Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article

The New York Times has a feature article on Record and Turntable sales in
Sunday's edition. The following is just a partial quote from the article:

"Rachelle Friedman, the co-owner of J&R, said the store is selling more
vinyl and turntables than it has in at least a decade, fueled largely by
growing demand from members of the iPod generation.

'It's all these kids that are really ramping up their vinyl collections,'
Ms. Friedman said. 'New customers are discovering the quality of the sound.
They're discovering liner notes and graphics.' In many instances, the vinyl
album of today is thicker and sounds better than those during vinyl's heyday
in the 1960s and 1970s.

Sales of vinyl albums have been climbing steadily for several years,
tromping on the notion that the rebound was just a fad. Through late
November, more than 2.1 million vinyl records had been sold in 2009, an
increase of more than 35 percent in a year, according to Nielsen Soundscan.
That total, though it represents less than 1 percent of all album sales,
including CDs and digital downloads, is the highest for vinyl records in any
year since Nielsen began tracking them in 1991. "

--NYTimes, December 6, 2009

--
Harry Lavo
Holyoke, MA

In article >,
Dick Pierce > wrote:

> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > Sales of vinyl albums have been climbing steadily for several years,
> > tromping on the notion that the rebound was just a fad.
>
> The same source quotes 2008 CD album sales at 428 million units, and
> song downloads at 1 billion units. So, attempting to compare 2008
> apples to 2008 oranges, that's 428 million cd album sales vs 1.6
> million vinyl record sales, making vinyl sales account for 0.37%
> of the total album market.

I think the point is that sales of LPs keep growing, which is a
surprise. CD sales, last I heard, were declining. I'm not sure about
downloads, but they are probably growing as well.

The number of units clearly is very low, but I think most people
expected them to disappear by now.

Robert wrote:

> I think the point is that sales of LPs keep growing, which is a
> surprise.

"Keep growing" is overstated, What we have here is a couple years of
growth after decades of decline and stagnation.

The interesting question is, Why? I don't think this is audiophile-
driven. Their demand for vinyl was being met in the late stagnant
years. I suspect the article is right about vinyl now appealing to a
younger cohort, as sort of a retro fad. Nothing wrong with that, but
fads have limits, too, and we may well see vinyl sales plateau fairly
soon.

Just as an aside, the quality of the gear these records are being
played on is very depressing.

bob

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> Sales of vinyl albums have been climbing steadily for several years,
>> tromping on the notion that the rebound was just a fad. Through late
>> November, more than 2.1 million vinyl records had been sold in 2009, an
>> increase of more than 35 percent in a year, according to Nielsen
>> Soundscan.
>> That total, though it represents less than 1 percent of all album sales,
>> including CDs and digital downloads, is the highest for vinyl records in
>> any
>> year since Nielsen began tracking them in 1991. "
>
> The same source quotes 2008 CD album sales at 428 million units, and
> song downloads at 1 billion units. So, attempting to compare 2008
> apples to 2008 oranges, that's 428 million cd album sales vs 1.6
> million vinyl record sales, making vinyl sales account for 0.37%
> of the total album market.
>
> Put it in a slightly different perspective, that's about 1.43 CDs for
> every person in the United states, vs. one vinyl LP for every 188
> persons.
>
> Another perspective: assume $5 per CD and $10 per LP, that's 2.1G$
> for CD, and 0.024G$ for LP.
>
> How their data, as revealed, suggests that this is fueled by purchases
> of the "iPod generation," is certainly a stretch. Where's the breakdown
> by age, for example?
>
> Further, there's no breakdown on how many of those sales constitute
> new vs resale/preowned product (in either case, to be fair).
>
> But the noise in the CD data is larger by a lot than the total LP
> sales.

Dick, I'm not sure you know who Rachel is. She is the owner of J&R, and
works actively at the store....she gets this knowledge by seeing and talking
with the customers and with her department heads, who know their customers
well. J&R is a very well-run retailer. They know their customers.

[ excess quotation removed -- dsr ]

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> Robert wrote:
>
>> I think the point is that sales of LPs keep growing, which is a
>> surprise.
>
> "Keep growing" is overstated, What we have here is a couple years of
> growth after decades of decline and stagnation.
>
> The interesting question is, Why? I don't think this is audiophile-
> driven. Their demand for vinyl was being met in the late stagnant
> years. I suspect the article is right about vinyl now appealing to a
> younger cohort, as sort of a retro fad. Nothing wrong with that, but
> fads have limits, too, and we may well see vinyl sales plateau fairly
> soon.
>
> Just as an aside, the quality of the gear these records are being
> played on is very depressing.
>
> bob


Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a
fad? See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this.

On Dec 7, 5:05=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> Robert wrote:
> > I think the point is that sales of LPs keep growing, which is a
> > surprise.
>
> "Keep growing" is overstated, What we have here is a couple years of
> growth after decades of decline and stagnation.

Not really sure how a fact stated as a fact can be an overstatement.
vinyl sales have been in fairly constant growth for the past decade.
But there has been a substantial spike in the last couple years.

>
> The interesting question is, Why? I don't think this is audiophile-
> driven.

No doubt the constant growth over the past decade has to some degree
been driven by audiophiles. One need look no further than the huge
increase in audiophile vinyl titles available today compared to 10 and
15 years ago to see that. But the recent spike in the last couple
years I suspect has been more about vinyl becoming cool.

> Their demand for vinyl was being met in the late stagnant
> years.

Not the audiophile demand.

> I suspect the article is right about vinyl now appealing to a
> younger cohort, as sort of a retro fad. Nothing wrong with that, but
> fads have limits, too, and we may well see vinyl sales plateau fairly
> soon.

One can only hope. This fad has actually had some ill effects on vinyl
for audiophiles.


>
> Just as an aside, the quality of the gear these records are being
> played on is very depressing.


Which records?

On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a
> fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this.

Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad
does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro
coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may
plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet.

On Dec 7, 10:00=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
> On Dec 7, 5:05=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
>
> > "Keep growing" is overstated, What we have here is a couple years of
> > growth after decades of decline and stagnation.
>
> Not really sure how a fact stated as a fact can be an overstatement.
> vinyl sales have been in fairly constant growth for the past decade.
> But there has been a substantial spike in the last couple years.

A fact is something you don't just make up. "Vinyl sales have been in
fairly constant growth for the past decade," doesn't qualify as a
fact.

bob

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message


> Harry Lavo wrote:

>> Sales of vinyl albums have been climbing steadily for
>> several years, tromping on the notion that the rebound
>> was just a fad. Through late November, more than 2.1
>> million vinyl records had been sold in 2009, an increase
>> of more than 35 percent in a year, according to Nielsen
>> Soundscan. That total, though it represents less than 1
>> percent of all album sales, including CDs and digital
>> downloads, is the highest for vinyl records in any year
>> since Nielsen began tracking them in 1991. "

> The same source quotes 2008 CD album sales at 428 million
> units, and song downloads at 1 billion units. So,
> attempting to compare 2008 apples to 2008 oranges, that's
> 428 million cd album sales vs 1.6 million vinyl record
> sales, making vinyl sales account for 0.37%
> of the total album market.

The executive summary is that "A rising tide lifts all boats".

> Put it in a slightly different perspective, that's about
> 1.43 CDs for every person in the United states, vs. one
> vinyl LP for every 188 persons.

> Another perspective: assume $5 per CD and $10 per LP,
> that's 2.1G$
> for CD, and 0.024G$ for LP.

Considering that many of us can remember when the LP had close to 100%
market share, 0.37% seems like a massive fall from "grace"

> How their data, as revealed, suggests that this is fueled
> by purchases of the "iPod generation," is certainly a
> stretch. Where's the breakdown by age, for example?

One irony is that there seems to be amazing amounts of interest in LPs among
people in their late 30s and early 40s. For many of us older folk, we
remember when the LP was all we had, and that can be amazingly effective
aversion therapy.

> Further, there's no breakdown on how many of those sales
> constitute new vs. resale/preowned product (in either
> case, to be fair).

Given how often we see gleeful posts about "Amazing LP Finds" found at the
local Goodwill store, it seems like recycled product is a bigger segment of
the LP market. One of the keys to any market for used product is people who
want to discard the product in question. Listening to LPs surely makes me
want to discard them if I have a viable alternative.

> But the noise in the CD data is larger by a lot than the
> total LP sales.

One irony is that not too long ago, Vinyl was more like 1% of the total
market. Now its 0.37%. Where I come from, that's a 63% loss of market share.
Even though the actual numbers of product sold go up, the market share
appears to be continuing to all off a cliff.

"bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>> Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a
>> fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this.
>
> Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad
> does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro
> coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may
> plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet.

The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and caters
to her customers?