With The Recording Industry In Free Fall, Why Are RIAA Bosses Getting Raises?
from the rewarding-failure dept
It's difficult to think of a more disastrous strategy pioneered for the recording industry than the one cooked up by RIAA bosses Mitch Bainwol and Cary Sherman. The two were the "masterminds" behind the plan to sue fans directly, which has been an uncontested disaster that did absolutely nothing to help the bottom line of the record labels. If anything, the evidence suggests that the lawsuit strategy has only galvanized folks to look for alternatives beyond spending money on RIAA labels. The RIAA finally dropped the lawsuit strategy, which was deemed a money pit by a recording industry exec and almost resulted in EMI leaving the RIAA. After all of that, the RIAA itself had massive layoffs.Given all of that, you might think that Bainwol and Sherman should be looking for new jobs. Instead, apparently, they've been given hefty raises. P2Pnet notes that Bainwol in 2008 made over $2 million dollars -- an increase from the $1.485 million he made in 2007. Sherman made $1.332 million, noticeably more than the $985k he made a year earlier. While I don't have any issue with the absolute amounts, I do question why these guys are getting raises while presiding over what will clearly be looked back on as one of the biggest blunders by an industry in decades. On top of that, I can see how some might question how the RIAA can claim to represent "starving artists" when its execs are doing so well. Apparently, the answer to not being a starving artist is to go become boss of the RIAA.
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: cary sherman, mitch bainwol, salaries
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
(Obvious troll is obvious)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Troll wins!
No need to answer, I will just point out that the troll won. He has had more comments than the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Troll wins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Troll wins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm (for those with malfunctioning sarcasm detectors)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TAMhole Rebuttal Rule #4 (aka the "See to your own house first" rule): When you can find no real complaint about the topic in question (because its indefensible to begin with), sidestep the entire argument and attack from a completely outside and irrelevant direction, thereby proving your superiority and winning the new, completely invented argument by default because it didnt address your made-up-on-the-spot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"TAM-comments", invented by this Anonymous Coward, are the criterion of truth for a scientific theory. The TAM-Comment is the outcome of a pissing contest between anonymous cowards advocating competing theories.
The coward who pees highest is right, and gets his work republished. If he has truly impressive bladder power, he wins a Nobel Prize. The value of the TAM-comment is then recorded so that future generations of scientists can continue to test the theory.
The TAM-Comment value was a significance test used widely by statisticians. Statistical analysis of TAM-Comments involves a variety of tests to prove whether TAM-Comments are important or not. Most of these tests involve a test statistic that lets you calculate a X-value (2%). If your X, Y, and Z axis are low (2%, 7%, and 1%, respectively), then your data is worthless and you know you just wasted all your time (2 seconds) and money (55¢) in data collection.
But ultimately, the Statistical Board of Statisticians decided on October 27, 2008 to phase out the TAM-Comment valuations with immediate effect, because it was - according to Karl Frederich Gauss Jr and his specialists - "just too damn difficult to understand".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where do I buy a TAM for dummies book?
Uhm... A dummy book on how to be a dummy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not possible. A draft of the manuscript was sent to Michio Kaku last month for peer review, and it's reported that he shook his head in horror and utter disbelief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
with Sarah Palin goodness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not troll there instead? You can't be that scared of Jon Newton deleting your posts; the way you work it'd strengthen whatever pitiful argument you have. Or is it Henry Emrich?
perhaps the likes of tam, darryl, and technopolitical would do better to stop playing gotchya politics on Mike for just about every single fucking article and concentrate on their own matters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what all the apologists tell me, anyway.
It's nothing to do with a culture of corporate fellatio and worship of big-business under the guise of free-market economics. No sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Out of $1.3 million, I'm sure that Mitch's money goes mainly to those lobbying efforts since he's the top lobbyist. ( I can't find the info about how much he spends personally. I know that his check always say $5000 though...)
Let's also remember that 2008 was an election year so all stops are pulled out for campaign funds. I find a huge discrepancy in spending before 2008. I forget when the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional to stop limits on funding. Perhaps that had a play in the field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Bribes Work Best" plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But of course. It's the only industry where you can actually fail upward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source
It's funny that the labels still take so much but believe they are entitled to more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You already know this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/aig-execs-may-get-pay-rai_n_482970.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You already know this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA
She can make a mess no matter where she goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yesterdays news
And we wonder why this countries broke!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yesterdays news
I have a music for that in their case.
Uma! Uma!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkXKurYN4f4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His $2 million a year could keep 50 musicians gainfully employed.
I haven't bought any RIAA member music since they started this mess, and I may never buy any again for the rest of my life, and I spend a lot on music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take Radio Shack. The CEO gets a big raise, but maybe just in stock options.
He fires all the experienced employees, and hires people who don't care for minimum wage. While the market adjusts to squeezing out radio shack, the savings on employee salaries looks great on paper. Stock price goes up, CEO sells stock and takes a new job with success at Radio Shack on his resume. Radio Shack then falls apart into what it is today.
Similar thing happened with Motorola and lots of companies. Not everyone with stock wants long term success, some just want a quick buck and they can get it because they have enough capital in the game.
The question is, have some of the RIAA executives figured out how to personally profit from the failure of the RIAA. If so, the RIAA will be nothing in a few years no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That depends on how they setup the failure. I would not rule the possibility of them setting up the RIAA to fail but setup shop under another name so that when RIAA actually fails they can move over to the new entity and start the cycle all over again with the promise to fight "piracy" even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change
Support an artist as the new Executive Director of SoundExchange. http://www.bit.ly/samanthamurphy
I promise to create a transparent, fair system that distributes what it collects in a timely fashion to its rightful owner, the artists and the copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change
Tell me again why we need these organisations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA raises
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolling
But maybe their revenues would have decreased even faster if they hadn't done this! We don't have enough information to say it didn't help!
/troll
Actually I don't think whoever said that the other day was trolling, I think he was being serious. Which perhaps is even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]