Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
from the great-way-to-get-fired dept
Want to know what the toughest gig in show business might be? Perhaps it's teaching the major record labels how to adapt to new technologies from within. Digital Music News has a list of 34 former execs at the various major labels, whose role it was to help get those companies up to speed on new technologies and new media -- all of which were "pushed, fired, or otherwise jumped ship over just the past few years." While the stories behind what happened to the different individuals may be different, from those on the list who I'm familiar with, there's a common refrain: the label they worked for had no real interest in embracing what the technology allowed. They hired these execs because they thought that just hiring such people would fix their problems, but then they generally didn't like what they were hearing... which is why they all ended up moving on.
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: adapt, digital, execs, music, new media, record labels
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Snotty young punks aren't going get grizzled executives to fall for simplistic "marginal cost" examples where "sunk (or fixed) costs" are just flat out ignored. They're going to want to know how that $100M gets paid back, sonny.
-------------------------------
Why I repeat the phrase "sunk (or fixed) costs":
It's copy/pasted from Mike's piece having the movie example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml
He writes that a movie cost $100 million to make -- after mentioning this impressive figure, he then sets it aside as "sunk (or fixed) costs" -- and makes market conditions a fictional "perfectly competitive" so that he can "prove" marginal costs are the only relevant factor for distributing movies.
My synopsis omits nothing: his example is stark once some litter is removed. He's already pulled the trick necessary to be "right". Just read down to where he mentions and dismisses "sunk (or fixed) costs". -- STOP right there and ask how those could possibly be ignored... Only answer Mike gives is because he /says/ so. [When pressed by me later (in next link), Mike tries the line that "sunk (or fixed) costs" don't matter for /pricing/, but that's merely /continuing/ to claim having a (wanted and already promoted) movie in hand for only distribution costs.]
In reality, one would only sort of ignore "sunk (or fixed) costs" IF they'd long since been recovered, and if old method worked for that, who'd be fooling around with new methods? His whole thesis falls apart at the premises.
Don't forget that Mike supposedly has a degree in economics. I hold that kids running a lemonade stand know better. This isn't a slip-up.
There's more direct cause for me to enjoy the phrase: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brains-stop- zero.shtml
Read post #94 to the end where Mike says loftily: "Sunk costs are not the same as fixed costs. Seriously. Learn the basics."
I then pointed out that "sunk (or fixed) costs" was a direct quote from /his/ referenced piece! He didn't apologize, only said that it was "inelegant".
SUM: my objections to contrived example where "sunk (or fixed) costs" are just forgotten go unanswered (though claimed to be) by a blustering "authority" who doesn't recognize his own usage of terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Unless you're that top %1 that manages to brake even, but mostly with advances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Labels don't repo cars or any other property. It is not within their legal right to do so.
The amount of lies that are spread on this site is mind-boggling.
Seriously, you people are so greedy and selfish that you sit and make up lies about the entertainment industry to try and rationalize your illegal behavior. You're all mentally ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Its their property. THEY OWN IT. Understand? They sure as hell can do anything they want with it. Apart from the fact that you clearly don't understand the law, you apparently can't even fucking read.
Now go shill someone else or get a better fucking job.
The day you do, call me and we'll talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
No, fuck you, douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
LOL. And I'd also like to see any citation in the history of the world for such an occurrence.
Won't hold my breath on that one.
It's pretty funny to see all of you losing your minds over this bill.
I guess addicts react that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Here are just a few of the wonderful examples of what we're discussing (not that you give a shit, I know);
Music:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/articl e/2008/07/10/us-lovett-idUSN1030835920080710
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/06/cher-lawsuit- universal-music-.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090909/0318406140.shtml
http://www.techdi rt.com/articles/20101007/11300711326/ascap-tells-artists-it-s-cutting-their-payments-as-it-brags-to- the-press-how-much-more-money-it-s-collecting.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/09161 36988.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/1957497156.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20090909/0318406140.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/04134515432/emi-doesnt-pa y-royalties-it-does-to-wrong-people-it-doesnt-maybe-it-does.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/ 20060921/192446.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
Books:
http:/ /articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/13/entertainment/et-cheetah13/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi _qn4182/is_19950525/ai_n10082506/
Movies:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122. shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-06-06-rings-suit_N.htm
Have fun NOT reading the links shillboy.
*Bonus content:
Video explanation for the slow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcwgdB0NltY
Now go fuck yourself with that rusty spoon shilltardo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Sorry, but links to Masnick's insane rants against the entertainment industry here on techdirt have nothing to do with reality, my post, or the question I posited.
Once again, looking for any citation in the history of the world for someone that wrote a song/movie/book that made a gazzilion dollars but still owed money to their label/studio/publisher.
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
If true, sorry for the gerund error. :)
It's his site; he most certainly can make up false identities whenever he wants to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
See what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Citation needed :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
"All that work on Google"
If you had a shred of honesty, you'd do the work yourself and become educated on the issues. Alas, you simply wish to force others to do it, then find excuses to reject their results if they don't fit your preconceived views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Beyond that,the "work on Google" can really be work, because much of the content is more opinion pieces. The only link in the pile that is clearly not an opinion piece is the one that goes to Reuters, and the story is pretty much as lame as it gets: Lyle Lovett signed a bad record deal, but makes millions as a result of the support, marketing, and distribution that his record label gives him as a result - and is look forward to another label deal in the future.
Try working with facts Paul. Mike Masnick's posts are not facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Does he ONLY do this at those points, or is it his usual stance? One way might be suspicious, the other's simple honesty. Even without Mike defending his posts, it's pretty clear that this is an opinion blog so I'm not even sure why he would need to defend himself anyway. But, at least I've seen him backtrack on occasion when he's been proven wrong - something our AC friend is yet to do.
"You are pointing to opinion, not fact, and this according to the man who wrote the pieces himself."
Indeed. But, the posts usually links to at least one 3rd party source on which he's commenting. He could provide more, but he's admitted himself that he usually links back to previous TD posts for convenience's sake. I believe I'm yet to see the AC above even attempt to cite a single one of his arguments.
"Beyond that,the "work on Google" can really be work, because much of the content is more opinion pieces."
The primary reason for that is that major record labels tend to be as bad as Hollywood studios for providing transparent data. You will NEVER find a primary source for what AC is asking for. The best you'll ever get is an artist who's complaining long after he's been released from his contract or has legal problems later down the line, which I'm sure AC would find some way to reject. There's plenty of evidence out there to suggest that musicians are ripped off on a regular basis, but primary sources are difficult to come by on this issue - by design.
"Try working with facts Paul. Mike Masnick's posts are not facts."
Nor are they presented as such.
I'll take any claim here with a pinch of salt, but the "anti-Mike" crowd round here are woefully behind in actually providing any evidence whatsoever for their claims. Sure, there are issues with some articles, but merely linking back to this site is not a reason for rejecting any claim posited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Mike's usual math is:
opinion + opinion = nearly a fact.
His second step is to do:
nearly a fact + nearly a fact = a fact
He her been much better lately at not doing so much self-quoting and using the old "we have already shown that" type references, but it still sort of stands. Basically he uses his opinion posts (because that is what they are, opinion) as a sort of wash system to turn opinion into facts over a few steps.
Remember, every time Mike say "we have already shown" and points to his own work, he is being somewhat sneaky into trying to convert his opinion into fact.
I will say too, that it is incredibly hard to bring evidence of something not happening, something not occuring, etc. "Copyright harms the economy" is a great one - how the heck do you "prove" that it doesn't? It's the way the game is played here, opinion on one side, and then berating anyone who disagrees for not having "facts". It's fun to play, but I am shocked when smart people (such as yourself) don't catch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
... Torrent Freak has a bias? Ok... How does that work out? They try to ask the MPAA for comment and explain how they didn't bother to reply. How is that a bias?
Remember, every time Mike say "we have already shown" and points to his own work, he is being somewhat sneaky into trying to convert his opinion into fact.
Right... A writer should put up a missive for every article on the site. Good to know.
"Copyright harms the economy" is a great one - how the heck do you "prove" that it doesn't?
By actual data? That's been collected from 3 years as Joe Karaganis in his "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" book indicates?
By actual data from the CBO saying the enforcement of copyright is causing X amount of dollars a annually?
By actual data that has already come up time and time again, but you don't want to read the data, instead opting to believe there is no data because your mouse clicks don't work?
By all means, if you had actual data showing how copyright ISN'T harming the economy and leading to growth I'd love to hear it. Sadly, that's not in the job description now, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Sigh... OK, here's how it works round here:
Mike (or another person writing the article) finds a story that interests them. They write about that story, linking back to their original source and offer their take. Often, that story is linked to an ongoing issue (abuse of DRM or copyright, for example), and the story is written in such a way as to refer back to the many, many times said issue has come up before. They may not be pointing back to the primary source of the information, but that source is rarely more than 3 clicks away.
Here's the thing: while I have NEVER seen the usual trolls round here retract or apologise for false statements, I have seen Mike correct mistakes. Sometimes, he's even struck through (not deleted) entire articles when it's been proven that it was based on a false assumption.
Take a look back at the articles linked to. I'll guess that where Mike might have some leeway with the truth, people don't call him on it. Instead, it's usually people calling names, accusing him and everyone who agrees of being a pirate, often swearing and deflections from the issues being discussed. If someone posted in the article with a counterpoint that was factual and reasonable, I'm sure Mike wouldn't link back to said post because doing so would undermine his point...
""Copyright harms the economy" is a great one - how the heck do you "prove" that it doesn't? "
I don't recall this claim ever being made. I have seen claims that infinite extensions to copyright and overbearing enforcement of copyright have caused losses and/or a chilling effect on new business models, but this is far easier to prove.
"It's fun to play, but I am shocked when smart people (such as yourself) don't catch it."
I'm flattered, but don't assume that I blindly accept everything written here just because I tend to agree. The fact is, the dissenters who post here rarely offer intelligent counterpoints, and certainly no evidence to contradict the articles. If someone more level-headed, like yourself, would take up the task of pointing out where Mike is actually wrong, rather than the name-calling, false assumptions and accusations that the ACs here usually offer, the intelligent debate would certainly be welcome. Sadly, this is not what's usually offered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Welcome to adulthood, cognizance of living in a society, and the laws of economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
You lost all your moral high ground when you couldn't respond to the AC's argument in how a car was just on loan. Just to add something further to that, explain why record labels give their artists credit cards to rack up debt instead of coming into the 21st century and figuring out how to use new technology.
You lost your societal high ground by not understanding the articles presented to you, merely relying on your own belligerence in the matter.
You lost your economic high ground by not recognizing how trade industries are morally bankrupt, instead opting to destroy platforms of other, more successful businesses rather than make artists more successful.
Of course, you're only here to troll so why bother with facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
The short version is that both the label and even the distributor makes more money on the sale of a record than the artist does. Add to this the other deductions that will be made against the record revenue and it leaves the artist with near nothing. There have been multiple stories over the years of artists with platinum records being broke (and not from living lavishly).
Prince famously said that he made less money off his album "Purple Rain", one of the top selling albums of all times, than he did his first label independent album "Emancipation" which was sold via the internet and officially was barely a Gold album. The difference was the +60% share the label would have taken was his.
My son is a musician and like most of his generation, he has NO INTEREST in being signed by a label
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Seriously, you people are so greedy and selfish that you sit and make up lies about the consumers to try and rationalize your illegal behavior. You're all mentally ill.
There FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Seriously, this is why bands like Radiohead do not publish through labels.
See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/ok-computer-why-the-record-indust ry-is-terrified-of-radioheads-new-album-394276.html
Why not charge less and keep all of the money?
If the labels could get it through their heads that they have to provide a service of value to remain relevant to the music industry instead of resorting to creating bands that they control (and almost always suck) they might have a chance.
Personally I think they will go the way of the ice industry at the start of the twentieth century after commercial electrically powered refrigeration was developed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Radiohead gave up on that experiment after that album came
out.
For their next record, they went back to a label.
Pirates don't really know about anything other than ripping people off. That's why nobody gives a sh*t about their opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Oh dear... facts too complicated for you again?
King Of Limbs was a totally independent production, first available for download through the band's website. When it came time for physical release, they used a label they had set up expressly for that purpose and for future releases. They didn't "go back to a label", they made their own label, purely for releasing their own material. One of the luxuries of already being successful, they didn't need a middleman to tell them what to do - they became their own middleman.
You'd have a point if they simply went back to a major, but they didn't. They didn't even go back to an independent label, although they are partnered with one. Yet again, your smugness only hides a complete misunderstanding of facts.
"Pirates don't really know about anything other than ripping people off. That's why nobody gives a sh*t about their opinions."
Yet again - not everybody who disagrees with you idiots is a pirate. One day, you'll realise that and then at least attempt to have a conversation without name calling and false accusations. One day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
I dare you show how piracy harm anyone.
Show us the numbers.
Lets get the top hundred artists and trace their earnings from the 200 years ago and see where people started making money really?
Want to be it was when people got the ability to record shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
They just stopped paying for them.
Are you trying to tell us that isn't harmful?
That'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Ignoring something is not a good way of making something go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Ah, you mean like how you dismiss all the problems with copyright law by insisting that it's all FUD? You might want to take some of your own advice; your wilful ignorance is clearly doing nothing to solve the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Ignoring something is a good way of making something go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
People did it before for as long as I can remember and that is a loooooooong time, now you people freak out because you can see the size of what was happening in the shadows.
You ignore culture and how it takes a foot inside it.
Music is not the product never was, it is a vector that facilitates the selling of other products.
Now to entertain you lets suppose it is all true, that piracy harms artists, so what, it still doesn't give you or anybody else the right to erode due process and create laws ripe for abuse that eventually will be used against yourself, you think the government cares about music or movies or art? no they don't this is a great opportunity to seize some power because the people who pay them all agree that they need more "protection" and they will do it is good for them and they will make use of it in the future it will become political and people will start censoring each other using this crappy laws that you so much want.
It is easy to label everyone a criminal and try to punish everyone, that is what dictators do, but eventually those things have serious consequences and if you think the backlash is bad now you saw nothing yet.
The Intel guy predicted things he looked at history and commented "People forget that not so long ago the US army open fire on their own people in the streets", that was not a hundred years ago. Look at Occupy, people with several grievances, there is not one point to be corrected but a lot of issues that need to be dealt with, governments are not equipped to deal with that and they will respond with violence just like big companies use violence through the law to control what they want, eventually people will get tired of it, God knows I have no patience for your kind, the kind that believes this is just a game and can be won with sleazy words and gotchas, I know what I know, I saw what I saw and nothing and nobody will be able to change that, we all know, we all can see it and you try to hide behind semantics and games?
Nobody is going to give you money, nobody is going to give you credit, because we all know you are just a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
You can't show artists are making less today, because they aren't and we all know it despite the cries that something is harming them and the crying is mostly done by big companies that will be forced to change one way or another, they don't need to like it and they don't even need to survive the transition it is coming and that is the end of it, no laws will change that, because no laws can stop technology from going forward, others countries are not in the same stage of development and they understand perfectly clear that they can't afford to "protect" imaginary property if they want to grow mostly because they don't have big established players in the field, which is a plus, there is nobody trying to monopolize the market, unlike the US where big players do exist and they push out every one trying to enter which is harming the market more than helping it because it is like childless people who don't get to pass the knowledge to future generations or have the strength/will to do new things, they think they learned everything and that nothing should change, they are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
you can also visit their site and purchase different packages directly from the band.
personally, i dont care that you dont care about my opinion. what kind of bothers me though is that my opinion is shared by lots and lots of people, and because i dont have millions of dollars, you an people of your kind think you can dictate to me/us how we are going to acquire and listen to music.
i beg to think that your forced marketplace is really more 2000's than how i acquire and listen to music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Also, most of those "snotty young punks" were successful both before and after their time trying modernize those labels.
It is sad. I know a handful of professional musicians that have worked with major labels and believe heart and soul that there is no way to make it in the industry without a major label. It's too bad because its not their fault they are not at all tech/business savy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Any businessman with even a short amount of experience in selling products realizes that the up front costs are a significnt part of the business. In the music and movie industries, example, this is very important, because the up front costs of creating the movie are often the biggest costs overall, regardless of the number of units produced or sold. For music, the replication costs of a CD are just not the big end of the cost structure.
It should also be said that any "new tech" hire that came in the door and spewed off about the "infinite distribution" of the internet was probably back to working at Starbucks the next day, because it is a laughable concept. The only reason any music or movie product is suddenly "infinite" is because of piracy. If you go in front of a group of business men and say "stop selling your product and start pushing t-shirts because of infinite distribution that you can't control", they will laugh you out of the building.
Over time it becomes more clear: Mike's business ideas hinge on ignoring fixed / sunk costs, and require the "infinite distribution" to create the illusion that selling the "scarce" is the only way to make money. It becomes more clear when you see how much Mike is freaking out against PROTECT-IP, which potentially can put a serious dent the "infinite distribution" network (aka piracy). It would have the effect of potentially moving things back toward actually selling the product people want (music) and not the things that they don't (mini putt games).
I feel for Mike at this point, the US government and those stuffy, stupid, ignorant people in the content business are proving his new age voodoo economics wrong. It must truly suck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Economics (and history) proves business will always move from a less efficient model to a more efficient one. The current entertainment industry is no exception, they are inefficient and deserve to be squashed out of existence if they don't adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Business do not naturally select models that are only most efficient at deleting any possible bottom line results. To walk into a room of business people and say "you can give up 90% of your income and 100% of your profits because of this more effecient way", they are going to laugh and show you the door. This appears to be what they have done any number of times already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
That's a long-term goal: to be a stable and growing company. Do I agree with everything Valve do? No. But they are a company that mostly learn from their mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
They are in an area where they can work it like DRM and few people seem to complain.
The music industry doesn't have the luxury of forcing it;'s users to "connect to play", so the business model of pennies per play won't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Sue anyone that's moderately useful to their products
Sue the churches for copyrighted music
Sue porn sites
Sue satellites
Sue everyone that's close to P2P
Oh, and sue the people
And what's the result of suing everyone? Less likelihood that the music industry becomes successful, and a grandiose sense of entitlement from anyone trying to make music easier to access for consumers. Hell, if anything, you should have the artists wanting to form up and take down these companies. But the RIAA goes above and beyond stupidity because they have government resources (through ICE) to take down sites they don't like. This would not actually work at all if not for the fact that they were given money to continue these shenanigans from our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Nothing like trying to go off topic, because you know there is no way to defend the actual point of debate.
WTG! A big win for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Glad you liked the articles undermining your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Mine is to give an example where an "infinite" good (the game client) is used to sell the scarce (in this case, Mann. Co. keys, which unlock crates that drop in-game). Perhaps the comparison is more apt than you could even conceive of.
And as for you "connect to play" comment, that was done for years in half-assed ways that didn't bother to give consumers what they wanted: a simple-to-use interface that made it easy to buy and once it was yours, you could do what you wanted with it. Hell, even iTunes didn't have the "DRM-free" versions until, what? Late 2009?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Selling the scarce in the end is a bullshit way to operate, because the vast majority of your potential customers don't want the scarce, they just want the initial product. Trying to find the small percentage that will over pay in order to keep tossing freeware out to the masses is a business model built to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Selling the scarce in the end is a bullshit way to operate, because the vast majority of your potential customers don't want the scarce, they just want the initial product. Trying to find the small percentage that will over pay in order to keep tossing freeware out to the masses is a business model built to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
That has to be about the most narrow-minded and dismissive-of-reality viewpoint I've seen.... maybe ever.
However, let us for the sake of argument assume you are right and it is impossible to make money off infinite goods by selling scarce goods and service around them. The obvious answer then is;
DON'T pay $55M in costs to make something you can't sell. Spending all that money then whining to the government and anyone else who will listen that no-one is giving you your money back is hardly a long-term winning strategy. Pretending that the infinite thing is scarce is a head-hiding trick that only ever works on the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal.
Assuming you are right then migrate out of the business of selling music as it no longer has a sustainable market and move onto something else.
Will music disappear if this happens? Hell no! It'll be made as it always has been.
How will people get it? Probably in the way described above with very low up-front costs.
Will there still be global superstar bands with gazillion dollar tours and stage shows? Maybe, but probably not in this scenario.
Will that be a bad thing? Debatable, but irrelevant - if the economics don't sustain them you don't get to do them anyway.
Will there be megabucks available in making music? In this scenario almost certainly not.
Will there be a decent profit available to be had making music? Definitely especially for those good and/or savvy.
Bottom line, even on the vanishingly small chance that you are right.. you're still soooo wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Do you really believe that all those radio stations advertising one hour long without interruptions was so people could listen to it? or do you think they knew people were recording the fraking songs?
Only you stupid people believe you hold control over everything, when that was never ever the case and now is time to cry to congress to try and make things "better" for you right?
Well, I'm not paying a dime for music, not for you people ever.
More if I get the chance to screw you, I will take it, furthermore I will sleep like a baby afterwards.
I know you can't stop copying of anything, I know you are not able to watch every citizen, I know you don't have the power to make that come true because if you had it, you probably end up like Gadhafi, because it will take a lot of intrusive very unpopular measures to be able to enforce imaginary property inside society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
People are fine with it, they can live their lifes and copy everything they want, nobody will start rating them out to the police because of copied music or movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
you need to send it all to me. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
and so has everyone else.
Try to sell something you have an infinite amount of to someone who also have an infinite amount of them !!!
If you own an infinite amount of Product A, how much are you going to pay for another one of them ?
The only true infinite resource is human greed and stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Trust darryl; he speaks from personal experience here. He is the epitome of his own philosophical ramblings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Why?
Apparently people go to live shows despite having heard the fucking music a thousand times why?
Apparently people keep buying crap from artists why?
If what you said was true people wouldn't be buying crap now would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Stopped reading here. As far as I know, the most expensive album of all time was Michael Jackson's Invincible, which cost $30 million to record, and a quick Google search suggests it had a $25 million marketing budget. $55 million. For the most expensive album of all time.
If you can't base your posts on fact, why in hell would we believe anything you have to say? Why do you trolls find it so difficult to know what you're talking about before you spam the site with text?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Real convincing side of the debate yer takin there, bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Real convincing side of the debate yer takin there, ***
^^^
= 3 leter abbrviation that Masnick's censorbots get upset about.
oh wait,
I thought it was Masnick that had an issue with "censorshiop"; yet here he freely engages with these people and then practices far more direct and real censorshiop here?
Only a sociopath/pyscopath woud insist on walking on everyone else to try and make people listen to their hal;f-assed opinion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Real convincing side of the debate yer takin there, ***"
Yes, because everything has to be either $2500 or $30 million. The fact that I pointed out a blatant exaggeration/lie means there's no middle ground.
"I thought it was Masnick that had an issue with "censorshiop"; yet here he freely engages with these people and then practices far more direct and real censorshiop here?"
WTF, exactly are you talking about?
"Only a sociopath/pyscopath woud insist on walking on everyone else to try and make people listen to their hal;f-assed opinion..."
Oh, sorry Mr. Sociopath/Psychopath. I didn't meant to interrupt you. Carry on...
The rest of us will be over here, discussing the actual points being raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
If you can't do it cheaper, there are people who can, there are people right now making money and they don't depend on absurd long/expansive granted monopolies to do so, there are people making money right now that despite all the cries about piracy still manage to rack up millions.
Sure if 99% of the people needs to fasten their belts you can too, are you different from others?
No man deserve special treatment by any government, not even the brilliant or good ones.
Now about numbers I believe you are confused, it is not even 10%, is more like a percent of zero, in a world with 7 billion people what is 20 million fans?
Never, nobody got more than 1% of the people to pay for anything at any given time, what makes you think you can force them to do so now?
Besides people already get paid in $0.02 today and make billions each year.
What don't believe me? ask yourself what "affiliate fees" are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
If they're trying to make a point, it's helpful to base that point in reality. The figures so far a ridiculously inflated to try and get an emotional reaction. This is intellectually dishonest.
Of course people want to get back their original investment, and nobody's saying they shouldn't. But, it doesn't help discussions when people try to pretend investments like that are necessary for every album.
"(let's assume that's between 20-55M for production and marketing altogether)"
Still overinflated for most albums I believe, though possible when a superstar is involved. That doesn't mean the album *has* to cost that much of course, just that the egos involved are big enough for this to be somehow acceptable.
"when the "new" business model everyone expects the entertainment industry to follow is basically only 10% superfans who are actually willing to pay for things?"
2 points: one there is no single "new business model", simply the idea that by embracing new technologies and accepting the realities of the marketplace, labels and artists can leverage that to make money.
They simply have to accept that their primary vector for making their money back may no longer be by selling copies of previously recorded work. Even under the "traditional" model in the industry's heyday, this was nowhere near guaranteed. Why do we have to pretend that a "new" model is foolproof for it to be viable?
As for the "superfans" comment, let's not fool ourselves - this is pretty much the way it's always been. For every person who buys a single or attends a concert, there's always been a large number of other people who listen to the songs on the radio, maybe recording them, borrows the album from a friend, borrows from a library or buys pirated from the dodgy market seller.
This is the way it's always been, it just comes into sharp focus now that the marketplace has changed so that people aren't forced to buy the full album to get the track they want, or can preview it before realising it's not worth paying for those extra tracks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
It really isn't about egos though. Are you saying that all the audio engineers and whatnot working for studios DON'T deserve a decent yearly salary? Or decent payment on the project if it's a freelance job? When you say it's egos of people, you seem to be forgetting that there a LOT of people that work on an album; not just the artist. Those figures that labels put out probably do include labor costs as well.
"They simply have to accept that their primary vector for making their money back may no longer be by selling copies of previously recorded work. Even under the "traditional" model in the industry's heyday, this was nowhere near guaranteed. Why do we have to pretend that a "new" model is foolproof for it to be viable?"
As a musician, I do agree that one shouldn't rely just on selling recordings...but how else is an indie musician supposed to fund shows and whatnot? Because I don't see investors or some generous rich person giving me any money so I can go play whatever concerto I want with an orchestra. haha.
"As for the "superfans" comment, let's not fool ourselves - this is pretty much the way it's always been. For every person who buys a single or attends a concert, there's always been a large number of other people who listen to the songs on the radio, maybe recording them, borrows the album from a friend, borrows from a library or buys pirated from the dodgy market seller."
Some may have always been avoiding buying music, but it was a lot different years ago. Yeah, you could "pirate" something off the radio or from the library, but you still had to buy the cassette or CD, and even then the quality wasn't good enough most times to even justify not buying the album...so there wasn't any real deterrent from buying the album.
"This is the way it's always been, it just comes into sharp focus now that the marketplace has changed so that people aren't forced to buy the full album to get the track they want, or can preview it before realising it's not worth paying for those extra tracks..."
Yeah, I definitely like the fact that I can actually buy the stuff I actually want. That still ends up being the entire album though, seeing as how I usually only listen to classical or electronic music where the entire album is usually good enough to warrant buying the whole thing. But people wouldn't just buy tracks if the entire album was actually good...which is why I recommend people to buy off of sites like bandcamp. It's almost ALL indie music, so you know it's actually good stuff and not the usual label filler garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Sigh... no, of course I'm not. Engineers deserve to get paid for the work they do, no matter how bloated or misguided the production they're working on. But, they're not the ones demanding royalties for a failed production, are they?
What I'm saying is that there's no reason for a bloated production with multi-million dollar short movies to promote them. Occasionally this works out, but it's not the norm. Pretend that it is normal and not an exception (as the above trolls are doing) is misleading.
Unless you can point me to where their assumed figures are correct for a *majority* of albums, not just the occasional MJ / Mariah album that becomes the most expensive of all time, it's a silly basis for an argument.
"Yeah, you could "pirate" something off the radio or from the library, but you still had to buy the cassette or CD"
No, you didn't. You could copy the CD or tape. Sure, multi-generation pirated tapes were poor quality, but they were often all people could afford. If you could make a 2nd gen copy directly from the original source, there wasn't much different.
That pales by the fact that most people *didn't* buy the music at all! I'm not sure of the conversion rates for the general public, but I didn't buy most of the songs I enjoyed on the radio as a kid. I just listened to them on the radio.
I'm just saying that the ratio of the number of people who listen to music vs. the number of people who buy it probably hasn't changed a great deal. Unless someone has some realistic figures, of course.
"But people wouldn't just buy tracks if the entire album was actually good..."
Well, here we have a couple of catch-22 situations. First off, many people (sadly) assume that what's presented to them in the mainstream already represents the best of what's out there. How many times have you heard a great band get dismissed because they're not currently a big name? So, they don't do the research necessary to find new music and so just buy the songs they've already been fed.
Secondly, how do you know whether or not the full album's actually any good? The only way to really know is to listen to it. If you use most of the online methods that have been available over the last decade, you're a "pirate", even if you buy the album afterwards...
New services are the answer to this - not only Bandcamp but YouTube, Spotify, Last.fm, Pandora, etc. But, each of these either loses out by not having "big names" on them, or by being heavily restricted by the industry. Who use the issues they've created above as an excuse for more draconian restrictions...
"It's almost ALL indie music, so you know it's actually good stuff and not the usual label filler garbage."
Indeed. The problems are convincing the mainstream that this is a good thing, and fighting against the majors when they decide that such things should be made illegal because they impact their profit margins...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
What I'm saying is that there's no reason for a bloated production with multi-million dollar short movies to promote them. Occasionally this works out, but it's not the norm. Pretend that it is normal and not an exception (as the above trolls are doing) is misleading."
Well, artists "demand" royalties because that's how they get paid. They might receive advances to live off of while the album is in production, but the royalties are really how they get paid since someone receives them every time something is played. It's not like they get the entire profit up front...that's not really how the industry works. But yeah, there's no reason why a music vid has to be millions of dollars. Even if it took a couple of months of work, that's maybe A MILLION dollars assuming the best quality film and sound crew are used. But when I see music vids that cost 10m+ to make, I have to wonder why...were the cameras plated with platinum or something?
"No, you didn't. You could copy the CD or tape. Sure, multi-generation pirated tapes were poor quality, but they were often all people could afford. If you could make a 2nd gen copy directly from the original source, there wasn't much different."
I was talking about people having to buy the BLANK tape or cd to do the recording on...lol.
"How many times have you heard a great band get dismissed because they're not currently a big name? So, they don't do the research necessary to find new music and so just buy the songs they've already been fed."
WAAAY too many times. I usually only listen to classical or electronic music, but the few bands I listen to are on my phone because they are actually GOOD, unlike the mainstream bullshit where the band probably doesn't even know more than 3 chord progressions. The funny thing about my favorite band (axel rudi pell) is that I found out about them because the singer did music for the sonic games...lol!
"
Secondly, how do you know whether or not the full album's actually any good? The only way to really know is to listen to it. If you use most of the online methods that have been available over the last decade, you're a "pirate", even if you buy the album afterwards...
New services are the answer to this - not only Bandcamp but YouTube, Spotify, Last.fm, Pandora, etc. But, each of these either loses out by not having "big names" on them, or by being heavily restricted by the industry. Who use the issues they've created above as an excuse for more draconian restrictions..."
Well, you find out by looking the album up on itunes or youtube and listening to all the samples. No sympathy for people who impulse buy an album only to find out it sucks...listen to the damn thing first! xD
Most of the new services you mentioned are pretty great, and I use most of them. I kind of hate spotify though because they do NOT pay the artist a fair royalty rate, (not to mention that the UI is just kind of retarded imo) and I think it's bs people who don't pay for a subscription can still download the mp3 for free. When other services (that are actually better to use) pay a .008 per play rate, spotify can go burn in hell with the bullshit .00004 rate they pay. They are just as worse as the labels keeping most of the money they make for themselves. I am a musician myself, but am totally for using one of those streaming services, IF they are fair to the artist and don't bull the same bullshit the labels do.
"Indeed. The problems are convincing the mainstream that this is a good thing, and fighting against the majors when they decide that such things should be made illegal because they impact their profit margins..."
Some big names that were formerly on labels actually ARE on bandcamp. You have to have at least a glimmer of hope when people like Amanda Palmer and even some big name film composers go over to the "dark side." I for one, plan to make BC my main place to sell my music since they are so user AND artist friendly. Hell, they're even label friendly for the ones that actually adapt...but it's too bad only indie labels have grown a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Really? Decent salaries? What is a "decent salary" these days? $80,000? Seems fairly "decent" - around twice your national average I believe so more than most people get. At that rate a $55M album represents around 700 man-years of work.
I'm not going to claim that all albums should be made at the "DIY" rate, even though these days that is very very possible, but I don't think it's out of line to call $55M just a tad over-inflated and unnecessary.
No? Well I suppose the US case may have been different, but in the UK buying a decent blank tape (hmm from memory a 5-pack being around 1/2 the average album cost) and recording off vinyl on even pretty cheap equipment produced significantly better quality than any shop-bought tape. CD's got popular around '85, which gave better quality still as well as being easier to "borrow" and record, with CD burners to give you an identical copy coming out about '90 from memory.
I'd say the opportunity to pirate was little different then to now - like now if you didn't have the kit or knowledge to do it yourself you probably knew someone who could "do you a copy". Oh, and back then in the UK if you bought an album and taped it to have a portable copy too, it wasn't illegal. So much for progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
I'm not going to claim that all albums should be made at the "DIY" rate, even though these days that is very very possible, but I don't think it's out of line to call $55M just a tad over-inflated and unnecessary."
Hey dude, calm the fuck down. I totally agree 55M just to produce an album is a bit silly. :P But that number probably is realistic if it includes all the costs like marketing, studio time and whatnot. If you aren't in the industry, you really can't say much since you don't actually know what ALL of the costs are. You say it's possible at the DIY rate, but it's probably not for most people...professional cameras and all the editing software are NOT cheap. Each camera ALONE can run you between $3500-5000.
"Oh, and back then in the UK if you bought an album and taped it to have a portable copy too, it wasn't illegal."
I'm not saying that's wrong...I do that all the time when I buy CD's. Nothing is wrong with ripping the songs into a new format as long as you actually bought the album or the individual songs. It's not right to just pirate it or borrow from a friend and rip it off of theirs when the artist isn't getting paid. That might not be a big deal for an A-lister, but it IS a big deal for an indie musician who uses their sales to fund shows and tours...those venues ain't cheap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Impressive how you manage to both agree it's silly and claim it's justified in the same sentence then go on to dismiss the whole thing since I'm "not in the industry". I can however count and I know no-one is going to spend that kind of money unless they expect to make more than that back and that's only likely for the (very generously) 1% of megastars.
So any way you slice it a "normal" album must cost significantly less than that to produce marketing and all - like by several factors - and holding an extreme of the scale up as an example of cost is artful at best.
As for the cost of professional cameras, well we're talking about music here aren't we? I know a music video is considered a vital part of the thing these days (though I'm not totally convinced - I've bought plenty of music without even knowing what the artist looks like), but even so in this day and age "professional equipment" is hardly necessary. If you don't think so, then see the article where a major director shot a whole film on an iPhone. Again not saying this or using the excellent camcorders available should be the standard but suggesting a multi-million dollar video production is necessary to sell an album is a little misleading.
The $55M bring up an interesting question though. It makes me wonder how much of the profit from an album that costs that much to make was actually made from album sales given what portion of sale would actually go against that total, and how much difference it would have made to the profits if the album itself had been distributed for free or close to as part of the "marketing" effort.
I totally agree with you, which begs the question; why is it illegal?
"Right" or not, it's a natural part of how humans interact and always has been - we communicate and share ideas and experiences and no matter how much law and how much ranting and raving happens it's not going to change. Can you explain why it's "not right"? Other than a nebulous "well the artist made it
he should get paid for it" argument? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard an argument as to why it's so that doesn't involve a vaguely moral high-horse.
To play devils advocate and perhaps prompt an answer that might have substance, let me ask some questions:
What is the concrete cost to the artist of the copy?
What do you imagine the "damage" cost to the artist is for the copy and why?
Does it make a difference to the "damage" if a copy is made but never played? Or played once and ignored/deleted?
Does it make a difference whether the copy is listened to only by the person that made it or played to others?
Does it make a difference if the copy is played to others that otherwise would likely not have heard it?
What if the copy is played to 50 people, 3 of which go out and buy a copy because they heard it?
Should it be illegal to listen to music at all without paying for it?
If so, how do you think this should be achieved? Should per listening? Per song?
If not, where's the line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
I was saying the 55M JUST for producing the album was silly. If that was the case, then I hope they had Beethoven producing the damn thing! But if that number does include all the other costs like promotion and the music vid, then it isn't so silly...that shit ain't cheap you know!
"So any way you slice it a "normal" album must cost significantly less than that to produce marketing and all"
Of course it's less...because everyone EXCEPT the labels knows how to keep costs down. xD Instead of spending bajillions of dollars on promotion, indie artists actually know the meaning of self promotion and what social media is. lol. It's still a lot of money though, but assuming the album is mostly sold online with the option for the few people to buy a cd, it can be anywhere from 5-15 (or even 20) grand depending on how expensive things like studio time and promotion ended up being. But that number obviously goes up a bit if the artist decides to do a music video though.
"but even so in this day and age "professional equipment" is hardly necessary."
I have to disagree with you there. When I buy an album or even just a few songs, I do so expecting they were mastered and recorded on the best equipment to produce the best sound. That's what separates the hobbyist from the pros. While I do agree that some of the phone cams and camcorders today can produce pretty good video, I don't think they come anywhere near a professional grade camera.
"Right or not, it's a natural part of how humans interact and always has been - we communicate and share ideas and experiences and no matter how much law and how much ranting and raving happens it's not going to change. Can you explain why it's "not right"?"
Using that logic though, it would be ok for me to steal my textbooks instead of buying them because it's "natural for humans to share ideas and info." There's freedom of information, and then there is stealing money out of the information provider's pocket...I know this is pretty much the "nebulous" argument you've heard already, but there really isn't any other reason imo for why it's wrong.
"What is the concrete/damage cost to the artist of the copy?"
Well obviously the concrete cost is that the artist isn't getting the $5 or $10 they charge for the album. But the damage cost though, is a lot bigger if you ask me. Say an artist has 1000 fans, which isn't an unreasonable number for an indie artist. (provided they actually have effective promotion of course) That artist is selling $10 albums to help fund their next show, but the venue obviously isn't cheap; it's at LEAST a couple grand to rent it out for the night. If all 1000 fans bought the album, the artist has 10k to work with, which is a VERY doable amount for a show; but if only half those fans buy the album and the rest pirate it, that number is down to 5000. That will not cover the show expenses. (this is more than just the actual show and the crew needed to run the show...they obviously need to hire more people to run those merch stands, snack bars and whatnot. and don't forget about promotion!) The artist COULD book a smaller venue that is cheaper, but that means less profit since it has less capacity. So yeah, it might seem like "only" $5 or $10 stinking dollars, but it's not so harmless if everyone does it...but that is assuming we are talking about the average musician. Obviously A-listers don't give a shit because they've probably already have their money from their product lines, album sales and whatnot.
"Does it make a difference to the "damage" if a copy is made but never played? Or played once and ignored/deleted?
Does it make a difference whether the copy is listened to only by the person that made it or played to others?
Does it make a difference if the copy is played to others that otherwise would likely not have heard it?"
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But the artist still isn't getting a sale either way. As for being played to others, maybe it can make a difference...IF they buy it instead of copying it like their friend did. Otherwise the artist is still getting screwed.
"What if the copy is played to 50 people, 3 of which go out and buy a copy because they heard it?"
Lol! That's not even a HALF percent sale rate. Not to say that the sales aren't appreciated of course, but come on. 3 sales out of 50 potential ones doesn't even make a dent in expenses. Would you try to sell your product for that joke of a sale rate?
"Should it be illegal to listen to music at all without paying for it?"
Obviously that's not possible because of the first amendment. But that is akin to asking if it's illegal to just take a magazine or a book out of a store without buying it because info and ideas should be shared; maybe in theory it's a good idea, but large teams of people worked to create that stuff. So it's kind of silly to expect things like music or a magazine to be free.
But you already pay to listen, even if you don't buy an album. If you have a satellite radio in your car, that costs you a monthly fee; if you have a satellite tv that also has the same stations, that also costs you a fee. The reason why I'm saying people should actually buy the album, hopefully directly from the artist, is because they make the most money that way because there aren't other fingers in the pie. (assuming they aren't a label sellout of course) Venues get a cut of ticket and merch sales at a show, and the same goes for online stores that sell an artist's products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
You still seem to be trying to suggest that large amounts of label-produced albums cost in the region of $55M including marketing etc and I still haven't seen any evidence or even logic to support that.
Way to distort the point. The out-of context quote you referred to was distinctly talking about CAMERAS in response to your own contention about the cost of them. I'd partially agree that the quality of the equipment used to produce the music is important for music, but costs for good equipment have come down significantly and for some types of music the the difference between "pro" and "done on a PC" would seem to be speed, usability, complexity and convenience rather than necessarily end result. So let's sling a couple of hundred grand on to your $20K for producing a video and using better sound kit and then multiply by 10 to allow for marketing etc. Are we anywhere near $55M yet?
Aaaaand you try the old standby of "copying something is the same as theft" argument. You can argue that copying is wrong all you like and I might be convinced by no way EVER can you legitimately argue it's even REMOTELY the same as physically depriving someone of something. It's just not and any attempt to claim otherwise shows either a lack of thought or a deliberate falsehood for other motives.
And perhaps right there his the huge gaping hole in your reasoning that makes it fail every time. You can argue that the album cost is a "damage" cost, though even that's fraught with about a billion factors as to whether the copy would ever have been a purchase if the copy hadn't existed. What you cannot do is claim it is a "concrete cost".. ever. A "lost sale" is not a concrete cost it is imaginary money that never existed, a potential sale and there is nothing even faintly concrete about it as nothing has been removed from anywhere, neither money nor goods.
Please explain how when the artist is out no money or time or effort or resources in any of the hypotheticals described?
again you're fallaciously equating a copy made as a direct 1-to-1 against a lost album sale. There may be an argument to be made about lost money in album sales from copies, but you know it sounds ludicrous when you try and make a claim of a 1-to-1 relationship.. right?
I'm on a hiding to nothing here, but try looking at it another way and see if it prompts an idea. Assume that the 50 people wouldn't have heard it any other way other than listening to a friend's, who happened to copy it (or bought it, doesn't really matter either way). Then see that it cost the artist nothing for them to hear it. Then see that, even if the other 47 copy it without paying, that the artist has 3 more sales than would have happened otherwise. Not 48 less imaginary sales, but 3 extra real sales. Which is better for the artist? Look at it that way then come up with an opposing argument not based in imagination.
So your position is "yes every hearing and every view of copyrighted material should be payed for if only I could work out how to charge for it".
That's a lot of if's based around SERVICE PROVISION and not content and didn't answer the question, well except you answered it by implication in the previous bit.
So basically your argument is that people should buy albums because that makes you alright rather than commenting on how the system in general works or should work. And I thought this was talking about a generic problem....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Lol. I didn't say that EVERY SINGLE label album costs that much. But they are usually very expensive though...but obviously labels don't really release that info. So it's not like your "proof" is gonna be a spreadsheet of every single expense.
"but costs for good equipment have come down significantly"
Depends on what you are talking about. If it's computer and software, then yeah. But if we are talking about the huge mixing consoles and other similar equipment you see in a studio, then no way. That shit can cost as much as a car. Same can be said for professional grade mics as well.
"and for some types of music the the difference between "pro" and "done on a PC" would seem to be speed, usability, complexity and convenience rather than necessarily end result."
How fast someone can get the job done IS the most important thing though...which is why music is no 9 to 5 job. Movie composers for example, might have a week, MAYBE 2 to compose about an hour or 2 of full orchestra music AND record it in a studio. Some hobbyist going the DIY route, is not going to spend as much time and effort as the pro. So it's really kind of silly to say that a hobbyist can produce the same result as the pro. If you wanted someone to do a service for you, would you want a professional or some random person who happens to have the same ability to do it because they have an interest in the field? I don't know about you, but I would certainly pick the pro over the random.
"So let's sling a couple of hundred grand on to your $20K for producing a video and using better sound kit and then multiply by 10 to allow for marketing etc. Are we anywhere near $55M yet?"
Of course not. Which is why I made the comment that everybody EXCEPT the labels know how to keep costs down.
"Aaaaand you try the old standby of "copying something is the same as theft" argument. You can argue that copying is wrong all you like and I might be convinced by no way EVER can you legitimately argue it's even REMOTELY the same as physically depriving someone of something. It's just not and any attempt to claim otherwise shows either a lack of thought or a deliberate falsehood for other motives."
I was just trying to make a point since you said it's natural for humans to share info and ideas. And if copying isn't the same as theft, would be ok for me to buy that same book, but copy things out of it, then return it to avoid paying for it? It's not physically depriving someone of anything, but LOOK AT THAT! It's still wrong! So please explain how copying ANYTHING, not just music, instead of buying it isn't taking a sale from the person who made it. Because now that somebody got the product for free and know they can get everything else for free, they have no reason to buy it now.
"You can argue that the album cost is a "damage" cost, though even that's fraught with about a billion factors as to whether the copy would ever have been a purchase if the copy hadn't existed."
How WOULDN'T the copy eventually have been a purchase? Obviously someone wanted it, they just decided to be a douche bag and get it for free instead of supporting the artist. As for the concrete cost, I explained that with the trying to pay for a show scenario.
"Please explain how when the artist is out no money or time or effort or resources in any of the hypotheticals described?"
Lol. "out no money?" If those 500 people decide to pirate the album instead of buying it, the artist is out a LOT of money. Money that could have been used to book more venues or promote their next album. But hey, FUCK THE ARTIST! I'm getting stuff for free so that's really all that matters, right?
"Which is better for the artist? Look at it that way then come up with an opposing argument not based in imagination."
Oh boy. I just LOVE the "it's free advertising" argument. Yes, it may be "free advertising." I'm not going to argue that it doesn't. But it doesn't matter if the artist didn't get a good amount money out of it, (and don't even try to argue that $30 is a good amount of money...that doesn't even pay for the damn gas for a tour bus) as they still don't have the resources to do as many shows or good promotion...you advertise to help sell a product, not to just hand it out for free and cross your fingers that some of those people might come to your next show or buy merch someday. Using that logic, I could just pirate an author's e-book because it's free advertising and I never would have read it if I didn't pirate it, not to mention that there is NO way it could have possibly been a purchase instead. Or better yet, I should let 50 of my friends copy that same book...EVEN MORE FREE ADVERTISING! But wait...they now have no reason to actually buy the book because they already got it for free. Oh well! Maybe they'll buy the next one...or more than likely, they'll wait for me to let them COPY the next one after I do so. Fuck the content creator! Bring on the freebies! Why should I pay if I can get it for FREE? I mean, it's not like the content creator might just decide to stop creating since they aren't getting paid enough for their work or anything.
"So your position is "yes every hearing and every view of copyrighted material should be payed for if only I could work out how to charge for it". "
No, my position is "stop being a douchebag and pay the 5 or 10 stinking dollars for your entertainment so the content creator gets paid." But you obviously aren't a content creator judging by some of your comments...CLEARLY these people don't deserve to get paid since they aren't producing a physical product. Maybe YOU should try selling a product you worked your ass off to create, hoping "free advertising" gets people to buy something they already got for free and now have no reason to buy.
"So basically your argument is that people should buy albums because that makes you alright rather than commenting on how the system in general works or should work. And I thought this was talking about a generic problem...."
Yes. CLEARLY that's my argument. I mean, it's not like I'm saying artists deserve to be paid for their work like everyone else in the most profitable way or anything. Congratulations! You earned a cookie for your brilliant detective work!
And you never asked specifically about how I think the system should work...if you did, I would have answered. But anyway. I think the "system" (I'm assuming you mean the way people buy their content) should make it easier for people not only to buy content, but find other content they might be interested in as well, including major productions AND indie productions. Something like the "recommended albums for you" thing on iTunes, but also pays a fair amount to the content creator. By "fair" I mean no less than a 70-30 split, with the creator getting the bigger portion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_(Michael_Jackson_album)
It doesn't cost that much to make a top notch produced album. Album production is pricey from the standpoint of musicians, engineers, post production etc. But as with everything, its the business side that cost the most. Royalties on music, legal fees, promotional costs etc.
Ask a modern musician, they like the production resources, but go into the studio knowing that their money will come from selling merchandise on tour, ring tones, and concert ticket sales. The album is for the label and they will literally make between 20-45 cents per album sold.
Most artists today publish mix tapes and leaks via web sites that will probably be shut down by SOPA. These sites offer free mix tapes and are supported by the artists.
8-Tracks and Super-8's forever!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
The point I was trying to make with rodent is that pirating isn't "free advertising," especially not to a new act (read: INDIE artist that isn't signed to a label) that needs the money to fund new shows and albums. It doesn't matter whose content you are pirating; you are still trying to justify STEALING a product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Fixed costs are those that do not vary in relation to the rate of production. An example is lighting costs for that office space.
Marginal or variable costs change in relation to the amount, rate, and method of production.
The point that is repeatedly made (and often ignored or argues against) is that music is produced for a very low marginal, fixed, and sunk cost. In fact, the cost is so low for real sunk and fixed costs in comparison to the potential cash flow from distribution of unlimited virtual goods (internet distributed music) that sunk and fixed costs can be ignored.
However, the music labels are themselves the fixed and sunk costs used by music labels to justify music labels' price and expense charges.
A band only needs the instruments they currently own and a couple of computers and software, a sound conditioned room and maybe a little extra sound equipment to record an album. Distribution can be handled through leasing a web server and setting up a online store.
Anyone can do it.
The huge fixed costs the RIAA lobbies to cover are the record labels themselves, which are no longer necessary, and nothing else.
I was perusing the CD aisle at Walmart last week and noticed a fairly big 70's band's album was $23.99 The sunk cost has still not been recovered after over 30 million sales and nearly 40 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Go take an economics class. A sunk cost is an expenditure that can not be taken back.
"Recovering" it, as you put it, is a completely different subject.
The reason people have for years been laughing at and mocking Masnick is because he ignores *all* costs, except marginal ones.
He's being manipulative and delusional when trying to pass off that kind of bs, and his belief that he can do so, infers that he without question has issues that require the attention of a mental health professional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Except, you know, the posts where he specifically mentions them.
" he without question has issues that require the attention of a mental health professional."
Funny, I think the same about you every weekend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Sunk cost is simply money spent. It is usually not recoverable but may be and can be a gain if the asset purchased is resold at a profit. The key concept is not to use sunk costs as a major or only factor in making future business decisions.
If I purchase a delivery truck and lease storage space for a past effort in making profit and a future opportunity that can make money needs neither of these I should not reject the opportunity due to sunk costs. At the same time if I find the truck and storage idea losing money and there is no foreseeable chance of it I should not continue just because the money was spent.
Just because the studios have huge investments in studios and CD/DVD manufacturing and distribution and traditional advertising and radio stations doesn't mean that is the only way music and other media should be promoted and distributed and does not make the political lobbying for protectionist laws against new technology and rejection of new ideas correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
You must be with a label, your the one without a notion of what is being done out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to promote the continuance of bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sir, I was just helping you make a Youtube account to help promote your client's work."
"Take your freetard witchcraft somewhere else, because you're fired!"
"But you're 60 years old and you say..."
"OUT! Oh, and you owe me a million dollars."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Morris insists there wasn't a thing he or anyone else could have done differently. "There's no one in the record company that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"
Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me." Morris' almost willful cluelessness is telling. "He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't believe the hype!
8-Track and Super-8's forever!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a label gives a car to an artist as a promotional tool, with the expectation that making the artist look wildly successful will make them actually wildly successful, thus enabling them to recoup the cost of the Bentley, and the artist only sells a half dozen CD's, there's no legal reason the artist should have to pay for it. Especially not if the artist made the agreement with the expectation (likely cuz of what the label told them) that they'd be the next Lady Gaga or Eminem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Protect_IP == Shock Collar
E_Parasite == Shock Collar
Your tax dollars being used for the enrichment of big business, and somehow we are supposed to be appreciative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Telling businessmen to trade dollars for pennies just doesn't do much for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The current crop are gutless wonders who rely on legal departments for business advice. They kneecap themselves and want to take all of us down with them. They are not deserving of sympathy. They trade in failing upwards, but no matter which direction you fail, you're still a failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed costs and sunk costs
You always ignore fixed costs and sunk costs when doing break-even costing analysis.
The point of a fixed cost is that you will pay it whether you take on the project or not, so it should have no bearing on the success of the project itself. Marketing for the project itself is mostly a variable cost associated with the project unless it also constitutes advertising for the company itself, in which case it should considered a cashflow to the project.
Sunk costs are sunk costs, they should not be considered when trying to figure out whether to continue an existing project, only the present value of future cash-flows are relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dante needs to write a new chapter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, when the record industry execs do get to hell........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]