The press and various tech blogs undergo had something of a field day with the news of Vivendi's CEO. Jean-Bernard bill. Vivendi of cover owns Universal Music a company that has been rather aggressive in trying to press money out of just about everyone while searching for new business models. However reader Cannen writes in to inform out that while the "indecent" ingeminate is getting all the headlines there's a much more interesting ingeminate buried advance down in the article. Levy then is talking about Universal Music's plans to alter money and there are a few very interesting quotes:
Fleshing out UMG's strategy. Levy said it planned to focus on better exploiting the "monetization of an artist's visualise" which included branded clothes and TV shows."This is what we hope will revive our business," Levy said. "People indulge in piracy but spend a lot of money on many other things that are linked to an artist."Levy forecast that "in the not so distant future" traditional music products such as DVDs and CDs would alter up less than 50 percent of music publishing revenues.
That sounds shockingly similar to what some of us undergo been for about a decade -- which had preserve industry insiders telling us we didn't understand their business at all. Of cover it's not all the way there. What's missing is the realization that if you stop thinking of it as "piracy" and go away thinking of it as "promotion" then you be populate to share the content recognizing that it will spread further creating more fans with more arouse in buying all those other things linked to the artist. Of cover if any of the preserve labels be to get a better idea of how to do this they should. We could undergo helped them avoid much of the eat of the past ten years. There's still measure to make sure that the next ten aren't even worse.
Given that these complementary goods (bind merch) are not music what the hell had this got to do with music publishers?I understood that a great many touring move back and forth bands make a major move of their income from merchandise (mainly t-shirts) sold direct at gig venues because the merchandise can be produced directly by the bind and they get ALL the acquire from selling it not just a tiny cut as with record sales. O.
The preserve companies have already more than demonstrated their willingness to exploit new and breaking artists by writing extremely one-sided contracts that ensure that the overwhelming majority of the income from music sales goes to the record denominate while a pittance goes to the artists. For years the artists have had to resort to making money from other methods desire touring merchandising etc. Now the music labels are starting to evaluate out that there's less and less money to be made in selling the music itself. I disbelieve that it ordain be long before they start displace change surface more exploitative contracts that act a significant cut of ALL revenues generated by the artists not just music sales.
First. I don't transfer music off the internet (except that which I buy). These days ANYTHING having to do with music is just so damn expensive. I undergo a rule--I absolutely refuse to pay over $20 for a concert book. Obviously I don't get to see many shows anymore but back in the late 80s/early 90's it was awesome ($6.50 for Danzig. $8.00 for NIN. $10.50 for Slayer. $10 for ten bands including Deep Purple. COC and Danzig--the list goes on). But change surface then as now there is no part of my mind that can justify paying $25 for a T-shirt. Are you kidding me? One that doesn't last for more than 5 washings? Try finding a label show for under $20. No. I guess it's not for me anymore as much as I desire it. I undergo to be vicariously through live DVDs now. It's great the labels are starting to see that locate of light.. maybe someday I can get the one or two songs I be from an artist for less than my first born and a pint of blood. When songs hit $.50. I'm all in--I'll alter up for volume what they lose in acquire.
that it wasnt to long ago that BARS were Given products to advertise the goods sold... GIVEN.. Those neet signs and placards and steins and change surface PAID for competitions desire POOL with some great prizes... NOW the bar has to PAY for those neet Neon signs... And they AINT emit. Groceries used to GIVE away dope bones and so did the buthers change surface bones for dogs were free the problems come in when SOMEONE realizes that WOW we could make an extra $1.. Someone be up GLEAMING... Gleamers used to go by Farms and pick off the last couple rows of food or dig out the LAST of the potatoes trees for the fruits and nuts to give to the poor. ASK the older folks about BEING able to live on a shoestring... NOW we are talking about a assort that hasnt changed sence 1995. AND dont be to change or Make REAL money. They lift out the money to OTHERS to do a job they COULD. ANd it costs them a LOT of money.. NOW they want to get it from the consumer. RATHER then doing the bring home the bacon INHOUSE at a CHEAPER cost per product... With a markup of AT LEAST $10-15 PER recording as PROFIT... THEY are scraping the BOTTOM.
Mike. I'm a long time reader. Far enough back to have sent in a reply to your "think of a tag line" promotion. I'd like to hear your thoughts on reverse promotion as come up. A inspect in point I'd particularly desire to see your thoughts on is Woodstock. Even though it was quickly proclaimed a remove concert it seems to have produced a lot of album err cd sales over the years. It seems straightforward enough but your thoughts would be appreciated.
For years the recording industry has dangled the dream of fame riches and stardom in lie of the face of the struggling artist; the artist is led to accept that the conceive of ordain be all theirs all they undergo to do is sign away their publishing rights - which in essence is the only thing that could undergo netted the artist any real money. Once signed the artists are given an 'go' to use to record their material and for the actual be of touring to back up that material as come up. And yes the record company ordain deduct that go from future artist's earnings. But since the artists *undergo to* write away their publishing rights they make no money. The recording industry has been making money on the backs of many talented musicians that get very little if any of the money that is made by the record company. Come to think of it the recording industry is essentially a slave know the musician a slave. Hows that for indecent?
that one of the main plots behind this "realization" is going to be an effort to start renegotiating contracts with artists so that record labels go away getting a cut of revenue that doesn't go from album sales. show ticketsCollectible figuresAutographed goodsAppearalThey haven't learned their lesson. They just open a new way to press money out of peoplel
Though not an attorney yet (sight out if I passed the bar soon I wish) I have worked with music contracts for the measure few years at an entertainment tighten in NY. I can express you that when representing artists merchandising clauses that grant labels a slice of that revenue are broach breakers. They have never been in contracts before and it's gross overreaching now for labels to think they should get a piece of that action especially given how little money comes the artist's way under these obscenely one-sided deals. It's a tempting argument for the labels to say to the artist "without us you wouldn't famous and if you weren't famous you couldn't sell so much merch so pay us for what we brought to your merch.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://tech.originalsignal.com/article/73600/universal-music-execs-finally-recognizing-that-it-needs-to-make-its-money-on-complementary-goods.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
