Pre-Order Thread

[wynn72]

I know it’s just records, but what we’re arguing is the same type of business ethics that would wipe out your 401k if given the option, it wouldn’t be so lol then. Wrong is wrong.

Nah I believe in shades of grey. And wiping out a persons 401k is nothing comparable to a second run of an album.
This isnt even false advertising. Somewhat misleading at the worst. They are ever so slightly changing the product for another printing. Mobile Fidelity is hardly the first company to do this.

 

[Joe Mac]

Yeah ok so I’m not ok with predatory business practices. If I promise 2,000 of something and then press another 2,000 a month later just to capitalise that’s not cool. However, does that promise tie me forever and ever and ever amen? I’d argue not. It’s very difficult to argue that I’m offending a limited edition if I press it again 3, 4, 5, 6 years later. I’d also argue you’d really struggle with an action against such a situation as heaving initially having been “false advertising”.

I love to smash VMP, they’re an outrageously poor outfit on multiple levels but I don’t think that there is anything wrong with repressing Hooker some 3 years later.

Peronally I have no time for people that defend the practice of limited editions or who think that “limited” makes their piece of plastic more special than if it didn’t have number on the back. It also absolutely does cause flipping and buying to speculate on value. My one wish for this hobby would be that things were just pressed and repressed to demand.

 

[dhodo]

This is interesting on an ethical level, let’s extend on to a macro level a bit. Do you believe it is permissible to lie if it benefits the greater good? What are the potential challenges and pitfalls you can see if it is fact permissible? Might that practice be a slippery slope?

I believe that lying to benefit a greater good is permissible only if the reason for lying cannot be seen as self serving. If the reason for lying can be theoretically construed as self serving then it moves to being impermissible. Companies should not lie to their customers when the reasoning can be affirmatively argued to monetarily benefit themselves.

I think the issue is which part we think is worse, the fact that the limited claim was misleading if they never intended it to mean "limited forever" as opposed to just this run or even in the cases where they do claim "limited forever," which at least ends up becoming a lie OR the fact that they are pressing more albums.

To me, I feel that the lie is the bad part and in a perfect world for me, they just never would have said that or used the silly limited marketing tactic. The impression I'm getting from you guys is that you think the worse part is the repress, which I guess I struggle with since I want everything to stay in print for people who want it.

I'm not really sure there is a solution here. They aren't going to stop using claims that help move units without repercussions. If I jump on a release I want early and then it gets repressed, even if I'm mad, it doesn't change my purchasing decision since I already had it. If there is demand for the repress, the people buying it missed out the first time, so they'll be happy the company lied. I suppose you could boycott every label that does that for any future releases, but I don't see enough people taking it personally to make a dent.

All advertising, of which misleading claims of "supplies limited" have long been common in is predatory to an extent, so I guess to me it's just same old same old and I have a hard time getting worked up about it. I hate ads and this is no different, but I guess it's hard for me to expect better.

I would hope that anyone who ends up disgruntled with an expensive album that they didn't really want and feels betrayed by a repress takes that as a learning opportunity to realize that a lot of marketing doesn't give a shit about them and to think twice about making that mistake in the future, because the majority of marketers aren't going to start looking out for them.

 

[Tys1]

Nah I believe in shades of grey. And wiping out a persons 401k is nothing comparable to a second run of an album.
This isnt even false advertising. Somewhat misleading at the worst. They are ever so slightly changing the product for another printing. Mobile Fidelity is hardly the first company to do this.

Agree with you there. My intent 3 pages ago was to condemn blatant false advertising, while drawing attention to manipulation. One is clearly worse than the other. Again, as I’ve said from the start, I don’t think Mofi has done anything wrong at all; they’re changing a pressing up a bit and pressing more, that’s kinda lame but not reprehensible. I believe manipulative practices to be immoral as well but I view that as a personal choice and can see it both ways.

 

[Nee Lewman]

Yeah ok so I’m not ok with predatory business practices. If I promise 2,000 of something and then press another 2,000 a month later just to capitalise that’s not cool. However, does that promise tie me forever and ever and ever amen? I’d argue not. It’s very difficult to argue that I’m offending a limited edition if I press it again 3, 4, 5, 6 years later. I’d also argue you’d really struggle with an action against such a situation as heaving initially having been “false advertising”.

I love to smash VMP, they’re an outrageously poor outfit on multiple levels but I don’t think that there is anything wrong with repressing Hooker some 3 years later.

Peronally I have no time for people that defend the practice of limited editions or who think that “limited” makes their piece of plastic more special than if it didn’t have number on the back. It also absolutely does cause flipping and buying to speculate on value. My one wish for this hobby would be that things were just pressed and repressed to demand.

The problem with pressing Hooker three years later is they did promise they would not repress it.

Limited is limited. Doesn’t matter if another edition is made later on, make it clearly different.

I’m with you, if the demand is there repress it, just do it in such a way to ensure that you don’t affect the limited nature of your limited run.

 

[Dead C]

If someone decided to buy a $50 record instead of something they “needed”, they have a problem.

You're here literally endorsing "false advertising." And yeah, those people might have a problem. Modeling an industry in a matter to exploit that problem isn't terrific, but it is what it is. Outright lying about the details of the product you're selling is deceptive and shouldn't be championed as some "greater good" for everyone.

Also, I don't have much sympathy for people who write posts about how they don't care about other people, because it's not what they experience. You might want to bring that over the BLM thread. I wasn't using you as the control subject for everyone. First, you speak for everyone as someone who "gets it," because you have really bad FOMO. Then you separate yourselves from them by explaining that the pressing number wasn't a factor for YOU personally. Still, you don't see the disconnect. You can't use yourself as an example, because you just explained what differentiates you and how you are not an example. It does matter to some people. That's the point.

This is a forum full of people who buy shit because the color is different from another one. They spend extra money on jackets. All kinds of goofy shit. If you buy a blue vinyl and get a black one, I'm not going to post that it shouldn't matter to YOU, because I personally enjoy black vinyl fine myself. That's me just being dismissive of what affects you, and redirecting it back to how things don't affect me. I'm literally interjecting myself into your situation to dismiss you and ask you to randomly think about me, because I only see myself in any scenario. I get that all highlights an egocentric approach and emphasizes your point that you don't care about other people who get duped if it doesn't affect you, or fit into your specific desires and buying habits, but that only means that your viewpoints and angles on this don't matter to me either, because they are rooted in some pretty unappealing elements. I'm not overwhelmed with the afflictions that I'm commenting about; I'm just looking at this with objective empathy and what I believe is just. Meanwhile, you claim to be the affected party, then immediately pivot to how you aren't them so FUCK THEM and claim they deserve whatever deception they get, because they are weak.

Cool. My view is simple. False advertising = BAD. Yours: False advertising = good. Fuck the consumer, they deserve what they get.

 

[dhodo]

The problem with pressing Hooker three years later is they did promise they would not repress it.

Limited is limited. Doesn’t matter if another edition is made later on, make it clearly different.

I’m with you, if the demand is there repress it, just do it in such a way to ensure that you don’t affect the limited nature of your limited run.

In what capacity did they claim it wouldn't be repressed, in an official VMP communication/listing or Storf mentioning it on the forum? Just curious because I think that was before I was a member.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has legal experience with false advertising because I don't think any of us are experts. I think the indignation here is righteous and justified but I also am very skeptical anything we have discussed has the slightest chance of losing a legal case of false advertising. I think there is a lot of wiggle room.

 

[Joe Mac]

The problem with pressing Hooker three years later is they did promise they would not repress it.

Limited is limited. Doesn’t matter if another edition is made later on, make it clearly different.

I’m with you, if the demand is there repress it, just do it in such a way to ensure that you don’t affect the limited nature of your limited run.

Yeah I don’t agree. I think enough time has now passed. If we’re being picky the obi differentiates. What would you have them do different to allow it to be repressed?

 

[Gavaxeman]

I’ve been collecting records and CD’s since 1980ish ...back then it was looking at what was in the shop , that elusive grail on the back wall that was just out of pocket money budget ...multiple options and formats ? yes they were around (Zeppelin did the 6 diff covers in a paper bag in 1979) , 7inch and 12 inch ..then double packs , picture disc ...the difference then was knowing about this stuff..you got the weekly music papers and scoured the adverts and went into the store ..and you got the choice of what they had in stock ...you scouted around all the local music shops ..but half the time I had no idea of the different formats - release dates were a bit flexible, records came out on Tuesdays for some reason ....

Fast forward to today ..what’s changed ..THE INTERNET!

Releases are trailed months and months in advance ...pre orders..curse of MY life ..I forget half of what I’ve ordered ..I had 2 albums , a cd and a big box set turn up this weekend ..as well as a RSD trip (4 albums) ...

The recent Paul McCartney release was mad (thought I might get one copy ..something like 6 variations now), new AC/DC has at least 4 vinyl choices ...it really is mad ...

Then add in a club like VMP ...I will not renew after November because the costs of these releases are too high to take a gamble on ...especially as the choices are fairly esoteric at times ...

However , I Love Music , and I love collecting..so after 40 years I’m unlikely to change ,.but I have issues with space (recent music room do over has given me lots of cd room , but vinyl is now in two rooms) and I really need to stop spending quite so much , fortunately it’s not stacking up on credit cards but I have to say that despite not doing a lot in these Covid times and having two holidays cancelled ..I really should have some cash saved ..but guess what ! I haven’t as it’s gone on records ..

No idea what the answer is ..but I think losing the internet and going off grid ...........................

 

[Dead C]

Yeah ok so I’m not ok with predatory business practices. If I promise 2,000 of something and then press another 2,000 a month later just to capitalise that’s not cool. However, does that promise tie me forever and ever and ever amen? I’d argue not. It’s very difficult to argue that I’m offending a limited edition if I press it again 3, 4, 5, 6 years later. I’d also argue you’d really struggle with an action against such a situation as heaving initially having been “false advertising”.

I love to smash VMP, they’re an outrageously poor outfit on multiple levels but I don’t think that there is anything wrong with repressing Hooker some 3 years later.

Peronally I have no time for people that defend the practice of limited editions or who think that “limited” makes their piece of plastic more special than if it didn’t have number on the back. It also absolutely does cause flipping and buying to speculate on value. My one wish for this hobby would be that things were just pressed and repressed to demand.

I'll say that I just stumbled into this conversation and saw @Tys1 posting a comment that read as if his previous comments were being misread. What he was saying in that post made sense to me, both based on what he was explaining, and based on the misread bit. I responded only to that comment and no larger conversation about any specific album. Details on anything specific, are specific to those situations, obviously.

Then I start reading comments about how "false advertising" is not only justified, but great. There's no context needed for that bullshit.

I notice that a lot of releases have the phrase, "never to be repressed in this exact format." It's pretty clear where they're going with that one. RSD has their first releases. You know... do what you do. People being mislead when it doesn't state pressing numbers or specifications, that's on them. Straight up lying about shit, though, that should be obviously shady. I guess it's not to everyone.

 

[wynn72]

Agree with you there. My intent 3 pages ago was to condemn blatant false advertising, while drawing attention to manipulation. One is clearly worse than the other. Again, as I’ve said from the start, I don’t think Mofi has done anything wrong at all; they’re changing a pressing up a bit and pressing more, that’s kinda lame but not reprehensible. I believe manipulative practices to be immoral as well but I view that as a personal choice and can see it both ways.

I’ll agree with you there. “Kinda lame” is about the worse Ill go. Im happy theyre pressing more but they coulda thrown a “First pressing limited to 3k” or something.

End of the day, I just hate limited pressings, flipping etc and people buying for only those reasons. The only time I somewhat get it is RSD since it is for the intention of giving business to indie stores and it works extremely well (though I still hate it overall).

 

[Tys1]

I'll say that I just stumbled into this conversation and saw @Tys1 posting a comment that read as if his previous comments were being misread. What he was saying in that post made sense to me, both based on what he was explaining, and based on the misread bit. I responded only to that comment and no larger conversation about any specific album. Details on anything specific, are specific to those situations, obviously.

Then I start reading comments about how "false advertising" is not only justified, but great. There's no context needed for that bullshit.

I notice that a lot of releases have the phrase, "never to be repressed in this exact format." It's pretty clear where they're going with that one. RSD has their first releases. You know... do what you do. People being mislead when it doesn't state pressing numbers or specifications, that's on them. Straight up lying about shit, though, that should be obviously shady. I guess it's not to everyone.

You basically experienced what I did from the onset which led to my post that you responded to, we’re dogs chasing our tails at this point. I said false advertising is bad,that’s it. Never mentioned fomo or flippers at all but suddenly I found myself defending against it just because I want a company to be honest with its customers. That should be a universally accepted belief and completely independent of a fomo conversation.

 

[wynn72]

You're here literally endorsing "false advertising."

Thats not “literally” what Im saying here at all. All Im LITERALLY saying there, is if someone chooses to buy a $50 record over an actual “need” for absolutely any reason at all, is they have a problem.

This is clearly the hill you want to die on though so enjoy your high horse. Im just happy some other people will be able to get an album they want, and some flippers will be stuck losing money or at best breaking even from their attempts at taking advantage.

 

[Joe Mac]

I'll say that I just stumbled into this conversation and saw @Tys1 posting a comment that read as if his previous comments were being misread. What he was saying in that post made sense to me, both based on what he was explaining, and based on the misread bit. I responded only to that comment and no larger conversation about any specific album. Details on anything specific, are specific to those situations, obviously.

Then I start reading comments about how "false advertising" is not only justified, but great. There's no context needed for that bullshit.

I notice that a lot of releases have the phrase, "never to be repressed in this exact format." It's pretty clear where they're going with that one. RSD has their first releases. You know... do what you do. People being mislead when it doesn't state pressing numbers or specifications, that's on them. Straight up lying about shit, though, that should be obviously shady. I guess it's not to everyone.

It is! I find the FOMO culture and insane secondary market to be far shadier.

 

[Gavaxeman]

And I’m back ...

 

[Nee Lewman]

Yeah I don’t agree. I think enough time has now passed. If we’re being picky the obi differentiates. What would you have them do different to allow it to be repressed?

Nothing because they said they wouldn’t.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I'd love to hear from anyone who has legal experience with false advertising because I don't think any of us are experts. I think the indignation here is righteous and justified but I also am very skeptical anything we have discussed has the slightest chance of losing a legal case of false advertising. I think there is a lot of wiggle room.

Half the forum members are lawyers so I bet we could find someone to provide insight. If nothing else, you can summon @Mathew Chupacabra J.D. though I think his specialty is Canadian cryptozoological law.

 

[Nee Lewman]

In what capacity did they claim it wouldn't be repressed, in an official VMP communication/listing or Storf mentioning it on the forum? Just curious because I think that was before I was a member.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has legal experience with false advertising because I don't think any of us are experts. I think the indignation here is righteous and justified but I also am very skeptical anything we have discussed has the slightest chance of losing a legal case of false advertising. I think there is a lot of wiggle room.

The original ads for the add on said they were not to be repressed, were strictly limited to xxx and there was actually a waiting list.

 

[wynn72]

Yeah I don’t agree. I think enough time has now passed. If we’re being picky the obi differentiates. What would you have them do different to allow it to be repressed?

Yep, repress them all. A slight Obi difference is more than good enough to differentiate. Obviously Im much more of VMP fan than alot on this board but I think probably the best change they made this year is repressing past track titles to allow fans to get them. And this is from someone who does not benefit from that AT ALL. Its actually hurts me if I ever do decide to offload my collection.

A huge (and fair) criticism of VMP is their FOMO tactics and this directly goes against on that. There is no pressing numbers advertised for the tracks. Repress them as long as there is demand.

 

[Gavaxeman]

I have to say when I joined VMP it was a bit frustrating to find half the catalogue was unavailable..so I’m quite pleased they are redoing a few older titles before I was a member ..

However I can see an issue if something is advertised as a one run limited number and sold as such ... a reissue needs to be different then , so changing obi strip is fine and good enough for me ...

Imagine if they hadn't pressed any more White albums since the numbered sets ....