|
Beatport to start inforcing Label Quotas (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by pwnage1
The you should be making millions.;) |
Umm..... No. |
|
|
| Vennes |
| Ah, I noticed a big shift in releases in December, now I know why! Seems like a fair deal to me, and helps keep an overview |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by System101
you cant always just rely on the label! |
Then it's a bad label. Simple. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Storyteller
Then it's a bad label. Simple. |
True! (well mostly). While I think it is only in the benefit of an artist to promote themselves and their material, the label really should be doing the promotion.
Why the else are you giving them the rights to distribute (and and in many cases own) your music? it's not like most labels don't shaft you enough anyway on a deal - at least they can work for their money by promoting it and you!
If labels just bung a track on beatport (etc.) and then just sit there and wait for the money to roll in then..............why couldn't you (the artist) just bung it on beatport yourself and keep all the mula?....oh yeah, because now you'll probably have to reach a certain quota.
The good thing is that it will hopefully cuse a positive shift in quality and push record to promote thier tracks harder by other means. Unfortunately, I think this is far more about the admin costs and increasing profit for beatport - they will have looked at their business model, and now the company is well established, they have figured out a threshold of client worth as they don't want to be account managing labels that only bring in, say $1200 or less a year.
It's quite clever, because in any business you want grow your held accounts and most companies have to do this themselves, but by beatport imposing these guidelines now they have the market share, they are putting the growth pressure on to their clients. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
Exactly, spot on.
$100 a month should be doable... That is equal to selling about 50 new tracks a month. |
|
|
| zodiac9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 3F05Q
On the flipside, there is the thought that a 'low producing' label might go the other route and release a whole shload of music in hopes to meet the $600 mark by sheer volume alone. That would suck. Hard.
|
I bet that's exactly what is going to happen.
The label I'm with is smart, they offer distribution services to other labels, so all the labels that use the service are under the big umbrella of the main label. They easily make $1000 per quarter. This is, in a sense, bucking the system. So there are ways around the quota thing, if labels band together like that.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
True! (well mostly). While I think it is only in the benefit of an artist to promote themselves and their material, the label really should be doing the promotion.
Why the else are you giving them the rights to distribute (and and in many cases own) your music? it's not like most labels don't shaft you enough anyway on a deal - at least they can work for their money by promoting it and you!
If labels just bung a track on beatport (etc.) and then just sit there and wait for the money to roll in then..............why couldn't you (the artist) just bung it on beatport yourself and keep all the mula?....oh yeah, because now you'll probably have to reach a certain quota.
|
I agree totally. A label offers a few other important things besides promotions, like artwork and mastering. A lot of small labels are bad about promoting. There's only so much promoting they can do though, such as sending promos to DJs. Well, there's got to be more to it than that. Even if a label does promote well, why not do some promoting yourself, and make your releases even more successfull. I've been scouting around and networking, finding ways to promote my music. Spamming forums and myspace friends is not the way to promote. I had to ignore a certain record label on myspace, because they were spamming me relentlessly with announcements of new releases. |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
From an accounting perspective keeping track of all those labels who sell little to nothing must be a f*cking nightmare.
I think it would be a good idea but also agree with the double edged sword train of thought. There are potential warning signs if other companies start doing this too. And we don't know how much of this is being influenced by bigger labels as they may experience a dip in sales due to the mass of music out there, this could be a sign of price hikes in the near future and so on. Probably not the case but worth thinking about...
Nem |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| Isn't this a fairly huge step backwards in some ways? I mean, I thought that the distribution model was moving towards cutting out the label and the artists just releasing tracks through beatport or whatever themselves. This will make that difficult or impossible and although I can see the advantages, I think that beatport may have just shot itself in the foot. Now other sites will come up to sell upcoming music and beatport will become even more a site where you go to buy the most mainstream records, meaning less diversity on dancefloors. |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Isn't this a fairly huge step backwards in some ways? I mean, I thought that the distribution model was moving towards cutting out the label and the artists just releasing tracks through beatport or whatever themselves. This will make that difficult or impossible and although I can see the advantages, I think that beatport may have just shot itself in the foot. Now other sites will come up to sell upcoming music and beatport will become even more a site where you go to buy the most mainstream records, meaning less diversity on dancefloors. |
i see your point but quality over quantity is what's on everyones mind when they are talking about cutting out these labels. there was a time when music worthy of putting money towards would take shape in the form of vinyl, that standard has come and gone.
i go on beatport and hear songs completly out of key, i hear complete rip offs of other songs... i'm not saying the days of vinyl are what we need to go for but the way beatport is right now is a mess. there needs to be quality control... and if a dollar'd quota is their first stab at a solution i'm for it.
most labels are run by other musicians which currently does help with quality and we're all here to help each other get our music out there but atleast give our genre of music some credability and standards before we let this become completly open |
|
|
| kitphillips |
But surely people just don't buy the bad tracks? I mean, just because they're there doesn't mean they're hurting anyone... So I really don't see what the problem is with them. I think the problem is the daft gits who buy this rubbish and then play it.
If everyone is really that worried, then maybe there should be a beatport subscription fee or something similar, instead of beatport taking royalties maybe they should charge a flat rate 50 dollars (or whatever) fee per song, then if the number sold goes over a limit THEN start taking royalties instead. Or, have two classes of label, one group who pays a flat fee (who sell under $100 worth a month) and another who are payed royalties like the current model. That way people have to believe in their own stuff enough to pay some cash for it, and if it doesn't sell, they make a loss. |
|
|
| zodiac9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
But surely people just don't buy the bad tracks? I mean, just because they're there doesn't mean they're hurting anyone... |
The problem is that when DJs and listeners shop for music, they have to sift through a load a crap to get to the good stuff. Often times they never get to the good stuff because they spent so much time sifting through the junk. Most people are not going to spend a couple of hours a day looking through the new releases, and that's what I'm told it takes to keep up. Most people make it to page 3 and quit. It's like sifting through a trash pile looking for a diamond ring.
I must not have shopped much at beatport, because I don't recall running across any tracks that were that bad. Some are lackluster, but they all sounds fairly professional. Then again, like I said, I barely shop there. I also think maybe I was clicking on what was on the charts. I make purchases based on DJ sets or DI.fm, if I hear something I like, I buy it. I feel sorry for DJs having to sift through the releases on beatport. I know one who spends a lot of time doing that. I know another one that has practically given up DJing because of it. Both these guys come from the era of vinyl, when things were a lot different.
I agree that beatport had to do something. I hope this helps bump up the overall quality. I don't understand why there was no quality control in the first place. By letting everyone in, beatport is no better than soundclick or myspace. |
|
|
| System101 |
| quote: | Originally posted by zodiac9
I feel sorry for DJs having to sift through the releases on beatport. |
Even in the era of Vinyl... there was still some being released even to vinyl... for something to be GOOD.. it has to be compared to something, therefore something BAD.. its much quicker to sift through songs on Beatport than go into a record shop and look for new vinyls, cue them, listen, put back if you dont like, etc. |
|
|
|
|
