As Warner Music Collapses, Its Two Top Execs Got Paid $14 Million
from the how-about-those-artists? dept
It's beginning to appear that some of the major labels' strategy for dealing with the changing structure of the music business -- in which overall money is up, but has shifted away from the record labels' bank accounts -- is to simply bleed the old market dry. How else to explain that as Warner Music continued to shrink and fail to respond to market changes in any reasonable manner, its two top executives took home $14 million last year. I guess you could argue that WMG's stock was up slightly (from deathly ill to just really really sickly -- but way, way down from just a couple years ago) over the year, but the company lost a tremendous amount of money each quarter this year (last quarter still hasn't been reported), and Warner Music has shown little outward effort to suggest it's adapted or has any idea how to adapt to the changing market.
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: record labels, salaries
Companies: warner music group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Give it some time
Has anyone ever mentioned to yo that you might just be slightly unfair? For example, earlier today, I read that Warner signed a deal with eMusic which may qualify as you put it as "adapt[ing] to the changing market". I only hope the rest of the industry keeps up with these breakneck developments. We should give WMG a few more years to get such a progressive idea like eMusic licensing in place. Here's why: It's possible that all the contracts, electronic distribution royalty agreements, and expense reports need to be renegotiated and approved through the entertainment lawyers, talent management firms, and the typical cast of necessary moguls like Big Korey, Shawty Redd, Warren Beatty, and Jack Nicholson. But when that's done, Warner will start producing some serious cash.
((Can you say **Cha-Ching!**??))
The idea of licensing to eMusic is really ahead of it's time, and these top executives should continue to be properly compensated for thinking so far outside the box.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0575772.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it some time
aha. ahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my god. I pooped a little.
You mean give it some time, like the last 10 years, right? this should have happened as soon as Napster appeared, then it would have at least been current with the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give it some time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it some time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it some time
It seems that you have the same blinkered mindset as the major records labels. Is your idea of "thinking outside the box" really to sign with a company that's been around for over a decade, for a limited amount of your catalogue, one year after a competitor (Sony) has already done the same thing?
Wake me up when they do something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it some time
If anything they are way behind the curve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before, it seems that a record label kept the lion's share of the money from the recorded music, but left the artist alone to tour, sell T-shirts, sell lunch dates, or whatever else with the fame built for the artist by the record company's marketing. That is, the artist sold their copyrights in exchange for fame, which they could exploit as much as they wanted.
Now, since the copyrights aren't worth as much, the artists can no longer sell their copyrights alone for fame. Instead, they can sell their copyrights and a cut of all the "scarce goods" that were previously theirs alone.
Since, as is repeatedly pointed out here, the number of dollars going into the music industry has increased slightly, but has also been shifted around, this will probably result in a wash.
It's unfortunate for the record companies that they will now be perceived as being even MORE greedy and evil since they are now taking a piece of action that was previously reserved solely for the artist (even though the artist's copyrights are declining in value day after day and the freed-up money is just moving to other outlets).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. If you think 360 deals means they've adapted... well... good luck.
I never said they've done nothing. I just said they've shown little sign that they've actually adapted and I stand buy that. If you look at their overall business, it's true. Have they done small things on the margin? Sure. Do they have some people trying different stuff? Absolutely. Some of the stuff Ethan's done at WBR is pretty cool.
But that doesn't mean they've adapted.
It's unfortunate for the record companies that they will now be perceived as being even MORE greedy and evil since they are now taking a piece of action that was previously reserved solely for the artist (even though the artist's copyrights are declining in value day after day and the freed-up money is just moving to other outlets).
Heh. The reason 360 deals are often seen as greedy and evil is because they take a piece of other stuff *without* doing anything more. If they were much more actively involved in helping with those other aspects then it would make sense. But they don't do that much more (and the little things they do they just add to the advance -- so it's still the artist "paying").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it some time
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B2CD20100112?type=technologyNews
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WMG -Changing its business model
This is from WMG 2009 annual report
Broadening Our Artist Partnerships
WMG advanced the diversification of our recorded music revenue streams this year by continuing to enter more expanded-rights deals with new recording artists and by building our worldwide artist services business.
This gives us a greater presence in growing areas of the music business such as touring, fan clubs, concert promotion, merchandising and sponsorship. Today, the vast majority of the agreements we enter with new recording artists are expanded-rights deals. We currently have
expanded-rights deals with about half of our active global recorded music roster - a very significant achievement, particularly because we began this strategy less than five years ago.In fiscal year 2009, non-traditional recorded music revenue accounted for nearly 10% of our total revenue. We believe that non-traditional recorded music revenue will meaningfully contribute to recorded music revenue growth over time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Licenses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the 6 billion lawsuit
all we need do is steal 6 billion form people
looks around AHA we'll dupe the canadian people into paying alevy and not pay artists and even our own artists we wont bother paying them also EVER
does it sound unfair
fuck that 1st poster
your a shill
go back to your desk while you still have a job and the great music scam continues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugs Disconnect with CEOs
The companies can claim that they need to spend that much to attract the "top talent". Look where this top talent got most of America. Into a recession that we maybe are seeing an end of now. Maybe.
There would be tons and tons of business people who could run these companies just as well or better for much less money. Then they could pass that cash down to the people who do the grunt work or maybe lower the prices of their goods & services.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hugs Disconnect with CEOs
Not true. Just today, I was reading an article in the paper about the head of the Royal Bank Of Scotland who was paid nearly £10 million despite having required a government bailout the year before. His response? "It's the going rate"...
I think the main issue here isn't the money, but the disproportionate nature of the reward to the company's success. Here we have a corporation that's leaking revenue left and right and constantly making the wrong decisions. $14 million is fine if the company's prosperous. It's a travesty when the company's failing, doubly so when the reason for the failure is short-sighted and generally poor management.
It's also another reason not the believe the labels' rhetoric. I can guarantee that these executives' pay package have cost more than the *actual* losses caused by any of the "pirates" they've prosecuted in civil court. Hell, the executives' pay + lawyers' fees probably outweigh any real damage done by The Pirate Bay, et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hugs Disconnect with CEOs
The financial world is cyclical. Recessions are inevitable. The primary factor that tipped us over the edge was overconsumption on easy credit. Society as a whole takes the blame for this one. The CEOs may not have helped, but the consumer has to take 90% of the responsibility for this.
"There would be tons and tons of business people who could run these companies just as well or better for much less money."
This is decidedly false. In the current market, if someone could do a better job for less money, they would have the job. The fact is that the job of CEO holds a whole lot of risk. Without a proper reward, no one would do it. Would you take a job with a 10% pay raise and a 90% chance of getting fired if anything went wrong? I wouldnt. But i would take it if it were a 500% pay raise.
The same can be true for athletes. There are tons of people who can play football and Im sure lots would do it for $100k a year. But I doubt they are as good as Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger. If you want the best, you pay for the best. If you dont want to pay, expect mediocrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hugs Disconnect with CEOs
When athletes fuck up, does the public bail them out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hugs Disconnect with CEOs
1. I am a consumer, i did not over consume anything on easy credit, but am paying the price for Corporate greed just like 100% of the 90% of the consumers you wish to blame.
2. I received NO pay raise last year and will not receive one this year and have a 100% chance of loosing my job if anything goes wrong.
Basically shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fail to see how some B.S. empty talk from Warner's annual report makes Masnick a "liar," nor does it change the FACT that Warner music had a very rough 2009.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Greed
Of special note, as Time-Warner and AOL have finally gotten a divorce on their 10 year failed "marriage", the newspapers came out with the typical "What went wrong?" articles. Some of the stories did get around to mentioning that the executives behind the merger walked away with millions of dollars while those further down the food chain lost.
Should Warner Music Collapse, I am sure the top executives from their luxury villas will lament to the press how external factors such as piracy destroyed their business without ever acknowledging or accepting blame for their own deficiencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner's "two top executives took home $14 million last year.."
...But then of course, that gives WMG an excuse to blame file-sharing for all of their financial problems. };p
Since Warner Music won't adapt, I reeeeeally can't wait for WMG to go out of business. };)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, they are greedy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]