another great post, j. april 1, 2003: after working for sony music entertainment for 5 years, getting to work 2 hours early every day - literally turning the lights of my respective floor on each morning - i was unceremoniously "downsized" from the music industry - an industry that i loved, an industry that it took me 16 months worth of 100s of resume mailings and fruitless interviews to break into. i go back to what i said earlier this week - everyone involved is to blame - record companies, concert promoters and superstar artists alike. i believe they all act either together or alone to fleece us all. how many greatest hits albums will someone allow to be released. many artists of the stature of sting have a consent clause in their contract, basically that their respective record company must get their "ok" in order to release certain product. in other words, i think sting has signed off on each of the more than necessary GH albums of his/the police that have been released. and while my pal steve raised an excellent point about all the deductions an artist must pay out before he sees any $$$$ from a respective release, think about this: ONE, releases are usually of a worldwide nature, so the post-deduction money generated by record sales in the usa is added to that made in australia, that in the uk, that in japan, etc.; SECOND, on the matter of recording advances, virtually every new artist - many of them in the studio with no talent at all, having caught a talent scout on a good nite - run up exorbitant advances, the thought being that this may be the only chance they ever have to get any money at all from the company. so they ring up expenses, their album flops, they are dropped from the company and the company is out all the advance money - because the artist no longer records there. millions upon millions of dollars are lost in the industry every year because of this. someone of sting's status? i doubt he runs up advances like this - hell, he may even foot the bill out of his own pocket, which is a smart move. as for promotion, this is the area of the record business that is completely bogus to me. they run up all these costs and yet you never see acts promoted. A&M did NOTHING to promote BND - sting had to go out and do it himself, with the help of jaguar and compac. but you can bet the record company charged him boatloads for promotion costs. pete yorn is an even better example: he is fantastic, one of the best singer-songwriters out there today. he has released 2 records thus far, neither one of them have sold like them should because the record company barely lifted a finger to promote him. i have abandoned my desire to work in the music industry for life or longer - the reason? i have absolutely no confidence of ANY party involved in it to change things, to reverse the tide. piracy will continue to get worse, ticket prices will continue to go up. the industry is longer about artistry and creativity, it is about the accountant, the bank statement. the purity that was the industry of yesteryear is gone and lost forever... rich --- Jason Sheldon <jason@digital-solutions.co.uk> wrote:
But lets not forget, the record companies are diluting the market with pap from just about anyone off the street now (No disrespect to any decent artists - but when you look at Pop Idol, Pop Stars etc... you'll know what I mean), and they put records out deliberately aimed at making money.
Nothing wrong with making money... but when you fill a market with rubbish, you shouldn't complain when you can't shift it....
The record buyers won't buy crap (although, looking at the UK charts in the last few years, it proves my own point wrong).
I also read on the BBC news website that record companies are thinking about reducing the number of tracks on albums, because they say customers are fed up with 'fillers' rather than decent tracks. Another way to rip off the punter. Who decides if I like a track or not? So if I buy an album with only 8 tracks on it, I'll then have to buy all the singles and special editions to get the tracks they decided I wouldn't like.
I don't deny the record companies are losing money - but in my opinion, it's not JUST down to illegal downloads. (I don't condone MP3 downloading, but I don't think it is entirely to blame). It's bad marketing, exploitation of teenage trends, exploitation of fans (Look at how many 'reissues' there have been shortly after the original albums have been released, all with 'bonus tracks', all designed to make you go out and buy it again... Sheryl Crow, Celine Dion, David Gray, Bjork, and they're just the ones that I've been caught out by... (Celine Dion was for my wife by the way).
These marketers think of great ways to make more money "Ooh, lets repackage it as a tour edition", or "Hey, lets do a Greatest Hits album, and put ONE new track on there....", and when their ideas turn out to be not as good as they first thought.... it's the music buying (or not, in this case) public who are blamed.
Job losses are also inevitable in a market where big record companies merge, just the same as any other industry. When you bring together two stables, you don't need the same amount of staff as two separate companies.
Why would record companies merge, if it wasn't to save money by cutting costs? They sure wouldn't do it if they weren't going to make as much money.
Record companies should put their hands up in the air and admit it when their marketing plans don't come to fruition, rather than blaming their customers for EVERYTHING.
J.
_______________________________________________ Police mailing list Police@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/police __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/