EMI agrees with me.

ubw newbie Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: Global Posts: 16

Recently on CNN I saw an interview about the troubled EMI record company. Some interesting data came up which I would like to share.

30% of the signed artists at artists never produced an album.

EMI spent $140 mi a year on acts that never make money.

85% of new artists signed at EMI make a loss.

Back catalogues (old records to you and me) like those by Iron Maiden, Nora Jones, Robbie Williams and the Beatles make up the majority of the income for the company.

In 2007 their highest selling album was Love by The Beatles.

Their highest performing publishing act last year was Boyoncé.

So where does the new artist and EMI make their money? It doesn't appear to be through record sales.

Modesty apart, I've been hammering this nail home for some time as can be seen in articles that I have posted on the internet on sites like oursongs.com.

Since downloading music has become so popular, even blasé, the business model for record companies needed to change. EMI now recognizes this.

The old business model was to sell music and use the presentations as a promotion tool for the record.

The new business model is to make money from shows and merchandizing with the record playing the role as a promotions tool. An advert, if you will, of the show.

The way forward for a new artist is to market their music initially on a local level where they are available to perform live and sell merch and to expand naturally by region to make a solid fan base where the listener will watch and enjoy a live performance.

The internet unfortunately doesn't allow the artist to do this as at the moment it's difficult to perform on the internet to earn so they can sustain their musical project. Nobody will travel from Japan to the UK to watch your performance in the local club, noe would you travel to Japan to perform for a handfull of people.

However one shouldn't rule out the possiblity of a new market for online shows where the artist performs live and sells online "tickets" in the form of a password to have access to the image and sound of their performance.

For the time being though the way forward in making a living as a performing artist is to is to sell shows and sub-products.

Success

Steve Allen

Steve Allen Steve Allen is consultant and music producer. Author of "Marketing Your Music – Success Strategies", "Personal Management in the Music Industry" and "Street Teams – Expand your Fan Base"

http://www.marketingyourmusic.net

You may copy this article and post it in your site, without onus, as long as you keep the due credits for the author and source intact, with an active visible link, below the text to the url:

http://www.marketingyourmusic.net

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:28 pm

I couldnt agree more Steve....also may i add that todays music by signed artists just aint what it used to be....so, that in turn would be a lack of sales correct??

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:45 am

i think we need a new 'medium' to take human art to a new level.... maybe some sort of chinese water torture system, where the engineered water droplets contain some kind of warbling vocals and instead of it driping onto your forhead it dripped onto your ear drum, using very precise modern technology of course...

for those who want to experience this effect without being strapped down, heres a link to Christina Aguilera's myspace page...
NEW CHINESE WATER TOTURE... (beta)

ubw newbie Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: Global Posts: 16

Hi Gunner,

I was chatting to my mate Russ on MySpace about this subject... this was his reply:

"I dont see any change mate with what EMI are saying . Back in 1977 I went to a meeting with bosses at WEA they had a huge label stable at that time and the meeting regarded the plans for diversification into Punk which I was a fan of hence my inclusion; I was told then 1977 that for every 100 albums released only 1 would actually make a profit and it was the old back catalogue ie The Eagles , Rod Stewart , The Rolling Stones etc. was were the profits actually came from.

So 30 years later it's still back catalogue that makes the profit

What did WEA do? Invest in its Classical side which was dirt cheap to do. Then the launch of Classic FM in the UK a very brave thing to do saw a regeneration of interest in classical music it must have been very profitable."

I agree with you that music these days is getting more rediculous. I posted a short article about this some time back in my blog:

Are we getting dumber?

With words in the simplest form and slang used in song lyrics over recent years, the question I'd like to pose is the following.

As human beings, or intelects, does this affect our IQ? Could it be that our intelligence diminishes due to being exposed to this sort of musical behaviour? As the lyrics become simpler and more repetative and also many songs having the same content in terms of subject matter, could it be that our imagination may be affected?

I listen to songs like the ones from Queen, Elton John, Stevie Wonder or Phil Collins and I can't see a new generation of songwriters coming to fill the void that these people leave behind...

best regards,

Steve Allen

Consultant and music producer.
Author of "Marketing Your Music – Success Strategies", "Personal Management in the Music Industry" and "Street Teams – Expand your Fan Base"

http://www.marketingyourmusic.net

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:10 pm

I like the "Are we getting dumber" question........
I think they are......
It also seems that the more technical a song is, the less it makes it in the charts or become popular...this might be to a general taste in music maybe.....but ive noticed that a song with 3 or 4 chords throughout the song is a bigger hit than one with many.....i could be wrong, like i said, just an observation....
Thanks for all the info though...

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:14 pm

the getting dumber thing rings true all across the board... the more we are in a 'nanny state' being left with no choices / descisions but whether to work or not (which also isnt really a choice) the more reliant we are become on others to provide us with everything we need / want.... this includes music... very few go out there looking for music, or go out 2 /3 times a week chasing new bands... most people are quite happy to sit back and let the radio tell them whats popular... then buy that because its popular... and theyre mate (who works in the same way) thinks its cool... because its popular.... this happens with tastes in everything... music, cars, sports and even things like food... how often does a friend say to you '' oh we went to 'insert name of restaurant' for a meal and it was great... then how often do you think, lets go there instead of trying somewhere new when you next go out for a meal...

its no secret all companies believe firmly in 'word of mouth' etc... the food ones a slightly bad example, because the restaurant has obviously served some good food... but the principle is the same.... most people are so ready to accept information and take it as theyre own view... either for friendship, or to feel a part of a movement, or part of society you might say... i think this all ties in to the dumbing down of nations.... i personally think most of us have been dumbing down for many many years now... with a few exceptions...... me, im a genius... Laughing

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:19 pm

oh and i forgot, i think maybe 'Jeff Buckley' is / would have been up there with those song writers.. god, rest his soul... Cool

ubw newbie Joined: Nov 08, 2007 Location: US Posts: 11

Completely agree that music nowadays doesn't have much originality. But I think with all the music sites out there, originality can be found again in music - you just have to search for it. Very Happy

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:28 pm

I definitely agree with you, infusician.
There are some very very original bands out there that are starting to become more popular in the mainstream industry, which is lifting my hopes for the future a little, as I take a lot of influence from such bands. (eg Tool, Cog, Opeth, Muse, etc)

Reading the first post in this topic is a little disheartening though... No wonder it's so hard to get signed, is the company knows it will never make money from doing so.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:49 pm

it's been that way for a very long time, too. the argument that downloads have killed industry is correct, but not from the angle they're pushing. it's the fact that a lot of new artists offer their music for free, or are selling it as a download independently from a record company. why go through the trouble of getting signed when i can create something that's passable sound-quality-wise, and i can get it sold on itunes and a bunch of others for next to mo money? will i get rich? probably not, but i no longer have to wait for a record company to give me a shot. i think recording contracts will still have their place, but the day of the free lunch is over. labels will probably sponsor artist, but the days when they also provide the entire meal ticket are through. i actually like this idea. i already find out about new music be reading reviews about unsigned and underground artists more than i do from label promotions. it will take a while before a new system emerges. if record companies hadn't spent so much time fighting sites like napster and kazaa, they could have been working on ways to collaborate with them the earn revenue off the material being traded. sort of like ho they make money off radio play. it would have been a nasty battle, but entirely possible. i still wish you all the best of luck in landing that coveted recording deal, but the chances are ever decreasing that you will. you'll have to build up a fan base at the local/regional level and expand. in some ways, it's like we've take a few steps back. in other ways we've taken a giant leap forward. good luck! Cool

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:41 pm

Did you hear about this?

Unfortunately I don't think its gonna happen, judging from this, and this.

Here's the site: Qtrax.com

I had a brief look in the legal disclaimer.
It says they can basically monitor anything you upload or download,
and can change the terms and conditions at any time without even informing you.
Thus - I reckon it looks f#$*ing dodgy.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:30 pm

yeah, i'd agree with that last statement. Laughing

it does sound like the way they will need to go. either generate revenue through advertisement, or charge a nominal fee for downloads. one gripe i have with these services is the inability to use them cross-platform. i own an ipod, but most of the music on it wasn't purchased from itunes because it's kind of dumb to get something that's only going to work on software that may not be around in 5-10 years. i need to get software that will take care of that problem. it's out there. but it's all still very interesting. there's a lot of money to be made of advertising as people search page after page of music files. it's cool if they charge for it, but they just need to lower the price. $10 for an album on itunes is still pretty pricey. that seems to be the standard for MP3 or AAC. FLAC copies go for about $13-14. great quality, but still too expensive and most players won't play that format, which is really too bad. i'd totally switch to FLAC if more would do it. thanks for posting these links. it's definitely something to keep an eye on. cheers! Cool

EMI agrees with me.

UBW Resources

Music Forums

Music Forums

Partners