|
Record Labels Invest $4.5 Billion Annually In Artists… Pirates, $0… Any Questions?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Storyteller |
I saw this article pop-up on my timeline and just had to share. It ticked me off. Here's what I wrote on FB in a little rant:
| quote: | | Whilst part of it is true I can't stand that a lot of music industry professionals (and amateurs like myself) always find a way to victimize themselves over piracy. "Let's write an article based on biased information" (IFPI is not objective in any way) and "let's assume every takedown request is valid" (which is untrue) aren't ways to show knowledge. It's provocative and one-sided. Possibly even narrow-minded and blatantly wrong. Times have changed and still are changing - so should your business. A lot of people seem to forget that Spotify is not enough nor is it savior. If you really think music pirating people account for $0 of revenue in music you need your eyes checked. It's time some people grow a pair, and actually sit around a bunch of those pirating pricks to ask them what they're looking for. I bet you can invent quite a few business models that suit their needs as well as it suits yours. It's about time the music industry starts looking at consumers as clients. They're not a demographic, they're individuals with individual needs. You need to please them in order to have them spend money, not the other way around. Even though law says otherwise the market is skewed in favour of your clients, so deal with it, or get pirated. |
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/09/3...-any-questions/
So what do you think after reading the article? |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| LOL, I left a critical comment there and as I can't see it in queue anymore I guess they chose to delete it instead of post it. Poor. |
|
|
| Viber |
Youtube is the biggest music website in the world, 99.9999% of the people don't give a about audio fidelity so they can listen to every song the want for free.
The result? Google wins all the cash without people crying about it being illegal. |
|
|
| meriter |
| quote: | | Record Labels Invest $4.5 Billion Annually On Four Different Artists |
|
|
|
| DJ RANN |
That article is utter bull.
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. |
|
|
| itsamemario |
Didnt read past the ingress, but the article is bs, as it preconceives that money is actually being spent investing in the artist, which is a statement as fallacious as my dick is nice.
Virtually none of those four and a half billion dollars go into developing the artist, or its sound. Some go to mastering and engineering, sure, but most of the money the article is referring to
goes to marketing. And "pirates"/the internet indy "scene" has shown that they can promote artists just as well, sometimes even better (Mikey Mike anyone?), than the record industries.
They waste their money trying to yell loudest about the loudest record.
They've fallen behind, and their sheer unwillingness to embrace new business models WILL be their downfall. The training and restructuring needed to keep this industry alive should have been started a long time ago, and they've crossed the Rubicon, so all there is to do is either get the popcorn or be on the lookout for opportunities, for there will be need for a pretty big cleanup crew when the finally hits the fan, it's already been thrown, and I don't see either SME, WMG or UMG willing to step in its trajectory to save the others. |
|
|
| Swamper |
TA gets about 20 DMCA notices a month - at least half of those are for threads that a producer has posted on here promoting their release and/or a link to a mix/soundcloud with the track in question on it.
They pay services like Topple Track to curb piracy and then they in turn get google search results removed that the artist/label actually posted. lolz |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
TA gets about 20 DMCA notices a month - at least half of those are for threads that a producer has posted on here promoting their release and/or a link to a mix/soundcloud with the track in question on it.
They pay services like Topple Track to curb piracy and then they in turn get google search results removed that the artist/label actually posted. lolz |
I know. It baffles me beyond reason. |
|
|
| MSZ |
| What is love? baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me, no more. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
I thought of you Storyteller when I read this about Spotify in a British newspaper today;
07 October 2013 3:14pm
Recommend
0
The concept of "payment for art" and the obscene belief that the efforts of artists have any intrinsic value is one that cannot die fast enough.
It is a very modern affectation of society that twiddling a few keys or tapping at your keyboard is a "Career" not simply a desirable activity. In the past, artworks were produced via a very fair system of patronage and the return to crowd-funding and pay what you like models is an evocation of this.
AND;
Robert Patrick Travers PhilipC2006
07 October 2013 2:43pm
Why are you standing up for bloodsucking artists? These middlemen make my music cheap and easy to find. That's what I want. The old model was great for those artists, the new model is great for me.
http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ke-dying-corpse |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
That article is utter bull.
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! |
|
|
|
|
