|
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
That article is utter bullshit.
Firstly I agree that the figures are nonesense, both in terms of accuracy and in comparative evaluation;
A&R investment by labels has never been lower than now - the development deal basically doesn't exist, and you can't get a deal unless you've already had mainstream exposure.
I have told this anecdote before, but a few years ago, I was speaking to Head of A&R for One of the Major Global labels. He said outright, that as company policy, they are not signing anyone that hasn't already been on TV or been an internet sensation. Basically no new talent gets signed unless they are a reality TV star or the offspring of someone rich and famous and have had both the finds and connections, to PR themselves to the point that they are famous enough to get a record deal.
What people don't seem to realize, is that shows like the the Voice and X factor and America's Got Talent are simply the personification of this policy - the labels set up these shows as a very cheap, but high profit yielding way to create instant "known talent". No need for any extra A&R, the auditions find the people, the show makes them famous.
The prize for the voice this year is: A record deal. No money, no tour, nothing else. you don't sell records? Doesn't matter. They've already made the money on the ad revenue from the show, itunes downloads and leveraged content on the web.
The comparison about R&D development against other sectors is laughable. The %'s firstly don't look accurate, and with the biochem industry, the %'s are low because of the staggering margins but the actual figure in real money is 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars spent on R&D.
What they are also laughably lumping in to the A&R budget but not mentioning is the PR they are doing promote that artist. Let's not fool ourselves in to thinking this is "artist development" - it's purely paying PR agencies, media companies and networks to do paid placement for them. That's not in the artists benefit exactly, it's purely a advertising cost for the label to recoup their investment.
Korean star Psy, decided (and was a conscious decision with his Label) not to go after copyright infringement for gangnam style. He let everyone do their own videos, parodies, and rip offs, and they looked at the numbers and said we'll actually sell more, license more to tv commercials, get more personal appearances and more paid interviews that by trying to clamp down on all the unauthorized use of his copyright.
In the end, it has been estimated that this decision, made psy at least $8m more than he would have, and his record label a further $23m, and that doesn't even include the benefit of costs they would have incurred trying to enforce those takedown notices and copyright infringements.
Piracy does not develop or invest in artists in the same way the major labels don't when there's not a guaranteed payout at the end. They are looking for instant payback, then they'll spend raising that person higher so they can make more off them.
Piracy does however, let millions of people hear music they never would have and that's more opportunity than any of the labels are offering unknown/unsigned talent.
The likes of Spotify & Vevo and even youtube (to an extent) are simply legally protected, illegal streaming services and are a form of piracy. |
What are the companies really thinking, they'll make more money when society vilifies piracy?
Even if nobody pirated, you think about the price of music and its still relatively expensive. For one song you can get: one item at a fast food restaurant, or you can rent one movie for one day(redbox).
If you live in a poor area, cheap convenience food can be even cheaper, you could get 4 small bags of chips! A song is 3 or 4 minutes, a movie lasts for at least an hour and a half!
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
change your avatar for fucks sake. |
|
