Universal Music CEO: We're Not In This To Make Art
from the of-course-not dept
Whenever debates come up about disruptive innovation in the entertainment industry, the big record labels and big movie studios like to fall back on claiming that they (and often they alone) are the last vanguards protecting our culture. They talk about how, without greater copyright protections, their "art" may die off. But, of course, as most normal people recognize, the labels and the studios (and the RIAA and MPAA who represent them) are not representing art at all, but commerce -- and just a specific type of commerce. They represent the gatekeeper model, which makes less and less sense in a digital world where we need filters and enablers, not gatekeepers. But it's pretty rare for them to actually admit that, since their entire public persona and lobbying efforts are based on "we represent culture and art."And then, finally, an exec speaks the truth. In a quite interesting New Yorker profile of Scooter Braun, the man who made Justin Bieber into Justin Bieber, Lucian Grainge, CEO of Universal Music Group (the biggest of the record labels) explains why he named Braun the company's first technology "entrepreneur in residence" by admitting that "art" has nothing to do with Universal Music:
The company likes hits, the fans like hits, and that's what he's there to do--make hits. We're not in the art business.It seems like people should remind him of this every time he or his lackeys claim they're defending art. Separately, the rest of the Braun profile is well worth reading. It highlights exactly what we've been saying for quite some time, that the real "business" these days is in finding other areas of the market you can build a business around -- areas that are made more valuable by digital content:
In the beleaguered music industry, few managers can afford to focus on just selling music anymore. When Braun met David Geffen, at a party a couple of years ago, he said that Geffen had one bit of advice for him: “Get out of the music business.” So Braun has been converting his twelve-person company, SB Projects, into a many-faceted organization: it now has film and TV arms (Braun recently sold a scripted show, and has reality shows in development), a publishing division, and a technology-investment unit, in addition to a label and a management company.And how is he building up many of those other businesses? By leveraging the star power of Justin Bieber -- something that can't be "pirated" and which is a true scarcity that Braun can control:
His YouTube channel is approaching three billion views, and on Twitter, where he acquires a new follower every other second, a single tweet from him can mobilize his supporters to perform stunning feats: sell out Madison Square Garden in seconds, conjure a horde of three hundred thousand tweens in Mexico City, induce fans to buy a hundred and twenty million dollars worth of perfume (Bieber’s fragrance, Someday), or influence the conversation about world events—in March, Bieber’s tweets brought attention to the campaign to apprehend the Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony.As the article really highlights, there are plenty of ways to make money in the business today -- but a lot of it isn't specifically about selling music. And while some people insist that's "selling out," Braun sees it differently:
[....] Barry Lowenthal, the president of Media Kitchen, an ad agency that is promoting Bieber’s new fragrance, Girlfriend, told the Times that the reach of a Bieber dispatch across networks like Facebook and Twitter would cost ten million dollars to replicate through conventional advertising methods.
"I don't think you're selling out by allowing the masses to love your art."And the end result is what we've been saying all along. There's tons of opportunity in and around the music business if you're smart and you know how to build a good business around it. In fact, the market is growing, and Braun recognizes that:
"This isn't a dying business, this is a changing business," he told me. "CD sales have declined drastically, but the over-all business has grown: licensing, merchandising, digital sales."It always seems that, in these discussions, there's often an implicit conflict between art and commerce, when there doesn't need to be. But if someone's defending commerce, it should be clear that's what they're defending, and they shouldn't try to confuse that by claiming that they're really defending art or culture. Art and culture will live on no matter what. Commerce will shift around to the markets most appropriate. Neither need defending on their own, as they seem to survive just fine. The only thing struggling is one particular sector of the entertainment industry which built a "hit driven" business based on being a gatekeeper. And now we live in a world where such gatekeepers aren't necessary, and businesses can be built in other ways.
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: art, business models, commerce, justin bieber, lucian grainge, music, record labels, scooter braun
Companies: universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
they put it on the radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The publishers were printers. The record labels ran record production plants. My earliest recollection of the letters RIAA relates to a technical issue - a standard for frequency equalisation in fact.
However as technology evolved they found it easier to farm out the technical functions to others. Few publishers now run a print shop and the switch from vinyl to CD saw a decoupling of the labels from the physical side of the business. I suppose that sitting on a set of monopoly rights and organising publicity is easier than actually making things,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I remember when TD covered this a while back, this line leaped out at me.
This single statement, more than any other, indicates complete incompetence at management. I suspect this incompetence is a powerful part of that segment of the music business, not something specific to him.
Here's the deal: if you have to be an expert at, or even know anything more than the most basic basics of, something in order to hire an expert in it, you're hiring skills are so laughable that you shouldn't have that job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not, like you said, you actually have to understand something to be able to effectively hire some one to do it. I also find it amazing that some one in his place, who felt they personally couldn't hire some one, has no one he could trust with the task.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In that case, he should retire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But most seem to be happy to take in the butt for the tiny tiny tiny (often illusionary) sliver of copyrestriction control they get. Getting to sue people is more important than if your industry cares about you.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But most seem to be happy to take in the butt for the tiny tiny tiny (often illusionary) sliver of copyrestriction control they get. Getting to sue people is more important than if your industry cares about you.
"Most" who? Artists?
I don't know one single musician who believes that, or behaves in any way that is reflective of that statement. Most musicians sign to a label so they can move up out of the gutter and eat something more wholesome than ramen noodles cooked in a deli microwave.
I know exactly zero musicians who signed to a label for greater "control" of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is bollocks. I am a music fan as are millions other and I would say that the majority of fans don't give a stuff about 'hits'. We just want music that is enjoyable to listen to and for me that is music that never makes it as a 'hit'. More evidence that the labels haven't a clue what fans want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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:
There's a station here in Colorado that has played the single "Handlebars" from Flobots almost twice a day everyday since it came out in 2008. I hate the song now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're not a Bieber Fan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure I follow you here. Hits are considered "hits" because they're very popular with a very large segment of music listeners.
More evidence that the labels haven't a clue what fans want
Once again, this is confusing. If the hit is successful and profitable (and by definition, it must be) then it stands to reason that the label in question did know exactly what the fans wanted, in a particular instance.
We just want music that is enjoyable to listen to and for me that is music that never makes it as a 'hit'.
"We?" Or "me?" (meaning you) Most people, even those who wouldn't be considered die hard music fans, only want enjoyable music, too. And for most of them that would be the hits. That's why they sell so well. I think you're the outlier in this instance. Which is OK, I am too.
Maybe there's some confusion over the word "hit" and it's being interpreted as "bland pop" or music made with a cookie cutter or something similar. I'm no fan of most Top 40 music, but I wouldn't argue that it's not popular with its fans. That's inane. And some hits are quite good; I was more than pleased that something as left-field as "Someone That I Used to Know" reached the top of the charts this year. It's not exactly my kind of thing, but it's nice to hear a foreign underdog on US radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that the "Music Exec" approved response? I really don't know what he's going for here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthem for a new age
Etch it in granite, put it on billboards, make T-shirts and hats... this is the message so many have missed. And Braun will continue to clean up, because he's tuned-in to the new method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anthem for a new age
Markets change all the time. If you don't adapt you fail.
(Unless you can pay to get some laws created to protect your dying business I guess.....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fragrances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just how many corners did his mouth have?
OK, so which is it, then?
1) Modern progress and copiers are killing you (as you keep telling your taxpayer-supported yet privately-used courts, your taxpayer-supported yet privately-used police forces, your taxpayer-supported yet privately-used 3-letter agencies and your taxpayer-supported yet privately-used governments (Obama/Biden/Kirk/US Congresscritters anyone?));
or
2) This is a modern world. Things are changing and the “industry” is still getting richer (as you just confessed).
" the over-all business has grown: licensing, merchandising, digital sales."
So keep up the good work with progress, folks. They like modern advancements and it apparently makes them richer.
p.s.: That "industry" is to art as McDonald's is to Haute Cuisine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good to see this admitted for a change as well. all that is needed now is for the stupid fuckers that keep ramping up copyright laws to realise that they have been taken continuously for idiots by the one sector that is failing, the 'gatekeeper' sector and perhaps things can begin to really start to progress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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:
Then the copytards lose their shit because their heroes have confirmed that we broke their code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd have to agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it is not science... soooo why do they have copyrights again?
This is the CEO of UMG speaking, admitting they do not make art. Should be enough to invalidate all UMG copyrights and revert them to the actual artists or the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point is that they don't make art in the big term "ART". They make entertainment, that is by definition a sort of art.
They aren't looking for the next picasso, but they certainly do push out a lot of paintings.
WTG Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's still art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy plays a big role
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are not in it for the Art !!!!
DUH, I knew that fact Decades Ago !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucian Grainge, CEO of Universal Music Group �Out of His Mind?�
If you were to take a look at the list of the largest selling albums in history, a vast majority of them have one thing in common and that is the artist had free reign of artistic expression. Regardless of the style of music, with each of these albums the artist was able to execute at a high level what they wished to express. The result was the labels having a catalog of music in which the same product finds large numbers of sales each time a new music format arrives on the scene. With that being said, when record labels offer themselves for sale the only thing they have to offer is their catalog! So the question is what makes a good catalog?
In short, a good catalog is a collection of music that resonates over time while consistently gaining new audiences who find themselves identifying even if the music was made 30 years ago. The only type of music the can truly pull that off is those works that contain the fullness of the artistic expression. Again, numbers don�t lie and a quick glance at the list of the biggest selling albums of all time will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Labels can point the finger and complain about pirated music as much as they want, in reality it appears that �fast food music� was the real issue and pirating became the perfect scapegoat.
That leaves us with this formula: Full artistic expression + People relating + Proper exposure= Huge sales figures over long periods of time!
Written by: A.K.I.
Member of the group VEIL
www.soundsofveil.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revolutionizing the Music Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]