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJAdequate To clarify DJAdequate's statement: I'm not leaving. I'm not affected yet because I'm in Europe. When I am affected, I'll stick around, but Nereffid's Guide will (for several reasons) be gone.

Smurlin Jun 3 at 1:28 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN No doubt this has been handled poorly by eMusic in regards to their older subscriber base. I will be re-evaluating in October when my annual is due to renew. In the meantime, my real fear is the poor handling wasn't a "mistake". I wonder if eMusic just isn't that concerned about us long-term annual subscribers? This move says to me that it's about positioning eMusic as a more mainstream service and so be it if there are casualties in the older subscriber base - they figure they can more than make up for that if they can transition to a more populist model which has all the major labels on board...really, hasn't this always been the issue with indie? At some point, in comes the driving force of popularity and money and it turns everything on its head.

JB713 Jun 3 at 2:05 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJAdequate DJAdequate, I may have have only joined the site recently and I may not contribute to the "community" of eMusic but atleast I realize and aptly celebrate what distinguishes the service from competitors and similar companies. How dare you smuggly label me the new face of eMusic. In no way do I claim to be a more loyal user than you or any other member of this community. To me, eMusic isn't a "popularity contest" or a race to see who can write the most reviews. The beauty of good independent music is the resulting diverse reaction amongst listeners. I do not care what you or anyone else thinks about the specific album or band and you shouldn't care what I think. Just because you have contributed more lists, ratings and reviews than me does not make you more significant user. Plus, here's an idea. Instead of wasting hours writing reviews and compiling lists, why don't you get off the couch and get another job to pay for the increased prices. It is a win-win situation. You can hold on to your subscription to eMu and we'll noi longer have to tolerate your sarcastic and worthless posts.

Porieux Jun 3 at 3:32 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JB713 LOL what a bunch of nonsense. Is this Wanderer's second account? Some people are their own worst enemy.

DJAdequate Jun 3 at 4:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Nereffid Sorry, Nereffid's, didn't mean to speak for you. Just trying to point-out that their are many long-time users who have added significantly to my enjoyment of the site; either through lists, or discussions or other features.

DJAdequate Jun 3 at 4:26 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JB713 JB713, I have always thought the community was a major part of what "distinguishes the service from competitors and similar companies." You, obviously, don't share that opinion. That what I meant when I said you were the new face of emusic. What is it, exactly, that you "realize and aptly celebrate"? It can't really be price, because call me cheap. It's not community. What, in your mind, am I missing?

JB713 Jun 3 at 5:05 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJAdequate DJAdequate, forgive me if my previous post was a bit too harsh. While the community of eMu does distinguish it from services like Itunes and Rhapsody, the process of dicovery is what personally attracts me. When I set out to explore new bands, genres and labels I do not want to scour through top 50 hitlists and be bombarded with updates on the new T-Pain album. The single greatest thing about eMusic is the commitment to authentic and undiscovered music. I think you can agree with me that the feeling of stumbling upon a "diamond in the rough" new band is undescribable. I think a lot of people are starting to overlook eMusic and its continual dedication to helping people discover this great music. While many of you may argue that this will dissapear with the inclusion of the Sony catalogs, I disagree. I believe eMusic will stick to its existing mission and not change much from how it is now. It will not become "Itunes Jr." and increased roylaties may also attract more and more great indie labels.

maxl Jun 3 at 5:25 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN You are changing the nature of your product (devaluing it in our eyes) by adding the useless Sony catalog at the same time as raising prices for those people who have put a high value on your product for years as it is. In addition, you'™re trying to shove it all down our throats as something that is Good for Everyone. I'm no marketing maven, but devaluing your product at the same time as raising your prices for it seems like the Road to Hell for your business model -” esp. when it involves getting into bed with the RIAA types. I'm sure they have your best interests at heart, though, so don't worry. Good luck to you and your employees; you had a good thing while it lasted. But this 5 yr. subscriber is outta here at the end of the month. Why pay more for a significantly less valuable site? I'™m sure you won't be sorry to see me go from a financial perspective, as my grandfathered plan was probably not sustainable to you. But you should have done something more to ease the pain (in addition to being honest about what you're up to). It will cost you way more to get new customers than it would have to retain your old, loyal fan base.

marimbapipe Jun 3 at 5:26 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Yes, Dishonest is the word. The price hike for those of us on the grandfathered plans that were told,"Your old plan will be guaranteed as long as you keep your account active and in good standing.", is quite extreme. I sent countless friends and students to emusic, and only a couple with the link so that I would get free tracks as well. I quit doing that out of respect for eMusic's commitment to low prices and independent labels. I just told people that they had to check it out because it was the best music site out there. Not anymore. I don't like being lied to. A small and reasonable raise in rates is expected over time. This is too sudden, done in a way that shows disrepect to your long-time members, and goes against what was once the good word of eMusic.

djc Jun 3 at 5:53 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN im disgusted by this.... you know what this looks like from the customer side.. a sell out... and this partnering with sony shows me that you obiously dont know your customers... the overwhelming consensus im seeing from these forum posts is that most of us dont have any interest in selections from SONY.. ( ok, the Clash is great but most of that catalogue is POP CRAP! ) we want independent labels at the rates you used to offer... not big bubble gum pop at a huge price increase.. this is the second price hike in recent years.. you are gonna lose alot of subscribers

IndieRockSnob Jun 3 at 6:09 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Tell me how increasing my per download prices from 19 cents to 41 cents (a 115% price increase) is going to give me added value to my subscription!?!? I can see a 10-20% increase but making me and others pay more than double is more than I can swallow.

alguien Jun 3 at 6:31 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN gimme a freakin' break. do you honestly expect us to believe that sony didn't have anything to do with this? do you really expect us to believe that sony wouldn't release its catalog without the price increase? emusic subscribers aren't stupid people and it's pretty evident to us that the price increase and the sony deal are walking hand in hand. my subscription will probably lapse come july 3-now that corporate greed has taken over emusic.

ModernGuise Jun 3 at 6:32 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey "The majority of folks saw very few to no changes in their plan. The plans that did see changes were the ones whose pricing was far below what we pay out. We just couldn't continue subsidizing those accounts. It's more math than anything else." So, instead of giving your loyal customers ANY kind of price break compared to a BRAND NEW account, you're saying piss off, we don't care that you've been premium customers for years and years and we've built our company off your back. Pay what the guy who walks in off the street is going to pay. That's just rude and what gets me the most. You should have offered at least SOMETHING besides a stupid 25 song booster pack. Paying more and getting less with no decent explanation, no reciprocation of my loyalty shown as a customer is why I left Netflix 5 years ago. Guess what, haven't gone back there, either.

Wesley Jun 3 at 6:40 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by alguien What we have is a new CEO trying to make his mark. He wanted to attract major labels and he knew that would never happen at the lower price point so we get the price increase. It was going to happen regardless if it was Sony or someone else as the first to sign. The announcement of Sony and the price increase together was a stab at justification.

alguien Jun 3 at 6:50 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley no shit! according to the article in the link below, danny stein is basically a corporate hack who brokered the deal with sony and is now the stand-in ceo for emusic. that's basically what happens when the big corporations mess with the little guys who are actually making a difference-they just fuck up everything. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/03/emusic/

ken-e Jun 3 at 6:53 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by ModernGuise I don't know that Netflix is exactly the company to bash here. If anything, the eMusic could take a few lessons from Netflix on how to operate. For example, the Netflix service was down for a few days a while back. No big deal, it just meant I had to wait an extra day or two for my latest arrival. But before there was even an opportunity for a subscriber outcry, they sent out emails owning up to the mistake, and (without prompting) refunded a portion of our monthly bill. Only the most hard-to-please customer would take issue with that. On the contrary, Netflix was praised for their handling of a difficult situation, and earned many people's trust. I also recall that they automatically dropped my bill around 5 bucks a month when Blockbuster Online popped up, and they recently refunded customers who had trouble with the (free) streaming service. Granted, I know they jacked up prices for Blu Ray customers recently (I don't have a Blu Ray player, so I can't really speak to that). But seeing has how a typical Blu Ray disc is a good 10-20 bucks more than its standard DVD counterpart, I can at least see the logic (Think about it as mp3 vs FLAC. You'd pay more for FLAC, wouldn't you?). Unlike Netflix, however, eMusic is just sort of forcing some pretty drastic price increases on us, seemingly for some catalog that nobody appears at all excited about (in some cases, people are downright hostile, and with good reason. After all, you can get most of these Sony CDs for 5 or 6 bucks easily). It would be as if Netflix doubled everyone's bill, regardless of whether you want Blu Ray or not. But to your other point, rewarding customer loyalty is what keeps customers, well, loyal. As I pointed out in other posts, eMusic is no longer a bargain. I'll find it hard to justify their current pricing scheme.

IG88 Jun 3 at 9:50 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Just grandfather me in on my old plan and block me from Sony content...or charge me two downloads for "premium" content. I don't care. The thing I love best about emusic is exploring and checking out stuff I never would even think about buying at my local music store. It's all about buying in bulk, and I buy in bulk...classical, jazz, experimental electronic music. Stripping away something that your most loyal and longtime customers really enjoy is not the way to run a business.

KatwomanProgger Jun 3 at 10:05 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by ken-e Lets not forget Napster just started a $5 a month streaming plan that includes unlimited listening streaming on your PC and includes 5 free downloads a month. napster.com 7 million songs I have been listening to all the albums I before I buy them on Emusic on Rhapsody Unlimited. My Emusic money will now go to Rhapsody to Go where I can download unlimited songs to my MP3 player for $15 a month. http://learn.rhapsody.com/plans?src=rcom_navtop Why pay eMusic Plus 35 (every 30 days) $15.89? When I can get unlimited for $15? Yes I used to like that Emusic lets you keep the downloads but I like to constantly discover and buy new music. So Emusic has changed the game and made Rhapsody my logical choice. They have a much wider selection than Emusic will ever have!

dougm Jun 3 at 10:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by IG88 ditto, i want that plan

discokvn Jun 3 at 10:40 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Dear Cathy, i almost feel like Mr. Stein and Yancy threw you to the dogs... sorry for that if that is what happened... i don't think anyone believes that you won't do a good job and trying to integrate sony -- the real complaint is that most of us have seen our download allotment drop by more than 50%... and it has happened to those of us who have been here for years, i think i began in 2001/2, that's a lot of years with you guys and the feeling is that the cutting/reducing/price raising dance you did and IN THE MANNER THAT Y'ALL DID, we feel betrayed... we try to be loyal by subscribing in the best way we can for the most music we can (for me that's yearly) and the price increase/download decrease seems like a huge jump from what we are/were use to... personally, seeing my subscription drop from 90 to 35 after my subscription runs out will be a musical shock to my system... don't really care that it costs me $20 less, heck, my wife agreed to let me sign up for a new subscription even though i've not had full time work for almost a year (that's how big a music maniac i am)... those are my two cents... hope you will respond... don't know if things can change or if the contracts are already written so that there can be no change... that would be sad... peace, discokvn

KellyRamsey Jun 3 at 11:01 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by IG88 I have no interest in the Sony back catalog. None. I don't buy popular music. I've been an eMusic subscriber only so that I can explore and download obscure, small-label music by the album. This change would double the price I pay per MP3 and give me no benefit in return. Amie Street is starting to look like a better deal. For existing subscribers, treat the Sony content like the audiobook plans: an option for those who want to pay extra for it.

68stationwagon Jun 3 at 11:12 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN y'er right. i'm still going.

gerrrgity Jun 3 at 11:43 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Honestly, I don't like the way it was sprung upon us at one time. Suddenly the price levels have changed just as the number of downloads have changed, so if you wanted to change your subscription, you suffer. It's true that it would be nice to have a wider range BUT the beauty of eMusic was the huge amount of lesser known labels and non-traditional and obscure artists. This is a one-two punch right to the gut, and once my current downloads are exhausted - and unless eMusic changes their tune (pun intended) - I'm leaving. Good bye eMusic.

discokvn Jun 4 at 12:04 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey i responded to cathy without seeing yancy's post... in response: Regarding the grandfathering plans, it definitely sucks to see your downloads cut. But this isn't out of a lack of loyalty: this is because those plans, which we have grandfathered for a few years, would now be priced at a loss. We changed what some of you spend per-track so that it was equal to what everyone else spends. Whether Sony happened or not, this was an eventuality. An eventuality that stinks, yes, but one all the same. 1. Basically this means that being "grandfathered" has no meaning whatsoever... 2. The other thing is that when eMusic offered us those yearly plans and told us that we would be grandfathered in, they should have counted the long term cost... i understand that costs go up, and that you may need to charge us more or cut our downloads, etc... but a. you should have thought of that before you offered to grandfather us in. b. it is in the making us "equal with what everyone else spends" that the betrayal come. you might respond that doesn't everybody pay the same amount at a record store? well no they don't -- i used to hang at this used record store and they'd cut me a discount because of the amount i purchased... my cousin has known another dude at this other store and they cut him a discount too... we've been here a long time, and this "feels" like our store and we make our loyal patronage here, we try to add our comments on the message board, rate albums, make lists (okay i don't do the last two but i do post), all of which we think adds to the value to the place and the fact that we've been here a long time we think counts for something, our cyber music hangout -- and it feels like you just told us to go home because it doesn't... which also kinda sucks...

Steve57 Jun 4 at 12:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Bye

BonsaiSamurai Jun 4 at 7:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Steve57 Okay, so I've been away from eMusic for a couple of months, so please put me in my place if I'm being a total arsehat. I've come back this evening to find myself having to pay more (for now, I can handle that) and hearing that some older Sony stuff will soon be available. I don't mind having some of the Sony catalogue here, I just hope that if I have to pay more because of it that it's available in Australia.

PocketMumble Jun 4 at 8:05 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by BonsaiSamurai I don't mind having some of the Sony catalogue here, I just hope that if I have to pay more because of it that it's available in Australia. Based on this reply from customer service to someone else's question, users in Australia won't be able to get Sony:- "Current subscribers living outside the US, EU and Canada will continue to have access to eMusic, they are effectively grandfathered into the service, and will continue to be charged US plan prices with track availability subject to licensing terms for the territory of residence, just as they are today. However we will no longer accept new customers from these areas in the near future, so current customers should bear this in mind. The Sony catalog will not be available to eMusic subscribers with US service but who are living outside the US. "

jahula Jun 4 at 11:21 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN No.No.No.No.No.No.No. and No. Cathy, how does it benefit me to pay twice as much for a single download? Does it benefit the artists I enjoy discovering because I historically have had the ability to make carefree purchasing decisions? Drop my downloads by half and there go many artists' exposure and opportunity to be discovered. I'm sorry but I just don't buy your explanation, seems like it's been shoehorned to accomodate greed and deceit. I'm seriously thinking of cancelling my subscription. How's that for a customer response? I can't be alone either. But the question is: are you guys going to listen and rethink, or just bulldoze this pricing policy through? Gosh, what a case study in how to alienate your loyal customer base. Congratulations!

RudeCastro Jun 4 at 11:41 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by PocketMumble I've been around since 2006 and enjoying 20 dollars for 90 downloads. I for one, agree with the idea of true indie lovers and loyal longer standing customers a better deal. Because i also have no interest in Sony. I came here to expand my indie taste and i have. On top of that, i've spend more money on music because of the wonder of emusic. Something has to be done about the loyals. We deserve better than this. Give us a price per track at about 30-35- at least!!!

frogkopf Jun 4 at 11:44 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by PocketMumble Current subscribers living outside the US, EU and Canada will continue to have access to eMusic, they are effectively grandfathered into the service Grandfathered - this means we reserve the right to change this on you as soon as the furor on the message boards dies down....

riotcoming Jun 4 at 11:44 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Wow! eMusic really screwed this one up. I can't believe I'll have to walk away after all this time... eMusic, please give me a reason to stay...

riotcoming Jun 4 at 11:45 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by frogkopf Yea, I was "grandfathered" into the new subscriptions plans about a year ago... and now you see what happens...

FilmFan Jun 4 at 1:47 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Half the downloads without any real benefit to the consumer? No other option to download than a monthly subscription? For SONY? Really?! Sony sucks. And not even current Sony--its back catalog Sony that's two or more years retired: i.e. oldies that can be had at any second hand store for about $1, maybe $3. If you're going to jack up the prices, there needs to be some benefit to me. So far I'm not sold and will most likely walk and not look back.

68stationwagon Jun 4 at 2:45 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by FilmFan hey filmfan - nice to meet you. i agree with you, but what choice do we have but to roll over and become mainstream, spoon-fed, sony price accepting gerbils? i'm going to beat yancey and that fine editorial staff to the punch by just slipping in a slice of rolling stone's review of springsteen's "the river" - cuz, by golly, this is what the digital music experience is all about (!!!) and he's off vacationing...and i should be gone by the time he gets back. "Since The River is the culmination of a trilogy that began in high gear with Born to Run (1975) before shifting down for Darkness on the Edge of Town (1978), you might expect it to stand and deliver weighty conclusions, words to live by. Well, they're there, if you want or need them, and they're filled with an uncommon common sense and intelligence that could only have come from an exceptionally warmhearted but wary graduate of the street of hard knocks. Here's one example: "Now you can't break the ties that bind/You can't forsake the ties that bind." Or: "Two hearts are better than one/Two hearts girl get the job done." Or: "Everybody needs a place to rest/Everybody wants to have a home ... /Ain't nobody like to be alone." Quoted out of context, without the evocative musical accompaniment of the E Street Band and Springsteen's unsparingly emotional singing, these lines seem incredibly simple yet sturdy. Not very cosmic but they'll do. I suppose, if you feel the necessity to nail some sort of slogan to the wall. Then you can sit back and stare at it and miss the whole point -- not to mention the scope -- of the album." now, you may be like me and think "the river" is full of silly-rhyme adolescent dribble with god-awful vocals and hollowed tin panning as backdrop. but who can deny that its got bruce's name on it??? + that, jack, sells. way more than any of those indie artists that yancey will fight zero cost battles to a point of boiled blood. if that won't sell it then we can always slap hello kitty on it as a last resort. so really - why not stick around and see what clever contexting yancey + staff put on jall + oates? cathy's gone so i'm hijacking her pc. 68

geowil11 Jun 4 at 3:07 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey really i guess i sort of understand why Em is doing this (Em is just another money sucking company after all), but that said, I thought you had a higher level power ability to be in touch with what your community was thinking. This proves me wrong, you were just guessing the entire time and got lucky. I am one of the musicholics that haunt Emusic, I download 200 songs a month and have done so for a good year and a half. Right now mu SFL list has 76 albums in it, at the rate I was going I was able to get at most 20 albums downloaded a month. But now your cutting that down to half and charging me 35 to 45% more per track? bullshit. I will end up paying more then twice as much as before because now instead of it taking me 4 months to finish off that list, it will take me 8 months. i feel like you A**raped your community, you can deny that the sony buyout was or was not the reason this happened, but almost everyone with a brain that's not a sheep is going to think that it is. I know it was a deciding factor, Sony wants money, but your current prices did not bring them in enough revenue. So you raised the prices across the board. As for it only effect a small %age of members.... it effects EVERYONE. You get 50 downloads for $25 bucks now, that's how much 100 was before, everything is almost 50% more expensive with your new pricing. your not competing with anyone anymore. You cant raise your rates and say it is because your trying to be competitive. Thats a double standard and is only useful in making more money. REAL competitive rates are only associated with prices drops. but in all honesty, anyone that sticks through with these changes deserves to get screwed out of their money. /rant over but yeah, once I finish off my downloads list (i will peobably go buy those 100 dl cards for 10 bucks or lowest i can find them on the net) im out of here. Im not going to get sucked into paying twice as much for half as much, thats just asinine.

reuszer Jun 4 at 4:39 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I have to echo what others are saying. For me, eMusic was about finding new artists that I would not have found otherwise. I was able to take chances on artists and albums that I would have initially passed up if I was paying CD or itunes prices. Almost doubling this cost makes taking chances on newer and lesser known artists much more costly...especially if there is a chance the album turns out to be a dud (it's happened before...and I still felt the sting of losing downloads on a mediocre album then!) While I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing for eMusic, it isn't ideal for my situation. A lot of us music junkies have kids, mortgages, etc...and we have to spend our money wisely...eMusic allowed me to do this...I could spend less than $10/month for about 3 albums worth of songs...The current pricing brings this down to one album for about $6.49. Thankfully, my current annual plan is still valid until late October. As it stands now, I will most likely cancel my subscription in October and bargain hunt for albums on Amazon.com, Lala.com, and at retail stores (used and new CD's can be had for about the same price ($6-$7) many times...and I get the disc, liner, etc.). I'm more bummed than angry...It is just going to make it that much harder for me to find good new music in the future...

Bloozeandbeach Jun 4 at 6:08 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by reuszer Bummed AND angry sums it up for me. First off, I either already have or care nothing, zip, nada, bubkes, about most of the Sony material. More to the point, I seriously resent my 50 downloads being arbitrarily slashed to 30. Yeah, I know it's legal. That doesn't make it right OR good business. Like reuszer, I've discovered a ton of stuff here, especially world music, that I wouldn't have tried at Itunes or Napster prices. I also used eMusic to reacquire some classic blues and jazz that I used to own on vinyl and never replaced with CDs. It was fun, but right now I'm thinking there's something better out there. See ya.

DJRon Jun 4 at 6:18 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN There couldn't possibly be a more lame response to your customers than is this. Good grief.

DJRon Jun 4 at 6:25 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey - "The new pricing benefits everyone." Not true. When you lose your base subscribers the indie artists are going to lose big time and then they are going to be knocking your door down demanding an explanation, which can only be that emusic sold out to a major label. It's obvious you good folks at emusic are in complete denial about what you've done. When you finally come around it might very well be too late.

geowil11 Jun 4 at 6:31 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJRon i will be VERY surprised if Emusic lasts another 3 years after this july. theres just so much anger in their user base now that i dont think they will recover, not even if they bring Elvis back from the dead to make exclusive albums for them. essentially this was not a response, more like an ultimatum, saying: You know, we had a good time, but we dont have any money now. We know you dont have any money either but we're going to kick all the grandmas and grandpas to the cold curb and lower your allowance and raise your rents so we can get money. they can panter on about loyalties all they want but I dont think they deserve any loyalty anymore, not unless they tell Sony to shove it and return things to the way they were.

DJRon Jun 4 at 6:32 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Bluesboy All of this really sticks in my craw and thoughts keep coming to me as I read more of the posts in this thread. Roger McGuinn personally told me he never has made a dime off of any record sales with Columbia (Sony) which is the case for many artists. Congrats emusic, you are now part of the problem with the music biz, not the solution, anymore.

marimbapipe Jun 4 at 7:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Just got a form letter response from "Harold" at emusic. It didn't even address my question about emusic not keeping their word on grandfathered plans directly. It just says they can't afford it. So, I've decided that I can't afford it either. I will cancel my subscription. There is no incentive to stay. If I need something that I can't find somewhere else for a similar price, I can always rejoin for a month. I maintained my subscription for a long time BECAUSE it allowed me to keep the "grandfathered" price. I'll also be canceling my audiobook subscription as well. It's just business. I understand that, but this transition seems poorly executed.

Memphis Jun 4 at 7:49 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN As I understand it, my per-song price will more than double and my downloads-per-month will plummet. In return, I will now have access to Springsteen and Clash albums that I ALREADY OWN. Screw Sony. Bring back Anti, if you expect me to pay more.

baddj Jun 4 at 9:06 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Clearly a huge number of dedicated independent music fans are going to leave eMusic once their subscriptions end. There's probably going to be a large influx of new business as well though. The new customers, however, are going to be looking only for old releases from radio friendly commercial bands. It won't be long until most of the great independent labels eMusic has worked with will pull their catalogs, and eMusic will become another mainstream music download website that won't be profitable. What I want to know is this: who's going to start up the new independent music site and continue eMusic's forgotten mission?

DanielEsq Jun 4 at 9:27 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by baddj What I want to know is this: who's going to start up the new independent music site and continue eMusic's forgotten mission? If eMusic is right -- i.e., that good independent labels won't participate in programs with payouts as low as they were under eMusic's old pricing system -- and if the implicit theory of many of the critics on these boards is right -- i.e., that most independent-music lovers won't participate in programs with pricing systems above eMusic's old model -- than I think the answer to your question is, "No one." And that would be a shame.

Wanderer Jun 4 at 9:34 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DanielEsq "If eMusic is right -- i.e., that good independent labels won't participate in programs with payouts as low as they were under eMusic's old pricing system -- and if the implicit theory of many of the critics on these boards is right -- i.e., that most independent-music lovers won't participate in programs with pricing systems above eMusic's old model -- than I think the answer to your question is, "No one." And that would be a shame." Worth repeating. Nice job! Oh, I guess there is Amie St. (a worthwhile site to check into if you haven't already) but that is only cheaper than E Music if the album hasn't become popular.

jonahpwll Jun 4 at 9:43 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Okay, so originally the way the plan changes were announced was that, hey, Sony is here, we're gonna have to increase our prices. That got, obviously, some negative feedback. Now here's your response that, no, it's not Sony, it's the recession. At first glance, it sounded like backpedaling. And if Sony has nothing to do with this, then why does the emusic home page, right after I log in, give me this message... "Important: In July, we'll be rolling out a major expansion to our music catalog. Please read the announcement for details on how this change affects your account." ...after which, the link tells me I'm getting less downloads than before. How can you have that message on the main page and tell me it's not related to Sony?

tjlandcad Jun 4 at 10:06 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Just occured to me. Many of you have claimed that you never received notification of your billing change. I believe in most states, this is REQUIRED by law. Very good case for a legal battle.

BroWren Jun 4 at 10:11 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN WHAT. The. FUCK. So I come back here today, not four days after finding out about yet another awesome indie band elsewhere, coming here, and saving them for later because I was out of downloads, and I find THIS? My prices have been raised, my subscription obsolete, so that you can parade out Sony's old, tired back catalog as some kind of benefit?? If I wanted to listen to Billy Joel I'd go dig him out of the Wal-Mart clearance bin for a fiver. Which I suppose is not incidentally, almost exactly how much you're expecting to charge me for an album now! If you'd framed it such that I knew for a fact that the price increase was to benefit the independent artists - you know, that digital underground that you guys used to be so proud to be a part of - then I wouldn't have been pissed off about this. They deserve way more than they get. But now, I want some proof. You show us the actual text of any and all contracts between you and Sony, and show how the new payment plan pays off for them, and if they're being given the same deal as the indies, then I'll stick around. Otherwise, you can kiss my premium annual subscription goodbye.

amclark2 Jun 8 at 10:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tjlandcad so please. ).

amclark2 Jun 8 at 10:43 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tjlandcad pizza.

amclark2 Jun 8 at 10:45 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN seriously? i'm not.

K9disc Jun 5 at 12:49 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Jeez, step away for a couple of days and come back to this crap. What the hell, I don't want Sony's back catalog. And so much for being grandfathered in, downloads cut by 2/3 and price jacked over 100%. I don't think so eMusic. What a nice way to treat your long time customers. -K9

jahula Jun 5 at 1:20 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I'm not in the US, Europe or Australia. I don't care about Sony's back catalogue. If I now have to pay the same for half the downloads. you can kiss this customer goodbye. Fuck you very much.

jamieshanks Jun 5 at 1:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jahula I'm not in the US, Europe or Australia. We don't get Sony in Australia, just the price rises. Just in the interest of good international relations :)

EMUSIC-00B2A124 Jun 5 at 2:17 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Hi, Cathy - I'm deeply saddened by this decision from eMusic and if it does actually get approved, I will sadly be making the decision to cancel my account. If I could make a suggestion, it would be that you offer a tiered pricing system that allows people to keep their current account plans, but that perhaps requires each song from labels such as Sony (which I personally couldn't care less about) to require 1.5 or 2 downloads per song. I've seen this model work well on other websites with similar content and I personally think it's a quite elegant. Thank you for your time, and I personally hope that eMusic will reconsider this quite unfortunate situation it has placed both itself as well as it's customers in. Thanks, Kyle

daud Jun 5 at 2:32 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I still can't believe this fiasco. Greed for new customers just killed Emusic. Emusic was about discovery which required cheap prices. Whoever stays or becomes a new customer will be much more conservative in trying out something new. How sad to leave this place for other services such as Lala. I hope one day Emusic will rise from the ashes.

cmonkey Jun 5 at 2:57 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN "Effective Jul 6, 2009, your plan will change to the new eMusic Premium plan which gives you 50 downloads for $19.99 every 30 days. " I'm grandfathered in on an account which I was automatically downgraded to in 2003 after the unlimited account I once had was removed. I remember being promised, guaranteed, even, that this new, capped account would never change so long as I kept paying the bills. And that was fine - unlimited downloads, even with the unspoken cap of 3000 downloads per month (IIRC, maybe that was mostly just rumors) was clearly not a viable model. But now you've broken that promise and halved my downloads, all so people can get terrible music (Destiny's Child is a *highlight*?! Seriously?) they can easily anywhere else, and the best you offer is a 25 song booster pack to make up for it? That hurts. I've kept up my subscription through subscription and ownership changes at eMusic, but now I look forward to finding a new service. One that, hopefully, will treat their customers better and, more importantly, stop contributing to the problems of the music industry that labels like Sony exemplify.

kshear Jun 5 at 3:51 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I see that you've told reporters you haven't lost many customers yet. Well, looks like I have one more month at my old rate, according to what I see on the web page (price change effective July 27). Then, for one month, you say you're giving me some free extra downloads that keep the price reasonable. So, it's August when you'll see people like me disappearing. Aah, Emusic was the one download-oriented place with good prices. Now I'll just go with a much less expensive subscription service, because, you've priced yourself out of my range. The one hope for me staying on a couple of more months would be your album pricing. There are a few albums with large numbers of tracks I've refrained from downloading because of cost. If you had an album rate that translated into say, $4 per album or so, I might hang around to download some of these. But so far I can't see what your pricing for albums is going to be. And, with you partnering up with the likes of Sony, I'm not actually hopeful I'll see prices that I'm prepared to pay. (What's next, the emusic rootkit?) As most of your current customers, I have just about zero interest in the Sony catalog. You guys must think Sony is really an attractive bet. Or maybe, your financial models require you to increase your margins dramatically -- those financiers with their rapier sharp spreadsheets have ruined many a promising business. Best wishes in finding some new subscribers to replace those of us who leave.

BonsaiSamurai Jun 5 at 4:06 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by PocketMumble Well, I might still stick around. On eMusic, I can get about 3 albums for just under $20 Australian. If I were to buy those albums in a shop, I'd be paying a total of more than $60. I'm sure a lot of Australians use eMusic because it is a relatively cheap way of discovering new music. It sucks big time that they are excluding new customers outside of the US, EU and Canada. That's a lot of people to keep out, but I guess they're hoping to pull in a lot more customers with the Sony catalogue. I'll stay for now, I can live with the price rise as eMusic is still the cheapest source of music for me here in Australia. It stinks even more that new customers outside of those 3 locations are going to be missing out on what eMusic has to offer. I've always seen eMusic as a place to discover new music - and that's how I've always thought they see themselves. Their new direction is just going to exclude people from a tonne of music they are yet to discover, all for the sake of music they already own or could buy for less than $10. Boo-urns.

probnz Jun 5 at 5:01 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I feel like I have been screwed over by a friend. I can't bring myself to log back in again.

ajg Jun 5 at 8:42 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Greetings Cathy, Yancey and Emu users, As a fan of eMusic, I am frustrated by the over-the-top response by some users. I am not a wealthy guy; I have a couple of kids and little free cash after bills to spend on music. Emu is a luxury for me and I think very carefully whether the service is worth it every month around renewal time. I have been with emu since 2006 and I am losing my grandfathered plan which stinks. The question for me to ponder it whether the increased catalog is going to make the loss of downloads worth it. We shall see. I would guess that most of my downloads will still be independent label type music. And I mourn the loss of experimental fun that I have felt when spending my downloads in the past - 25 cent tracks are easy to experiment with, more expensive tracks, less so. I hope that since Sony has come over, that other majors will quickly consider doing the same. I would love to see the indie labels controlled by Warner (Ryko (which I miss terribly), Rhino, Sub-Pop, and many more). Also, I think album pricing is a very positive thing - I hope that it will apply to all artists across emu. There are many albums I haven't picked up on emu because the number of tracks was too large. In the end, I will do what I have been doing, reconsider month-to-month. I hope that the available music will continue to make it a worthwhile expense.

Bagpuss Jun 5 at 9:48 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by ajg Hi Cathy, Thank you for the posting and I feel sympathy that you are going to be the one reading these replies. However, I like many subscribers cannot understand how emusic can continue to handle communication with their customers so badly. The switch from the all-you-can-eat to the 40 downloads per month was handled better than the subsequent switch to 30 downloads which was rather poorly communicated in my view as a 'minor blip'. This time the majority of subscribers find out from the news websites a number of days before emusic feel it necessary to communicate directly. As a public listed company, you would be ruined if you treated your shareholders with such disdain. Treating paying customers may not be as immediately life threatening but if the attitude to customers does not improve I fail to see why people would continue to commit to a subscription with a company that has such little respect for its supporters.

jahula Jun 5 at 11:04 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jamieshanks Thanks, mate. Good to be corrected. If only, Emusic were as willing to listen...

color-blind Jun 5 at 11:08 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I second the idea of offering a premium tier for the Sony catalog. However, I have no hope this will happen. eMusic will probably continue to not respond to this mind-blowingly bad publicity, July will come around and then either enough members will leave to doom the company or they won't and eMusic will be simply another boring place to buy music online. I'm bummed any way you look at it. eMusic has made a huge mistake. No matter what the outcome, the company I championed and supported is gone.

jahula Jun 5 at 11:08 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I have a 100 download a month plan at the moment, and am located in the Far East. What is going to happen to my plan come July? Will someone please tell me who knows? emusic customer service seems to be hiding their head in the sand, since they haven't replied to my request for said info'. C'mon, guys screwing us by getting in bed with Sony and then giving crap Customer Service is not going to win you any friends. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeasssseeee someone.

jamartinjr Jun 5 at 11:15 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I apologize if someone has touched on this before; and maybe I'm reading a little too much into Cathy's original comment (in the complete absence of further comment from eMu), but does anyone else see a swipe at those of us who are understandably angry and considering canceling in the phrase "We have a lot to offer real music fans" Is Kathy saying that those who quit out of economics, frustration, or both are somehow not "real music fans"

Wesley Jun 5 at 11:42 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by color-blind I think having a premium on the Sony catalog is a bad idea because that says the majors' music is worth more than the independent music we love and it is not. I'm sure there's Sony music I'd love to have but it isn't worth more to me just because it has the Sony name. I've said this already but my complaint is the amount of the increase compared to what I get. It's the value for the money.

RockinDaddio Jun 5 at 12:02 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN My guess is that you and the record labels do quite well. The actual musicians, not so much. How does a price raise benefit artists who heyday was 50 years ago? They are dead or in the old folks home. Do the musicians who made the music actually benefit from downloads of any price. I would think not, but prove me wrong.

jjordan370 Jun 5 at 12:03 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Now if EMusic could only figure out how to do monthly billing instead of every 30 days. I get really annoyed that my downloads expire on a different day each month. How about allowing unused downloads to accrue? After all we have paid for them Frankly, despite Ms. Halgas Nevins contention, I don't think Emusic cares about all of the complaining of the longtime subscribers. Their POV is probably that for every original user who leaves they will pick up 3 new users who are not really interested in the type of music that EMusic built its original reputation on. Emusic is interested in the fans of American Idol and listeners to Clear Channel radio stations.

color-blind Jun 5 at 1:33 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wesley I agree with that notion, in theory, but if we look at majors vs. independents, it often breaks down into two difference pricing structures. Since eMusic, right or wrong, appears to be raising the prices in order to accommodate Sony's larger overhead, it would be great for me personally if that price increase could be separated out. But honestly, I'm just searching for a solution to the perceived reality: adding Sony is raising the prices. Okay, yeah, a premium tier is an unfeasible and kinda silly idea, but it might make me feel better about sticking with eMusic. Is Sony worth more? No. Does it cost more to maintain and promote an artist on Sony vs. an indie? Oh yeah. This seems to me to be the root of eMusic's recent decisions (That being said, imagine a world where eMusic issued a press release changing the price structures, then a month later added Sony. I probably wouldn't be on this board right now).

chrnoble Jun 5 at 1:48 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I'm mixed. I'm pretty new, so I'm not "grandfathered" on anything. But I am seeing a change- I'm going from 50 downloads at 14.99 a month to 37 at 14.99. If I were joining now, I would be at 35 downloads for 15.89. There's a bit of an advantage, there, but not much. I made a bit of a snarky comment on 17 dots about the "grandfathered" folks getting upset... but I kind of regret that. I can see their point, and I'd probably feel the same way. But it is a bit disingenuous to say that most aren't going to see a difference- I'm relatively new, and I don't have a plan that allows a massive amount of downloads- but I'm still going from .30 per d/l to .40 per d/l. That's a difference, and I can't believe I'm in the minority. Expanding the catalog is a good thing, in general, but I'm not sure doing so through Sony is the way to go. As many have pointed out, a lot of what they put out is readily and cheaply available elsewhere. Emusic is, for me, about what isn't available elsewhere. That's the focus. That's actually the *point*. I'm far more disappointed at not finding "Who Killed Amanda Palmer" than "London Calling". A more aggressive pursuit of smaller labels- even with a price point increase- would have gone down a lot smoother. (As a side note- I understand that the "Highlights" are promotional- but how many Emusic members creamed their jeans at the mention of Kelly Clarkson? This may be just me transforming mountains from molehills, but I sense a deep lack of understanding of your customers from this.) Times are tough, and, as I said on the 17 dots comment, I understand that this is not a charity, nor is it an anarcho-syndacalist collective. This is a business, and a business needs to make a profit to stay afloat. There may be many reasons to increase the prices across the board. Sony is undeniably one of those reasons, and I think that sticks in my craw- and in many other's. That said, an upfront and honest adult-to-adult discussion would have helped matters tremendously. This did not happen. That's a shame, and I have to say that the flack you're getting here (amazingly well-reasoned flack, for the internet- another reason "adult-to-adult" would have helped) is deserved, and should have been expected. I will stick. There is still an advantage to Emusic over other services that makes it a value, at least for me. I want to see how this plays out; I imagine there's more to Sony's back catalog than Billy Joel. There is also the matter of personal loyalty. Brand-spanking new to Emusic, I wanted to refresh my downloads early, and I emailed you guys to see if I could. I got back a personal email, apologizing that I couldn't, an explanation of how to get a bonus pack, and 10 free downloads for my trouble. A little goes far, and I appreciated that. So: I'll stick around and I'll see. But, with all the interwubs friendship in the world, I gotta say: you kind of fucked up, here. You have earned at least some of the ire you are getting. And, were I you, I'd get a lot more detailed, a lot more up-front, a lot sooner than after somebody's two week vacation.

TheLogLady Jun 5 at 2:02 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by chrnoble I'm far more disappointed at not finding "Who Killed Amanda Palmer" than "London Calling". Yes. This.

singe-volant Jun 6 at 2:40 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Unfortunately, I see it as the end... I suspect that Emusic will reduce the number of downloads even more when it finally cath Universal or BMG. Suddenly, the independant music position from Emusic sounds more like marketing, than an company value. Maybe i'm just naive. I like other subscribers proposition: Emusic should provide options: the independant plan (cheaper) and the major company plan. At this point, i'm asking to Emusic to be creative, if they want to keep a 6 years old customer.

eddiel Jun 6 at 8:47 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I only just found about this today - bit slow I guess. I'm in the UK and so far no news how this affects our prices. I can sympathise with eMusic and I suspect this was done out of pure survival. However, if the price increases do affect my current UK plan I can see myself leaving. Not a threat really but a reality. I'll leave the mp3s to other people. I buy mainly cd and lps so 40 mp3 per month for my current plan seemed like a nice deal. If the price goes up then its not really worth it anymore. Emusic is not without its problems e.g. those rubbish compilations that have re-recorded version of hits, low bit rate... If emusic worked to address some of the other issues I might consider staying. Eddie

Serra Jun 6 at 9:46 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN What seems like a change is price is really a change in positioning, regardless if they acknowledge this or not. Emusic was well positioned for experimentation, music lover, risk taking when buying tracks. Now it 'wants to be' like the others an may die from this identity crisis. Worst, Emusic is stabbing its older and more loyal customer base on the back. Looks like they are not getting enough new customers, so they have to hurt the customer base which has brought them where they are. Though I like the concept of the site, I find its has practiced some unethical policies. It was like this with trial, where they tricked people with their credit cards only to find out later they were still being charged. I had another recent experience where they wrote clearly they would not charge me for a request, then they charged me. I have it all written and documented. Now this. Not surprisingly, I see a lot of other people question Emusic's methods.

otakuj462 Jun 6 at 10:21 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jls I, too, would like to hear more on this. For my part, I find eMusic's decision to be rather alarming, given the promotional emails they sent out when they were introducing the new pricing plans in 2006. For example, eMusic sent this email on 11/20/06 (emphasis in the original): "Today is the last day to make changes to your eMusic account to lock in your downloads. Starting tomorrow, eMusic will offer new plan options to new and reactivating members. While the price of our eMusic Basic, Plus, and Premium subscription plans will remain the same, the number of downloads in each plan will change: If you are happy with your current plan, simply do nothing. Your old plan will be guaranteed as long as you keep your account active and in good standing. However, if you wish to upgrade to a plan at the current download levels, you must do so before November 21st, 2006. We recommend that you upgrade your account now to lock in at the lowest price per download available. After Nov 21st, if you want to upgrade, you'll no longer be able to upgrade into the older plans. All the more reason to upgrade now! For the serious music fan, we recommend that you take advantage of our annual subscription plans to get up to 25% off of our month-to-month prices. Lock in your plan today!" The email eMusic send on 10/31/06 was also quite similar: "On November 21st, 2006, eMusic will begin offering new plan options to new members. While the price of our eMusic Basic, Plus, and Premium subscription plans will remain the same, the number of downloads in each plan will change: If you are happy with your current plan, simply do nothing. Your old plan will be guaranteed as long as you keep your account active and in good standing. However, if you wish to upgrade to a plan at the current download levels, you must do so before November 21st, 2006. We recommend that you upgrade your account now to lock in at the lowest price per download available. After Nov 21st, if you want to upgrade, you'll no longer be able to upgrade into the older plans. All the more reason to upgrade now! For the serious music fan, we recommend that you take advantage of our annual subscription plans to get up to 25% off of our month-to-month prices. Lock in your plan today!" These emails stressed the value of upgrading one's account in order to "lock in" a better rate, on the condition that that rate would not change. I chose not to upgrade my account, being happy with the eMusic Basic plan, but nevertheless, to turn around and reverse the guarantee that was made in 2006 after only a month's notice seems at best disingenuous, and at worst eMusic seems guilty of false advertising. These emails make it clear that "Your old plan will be guaranteed as long as you keep your account active and in good standing." I would love it if eMusic could respond to these concerns. Jake

abeer Jun 6 at 10:56 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Your logic on your plans makes no sense. If we go along with the price increase was going to happen anyway, why would you add SONY and then devise plans that limit the number of downloads per month. I have an annual plan with 75 downloads per month. I wish I could commit to an annual plan with 100 - 200 downloads per month. But you want to FRAG subscribers everyway to Sunday. Add more music, jack up the subscription price and then limit monthly downloads. You could at least have the common sense to say, if you want to pay more, you can have plans with more downloads. Plus when there is a problem with a download, I had one going back to December, you acknowledge it and then do NOTHING. You don't fix it. You don't provide credits. Listen up and change your plans. Or maybe this is E-music's Iraq.

Alohamora Jun 6 at 11:04 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Yancey Yancey said "The majority of folks saw very few to no changes in their plan. The plans that did see changes were the ones whose pricing was far below what we pay out. We just couldn't continue subsidizing those accounts. It's more math than anything else." What! I'm new here, since January, on the $15 plan and I'm getting hit with a 33% increase per track (if I stay). I can't see a single plan with NO change (unless you mean yearly plans that don't change YET). 33% percent is not "very few" changes in my world.

ChevalBlanc Jun 6 at 3:48 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Frankly, I'm afraid patience isn't going to work in my case. And it's not because I'm ungrateful for what has been a great investment. Nor did I think my "irregular" account maintaining 65 downloads a month for 15 bucks would necessarily last...it was nice to be locked in to something that had gone by the wayside as a "reward" for my loyalty of now having been a subscriber for over 3 years, but the fact it can't keep up is probably ok. But you are now officially charging me MORE money to get 37 instead of 65 downloads a month. You've not only nearly halved by account, but have added to the cost. And while it may be denied, I feel this has to do with introducing music that can be got anywhere and, frankly, is not of any particular interest to the market you've created with a site that supposedly specialized in independent and hard to find music. Now, to continue to ignore Michael Jackson records, but to subsidize Sony & whatever small number of people come to this site for Sony records for what I imagine will be a brief stay, I get half the music for a higher price. Even if you were going to do this, your company--which I've, again, been a loyal subscriber & advocate for for 3-plus years--could not possibly have handled it worse. I think once the change comes in, I'm done. But good luck with the Sony experiment, although honestly, it makes me a little sad to see you blow up your business model for a chance at the "big time" that ain't never gonna happen for you. And the really sad thing is, with the customer base you've built up, you didn't need to do this, and ended up pushing away those people who are most interested in affordable "bulk" downloading and would've stayed with you for years.

EMUSIC-00B2A124 Jun 6 at 4:36 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Posted earlier in this thread. Keep re-reading the message on my account and seeing the supposed "benefit" of signing a label like Sony. eMusic fans are supposed to be excited about The Dixie Chicks? C'mon. Talk about out of touch with your customers. Well, anyway - I've been mulling it over. I had already been considering canceling my account with you guys as it's somewhat of a luxury, but have kept paying $20 a month every month for the past years because I was grandfathered into a deal I thought was pretty good. Now, there's no reason for me to keep holding on. Account will be canceled after my next and last refresh of 90 downloads.

KatwomanProgger Jun 6 at 5:23 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by otakuj462 Yea emusic you were Guaranteed people would keep resubscribing because we wanted to "keep your account active and in good standing." and you broke your own promise. Well watch your churn rate jump as people join, catch a few SONY dl and abandon ship. And what are your acquisition costs for each new customer?? Are you trying to attract those iTUNERS that buy on average 10 tracks average for each iPOD I read? There are just so many iPODS they sill make money at that track purchase rate. You can bet many more dl are stolen. We are the big spenders in the music world! You had Guaranteed subscribers that were paying $20 or more a month and you are throwing them away. Well for less than that a month at Rhapsody, Zune, and Napster we can download unlimited tunes to MP3 players!!!! I've been with Rhapsody and they have majors and indies, more tunes that you'll ever have even if you sell your soul to Sony. How are you gonna compete with that Emusic.???

ShinyShinyMagpie Jun 6 at 5:48 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Absolutely no interest in the "new" catalog and I am appalled that my plan will be reduced by nearly half the songs on one month's notice. Tenants get some leeway with landlords yet we get no recourse. After bringing many new members onboard I feel cheated. I didn't want just another iTunes. I wanted the latest and the best of indie music and older, hard to find music. What did I get? Two major plan changes that were not my choice in just over two years. I'm done. Hope you can live off the backs of your new subscribers alone.

amclark2 Jun 6 at 6:01 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Wow, 222. What A nice round number. it would be nice if no one else posted and this just stayed at 222 forever. oops...

GrizzlyAdams Jun 6 at 7:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Fuck you guys. I'm here for the indie not the shit on Sony. I might have gone along with this if you increased the price to get Sub Pop or some other labels that I actually care about. I don't want RIAA garbage.

thegreatcurve Jun 7 at 12:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I'd feel much better about the price bump if the Sony catalog was actually available outside the US. As it stands, eMusic is asking for their non-US customers to pay more and get less, which is aggravating, to put it mildly.

koo Jun 7 at 1:22 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by singe-volant Suddenly, the independant music position from Emusic sounds more like marketing, than an company value. That's certainly a worry of mine. One of my favorite things about eMusic is its focus on independent music, and I fear that may change with the addition of majors. After all, once the majors have their feet in the doors, who's to say that they won't start demanding that coverage of their artists take precedence?

jahula Jun 7 at 5:57 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by thegreatcurve I'd still not be happy about having my downloads slashed, but it would seem more equitable that everyone got screwed equally.

KinkyMcDoogleEsq Jun 7 at 9:06 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I must say, my problem with the new monthly pricing plan isn't so much that I'm now getting less for the same money, it's how eMusic has tied this "new" plan to it's deal with Sony. I agree with the sentiments expressed by so many others: if I wanted Sony's songs, I'd go buy them elsewhere. It's not a matter of access, plain and simple. Somehow, remarkably, this is news to the decision-makers at eMusic? Really? I've been a long and loyal customer of eMusic largely because they weren't part of the mainstream, and because I believe in supporting the often unsung, diverse artists you find here. Supporting them not just in spirit but financially as well. And until now, my subscription with eMusic has been a unique relationship, and a richly rewarding experience. But now? I don't know. What, really, has eMusic gained here, and at what cost? A larger catalogue? Not of new releases but two- and three-year-old songs from a major music label that has for years been perfectly content to support a distribution model that rips off both its customers and its artists? Music we could have all gotten on Amazon or iTunes? Music, frankly, most of us never missed? Michael Jackson? The Dixie Chicks? Please. Give us a break. So sure, I'll show a little patience, eMusic. In good faith and out of loyalty to all the great independent artists and record labels you've always showcased. But remember, loyalty is a two-way street. If, eventually, I feel I'm being thrown under the bus, I'll bolt. As will, I'm sure, a great many other longtime subscribers.

fernandoq Jun 7 at 10:50 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by KinkyMcDoogleEsq Goodbye eMusic. My monthly dues will go to Lala. Not a bad deal. Actually, of every 3 or 4 downloads exploring eMusic, one was a keeper.At $0.40 per song this means about $1.20 to $1.60 per keeper. Lala will let you listen to the full song for free before buying so no need to download the song for testing. At $0.89 per music selected not a bad deal.....

Wanderer Jun 7 at 11:04 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by fernandoq All of these options are worth testing. I might suggest Rhapsody or Napster though for streaming because I think their streaming only services (for whatever they have and whenever you want) are only a flat fee of around $5. I understand that La La charges 10 cents per song for unlimited listening rights and if someone wants unlimited and unrestricted listening, I'm not sure why they would want to pay for any particular song. If one only wants to listen to a relatively small set of songs repeatedly, La La would be cheaper but the dollar difference is very minor and I'd rather have the flexibility. But going there doesn't mean you have to leave here. People keep talking that way. E Music has very small commitment plans. If you find a song you want to purchase and E Music has the song, why pay 89 cents there if you could get the same song for less than 50 cents here?

68stationwagon Jun 7 at 1:07 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wanderer hi - she's not coming back. cathy, that is. wonder what they cut her back to? still the same, let's look thru the trash while we're here. let's see: here's a draft of "web site action items: 1. cap the save for later storage space to 12 - those absurd avid grandfather's are costing us too much in storage space - side note, send wanderer out there to make up some confusing cost of storage metrics culminating in "we're still cheaper" 2. re-do yancey's calendar. entirely cut out "emusic selects" and start work on "sony classics". nobody's gonna download our "selects" anymore if it cuts their dl's in half. 3. delete every single one of joey jo jo's incessant posts about pop-ups. side note - have wanderer attack old joey jo jo posts so we can identify which ones to nuke. WE WILL NEVER WARN ANYONE ABOUT A CREDIT CHARGE!!!

ToasKokopelli Jun 7 at 1:23 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN While I am not happy with the changes to the subscriptions, angry would be a good word, I am amused by the "I'm for Indie music ONLY, major label music sucks" theme I see repeated. The Clash, Jefferson Airplane, Waylon Jennings, Grateful Dead, etc... These are may be artist that have sold very well, but they are very counter culture. Who didn't sign to a big label when given the chance? Is that simple act of Janis Joplin agreeing to work with a big record company somehow make her music different or less wonderful? It is true that starting with the MTV era looks, fashion, etc had as much to with getting signed as music, but still there are major artist today that I enjoy. It's about the music. And some good music does sell. Placing Bob Dylan in the crowd of bad music because in 1961 he signed with Columbia is just laughable. Still I don't want to, nor can I afford, to pay for the increase in price. I can hit the local library for Sony music.

kshear Jun 7 at 2:34 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN So, I see a service called Audio Lunchbox that seems rather similar in pricing to what emusic used to be. It doesn't look like their site is as well designed, but the prices seem great if you buy a subscription-- like, 500 tracks for $100. Does anyone have experience with Audio Lunchbox?

Jake in SF Jun 7 at 3:34 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jls jls wrote: You seem to have neglected to address the numerous emusic subscribers who were promised their current plan in perpetuity as long as they maintained an active membership. I believe "guaranteed" was the operative word. A plain, unambigious promise, with no wiggle room whatsover. Care to tackle that one? my reply: Oh, I think they will get around to addressing this when the class action lawsuits start arriving. I wonder how much their new business plan has budgeted for that inevitability.

Wanderer Jun 7 at 3:58 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by kshear "Does anyone have experience with Audio Lunchbox?" I don't personally, but I've read numerous comments around here from those who do and the comments have been negative. I'd say the gist of them concerns the unreliability of the service with significant doubts about whether it will remain a going concern.

Wanderer Jun 7 at 5:56 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Jake in SF "Oh, I think they will get around to addressing this when the class action lawsuits start arriving. I wonder how much their new business plan has budgeted for that inevitability." OK, I'm not an attorney (I apologize to anyone who is for venturing beyond my level of expertise) but I have a hard time imagining that any court will enforce an implied promise of a below market contract in perpetuity. Let's remember that the actual contracts run no longer than one or two years. Furthermore, what are the monetary amounts of damages? How many people will join in this class action suit? All of these basic questions cast considerable uncertainty about the success of this kind of legal undertaking. These litigants would be looking for a lawyer with spare time and a high-risk, potentially low-reward tolerance. Good luck finding one.

Shaesplace Jun 7 at 9:51 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DanielEsq I'm not going to read all the comments, so I hope I don't repeat others. But it doesn't make sense to me that eMusic can't sustain my "low cost plan" when they are going to get $20 LESS from me and cut my song downloads by over half. I'm paying close to $200 a year either way and I doubt I'm breaking the bank by showing up and using a little bandwidth. Further, I accept changes in the products I buy that affect me by 10 or 20%. But a change that cuts my value by 60% all at once is ridiculous. I'll be canceling.

Shaesplace Jun 7 at 10:05 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by TheTruthoftheMatter "For me this deal squashes the whole point of my eMusic membership - being able to find NEW music that I liked at a price-point that made experimentation practical." Amen. My "small" price increase was 189%.

amclark2 Jun 8 at 10:47 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN purpose!

jahula Jun 7 at 10:36 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wanderer There's more going on than a simple pricing issue. I feel the community of people writing here are upset mainly because of emusic's stance and treatment of us as loyal customers. This whole episode feels wrong, and the language and communication I have received from them makes me feel that this is a done deal - they simply don't give a shit about what we feel, our loyalty or what we want. Since all they seem to care about is the bottom line, not how we are treated, the only recourse for me is to therefore cancel my subscription with immediate effect. Why pay for abuse? Cheers!

jahula Jun 7 at 10:38 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by amclark2 @amclark2, I agree with you. To be honest, I'd be very pleasantly surprised if our words have any effect in shaping emusic's marketing, pricing and growth strategies. If they really cared about this, they would have perhaps consulted those who were going to be most affected as to what would work for them, or managed a rollout which would introduce gradual changes. The sudden manner in which this was done seems to be a CEO directive agreed on through some horse trading with Sony. The fact that it was announced either indicates a lack of business nous, or a staggering level of cynicism and disregard for the core fans, or a phenomenal lack of common sense. So, emusic, if you are listening and you really care. Bring us into consultation. Engage us as a community and let us JOINTLY work out a strategy that works. This top down authoritarian management style is so archaic and embarrassing in today's 21st century world - just look at the loss of goodwill that has occurred amongst a community that did love emusic.com. You know, the most galling thing about this whole episode is this cynical final line: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We will continue to check back." I think it's a ploy to allow us to vent, and to think we're included, and that they seem to care, but if you think about it that final line, 'We will continue to check back." actually sounds pretty closed off to me. It sounds as if no matter what we write, the decision has been made and it's final, and this is just a way of managing the expected ill feeling. It's just such an odd ending, don't you think?

jahula Jun 7 at 10:43 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Shaesplace Excellent point. It's going to cost emusic a lot in lost customer revenue from unhappy customers leaving. Then we will be sure to tell our friends, and getting new customers will be just that bit harder and more expensive.

jahula Jun 7 at 11:09 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN HI EVERYONE, Fed up with being treated like a charlie by the muppets at emusic.com, I decided to pull my account in protest at the sudden and draconian price changes. Here's my letter to emusic.com's customer service department explaining my subscription cancellation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear emusic customer service, Thanks for your generic reply. Just thought you might like to know: here's how emusic's recent pricing policy changes affect my account: Effective today I have cancelled my 100dl/mo subscription for the following reasons: Slashing my downloads to half (50) and making the price of each download soar by an eyewateringly excessive amount (160%) is hardly conducive to retaining goodwill or loyal customers. The communications on your website as to the reasons for the recent price hikes you posted are full of lies. Furthermore, it seems to be just a cynical ploy to pretend you wish to hear our views, but in fact policy has truly been agreed upon and seems set in stone, and so what we think or how we feel is irrelevant and asking for our feedback is just part of emusic public relations damage limitation calculation. The only way I can make my intense displeasure at being treated like a fool and abused like a dog in the process is by refusing to sponsor an organisation like yours in the hope that you learn from this sordid and ill-conceived executed policy. Good luck with the expansion plans with Sony. Hope it brings you new blood so you can shaft even more customers in the future. Regards.

Hurkle Jun 8 at 2:24 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I chose emusic in 2003 for a few reasons. First, they were DRM-free, and that's something I felt strongly about. Second, my account was guaranteed to stay is for as long as I remained an active member. Which I have, oh yes. In fact, I've bought tons of booster packs as well, when surfing one unknown album led me to another and another and - like Pokemon - I had to catch them all. I've evangelized emusic as well, to friends, to family, in blog posts and comments. But to arbitrarily make a change like this, to throw it in the faces of their long-term subscribers really indicates a disregard for the customers who helped make them who they are. Despite the denials that the pricing and account changes are completely separate from the Sony deal, given Sony's reputation of disregarding it's customers - to the point of feeling free to install rootkits on their customers computers in order TO SUPPORT THEIR DRM - I have no doubt that the major label deal is signed in blood. The reason digital music costs so much in the first place is because of the major labels. To see emusic caving in to their predatory demands is pretty much just a sad thing. I doubt I will remain a customer.

Hurkle Jun 8 at 2:51 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by BigD-Bluez Fantastic point! How true that we won't be able to afford to explore anymore, and must instead know before-hand if we want the music because the cost is no longer amenable to downloading "just to see". Guess I'll listen to the radio. Oop. That's clearchannel. The local record store? Oh, it's a musicland or virgin. It is sad that I will not be able to explore new artists and support them.

Moelle Jun 8 at 3:57 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Cathy, Thanks for taking the time to write. I'd love to say that your post soothed me a little, but it doesn't. I've been a devoted subscriber since February 2002. I was here when you offered unlimited downloads for $9.99 a month, and I completely understood when you had to abandon that model. I would have also completely understood if you had GRADUALLY raised prices over the last several years since. But instead, you sent us an email in 2006 guaranteeing our rates would always stay the same. I was stunned but grateful. Now, you raise my subscription fee 162%. With not even so much as an email to subscribers. We had to make the effort to find out for ourselves. How rude! But the sneaky thing is this: had I not checked in and downloaded any tracks this month or next, and just reviewed my bank statement in August, I would have said, "oh, hey! My Emusic sub just got cheaper!" Alas, you cut my price by $5/month, but you also slashed my download limit in HALF. I find that utterly abominable. Was I not supposed to notice? Not only have you blown a guarantee in a litigious country like ours, but you foisted this massive price increase upon us in the midst of a horrible recession (I myself have no job), and then tried to cover your tracks and make it "less obvious". Bad business. Just bad. Then, there's the whole Sony/indie thing. Now, can you clarify how the indies will all benefit when many of the old guard (you know, us sorry losers you had to "subsidize" and it's all our fault, right?) are canceling, and your new customer base will be downloading these sh*t Sony back catalog tracks instead? To summarize: I'd gladly have paid gradual rate increases to support INDIE music as well as Emusic. I will NOT give major label artists one red cent. They don't need it... I and the indie artists need it much more than they do. And I have NO INTEREST in a Sony back catalog. Not one iota of interest. And, it's not MY fault that you didn't run your business right, undercharging for too long. Don't take it out on me. Way to alienate us. Cathy, would YOU continue to give your business to a company that treated its most loyal subscribers like this? Sadly, I'll be cutting back to the absolute lowest price plan, just for a backup of the tracks I've downloaded over the years. I'd prefer to cancel altogether, but I have decided that a backup is worth $6 a month. I get that this isn't a major world catastrophe, but in a time when so many people have so little money to devote to what they truly love, you've taken just one more pleasure away from us by hopping into bed with Sony and making us pay for the room. You claim you haven't been losing subscribers... give it time. I wish you guys a lot of luck... you're going to need it.

ElectricMayhem Jun 8 at 8:09 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I came to emusic because I don't care about major label music. I really don't know how long I'm going to keep my subscription.

xtrev Jun 8 at 8:24 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Moelle Hey Moelle, you may not have noticed in amongst all the other threads but that 'backup' that you say is worth $6 a month isn't that great anymore. They changed the Terms and Conditions on the 1st June too, we now get to re-download just 4 times. Which is probably enough for most people, AS LONG AS THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. Rather than have to rely on word of mouth like this, or reading a shit-load of small print. Just one more reason to be pissed off with the idiots.

ColtraneWasGod Jun 8 at 1:31 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Moelle Moelle, the best way to back up this music remains to your own DVDs or external hard drives or other media that you can keep around the house. (If you're paranoid about having the original and backups in the same place when the house burns down, get one of the forms of media you can easily store elsewhere.) I say this because I've bought dozens, if not hundreds, of things here that no longer are offered, so they are not available to me now through the eMusic backup process. IF I did not have them stored in a few different places, I wouldn't have backup at all.

chigley_skins Jun 8 at 1:41 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Hi Cathy Well in common with virtually everyone else here I'm really angry about what can only be described as disgracefully bad behaviour by emusic I've been a member for less than a year - and am currently signed up on an annual deal in the UK until next March so it (probably) won't impact me 'til then I guess .... but whatever if emusic try and screw me onto a new double price plan at that point I'mall but certain that I will dump the subscription all together I'm not a luddite - change is inevitable and good changes in prices are fine when they reflect a sensible business model I'd be very happy to pay more, for more. If I thought I would get more good new music than i do at present I'd be happy to live with that. I don't even mind prices going up a bit - but not to pay for old Sony records!! What I think is extraordinarily bad mannered though is the sheer distain with which users are clearly being treated I really think that in common with everyone else here I deserved an email about this didn't I ?? Should someone from the company not have written something grown up about the changes and how they would be dealt with? It's impossible not to suspect the worst The lack of a proper explanation means I currently suspect the actual line is.... 'We've changed our business model and are going to get rid of the little labels in favour of majors because we think we can probably get our market share up and do it slightly cheaper than the others" I love emusic and have been really evangelical about it - ok the interface is a bit stupidly thought out - ok it's bloody difficult to find stuff because of this and the ridiculously out of date lists system - ok national limitations on licensing drive me wild - ok 90% of what's on there is crap - but whatever .... eMusic is the cool brother of our next door neighbour who occasionally passes us really amazing stuff you forgive the spots and crap behaviour (until they start slipping too many jethro tull records in there) I suspect this will be the last time I nudge anyone in the direction of emusic "it's really great - no really - they've got Billy Joel now" Dropping in mentions of the Clash is offensive - we've already bought all the clash we need 25 years ago you idiots ! We want the new stuff we've not heard before Like others the advantage of eMusic for me isn't that it is cheap - it's that it is cheap enough that i can afford to throw away downloads - more than 50% of the music I have downloaded from emusic has been utter crap - but I don't care .... every month I've found something interesting and new .... so I've continued to sponsor the little labels and laugh at my profligacy I'm pretty sure when you continue to 'check back' you won't be responding to our mails and I'm pretty sure that when my subscription lapses I won't be bothering to respond to yours I'll go back to stealing my music until something else comes round to fill emusic's place whatever that is I hope it will have the good manners to talk to its customers almost as if they funded the business I'm not going to cry about this tho' - the democratising effect of the internet and music will win out over this big record label shit - just a shame to see a good thing turn bad :o/ love to all :o) (except Sony) c

JanMar Jun 8 at 1:53 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by chigley_skins I'll go back to stealing my music And you're saying that eMusic has bad manners?

beachdog67[club2000] Jun 8 at 1:57 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by chigley_skins I gotta say that, at this point, I'm starting to get pissed off all over again every time this thread garners another comment (like this one) and bounces back up to the top of Page One. Why? Because eMu DOESN'T respond. The topic title is just one more little spit-in-your-eye globual. There's ONE SINGLE POST from the elusive Cathy at the top of this thread saying "oh no, really; we're here hanging on your every word". Seen any reax from her, or Danny, or ANYBODY from eMu since then ("...Bueller?....Bueller?") This isn't "eMusic Responds". This is "eMusic says go ahead and have your little nanu-banu fit here. When you're quite finished, we'll come by and sweep up the breakage." Geez. Where's Genmod when you need him? Hell, where's Packman for that matter? "Pursuing other interests." Ya THINK? Woof.

68stationwagon Jun 8 at 2:13 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by beachdog67[club2000] lol beachdog! she's busy being fitted for a flak jacket. ------------ emusic > you say om; we say om nom nom

beachdog67[club2000] Jun 8 at 2:49 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by 68stationwagon lol beachdog! she's busy being fitted for a flak jacket. "You never give me your kevlar You only give me your woven chain mail..." Woof!

sweeneybd Jun 8 at 4:53 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN #

Katrina Jun 8 at 3:20 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by beachdog67[club2000] have your little nanu-banu fit here "A dress-wearing man named Nanu Banu was arrested after exposing his underwear and propositioning women with a wad of cash, according to an arrest affidavit released Tuesday."

AmberV Jun 8 at 3:27 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Katrina Bad website design (I mean, really, *bad*, as in shut down my browser and make my top of the line computer run like 1986, bad) + Having mainstream crap tangled up in the system + Getting my download capacity nearly cut in half = CANCEL. I sent them a letter articulating my thoughts, including that I have a strong dislike of Sony as a company and have boycotted them for years now, and got a form letter back pushing how wonderful its going to be with Sony on board. Eh, yeah. Thanks for listening, eMusic. :)

beachdog67[club2000] Jun 8 at 3:30 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by beachdog67[club2000] [i] "You never give me your kevlar You only give me your woven chain mail..." [/i] "...But in the middle of the bullets' lead hail, Your dress slipped. Boy, you're gonna Nanu Banu Nanu Banu for a long time...." Wulf.

Bluesboy Jun 8 at 3:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by beachdog67[club2000] "You never give me your kevlar You only give me your woven chain mail..." "...But in the middle of the bullets' lead hail, Your dress slipped. Boy, you're gonna Nanu Banu Nanu Banu for a long time...." Lennon just did somersaults in his grave.

Moelle Jun 8 at 8:25 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by ColtraneWasGod ColtraneWasGod and xtrev, thanks for the heads up on the backup situation at eMu. Just ran an external backup ;-) Good grief, they're not making it easy for us grandfathered and subsidized resource drains to find so much as one small reason to stay, are they?

koo Jun 8 at 8:30 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by beachdog67[club2000] [quote]I gotta say that, at this point, I'm starting to get pissed off all over again every time this thread garners another comment (like this one) and bounces back up to the top of Page One. Why? Because eMu DOESN'T respond. [/quote] Exactly. It's like they're waiting for it all to blow over, as though our feelings about it don't matter, which is just more insulting.

jahula Jun 8 at 10:10 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jahula AND THIS IS THEIR CRAPPY REPLY: Hello, Thank you for contacting eMusic Customer Support, We understand your concern and want to assure you that we truly value loyal customers like yourself and we are very grateful to you for staying with us this long. This is a big change, but not one that was made lightly. The new plans enable us to better compensate all of our labels, plus add new content from Sony starting in July, and even more new labels in the future. In order to offer you more content from Sony and other labels, we simply can no longer sustain the lowest cost plans that some members have, but we are pleased that we can still offer you prices at less than half the average price per download on iTunes and Amazon. Many of you have expressed concern that eMusic is abandoning our focus on independent artists and becoming like “the big guys”. This is simply not true. We've given it a lot of thought, and we're confident that we can integrate Sony music in a way that does justice to eMusic -- and not just eMusic as a business, but eMusic as those of us who use it every day know and love it. As you know, we have an exceptionally talented staff of music editors who are excited to highlight the hidden gems in Sony’s deep catalog that will only compliment the collection of awesome and unusual tunes already in your eMusic collection. So yes, while this is a big change, we believe the end result is a better music experience for everyone in the long-term. Again, we’re sorry that we’ve had to retire your old plan but we’re confident that you’ll find even more music to love among the many new additions to the catalog. And of course, you can always select a different plan from the Plan Options page within Your Account. We hope you will have patience and stay with us to enjoy all the new content coming soon. Regards, Sara - eMusic Support

jahula Jun 8 at 10:13 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jahula And this is my response once again: ------------------------------------ Do you even read the emails you get, or do you just press: send generic platitudes? "We hope you will have patience and stay with us". Er, actually my email to you was about why I had cancelled my account, which you don't even address. Pathetic, really, and again no real indication of having listened to feedback, and proposal of any alternative policy formulation, which would work to show some respect to your long-term customers. No, instead it's a top-down-this-is-how-it's-gonna-be attitude. My complaint was not so much about Sony or whatever label, it was about how the rollout was made. But you guys don't want to hear or acknowledge that, apparently. I don't give a flying about Sony, what I do care about is real customer service, which is something you people have to really take on board. Sincerely,

jahula Jun 8 at 10:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by koo Absolultely! Standard PR damage limitation exercise. They are waiting for us to have our hissy fit, and then act as if nothing happened.

nemo Jun 9 at 1:12 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN I just have to join the chorus of unhappy emusic customers. I have been a customer since 2002 and have probably recommended you to five dozen people. Always been a loyal advocate, so when I see you not only destroy what made you special, but do it in such a dishonest way that even PR Week does a case study on it, I just have to shake my head in disbelief. If you're desperate, fess up - a loyal customer base will understand. But betray us, and you will be toast. When loyal fans tells you to go #$%^# yourself, you know you have a serious problem on your hands...

RayC Jun 9 at 9:54 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Bluesboy Likewise again.

RayC Jun 9 at 10:08 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by RayC I will wait, but not too long. I've already been violated without warning (lost 50 downloads a month) which is the real crime here and now I'm being told it was for my own good. It wasn't for my good. Sony isn't for my good. And not residing in the US makes it even more costly, I am likely to lose downloads without any real gain in selection.

Centurion Jun 9 at 1:39 PM EDT

Customer poll

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN emusic customers please take 2 question survey on recent changes http://is.gd/Vbgd Results here tonight: http://is.gd/VbuR

StabbedintheBack Jun 9 at 1:53 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN You don't seem to get it, do you? By charging me an additional 80% for something I don't want, you're showing very clearly how much you care about my loyalty. How is my patience going to help my perception of how you're handling the catalogue? You've already failed - I don't care about the Sony stuff at all. I care about having been thrown under the bus.

Music Lover Jun 9 at 2:47 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Hi Cathy Halgas Nevins: I'm here, and I'm reading every word. I feel as passionately about eMusic as you do and would praise this decision if I felt strongly that it will be beneficial to everyone involved. I've given it a lot of thought, and I'm confident that Sony music is the first step to eMusic's demise -- not necessarily eMusic as a business, but eMusic as those of us who use it every day know and love it. Obviously, a lot of comments have been about the pricing. The Great Cultural Recession of 2009 is not the best time to be doing this. I recognize that. However, you - and your labels - simply cannot sustain the previous level of excellence without invoking wrath from the Major Labels. This is not just about Sony, it is for all the Major Labels, including the one that once owned eMusic. I appreciate you, our eMusic Corporate Communications VP , and I understand that people have naturally reacted strongly to yesterday's news. All that I can ask is that you reverse direction before eMusic winds up at the bottom of the cultural ocean. You all have a lot to offer real music fans. You have since 1998, you do today, and if not too late, you may still tomorrow. That should not change. I am therefore approaching this in good humor. Everything I post for the rest of today is done as satire. Please do not sue me, as I am entitlted to express my opinion via satire as adjudicated by higher courts back in the early days of Mad Magazine. I hope you understand. It will be benefical to everyone involved. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will continue to check back. Music Lover

Amateur Jun 9 at 2:47 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by StabbedintheBack I don't understand this. Even on my old premium account I blow through 90 downloads a month what am I supposed to do with 50? Until now I've always thought of emusic as being very loyal to their subscribers and as such even in rough months money wise I've made room for my emusic account. I don't know what I'm going to do now. I'll wait to see how the album pricing scheme works out but that really needs to be instituted quickly and thouroughly. More music is better. However, this move does not speak to emusic's fanbase. A fanbase which is inherently stickier than more casual music consumers which this move is clearly directed at.

Amateur Jun 9 at 2:51 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Amateur I will wait and see how this new set up is implemented then I will decide if I want to keep my subscription.

chigley_skins Jun 9 at 5:58 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JanMar yeah - ok - fair enough comment - that kind of came out wrong what i meant is i'll be forced back to swapping stuff and downloading stuff for free in order to get my fix of new and interesting music I buy TONS of records but it's all but impossible to find the obscure stuff where i live emusic is a reasonable compromise where we can fund small labels by taking risks with downloads and step well outside your safety zone mea culpa

Grosho Jun 9 at 8:59 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Hi, I'd just like to share my opinion as a new-ish member (on here about 3 months). I started out on the 50/14.99 a month plan and was switched over to 37/14.99. Here's what I would have been willing to pay more for if you guys determined that the old pricing schemes were not sustainable (and it's not that much). I think this would have been fair and would have made alot more sense than shelling out the bucks for old Bob Dylan albums that all your current customers have anyhow. -Integration of more indie labels: Subpop, Drag City, etc. Alot of the major indie acts are missing from emusic. I'd gladly pay more to know that I had basically a one-stop shop for all my new music. -Emusic Release dates that correspond to street dates. Some of the albums that I want should be on emusic but aren't! Grizzly Bear, Camera Obscura, St. Vincent, etc. There's not even an emusic release date set for these albums, just a "hold on, they'll be here eventually!" How long are we supposed to wait? I'm getting tired of everyone I know gushing about these albums - and not being able to join in because I have emusic. Should I go to my record store or amazon.com or wait another week and see if it pops up? I have to ask myself this question all the time, and I really shouldn't. At the very least, you guys should be able to tell us WHEN albums will be available. -Rolled over downloads from month to month. I keep track of my downloads - but it would be a nice gesture of good faith if they could be rolled over. It would remove a bit of anxiety knowing that you could put your downloads toward a full album the next month. And it's kind of inconvenient having to download half an album and then download the other half a month later. I know we were never asked what we'd be willing to pay more for - so I have to conclude that emusic doesn't really care about its existing customer base and is making an all-out assault on drawing in a new, totally different field of customers with a totally different aesthetic (is this more cost effective?). But, it would have been nice to have been asked or surveyed - as I'm sure alot of people on here will agree with me. BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR JUST THE SONY BACK CATOLOGUE!

DJAdequate Jun 9 at 9:16 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Grosho How long are we supposed to wait? Sony releases will be delayed by two years. If we get the major indies I wouldn't be surprised to see them following suit.

beachdog67[club2000] Jun 9 at 9:25 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Grosho How long are we supposed to wait? Remember Hey Neighbor Helen? Well, her last name was Wait.

Grosho Jun 9 at 9:49 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJAdequate Yeah - but, at least I would KNOW (if it turned out to be two years -like the Sony releaess) so I could drag my butt down to the local record store and just buy, say, the Grizzy Bear album instead of being strung along by emusic - checking every day to see if it's arrived or if emusic will announce the date it will be here. I feel like I'm in Waiting for Godot or something: "Maybe Veckatimest will come today." "What if it doesnt?" "Then, maybe it will come tomorrow." "Veckatimest should be here." "Well, they didn't say for sure it would come." "And if it doesn't come?" "We'll check to see if it comes tomorrow." "And then the day after tomorrow." "Possibly." "And so on." "Until Veckatimest comes." "You're merciless."

JohnnyV Jun 9 at 10:30 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Whoa. I just got the news about the new pricing structure. I've been a member since 2000, and I even have an emusic fleece that I got when I signed up. This is difficult to believe, and I must agree that I think emusic is going the wrong way. With pricing (more or less) the same as everyone else now, why stay with emusic?

Rodenstein Jun 9 at 11:08 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN As many others here. I'm also cancelling my subscription this month. I'm right now finishing up my last downloads and I'm gone. This is sad, the price increase is ridiculous and underhanded. There's no way the music is worth this increase with variable quality. I've been with e-music for 3 or so years and it was a great way to get introduced to new artists and get the wonderful indies that I would hear on our local public station. My plan was cut in half and I'm not going to pay the same price for an inferior product, if the sampling rate was better and across the board as itunes or what I can get from sampling an actual CD it may be something to consider, but in general the product offered here was just good enough to go accordingly to the price structure, now it is not. Have to wonder who is the idiot heading this outfit that would think the subscribers will stand for such an arbitrary bait and switch.

RayC Jun 9 at 11:50 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Amateur I've been here since 2002, but I've never felt emusic was especially loyal to its customers, not since the first change of ownership when they started foisting off popular rock artists from years ago re-doing their moldy oldies and doing them badly. They're still on emusic, along with my comments. I've never trusted their recommendations after the first few failures, either. But emusic has been a great community where I could check out other members reviews and find meaningful music to help me get through the day. I'm still here though. They may surprise me. But as you note, it has to be done quickly and thoroughly. I'm full grown and realize when someone tells me to trust them, warning bells are tolling.

Katrina Jun 10 at 4:18 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JohnnyV I even have an emusic fleece that I got when I signed up. Oh.My God. What is this fleece you speak of?

Nereffid Jun 10 at 4:43 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Katrina Isn't fleece another word for RIP-OFF? eMusic wins again!

Katrina Jun 10 at 6:08 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Nereffid Yeah, but it's also some kind of jacket or blanket, isn't it? Hold onto it for 10 years and sell it on ebay. Or give it to me now, those are your options. winky First I've heard of something tangible when signing up for eMu. This is dinosaur time. Forget 2k club.

68stationwagon Jun 10 at 6:48 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Katrina jelwood scooped everyone with the schwag - i think he got a decent set of 2.1 speakers for his pc. amplifier: not trying to play fuzzy with the facts - it's definitely jelwood and it was definitely speakers...it may have been a different config - but he did say they were quality.

Katrina Jun 10 at 7:06 AM EDT

what other schwag?

in response to the message by 68stationwagon What else was given? Speakers, fleece jackets, what???? What did I miss?

Leafsfool Jun 10 at 9:14 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Grosho Nice. This is a major gripe of mine too.

koo Jun 10 at 9:22 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by DJAdequate Sony releases will be delayed by two years. If we get the major indies I wouldn't be surprised to see them following suit. If that's the case, then the likelihood of me staying will be very low.

Hurkle Jun 10 at 1:15 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by AmberV Honestly, that's how emusic Customer Service has ALWAYS responded. While I have loved the music, their customer service responses are always along the lines of "Let's completely ignore what you said and reply with something that can be found in our FAQ." I also have boycotted Sony since the rootkit debacle, consider this "match" made by the investment company guy (oh yeah who happens to be emusic CEO for a few months now) to be pretty nasty business. But the way they pulled a Ratner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner] in regards to notifying us about the changes is really offensive. I had to learn from a blog post what was going on. How sad. Of course, weren't we just discussing the FAIL of emusic's customer service above?

CathyHN Jun 10 at 4:35 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Hurkle Hi Guys: We're still here and still listening. It's taken us some time but we've developed a revised FAQ which we hope addresses some of your questions. It will be going live on the site soon, but we thought we'd post it here first. We wish we had better answers about the price changes and we know it sucks, but it was inevitable for reasons Yancey outlined in his message board post. The new FAQs are below. Q: How will album pricing work? A: We expect that album pricing will be available for most albums. Here's how it will work: most titles will be available for 12 credits, regardless of the number of tracks. Some albums will be offered for less, either six or nine credits. Sometimes no discount will be offered, (in those cases, for example a 17 track album will cost 17 credits). Though album pricing is determined together with our partner labels, we'll work to deliver the best deal possible for subscribers. Initially album pricing may be limited to a select group of labels. We have to work with each label individually to make album pricing available so it may take a while before you see it as an option on releases from other labels, but trust us: we're working feverishly to make that happen. Q: Why not offer Sony label content at a premium price and leave independent labels' music at current prices? A: Keeping independent labels at current pricing would work against what we want to do: pay labels more. Higher payments make eMusic more attractive to labels both large and small, including the independent labels members that have been asking for. Sony happens to be the first label group added under the new pricing structure but the change was not made simply to attract Sony. Sony offered us the opportunity to add a significant catalog with wide appeal at a single stroke; we're confident others will come soon. Our goal is to deliver a superior value on as much music as possible to our subscribers. Q: Why didn't you give us more notice of the changes? A: We made the announcement 30 days prior to when the price changes will go into effect. We wish we could have reached out to some of you earlier but that was not an option for a variety of reasons. Q: Will you be adding some of the indies you don't have, like Tzadik and Sub Pop? A: We would very much like to add more independent labels to eMusic, and we are actively working to make that happen. Q: Why are prices going up in the EU and Canada since you are not adding Sony catalogue for those customers? A: The addition of the Sony catalog was not the driving force behind the price increase. As in the US, we are responding to the increased cost of doing business and expect the improved economics will help attract more labels to the service. We urge subscribers everywhere to stick with us and watch for changes. Cathy Halgas Nevins eMusic

NankerPhledge Jun 10 at 4:38 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN .

Bluesboy Jun 10 at 6:22 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN What Ms. Nevins has not yet addressed is the fear that many have expressed about a diminished sense of community with the change in pricing and the addition of a major. I also read through the corporate speak of "We made the announcement 30 days prior to when the price changes will go into effect. We wish we could have reached out to some of you earlier but that was not an option for a variety of reasons." to mean that eMu just didn't care enough to be proactive with it's customer base and didn't foresee the crowd of villagers with pitchforks and torches. For eMu's sake, I hope that they are planning on sending a proactive email to users before their new plan takes over. There's got to be some legalities about that, because simply putting a message on the main page and expecting users to inform themselves of the changes is not going to cover such a significant alteration to the TOS and pricing. I almost never go to the main page because I have other pages bookmarked and can often go more than a few weeks without opening it.

gorgon Jun 10 at 6:37 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by NankerPhledge Been here since 2001. Hey EMUSIC! Yes, you. The price matters to me less than the number of downloads in my plan. You have been cutting me back for years. From unlimited and now down to this.... YOU ARE AWARE THAT MOST OF THE SONY CATALOG AS WELL AS MOST MUSIC THAT YOU WOULD EVER WANT IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON BLOGS AND ASSORTED RUSSIAN/ETC. WEBSITES THAT CHARGE VIRTUALLY NOTHING FOR THE SAME MUSIC? I stayed on all these years because I wanted to support ind. music and the prices seemed reasonable to me. Jacking me 225% and cutting my downloads in this recession just does not make sense especially when I can get all this FOR FREE anyway. Why not have a plan at 500 or 300 downloads like I used to have? I don't see how there is any harm in this -- if it is a "matter of math" as you say. Charging me more is one thing but why are you cutting down my choices? Speaking of math, looks like you are going to have to subtract my $1000+ a year. I used to give you guys even more, but you cut my spending down from that plan as well. Don't you want my money? Oh, well. I have been here 7 years, and would have stayed another 7. That is $7000 you are out. Do the math? Sony doesn't care about the math. All they want is to increase the bottom line RIGHT NOW and to hell about next year. Ok. Thanks for helping me save that extra money during these trying times. I needed you to force my hand, as I could not do it by myself. Sniff. We had some good times... Thank you Yancey.

eclectricity Jun 10 at 6:46 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Please make this new FAQ clearly visible and not hidden behind an almost invisible link like the last one. Thanks for the update.

panchodog Jun 10 at 7:14 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Meanwhile, we still can't get to the June 9 downloads on the evening of June 10. Is waiting even longer for new releases something else we should be thankful to eMusic for?

ShadowBoy Jun 10 at 8:20 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN That's even worse than I thought. For instance, it means that a 5 track album can possibly cost 12 credits -- that is, it can cost as much as any other online service.

beachdog67[club2000] Jun 10 at 8:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by JohnnyV Well, thanks for the sneak peek at the FAQ, Cathy. It helps a bit, though I suspect you'll continue to get savaged (including by me from time to time) for a while any way. Hell, this "community" of board regulars (including me) has been known to be nasty as all get out around stuff as simple as rolling out web site redesigns. I'm not sure how long you've been here, but eMu has a long track record of clumsy rollouts. Couple that with a sense of entitlement on the part of many of us (earned, at least in part, by management decisions to make this such a DIY environment -- list building, troll taming, tech support, etc.), and this was gonna be ugly no matter what. That said, y'all sure haven't done yourself any favors with the ham-fisted way the reveal has been / is still being handled. But I guess you knew that, since you're apparently tasked with -- ahem -- "reading every word". Geez. And you thought you wanted this job. One question I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Why no more "big appetite" plans. I don't see any option offering more than a hundred DLs/month. Woof. Edit: completely changed thrust of previous post once I caught up on my reading.

tlmucla Jun 10 at 9:17 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by ShadowBoy That's even worse than I thought. For instance, it means that a 5 track album can possibly cost 12 credits -- that is, it can cost as much as any other online service. That's not quite how I read it. I read it that some albums over 12 tracks could be as low as 6 downloads. If the download cost for a 5 track album is 6 downloads, you should still have the option of downloading by the track.

tlmucla Jun 10 at 9:41 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Thanks, Cathy, for a preview of the FAQs. I have calmed down quite a bit, and am content to wait and see how things play out. Here's my response to each FAQ. [quote]Q: How will album pricing work? A: We expect that album pricing will be available for most albums. Here's how it will work: most titles will be available for 12 credits, regardless of the number of tracks. Some albums will be offered for less, either six or nine credits. Sometimes no discount will be offered, (in those cases, for example a 17 track album will cost 17 credits). Though album pricing is determined together with our partner labels, we'll work to deliver the best deal possible for subscribers.[/quote] This helps explain the album pricing somewhat, but it is a bit poorly worded. As I said in the prior post, I believe you mean that some albums of 12 track or more could be sold for as low as 6 downloads. You did not mean that most albums, even those with less than 12 tracks, will sell for 12 tracks, did you? [quote]Q: Why not offer Sony label content at a premium price and leave independent labels' music at current prices? A: Keeping independent labels at current pricing would work against what we want to do: pay labels more. Higher payments make eMusic more attractive to labels both large and small, including the independent labels members that have been asking for. Sony happens to be the first label group added under the new pricing structure but the change was not made simply to attract Sony. Sony offered us the opportunity to add a significant catalog with wide appeal at a single stroke; we're confident others will come soon. Our goal is to deliver a superior value on as much music as possible to our subscribers.[/quote] This sounds reasonable. You can't expect the existing indie labels to be happy if Sony's old albums sold for more than their new albums. That would not be a sustainable model. Thank you for this clarification. [quote]Q: Why didn't you give us more notice of the changes? A: We made the announcement 30 days prior to when the price changes will go into effect. We wish we could have reached out to some of you earlier but that was not an option for a variety of reasons.[/quote] This is also completely reasonable. We all got at least 30 days notice. Many of us got considerably more. No one's credit cards got charged the new prices without an opportunity to cancel before hand. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that we would have notice of the pending price changes before the negotiations concluded. Nor do I think that it's reasonable for us to expect that we would have a say in the negotiations. We have the ultimate vote by walking out, but allowing us to dictate the negotiations could severely put eMu at a disadvantage in the negotiations. [quote]Q: Will you be adding some of the indies you don't have, like Tzadik and Sub Pop? A: We would very much like to add more independent labels to eMusic, and we are actively working to make that happen. [/quote] This is why I'm hanging on to see how things turn out. If the new pricing structure attracts new indie labels and convinces existing labels to release albums on eMu on their release date, then this move will be a success. But, as many people have said, wouldn't it have been better to explain this at the get go, instead of telling us that Sony is the reason and that there was going to be a "slight" increase?

ShadowBoy Jun 10 at 10:34 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tlmucla Yes, I thought about this option, too. I hope you are right -- although I suspect many albums will only be available for full download in the 6/9/12 credits system (i.e. no per track option).

EvS Jun 10 at 10:52 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by ShadowBoy I suspect many albums will only be available for full download in the 6/9/12 credits system (i.e. no per track option). That is the one thing that would drive me to cancel my subscription -- or, more accurately, not to renew. I rarely download an entire album because I rarely find an entire album that is, in my opinion, composed of equally appealing tracks. This is an old-school fixed media concept. It would surprise me if eMu tried to take so many steps backward.

zoka Jun 11 at 12:11 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tlmucla [quote] That's not quite how I read it. [/quote] Hmmm As it's presently worded, most albums will cost 12 credits: "most titles will be available for 12 credits, regardless of the number of tracks." So, if it's "regardless of the number of tracks" 5 tracks can indeed equal 12 credits. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out because it seemed obvious to her, but I hope she meant: "most titles {of 12 or more tracks} will be available for 12 credits, regardless of the number of tracks {in excess of 12}. She goes on to mention discounts, let's hope there are no premiums.

Hurkle Jun 11 at 12:57 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN First of all, it's nice to see that someone from emusic is reading through all this. There's a lot of bad feeling here, mostly a sense of betrayal and loss of trust. So with that said, I appreciate the revised FAQ, but as with all my experience with emusic's customer service, it doesn't seem to hit some of the crucial points. (1) Sony has a terrible reputation as both a sock puppet and willing crony of the RIAA. Boasting about them joining up with emusic is alienating a lot of people. Boasting about the mainstream back catalogue they bring to a bunch of independent music lovers who don't give two cents for mainstream music is just silly. (2) The change to the pricing structure looks like it is going to change emusic's unique character. Instead of the indie discovery engine it used to be - where many times credits would not be used because they were so cheap, or people would download strange and unfamiliar music because they had a lot of unused credits, and lots of smaller artists would get compensation as a result - now it will be like any other music service, only a little bit cheaper, i.e. lots of back catalogue and not enough downloads to spend on just plain finding out if something is going to be good. (3) The emails that went out to us subscribers in 2006 guaranteeing our accounts would remain good as long as we stayed active and in good standing have now been shown to be complete lies and not worth the electrons they were written in. Why not have someone address these issues? This is where the real betrayal and loss are setting in - the probable loss of the vibrant community and the dismissive treatment of your members. What about these issues? Look, we understand that this move is going to make emusic lots of money. Well, it has the potential to do so, anyway. But it really feels like the old emusic is going away for good, not matter how much corporate-speak you are allowed to throw at us.

beachdog67[club2000] Jun 11 at 2:31 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Hurkle Given that Cathy is the only onshore person (other than the IT guy) who isn't wearing a tie on the executive bio page, I think we can safely assume that eMu's days as the plucky indie insurgent are gone forever. Whether the new animal that emerges is of interest to older adherents remains to be seen. But it certainly seems the corporate persona is at a fork in the road. Now that everybody's getting 200 dollar haircuts and the new office furniture has arrived the company must make an intentional choice about customer relations. The sloppy, half-assed efforts could be fobbed off in the past as a function of that grungy quirkiness that was part and parcel of an overworked, underpaid staff of music lovers like us struggling to remember what they were doing before they headed up to the roof for that smoke break. Either shit gets a lot better organized under the new paradigm cos we're professional by god, or eMu adopts the Major Corporate Model: "We don't care about you. We don't have to. Your puny account means nothing to us. You are a teeny, teeny, tiny fraction of a percentage of our business. We squash you like a bug!" Kinda like my cable company. I guess time will tell which way that wind blows too, won't it? Woof.

gerrrgity Jun 11 at 3:02 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Funny, but if I had known of the price change PRIOR to the actual changes, I would have signed up for the long-term contract to keep the lower-priced option. The only way I knew about this change was from a blog posting on Business Week online. Imagine that. Somehow I don't think anyone knew about the changes until they were already LOCKED OUT of the option to grab a year-long option, and rightfully so. EMusic knew that once we found out, we'd be rushing to sign up for that whole-year subscription. That's your prerogative eh?

JFLL Jun 11 at 7:09 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by gerrrgity "Somehow I don't think anyone knew about the changes until they were already LOCKED OUT of the option to grab a year-long option" It was the same when Emusic set up its European operation a few years back. It was just sprung on us like that, from one day to the next -- no opportunity to take out a longer plan at the old rates before the price hike (it's an accepted fact with providers that we Europeans have to pay over the odds for recorded music). Some of us concluded then that we had to deal with an extremely secretive organization which as a matter of policy doesn't believe in telling its customers what's going on.

CathyHN Jun 11 at 11:50 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by eclectricity eclectricity: We are making the FAQ more visible next week.

CathyHN Jun 11 at 11:51 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by beachdog67[club2000] beachdog67[club2000] - We hope to offer some larger plans in the future and we are working on it.

CathyHN Jun 11 at 11:52 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tlmucla tlmucla - thank you for your reasoned response!

CathyHN Jun 11 at 12:04 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Hurkle Hurkle - Yancey has addressed the indie vs. Sony issue in his earlier message. We have no plans to abandon our support for indie labels. We hope to draw some interesting connections between major and indie artists and hope you will stick around and see how we do. And, you don't have to buy any music from Sony if you don't want to. Even with the addition of Sony artists, we believe we can keep eMusic's singular character. We're sorry we can't offer our lowest price plans any longer as those were operating at a loss. We are still going to be less than half the average price per download at Amazon or iTunes and we'll still offer great editorial and many other ways for you to discover new music.

Music Lover Jun 11 at 12:56 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Cathy, Thanks very much for getting more involved and answering specific posts. That shows both class and commitment to your customer base. Can you please answer Hurkle's specific question about eMusic's prior promise to honor (for a specific set of plans rolled out a while back) a customer's subscription plan's pricing as long as the customer stayed active with the account. It seems to me that eMusic needed to raise captial and offered these long term plans to subscribers to raise that capital. If promises to customers were made in order to sell these long term plans, shouldn't they be honored? Also interested in your reaction to this blog post . Thanks, Customer since January 2001, Music Lover.

tlmucla Jun 11 at 1:08 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Cathy, I think it's awesome that you are monitoring the posts this closely and responding so quickly. It gives me hope that eMu is sincere in the statements made by Mr. Stein and Yancey that it is dedicated to its indie leanings and sensitive to the concern that our community is being irreparably altered by these new arrangements. Can you please address the confusion over your statement regarding album pricing? I think your statement was poorly worded. Is there going to be premium pricing on some albums, i.e., albums that are less than 12 tracks but being charged at 12 tracks to download? If so, does that mean that those albums will be album only downloads? I hope that is not the case. If it is, I suspect that there is going to be a new rash of complaints and defections. Album only downloads have been very controversial in the past, and a move towards more of them will alienate a lot of loyal customers.

jcolton Jun 11 at 3:27 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Cathy, I have several questions/concerns remaining. Please address these: 1. The steep price increase; for me it's about 250% as much per track as it used to be. Ouch!! OK, maybe you can't say much more about that than has already been said. But it remains a serious concern. 2. Why do annual plans not give you much discount compared to monthly plans? I've been on an annual plan for the past three years, because it was substantially cheaper per track. Now, according to my "plan options" page, the difference between a 50 track 1-month plan, and a 35 track/month annual plan (the largest annual plan), is 41 cents compared to 40 cents. With that small of a difference, there is no incentive for me to get the annual plan. Instead, I'll likely get the monthly plan for a couple of months, then drop off for a few months, then sign up again for a few months, etc. That's a hassle for both me and you. My advice: make a much bigger difference between the monthly and the annual plans. 3. From people's comments, it seems not everyone is being offered the same line-up of plan choices. That is, some of the grandfathered people are getting a few better plans to choose from than I am. Why not me? I've been on a 65 track annual plan for 3 years, so it's not just the grandfathering. It makes me feel un-valued, and increases the likelihood that I will not continue my subscription. 4. Same comment, but with regards to the "celebratory" free booster pack. I'm only getting offered a 15 track booster pack. Why are some others with similar plans getting offered much more?? 5. (added later, after my original post) You said at 17dots, paraphrasing Yancey, that "we simply can't operate the low-priced plans that some of you had at a loss any longer". Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. From the pricing model that an artist gave (sorry, I can't find the forum post), you take all the money that comes in, keep some of it, and distribute the rest among the artists. Assuming that's accurate, then even grandfathered accounts like mine are adding to the pool of money. We might be contributing a little less than average, but the artists I download (and eMusic!) are all getting a share of my money. Is that model incorrect, or am I missing something else? Please explain how you are losing money off of the grandfathered accounts, or else stop giving that as a reason for the humongous price increase. The news about the "album pricing" is very good. If nearly all albums offer this--with the 13+ track albums being reduced to 12 tracks (or 9 or 6), the 10&11 track albums being reduced to 9 tracks (or 6), and the 7&8 track albums being reduced to 6 tracks--it may be enough to keep me around. I almost always download complete albums. Similarly, if you decide (quickly!!) to offer a larger "per track" discount for the annual packages, that might be enough to keep me around. If any bone is thrown to grandfathered accounts like mine *at all*, I might stick around. (So far, there are zero bones.) Aside from those things happening, though, I'll likely cancel after my annual subscription runs out on Aug 1. I survived on used CD stores before emusic; I can survive on used CD stores again. (For me, that's your real competition, not amazon or iTunes.)

Wanderer Jun 11 at 4:17 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Dear Cathy: Thank you for the continued correspondence. I have no problem with the price increase if the new price structure leads to expanded content of desirable selections. I think there will be something of value for almost anyone among the back catalog of Sony and subsidiaries and I sincerly hope the new price structure encourages other labels, whether major or independent, to come aboard. Although I am not thrilled with the plan offered to me, that is a minor problem because I apparently have the option of selecting another alternative. Now, I do have some concerns or suggestions: 1) I echo the sentiments of those who see the booster pack award as rather arbitrary. Some get 15 selections and others get 25 selections. Why? I don't think the criteria for that selection has been explained adequately. Why not give everyone (or at least everyone with over a short time of membership) the same? 2) Some posters have wished for longer preview samples and I think this would be a tech adjustement that would be very appreciated by the membership. People want to be happy with the music purchased and I think E Music would want them to be happy, too. So often we don't get to hear enough of the song to make a good judgment. Fans of jazz, classical, and techno have stated that samples of this size are virtually useless for much of those genres. Perhaps samples could be designed where different sample lengths apply to different song lengths (1 minute for under 5 minute songs, 2 minutes for 5 to 10 minutes songs, etc.). 3) Members vary in their views about the best way to introduce the Sony catalog: all at once or small bits at a time. I would prefer rapid introductions (even if that means closing the site for a day or two) but would like to see a separate temporary index set up for that catalogue so that the "Recently Added" menus do not become unduly voluminous. Thank you for monitoring these boards and I hope you may communicate some of the more thoughtful comments to the organization.

NankerPhledge Jun 11 at 6:06 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tlmucla Yes it is nice Cathy is responding, the non-answers are a bit annoying however. Q: Why are you restricting international customers? A: We are restricting international customers. Q; Why can't you email people? A: We can't email people. Not too helpful, but at least I can say now I definitely know they won't give me an answer so I can stop trying.

EvS Jun 11 at 8:26 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Wanderer Cathy, if you respond again, please tell us: 1. Why some of us were NOT offered booster packs and some were? 2. Will some albums be restricted to album only download or will most albums still be available per track? Thank you.

jazzrail Jun 11 at 8:45 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Cathy, If your price structure was not sustainable that's what you should have said to begin with. Instead your CEO tried to hide the drastic price changes amid news of additions to the catalog. FYI -- bad way to start. A price hike, explained honestly for what it is would be one thing. This is a little more than a price hike. My account is going from 90 downloads@ month to 35! There is simply NO service in today's economy that is not a necessity (gas or electric for instance) that I would continue when confronted with that large a price hike. The owners of eMusic should reconsider the size of the price hike. Comparisons to the iTunes store or Amazon are not useful. Why? Most of us simply don't shop there much -- because the prices are too high. Specific suggestions have been made here that deserve a direct response. Will you or won't you allow us to "roll over" credits from one month to another? That is a very small concession it should be easy for you to make. For people like me who pay for an entire year up front it is outrageous not to allow it. You advise "patience." What you have to understand is it's fine to be patient concerning how you handle the catalogue. But asking us to be patient about a price hike that is effectively 60%+ for many of us? Sorry. That won't cut it.

koo Jun 11 at 9:53 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Dear Cathy, I know you say that you're still reading; however, I think this needs to be said again: I would have been fine with the price increase were it to guarantee that independents like Warp would deliver albums on their street dates. I would have been fine if you were announcing Sub Pop. I understand that eMusic wants to remain a viable business and would have no problem with increased prices if it meant paying more for what I actually want and am fine supporting. Sony, though? The record label of Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, and Justin Timberlake? A record label that paid a fine in 2005 for engaging in PAYOLA? I am flabberghasted. It really seems as though eMusic knows very little about its customers. Either that, or you care very little about the customers who have remained loyal over the years. Oh, and this news is still remains fresh for a lot of people -- hell, it's just now being discussed at another board I frequent. Good luck with managing the fallout.

Hurkle Jun 11 at 9:42 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Cathy- No offense, but not only is that a typical emusic non-answer, but the patronizing statement "And, you don't have to buy any music from Sony if you don't want to." is quite offensive. As if I couldn't figure out that I can download what I want. You only addressed one of my concerns anyway, and it was the easiest one: I stated how I thought this might change emusic's character, and you replied, "we believe it won't". Don't you understand that none of us believe you? You keep lying to us. Can't you just play it straight?

zoka Jun 11 at 11:57 PM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Hurkle "Don't you understand that none of us believe you? You keep lying to us. Can't you just play it straight? " Amen. What were they thinking?!?! "Let's give 'em less... For more... and they'll like it!!!" "Let them eat Sony"

tlmucla Jun 12 at 1:14 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Hurkle [quote]Don't you understand that none of us believe you? You keep lying to us. Can't you just play it straight? [/quote] I know that we are all upset at the way that eMusic has handled the price increases. But, this is uncalled for. I agree that eMusic completely miscalculated by trumpeting the Sony roll-out as a smoke screen to hide the price increase. Your anger should be directed at Mr. Stein, not at Cathy. Cathy is listening to our concerns and answering our questions to the best of her ability. But, she is not the one making the decisions. She is just the messenger. And, we gave up killing the messenger centuries ago. Cathy is reading these posts and responding. She is giving us information. Instead of pointless and insulting posts like this, why not try and engage her and see if we can learn anything else that is useful? Just because you don't like her answers does not mean they are not true. We all know that labels have been leaving eMu because the price structure was too low. We all know that other indie labels like Subpop will not join eMu because the price structure was too low. We all know that even labels that remain on eMu often do not release their big albums on their release date because the price structure was too low. So, when Cathy says that the price increase had nothing to do with Sony, why don't you believe that? When Cathy says that they let us know about the price increases as soon as they could, why can't you except that? Calm down and ask her questions. Don't take your anger out at her.

jzzbassman Jun 12 at 1:09 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by zoka I probably don't have anything to add, but I can't see the purpose of sticking around under the new policy. As a jazz lover, the jazz here is so poorly organized that often I waste downloads because with the short clip it is hard to tell how good of an improviser the artist is. No big deal when it is cheap; jack my price up 120% and I will go back to what I die before. Buy used cd's of labels I know I trust and miss out on the occasional decent artist I've not heard of.

Escalante Jun 12 at 1:37 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by CathyHN Cathy, If you want more money per track you need to add more value. Whether or not Sony adds value is debatable. But there is one thing I'm certain of. 192kbps was OK when I was paying $.25/track, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Your competitors have surpassed you in quality. You need to step it up. I want 256kbps. Escalante

zoka Jun 12 at 2:38 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by jzzbassman "I probably don't have anything to add, but I can't see the purpose of sticking around under the new policy. As a jazz lover, the jazz here is so poorly organized that often I waste downloads because with the short clip it is hard to tell how good of an improviser the artist is. No big deal when it is cheap; jack my price up 120% and I will go back to what I die before. Buy used cd's of labels I know I trust and miss out on the occasional decent artist I've not heard of. " I know exactly what you mean. I've been all over the map. I started off at with Dizzy Gillespie and somehow went on a magical mystery tour that's just landed on Dimmu Borgir, which wouldn't have been possible without a major detour into Opera. Go figure.

Vruink Jun 12 at 3:29 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN You've got two months to prove additional value for the 50% increase I will incured on my plan. If as I suspect it fails to materialise I'm gone. I can by CD's from my local record shop at these prices.

trondeg Jun 12 at 4:53 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by tlmucla I agree that eMusic completely miscalculated by trumpeting the Sony roll-out as a smoke screen to hide the price increase. Your anger should be directed at Mr. Stein, not at Cathy. As vice president of corporate communications, the decision on how to communicate it (time, form, "look behind you - Sony!") was probably done by Cathy. The strategy is Stein's responsibility, but Cathy would the major stakeholder and expert in how to communicate the price doubling.

Music Lover Jun 12 at 9:36 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN Cathy, I appreciate that you must be a very busy person, but if you can answer Hurkle's third point, it would go a long ways towards helping us better understand: (3) The emails that went out to us subscribers in 2006 guaranteeing our accounts would remain good as long as we stayed active and in good standing have now been shown to be complete lies and not worth the electrons they were written in.

honeycut Jun 12 at 9:46 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in direct response to the topic by CathyHN It's been a couple of years, and I've gifted a couple of accounts to friends but this really blows. So long emusic. Account cancelled.

CathyHN Jun 12 at 10:14 AM EDT

RE: eMusic responds

in response to the message by Music Lover Music Lover: Regarding Hurkle's question about the 2006 email, I have to give you the Customer Service answer for this one. I'm sorry I can't elaborate further, so if you have more questions, it's best to contact customer service directly. Please rest assured, the changes to your account are in accordance with eMusic's Terms of Use, which contains a legal explanation of why this is so. To put it in plain language, the Terms of Use (which all members must agree to upon joining) allow us to make changes to any and all plans, with 'material' changes requiring a 30 day notice. The homepage announcement which linked to a notification page constitute that notice. What is my reaction to the Social Cache post? Before I answer, you should know that because we recently laid off people at eMusic, we are shorthanded. Also, our social media efforts here are somewhat decentralized -- Editorial runs 17