Quickpoll

How many times would you want the same tune's..no, I won't put money in the marketer's pocket's

This attitude really saddens me. No doubt you're crying out for cds of unreleased songs and/or takes. So how do you think such a release is funded? Yes, in a large part, from the success ot other releases. If there were no mainstream sales, such as this one, there would be no FTD,or new releases of released or unreleased material in the future..

Yes I agree. Personally I would like BMG to introduce a points based ssytem and/or subscription service where access to FTD and new releases of unreleased material are based upon previous purchases....afterall FTD was intened originally as 'fan club' (and similar) organisations distributed product so would lose no general sales, it would be extremely unlikely given the distribution, that new fans are introduced via FTD, much more probable are standard releases like this needlessly maligned one

No way I would buy this Christmas compilation. I got them all on several releases and this one brings us nothing new! There have been good Christmas compilations before so I don't understand why they keep making new ones. Why would I buy something I already got just because it's got a new name and cover? If it was an original album with enhanced audio and some alternate takes yes but this one..? No, no, no and NO! Stay with one good compilation and let it bring gold and platinum awards.

I see no point whatsoever in spending money on something I already have. Count me out.

I'll buy it IF ... "Silent Night" includes the piano intro. Otherwise ... No.

Yes you need cd's for general public,but no you dont need new compliations every year or in this case every few months,as for jerrys' question, who knows,but i kinda doubt it will include the intro,afterall its a thrown together release isnt it!

isnt that piano intro on one of the other 100 Christmas compilations? I've lost track!

I find it quite incredible the reaction people have when some people say "enough is enough". No disrespect intended, but how can the purchase of this Christmas CD fund FTD? FTD is funded by the $25-$30 price tag they insist on charging. And the prospect of being punished if we don't buy generic Cd's I can't even begin to fathom. The record companies want maximum profits and they would do nothing to jeopardize that. In my humble opinion, (as I have mentioned this before, I apologise if I am repeating myself) I think these type of releases are not really meant for us and SonyBMG are aiming at the mass market. No doubt, you will see this on the stand at your local Walmart alongside Dean Martin, Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra whose compilations are constantly reinvented every Christmas. If you feel that by not purchasing this release you are somehow letting Elvis down, then go ahead and buy it.

PJones, it is very simple indeed. Neither BMG nor any any major record label would nor could support FTD type issues if there was no revenue from mainstream issues - it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to focus the attention and work necessary on such limited sales releases. FTD cds do not generate huge profits - given the limited scale and unit cost of such small production runs. These costs leave no room for expensive artwork, booklets etc etc - the lack of these is simply the contribution from sales is insufficient to fund them not that BMG is 'maximising profits' (which, speaking as a management consultant, means nothing and incidentally is not the number one objective of any business - growth in shareholder and customer value are far more important which are not necessarily related to 'profits'). Catalogue sales of FTD cds are virtually nil in many cases. I would be quite happy for BMG to charge 50% more, and I would still buy them, and would many others, and I think this is something they should consider if it meant higher quality. But there is unquestionably a direct link between the sales of mainstream product and FTD.

With all respect to your title SuziB, I don't agree. I am a lowly blue collar worker but I believe all companies strive to make profit, why else would they exist? How do companies increase shareholder growth without becoming successful and profitable? I never implied FTD was anything more than a collectors label and in no way is it on the same footing as mainstream releases, but I can't for one minute accept that these releases do not make them a pretty penny. Being a "Management Consultant" though, you may have hard figures supporting your argument to the contrary. Ernst Jorgensen and Roger Semon's recent announcement of deleting 4 of their titles mentioned that the titles were only originally slated for a 1-2 year period as they figured they would only hold interest for that amount of time, but they kept selling. You mention the small profits reflect in the packaging, I may have agreed with you in 1999 with the release of Burbank 68' or Out In Hollywood. Can't agree with you today, with albums like Live On Stage In Memphis, Loving You, Something For Everybody, Elvis Is Back, Today etc etc. These releases are beautifully presented and with very high quality booklets. Finally, one of the main reasons FTD was set up was to to stem the tide in bootlegs, I think it would be pretty counterproductive to whoop the price up 50%.

The FTD releases are worth every penny that they cost. They present the Elvis albums with the class they deserve. No matter how bad the material was Elvis always delivered a great performance (except for "Old MacDonald"...who on earth could ever make that sound good?). Elvis' music will live forever and why not make it available? This cd release does combine both Christmas albums. It could have included "If Every Day Was Like Christmas" and "Mama Liked the Roses" (even though it isn't really a Christmas song) and would have been perfect, but this is one I will buy (even though I have both separate albums and the 'If Every Day Was Like Christmas' release). I think when FTD does their issues of the Christmas albums they will be the definitive statement.

same songs different order no thanks

How do companies increase shareholder value without making profit - very very simple, customer and brand equity!!

The value of a company's brand equity can be calculated by comparing the expected future REVENUE from the branded product with the expected future revenue from an equivalent non-branded product-yawn! Yes very simple. Wonder I didn't see it before.

Really suggest you source your definitions from a different website -that definition is 20 years out of day. Besides you said profits, and revenue and profits are not the same thing at all. The modern definition of brand equity is the future contribution to stakeholder equity growth derived from the customer value of a portfolio. customer value being the interpretation of the brand and product positioning of one offer compared to that of another v- it is concerned with future cash flow both actual and intrinsic.

"product positioning", "stakeholder equity growth" ??? This is EPE speak, and that is not a compliment. Those morons don't even realise Elvis was a real person and, it appears, so have you. The long nights must fly by in your house, or "Accrued cement and foundation based equity investment portfolio" as you might call it. The bottom line is it's all about the music and Elvis' reputation and stature in the world of entertainment. Does this release serve Elvis well in this regard? You must be joking. As became apparent to me around three years ago, BMG/EPE/CKX/BMX/BSE/ICI and whoever else's finger is in the Elvis pie, are responsible for a completely backwards approach to Elvis' releases, it's as if the Colonel never went away. This release, although supposedly aimed at the general public, is just another means by which those un-ethical parasites in charge of the Elvis "brand" can procure cash from Elvis fans by using a slightly different font on the same album. This should not come as a suprise to anyone - after all, the powers that be have mis-managed and abused Elvis's body of work ever since they signed his contract in 1955. I find it a real shame that 51 years on, they haven't learnt a damn thing - They didn't know what to do with him then, and they don't know what to do with him now. This is yet another release which will relegate Elvis' un-equalled talent to the bargain bucket section of your local record shop. Do you remember when we were all so excited about the new Elvis revolution after "A little less conversation" ? Nobody could have screwed that up, nobody. And here we are, four years on, having to digest the 49th version of "Elvis' Christmas album". It's not all bad though, as I think the songs are in a slightly different order, and they left the word "Album" off the cover. Merry Christmas Baby...

SuziB, you are aware this is an Elvis website and not some boring seminar?

I agree, Viva. It reminds me of the sixties when the powers that be knew we would buy whatever they laid at our door. Standards in the songs deteriorated, the film plots grew weaker by the year, even the quality of the tapes declined (Kissin' Cousins is the worst in my view). And here we are today full circle.

Although I largely agree with "Viva" and "PJones" (i'm always beating the drum about how Elvis' catalog is treated in comparison to other legendardary acts), I still welcome Suzi's comments here as they do reflect what marketers and others today. As with "Love, Elvis" and other compilations like the new "genre" "Live" set, I'm happy to sit this one out.

Where can we vote re the Christmas CD ?