Adopting New Music Business Models Doesn't Mean The Death Of Record Labels
from the not-at-all dept
There is this incorrect impression out there that, just because I think many record labels have made strategically poor decisions, I think bands should go without record labels in attempting to adopt the new business models that are out there. That's not the case. In fact, I think there's a rather large role for what used to be a "record label" to play in this new ecosystem, and have said so before. Some musicians can try to go it alone, but for many it doesn't make sense. These new business models still require plenty of business smarts and the ability to do marketing -- and that will require experts in those areas. It's just that the expertise needs to be in applying those skills to the new business models (using the content as promotional material and selling scarce goods), rather than the old model. So while we often point to artists ditching major record labels, it's only because those record labels have failed to adapt, and ditching the labels is the only way that some artists are able to try out these new business models.So, I find it odd when people suggest that a band signing with a record label shows that somehow the model we discussed "failed." Case in point, a commenter on a recent story pointed to a blog post by Chris Anderson about a band he wrote about in his first book, which had originally turned down offers to sign with a record label, but has now changed its mind. The commenter suggests first that I ignored this (when I hadn't yet seen it) and second that it goes against my theory. It absolutely does not. Nowhere have I said that bands should ditch their labels. In fact, I've said that they should sign with labels that recognize the new business models and can handle the "business" side of things, while the musicians focus on making music. In fact, we've highlighted labels such as Nettwerk, that seem to recognize this.
So, once again, for the record: the positions we take around here aren't "anti-record label." They're not even "anti-RIAA." They're actually pro-music, in trying to guide the way for musicians and record labels alike to embrace new music business models that allow them to grow, while giving fans what they want. It's not a zero sum game where one side wins and the other loses. If you understand the economics and the business models, everyone can do a lot better in the end.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, copyright, economics, free, music, record labels
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's this foundation again
Someone else can supply those things for the artists that cannot do it themselves. There is NO NEED for the labels to do it. For that matter, the labels pretty much suck at those perks anyways.
The entertainment cartel IS dying. There simply is no need for the big labels anymore. The artists are better off without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's this foundation again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Music Industry Will Fall Soon-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Industry Will Fall Soon-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This dinosaur will not die..
It's great that some artists can go it alone now. However you are right, artists still have to have all of the right tools in the shed. Unless you are willing to think way outside the box (as an unsigned artist) and write a plan and raise capital, I don't care how good your music is - you are probably going to need a record label or a company like Nettwerk to move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This dinosaur will not die..
Granted, Amie Street isn't going to be taking care of the finer details of getting a roadshow on the road, BUT... I ask you. Why does an artist need a LABEL to do that job for them? What does a recording studio have to do with a roadshow? Nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This dinosaur will not die..
lots of great Ideas here ....
243 note/entry) Allow artists/bands to set up "free to max" or "max to free" price based on downloads counter. (Like Amie street)
244) Allow artists/bands to set up "free to max" or "max to free" price based on Time till or time since. (Price goes up or down based on how much time is left or has passed)
245) etc... etc .... other reason and methods for the "free to max" and "max to free" go here
Hooah!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This dinosaur will not die..
with "I like the idea behind Amie Street"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting how in the dance and electronic world, sometimes a label is a good route for an artist to adopt simply because that label is a name brand that DJs look to for quality. and some DJs will buy everything that the label releases.
so an artist with a great single or album who releases on their own might not do very well, but an artist with a crap release on a great label can do very well for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Could Mean the Death of These Labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Could Mean the Death of These Labels
New business models don't mean the death of record labels. However if current leadership continues into the future as they have in the past, it could mean the death of these record labels.
Check out the Ad-Supported Music Central blog:
http://ad-supported-music.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I'm stunned at your position on this.
We had NO control over what was played on the radio, obviously, and this was always dictated by the labels. If a teeny bopper is hot, despite the fact her lyrics blow, she's on the radio while very, very talented (but unattractive) women struggle to become "mainstream".
The labels have, for years, screwed over both the artists and the consumer. To think that even ONE artist should sign with a label is appalling (please note, though, that some independent labels are actually providing a much better model than the "big guys", but aren't very profitable to take on every new artist).
In today's world, a geek can make a song titled Numa-Numa a worldwide hit. I see artists out there putting their songs on the web for free, just to try and get noticed. If these artists put themselves in the labels' hands, they're doomed and consumers are screwed.
Back in the day, it was very difficult to find artists who weren't mainstream. Record stores seemed to carry more to the labels than they did to the music. Every once in a while, you'd find a really good "mom and pop" music store that carried imports and other unknown artists (it's how I discovered The Cocteau Twins).
Have any of you heard of this group? Chances are, no. Why? Because the "big guys" labels didn't think they were radio worthy.
Mike, I can't agree with you on this one. Even if the labels "reorganize" to a new business model, you can bet they're still going to take the bigger piece of the pie and consumers will be forced to pay it.
Consumers who pay .99 for a song are being fleeced and this price is due to the royalties charged by the labels. So why is it that artists continue to feel cheated by the labels so much, THEY'RE the ones stepping out to make new business decisions?
RIAA must go away. Not because of the lawsuits, but because they represent the greed of the labels, not the music. It must go away because it's antiquated and can not represent every artist in the world. It's a buggy whip in the hydrogen fuel cell world.
I can rant all day about the bad things regarding the labels and RIAA, but I won't.
What I will close with is kudos to all the artists out there who know what music is all about. Not the money, but the recognition.
After all, how much millions do you think Beethoven, Bach, Handel, etc. got for THEIR works? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, I'm stunned at your position on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, I'm stunned at your position on this.
The RIAA as we know it will die. The Record Companies can not live the way they once did in this new environment: they can not be the symbols of Greed which they currently are. People won't stand for it. But that doesn't mean that idea of a Label is going to die, and it doesn't mean every incarnation will be evil. A new form of "record company" which offers useful business services to bands -- unknown or otherwise -- for reasonable fees has a place in this world. If they charge too much, artists will go elsewhere. If they don't provide useful services, artists will go elsewhere. Because now they can, because now they don't NEED the Record Company. But if it's useful, convenient, and reasonably priced, there's still a market for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, I'm stunned at your position on this.
I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not music labels remain.
We had NO control over what was played on the radio, obviously, and this was always dictated by the labels. If a teeny bopper is hot, despite the fact her lyrics blow, she's on the radio while very, very talented (but unattractive) women struggle to become "mainstream".
Then don't listen to the radio. I don't. There are many other options these days. Again, though, that has nothing to do with whether or not there are music labels.
The labels have, for years, screwed over both the artists and the consumer. To think that even ONE artist should sign with a label is appalling
Did you read my post or just the title? I'm talking about labels that actually understand and work within the new business models we're talking about.
It's difficult to respond to you when you seem to have made your conclusion based on the title, not the post.
Mike, I can't agree with you on this one. Even if the labels "reorganize" to a new business model, you can bet they're still going to take the bigger piece of the pie and consumers will be forced to pay it.
So you'd prefer busy musicians spend all their time handling business matters rather than writing music? There's a place for labels that understand consumers and understand how to treat music fans right.
Consumers who pay .99 for a song are being fleeced and this price is due to the royalties charged by the labels. So why is it that artists continue to feel cheated by the labels so much, THEY'RE the ones stepping out to make new business decisions?
Clearly, you didn't read my post. I absolutely agree that labels have made dumb decisions, but don't confuse dumb decisions with the concept of a music label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike, I'm stunned at your position on this
>I don't, actually. I feel I should state that I'm not an "average" consumer. I know where to get music. Do you think the iPod lovers out there really do? (not, of course, including the P2P method many use).
Did you read my post or just the title? I'm talking about labels that actually understand and work within the new business models we're talking about.
>I did. But I responded to the fact the "little guys" can't compete on the same scale. Sure, they can do some good, but how many out there really do justice compared to others? A few, to say the least. Also, keep in mind that not every label will sign every GOOD artist, which instantly puts a label on the "bad" side, IMO.
Clearly, you didn't read my post. I absolutely agree that labels have made dumb decisions, but don't confuse dumb decisions with the concept of a music label.
>I'm trying not to here. Really. I got the gist of this thread but I don't see labels doing any good. Do I think busy musicians should take care of their business matters? Absolutely! Because it comes down to this:
If one isn't popular, one has free time.
If one is popular, one can hire business managers. If this happens to be a label, then fine.
I guess what I'm asking for here is a few labels that don't follow the typical business model.
Note: I've notice many upcoming artists are banding together to form their own "label". Good thing? Maybe. We'll see how it does with new artists they bring on.
Mike, I agree with your views on changes in the industry. I truly do. But I can't say that this wishful thinking is going to happen any time soon, especially when big labels are STILL fighting change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen.
This was a concise and nescessary post, and I think there's a lot of people who are on the same page. Most of the "music 2.0" bloggery is just armchair opinions from dudes without a career anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Management
That's what's called "management" and many musicians have been hiring professional management for a long time. It seems to me that what you're suggesting basically boils down to the record companies getting out of the dying "record" business and into the "management" business instead. The problem with that is that the record companies have such a bad reputation for screwing over the musicians that it is hard to imagine many musicians trusting a record company to manage them. One of the reasons many musicians hired managers in the first place was to protect them from the record companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adopting New Music Business Models Doesn't Mean Th
[ link to this | view in chronology ]