The Big Record Labels' Not-So-Big Future

jaguarr

Be Your Own Hero
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
43,565
Reaction score
1
Points
31
Really great Businessweek article on the state of the record industry. :up:

jag


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2007/db2007109_120106.htm

The Music Business October 10, 2007, 12:01AM EST text size: TT
The Big Record Labels' Not-So-Big Future

With the Web decimating CD sales, the major labels are looking for new revenue streams, including ringtones, merchandise, tours—everything but music

by Justin Bachman
It has been a rough month of breakups for the Big Four record companies. First, British rock group Radiohead decided to release its new record as a pay-what-you-wish digital download on Oct. 10, making it clear the quintet intends to avoid any new major record deal. A week later, industrial band Nine Inch Nails declared its emancipation from its former label, Interscope Records. NIN's announcement came less than a month after front man Trent Reznor exhorted fans at a Sydney show to "steal" music to protest high CD prices.
"I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate," Reznor wrote on the band's Web site on Oct. 8. "Exciting times, indeed."
Not if you're a record company executive watching sales plummet. Last year, CD sales dropped 13%, to $9.2 billion, according to figures from the Recording Industry Association of America. The slump mirrors overall revenues for the Big Four—Sony/BMG, Universal, Warner (WMG), and EMI Group—which have been flat or declining for more than two years.
"A New World"

The Internet has wreaked all sorts of havoc on the traditional recorded-music model. For decades labels have been signing bands, paying for their first record and video, moving the music to radio and retailers, organizing concert tours, and helping to peddle merchandise. But for many fans and artists, that model has become grossly anachronistic. If the music is flowing digitally, why allow a corporation to get between an artist and the audience? "It's a new world now, and people are thinking of new ways to reach the people, and that's always been my aim," said Paul McCartney in March, 2007, when he joined Starbucks' (SBUX) new music label, HearMusic, ditching his longtime home at EMI.
It doesn't help that the same companies have been antagonizing music consumers for years with pricey CDs, rights-management restrictions, and file-sharing lawsuits. "They can't even make a product you can open," says Brandon Kessler, founder of Messenger Records, a small New York City label. "Can you imagine going to the store and buying a carton of milk you can't get open? It's infuriating. There's such a lack of knowledge of their customer."
Record executives finally recognize the shift and are no longer betting on a revival of CD sales. "Almost every core operating principle in the recorded-music business has been shaken or challenged," said Warner Music Chairman and Chief Executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. in a Sept. 17 speech at a technology conference.
One of the casualties is the industry's fundamental economics. A record label used to play an important financial role because it fronted the money to record an album, which could cost tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now any 14-year-old can pick up a copy of Apple's (AAPL) Logic Studio for $499 and make respectable recordings. All that's needed are generous parents or a babysitting gig.
Digital is the new paradigm. Who needs a record label to handle marketing and public relations anymore? Musicians can just set up a MySpace page and talk directly with their fans. Record labels used to help court radio stations, too, to get music on the air. Now you can zip MP3 copies of your first single via e-mail to anyone in the world.
Professional Strength

Despite the challenges, record labels still perform some tasks extremely well. The Big Four turn out recordings that are technically pristine, meeting the exacting standards of radio, television, and film that are out of reach for most kids with computers. The labels also can transport these CDs worldwide, stock them at retailers, market them reasonably effectively, organize concert tours, and manage various business functions for artists under contract. "They're very good at selling a Bruce Springsteen album and getting it everywhere at once," says Dale Anderson, a Buffalo (N.Y.) journalist who produced independent folk singer Ani DiFranco's first two records.
Record labels are experimenting with new approaches, too. Part of Bronfman's new strategy will be to expand revenue sources with musicians so that record sales are but one part of a pie incorporating more frequent releases, touring, licensing, merchandising, endorsements, and sponsorships. Others envision a time when music—a market still showing respectable growth—becomes more of a product, like mobile-phone service or cable television, that flows into your home or telephone at various rate plans. Others argue that music will become free, with record companies and musicians making money from concerts, merchandise, and licensing.
What's hard to see, though, is how the Big Four can boost their sales and income much in this new era. Manufacturing and distribution costs stand to fall in the digital transition, and record companies will handle numerous business and administrative functions for artists. But the profit bonanza of an $18 CD? Those days are gone forever. Record companies are likely to become geared more toward the commercial aspects of the business and away from the creative side. "They'll still play an important role. The question is whether they'll get paid for it," says Kessler. "They'll either go out of business or wake up."
There's talk of further industry consolidation—EMI was acquired this summer by private equity firm Terra Firma Capital Partners for $4.8 billion. Some analysts have said the industry's conversion from CD to digital music may be a job best overseen by private owners.
Mix and Match

Not that CDs will become rare anytime soon. For all its online experimentation, Radiohead is expected to put the new record out on CD next year, shortly after the band ships an $82 "discbox" of album art, vinyl LPs, and eight bonus tracks. Another group, the Charlatans UK, will give fans its new record for free in 2008, with the first single coming Oct. 22 as a digital download.
British music journal Record of the Day collected some 3,000 responses in its online poll of what consumers paid for Radiohead's In Rainbows, finding that about half offering the band nothing. The rest said they'd given £5 or £10, or $10.20 to $20.40. Others said they'd paid what they assume an artist receives from a typical CD—10% to 20% of the retail price—Record of the Day Managing Director Paul Scaife said in an e-mail. "First time I've paid for an album in years," posted a purchaser from Britain, who said he'd paid £5. "I'm paying in part because I love this kind of original thinking—though I don't see it as a solution to the music industry's woes."
In his speech, Bronfman detailed the company's 2006 experience with South Korean pop star Baek Ji Young as a possible template for future releases. In the traditional model a pop act had the record and several singles to sell. For Baek's record, the company had 416 distinct digital products, including song tracks, ringtones, videos, and album art. "And all without the need for physical inventory," said Bronfman. Just the sort of revenue scheme that could comfort a record executive lamenting the loss of his CD collection.
 
I knew the record industry where cheesed about the radiohead thing. They still moaning about prince giving away his new album not so long ago.
 
it won't be long before all mayor acts that actually care about their music and their fans start following suit
 
i remember old pearl jam tried this back in the day, with zero success. but then again not everyone had computers back then and what not, so the more connected we are could prove the downfall of the record companies. but im not all that sure.
 
I just picked up Springsteen's new CD Magic, for $9.99 at Walmart..about all I'll pay for a CD these days,But I like an actual product in my hand for my money, weather it's $10 or 10 cents. If musicians don't like what the record companies are doing,they should just release the music themselves,It's not like they can't afford it,but these rich celebs don't like to spend thier own millions,they want the record company to do everything for them...pay for the recording,touring,advertising ect...they just wanna sing and cash the check.
 
I just picked up Springsteen's new CD Magic, for $9.99 at Walmart..about all I'll pay for a CD these days,But I like an actual product in my hand for my money, weather it's $10 or 10 cents. If musicians don't like what the record companies are doing,they should just release the music themselves,It's not like they can't afford it,but these rich celebs don't like to spend thier own millions,they want the record company to do everything for them...pay for the recording,touring,advertising ect...they just wanna sing and cash the check.

Ummm, yeah. That's really not how a lot of artists feel, regardless of their level of success.

jag
 
yeah I saw a CD in HMV that was £14.99 which is like $30 in american dollars. The album was like 2 years old. You could buy it online for £9.00. I don't know how they could justify that kind of price unless its some special edition or something.
 
Ummm, yeah. That's really not how a lot of artists feel, regardless of their level of success.

jag

It's not the Artists that set the price. It's the record label. I don't know if the Artist gets paid a percentage of the profits or an amount based on the total number of records sold, but I somehow suspect it's the latter and not the former. CD's have been ridiculously overpriced, as have DVD's. It's about time the industry realized that a lot more people will buy them legitimatly if they would only lower there prices to something a little more reasonable. $1 per song I'll pay for.
 
It's not the Artists that set the price. It's the record label. I don't know if the Artist gets paid a percentage of the profits or an amount based on the total number of records sold, but I somehow suspect it's the latter and not the former. CD's have been ridiculously overpriced, as have DVD's. It's about time the industry realized that a lot more people will buy them legitimatly if they would only lower there prices to something a little more reasonable. $1 per song I'll pay for.

A HIGH profile, high selling, established artist will be lucky to get 5-8% of a CD's total sales. If they are lucky. Very lucky. New artists are lucky to get 1-2% of a CD's sale. If they are lucky and not paying the label back for studio and marketing fees. Artists make their money off of concert ticket and merchandise sales, not really from CD sales. The record companies are who profit from CD sales. That's why I laugh when the record suits try to sell the idea that the artists are suffering from music piracy when they've done far more to hurt the artists than any downloader ever has. Even harder to feel sorry for them when the cost of CD production has gone down SIGNIFICANTLY since the technology was first introduced, yet they've continually tried to raise CD prices thereby lining their pockets but not sharing the wealth with the artists. I've read figures that say the price of CD production, including recording and marketing fees, has gone down from $5-8 per disc when the technology first came out to around $.50-$2 currently, depending on the production and marketing budget. Yet the cost to the consumer hasn't gone down at all and in fact has gone up in many cases. The record industry is trying to operate off of a business model that was established in the 1940's and have tried everything to resist changing it because it has been so profitable for them, even getting the government to do some of their dirty work by passing and enforcing legislation that protects their outdated business model. Now that resistance is blowing up in their faces as technology begins to devour them alive. Guys like Bronfman are just middlemen who don't need to be there, sucking up artist profits, any longer. Technology continues to evolve in a fashion that enables artists to do it all for themselves, and that's great to see. Trent Reznor of NIN, Radiohead, Prince, Pearl Jam and many others are breaking new ground with all of this by not staying with a label and just doing it all themselves. Madonna is on the verge of getting out of her label contracts as well. They're setting the stage for a completely different recording industry, along with the countless bands that are drawing international attention through venues like CDBaby and Myspace.

jag
 
I think it's great for the artists. Now they can actually make money off their record sales, instead of relying solely on touring and merchandise. The labels are ripping these cats off on a product the artists themselves are putting out, and yet said artists are seeing a borderline insignificant cut of profits for their albums. Cut out the bloody middle man, and sell it on your terms for the price you set. I love it.
 
The other issue with the record companies is that they do a lot to squash up and coming artists that some a-hole excec just doesn't like. They like to have control of their artists and often create their own "talent" to shape, mold and market however they'd like to. That way they can do what they want because the "artist" is just a product and can be replaced if they get too big for their britches. What this means is that truly creative artists who are innovating and making new music against their own vision are often overlooked or put under crappy contracts and then never allowed to actually release an album, or their album is buried by the record marketing pukes so that it does very little sales so the company can justify keeping them under exclusive contract so that they can't release anything on their own or with another label, but they're also not given the funds or greenlight to release anything with the label they're signed with. The last thing a record company wants is a band to turn into a Radiohead or U2 where they have massive clout in the market place and can start calling their own shots on their contracts and what percentage of the pie they get. Better to have a bunch of "artists" that sell a lot of records for one or two albums and then are forgotten and replaced by the next batch of industry-created "artists".

jag
 
let's burn down the record labels and hang their execs from their silk ties
 
i've been predicting the industry's loss of power for a couple years now....its going to get very interesting soon.
 
Trent strikes me as the flipside of Lars.

Everyone said Lars was such a pud, "Oh, wah wah wah. You've got 50 Million dollars, a fleet of cars and a mansion for each day of the week, and now you're sad 'cause you're not getting MORE money for your music."

And what I see is, "Oh, bOy, Trent! NOW that you've got 50 Million dollars, a fleet of cars and a mansion for each day of the week, NOW you encourage people to steal your music and enjoy it for free."


:o

It's really easy for him to say that, now. Part of the reason he became so wealthy and got so much exposure was because he demonstrated sale-ability and a label supported him FOR that, back when he was a nobody.

I had a band when I was a teenager, and this place called the Speedway Cafe asked us to open for this big upcoming show and before saying yes we asked who the other bands were, and one of 'em was someone called "9 Inch Nails".
We thought it sounded pretty Gothy and assumed it would be like Gwar, from the name, heh.

So anyway, I was there when no one knew who Trent was, and part of how he GOT to be known, was just that....touring, everywhere, non-stop, pushing himself, promoting, promoting, promoting.


Now if you're a young band, and you have a cool sound, what if you can't afford a giant vehicle that can contain all of your gear? What if you're broke and can hardly afford xeroxed flyers let alone the production costs of making a video and publishing 1,000 CD's with professional looking booklets inside?

And how DO you get your video seen? youtube? Cool, jump in there with the other 909 quadrillion billion other bands and try to become some kind of "internet sensation", and get a lot of "hits" on your website. How lame.




The article here even says, there are things that the labels are good at, and that's the unleashing of, and maintenance of, the global promotion WAR machine...the kind that made Trent Reznor famous.
My friends the Flys got to play on Conan O'Brien, and had a video on Mtv, and hade 3 tour buses, giant ones, and they got to fly everywhere in private jets.
There's NO, NO, NO way that would've ever happened if not for a "Big Record Company"'s resources.

There's no way he'd be at the Rockstar Level he's at today if he was just starting today as one dork with some sequenced songs on his Myspace page, selling CD's and homemade T-Shirts on his "site". :o

You think David Bowie would bump into his myspace page and go, "Damn, I'd like to tour with THAT guy! :eek:" ?
Please.


Also, you hear this incessantly, about how the artist only gets less than a penny for every CD sold or whatever.
It's irrelevant.
If a guy can say, "My album just went Double Platinum." it's a whole different world for him, than it is for a dude who says, "My album's only sold 10 copies, but we have a TON of FANS all over the web! :up:"

It's like, a movie director might not get ANY of the money from ticket sales, but if his movie makes 400 Million dollars, when he makes his next movie, he can tell the massive, bloated, disgusting business-side promo-Greed-machine, "Yo, my last movie made $400 Million."
And NOW, without getting a cent from each ticket sold, BEFORE any tickets are sold, he commands a higher payday, AND bigger say, WITH the added benefit of outrageous resources at his disposal that some punk film-school kid could never even dream of...all because of SALES and these big, fat-cat organizations that everyone hates so much.


Next, in closing, I also keep hearing about how it's noble to steal a band's music, because they willingly signed up with a label, and the label charges SO much for music these days, exorbitant, obscenely high prices, and then they don't give any money to the poor band ( who, :huh:, willingly signed the contracts, 'cause, they wanted to, 'cause, it was such a sweet deal, for THEM. :huh: )

And I don't get it.
How much is a CD now?
Last time I bought one it was less than $20, less than the Movies I buy, less than a graphic novel, the price of lunch for 2.
Is everyone so poor, that 15-18 bucks is just BACK-BREAKINGLY outRAGEOUSLY high-priced?
I guess I value music more. *shrug*
I feel lucky that we aren't charged $5,000 for even a copy of Led Zeppelin IV, 'cause it is priceless.
 
I think it's great for the artists. Now they can actually make money off their record sales.
LOL


Dude, start a band, work really hard on perfecting your sound, save up to record an album, save up and and get a bunch of reproductions of it made, and, start "selling" it.

I'll come back in a year see how much money you've made off of it.

Hahahaha:o
 
The problem with any creative venture, be it writing, music, film making, whatever .. is that the creative people have traditionally been at the mercy of the extremely uncreative and often untalented, "suits;" the people with the money to publish, produce, greenlight whatever the artist has to offer. The sad part is the suits often manage to tie up the artists work in such a way that it no longer even belongs to the artist. :cmad: That's what I consider most outrageous. Either that or the hacks redesign the work so that it's unrecognizable, anyway. Artists aren't compensated nearly enough for their work, imo.
 
Finally bands are starting to realise that they don't need they guys anymore. WOO HOO!!
 
Downloading is free...why would you buy?I don't listen to modern music anyway.
you should, there's a whole lot of very interesting stuff out there

you just have to look for it
 
A HIGH profile, high selling, established artist will be lucky to get 5-8% of a CD's total sales. If they are lucky. Very lucky. New artists are lucky to get 1-2% of a CD's sale. If they are lucky and not paying the label back for studio and marketing fees. Artists make their money off of concert ticket and merchandise sales, not really from CD sales. The record companies are who profit from CD sales. That's why I laugh when the record suits try to sell the idea that the artists are suffering from music piracy when they've done far more to hurt the artists than any downloader ever has. Even harder to feel sorry for them when the cost of CD production has gone down SIGNIFICANTLY since the technology was first introduced, yet they've continually tried to raise CD prices thereby lining their pockets but not sharing the wealth with the artists. I've read figures that say the price of CD production, including recording and marketing fees, has gone down from $5-8 per disc when the technology first came out to around $.50-$2 currently, depending on the production and marketing budget. Yet the cost to the consumer hasn't gone down at all and in fact has gone up in many cases. The record industry is trying to operate off of a business model that was established in the 1940's and have tried everything to resist changing it because it has been so profitable for them, even getting the government to do some of their dirty work by passing and enforcing legislation that protects their outdated business model. Now that resistance is blowing up in their faces as technology begins to devour them alive. Guys like Bronfman are just middlemen who don't need to be there, sucking up artist profits, any longer. Technology continues to evolve in a fashion that enables artists to do it all for themselves, and that's great to see. Trent Reznor of NIN, Radiohead, Prince, Pearl Jam and many others are breaking new ground with all of this by not staying with a label and just doing it all themselves. Madonna is on the verge of getting out of her label contracts as well. They're setting the stage for a completely different recording industry, along with the countless bands that are drawing international attention through venues like CDBaby and Myspace.

jag

Strikes me that the korean guy has nailed the model. everything, from the music, to the artwork, to the ringtone, bought directly from him.

Next step, imo, will be for internet cafe's offering onsite burn and print facilities (assuming they dont at the moment) for those that dont have a computer.

But you know what? there will still be people that would justify file sharing it and getting it free, as though its a right.
 
The other issue with the record companies is that they do a lot to squash up and coming artists that some a-hole excec just doesn't like. They like to have control of their artists and often create their own "talent" to shape, mold and market however they'd like to. That way they can do what they want because the "artist" is just a product and can be replaced if they get too big for their britches. What this means is that truly creative artists who are innovating and making new music against their own vision are often overlooked or put under crappy contracts and then never allowed to actually release an album, or their album is buried by the record marketing pukes so that it does very little sales so the company can justify keeping them under exclusive contract so that they can't release anything on their own or with another label, but they're also not given the funds or greenlight to release anything with the label they're signed with. The last thing a record company wants is a band to turn into a Radiohead or U2 where they have massive clout in the market place and can start calling their own shots on their contracts and what percentage of the pie they get. Better to have a bunch of "artists" that sell a lot of records for one or two albums and then are forgotten and replaced by the next batch of industry-created "artists".

jag

The public get what the public deserve. If the next american / pop idol winner didnt sell a single copy, and no one watched the show, they would stop all of that in an instant.
 
I kinda fall between wilhelm's and jag's view here. I do think its wrong for someone like reznor to stand up and say "steal my music" once he has made his millions. If thats how you feel, then buy yourslef out of your contract and stick it on your website for free. but its obvious the record industry is an old and tired model that needs some of revamp to account for the modern way of doing things.
 
The public get what the public deserve. If the next american / pop idol winner didnt sell a single copy, and no one watched the show, they would stop all of that in an instant.

true but the public wasn't being given the chance to hear different artists because of big labels monopoly on radio stations, tv, press coverage ect.

Thanks to the Internet its putting some of that power back into the hands of the people. They go online and find the artists they want to hear instead of being spoon fed what the record execs want them to hear.

You only have to look at all the music threads on these boards with all the posters saying modern music is crap. Most of them haven't even heard of half the good artists out at the moment because they haven't gotten the chance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"