RockBand.com


View Full Version : Record labels trying to muscle in on concert, t-shirt, and merchandise sales.



ThatAuthoringGroup
12-18-2009, 09:20 AM
Looks like it won't be long until the artists have zero control over any aspect of their music.


Record labels need to die.

http://tinyurl.com/ycf3pag

Ravaged by dwindling music sales and rampant piracy, major music companies are bulking up expertise in an area of the business they used to ignore: T-shirts, baseball caps and other artist merchandise.

EMI Music said this week it is buying Loudclothing.com (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/nm/music_nm/storytext/us_merchandise/34463718/SIG=10p83crk1/*http://Loudclothing.com), a music merchandise distributor, for an undisclosed sum. The move comes after larger rival Vivendi's Universal Music Group spent the last year expanding its Bravado merchandising unit globally.

"Merchandising is a no-brainer because the labels have been supporting it for decades," said Bishop Cheen, an analyst at Wachovia.
Beyond merchandise, music labels have been seeking revenue in sectors like concerts, management and brand licensing rights.
It's called a 360-degree approach. Warner Music Group Chief Executive Edgar Bronfman has complained that labels spend millions of dollars to develop and market artists, but then when the artists become successful, the labels do not share in the ancillary revenue beyond music and publishing.
Warner Music now has half of its active artist roster signed up to 360-degree deals sharing in royalties and licensing rights with acts like Paramore.

"Royalties and licensing rights are really the future of today's music company because investors like sustainable, long-term and predictable revenue streams," said Cheen.

It can be profitable too. Wachovia points out that 8 percent of Warner Music's recorded music revenue came from licensing last quarter but it accounted for an impressive 43 percent of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA).

"I think these 360 deals are a necessity," said Terry Dry, a former label executive who now runs Fanscape, a social media agency that works with music and film companies.

Music sales are down 8.5 percent in 2008, the seventh year of decline since peaking in 2001, so labels will try all options. Nearly a billion digital music files a year are shared for free on illegal file sharing sites.

"It's about protecting the investment they've made in the artists, but the jury is still out about whether these large companies can successfully pull it off," said Dry.

All music companies are struggling. Warner Music has seen operating cash flow shrink by more than 10 percent every quarter on a year-on-year basis in the last year. EMI is in a precarious situation, as its private equity owner Terra Firma tries to restructure a 2.5 billion-pound debt owed to Citigroup.
At Universal, the world's largest music company, earnings before interest, taxes and amortization were down some 34 percent in the first nine months of the year. Sony Corp's Sony Music Entertainment benefited from a "Michael Jackson bounce" last quarter helping Sony's overall music operations return to a profit as fans rushed out to buy the pop star's catalog following his sudden death.

"How many headlines have we seen saying Michael Jackson was worth more dead than when was alive? That's the hidden value of licensing rights," said Cheen.

topperharley
12-18-2009, 10:30 AM
It was inevitable. In some respects, I can understand where the record labels are coming from. If they're going to spend the money and effort to promote a band, they should be compensated for it. And if piracy has caused sales of the music itself to no longer be a viable means to do so, then it's only logical that they would look at other means of compensation for their efforts. What surprises me most is that they never went after that revenue before.

oogabooha
12-18-2009, 10:32 AM
Record labels suck, they are destroying this industry forever.

Wolfbeckett
12-18-2009, 10:41 AM
Un-****ing-believable. Their unadulterated greed has truly hit a new low. It won't be long before artists that are signed to labels won't be able to make any money at all.

Nuff_Said
12-18-2009, 11:07 AM
I really can't agree with this at all:


Regarding Warner Music's Profits for 2008

Profits jumped 20.0% to $6.0 million, or 4 cents per share, compared with $5.0 million, or 3 cents per share last year, while analysts had expected Warner to post a quarterly loss of $3.5 million, or 2 cents loss per share. link. (http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/25/warner-music-group-markets-equity-cx_mlm_1125markets15.html?partner=aoltix) I haven't found one relating to their 2009 fiscal year yet.

I'd like to think that we can all admit on one thing; major music companies are doing fairly well despite the downturn in the global economy. So just because you're not making as much as you used to make doesn't mean you still aren't making decent money.

bood-boy
12-18-2009, 01:45 PM
already successful bands shouldnt even need record labels anymore. if i was in a successful and already popular band with a widespread fanbase i would tell them to F off.

but up and coming bands do need them, so they literally will have to pay their dues to if they want to be promoted by someone other than themselves, whether that be in the form of a cut of their tour/merch whatever.

Wolfbeckett
12-18-2009, 02:12 PM
It really sucks though, I've always felt really good about buying merch and concert tickets because I knew all of the money was going to the band (and the venue but they deserve it too in most cases). Now, if part of that money is going to the label instead, I am going to have to think twice about what I purchase.

bood-boy
12-18-2009, 02:14 PM
so if the labels get a cut of the tour, youd think twice about going to see them?
that makes no sense. yeah, stick it to the man by not going to see your favorite bands live.

Wolfbeckett
12-18-2009, 02:16 PM
so if the labels get a cut of the tour, youd think twice about going to see them?
that makes no sense. yeah, stick it to the man by not going to see your favorite bands live.

It probably won't affect my concert attendance much, no, but it will definitely affect the amount of secondary money I spend on stuff like T-shirts, yes. I don't care if you think it doesn't make sense, I don't like record labels and I don't like doing things that financially support them.

bood-boy
12-18-2009, 02:21 PM
buy those cool counterfeit shirts then and support the black market

Wolfbeckett
12-18-2009, 02:30 PM
Pfft if I wanted counterfeit shirts I could just make them myself, there has to be a million places in San Diego to make your own shirts :P.

Sargehalo51
12-18-2009, 02:53 PM
Someone already stated something similar to this, but I have to say it again...

I do not understand what an established band would need one of these record labels for? I would think making and distributing CDs would be well within the band's own budget, and selling the music through digital means, such as iTunes, would be even more cost effective. Would the radio stations not play a song by "popular band x" simply because the song is not from a major label, but produced by the band itself? I understand a new, unknown band needing backing, but bands that have already made it...I just don't get it.

I am no music industry guru, so if there is a reason why these bands need these labels...please explain it to me.

Baanu_Rass
12-18-2009, 02:56 PM
Parasites. (Live!) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKyYs-D3Dec)

Young Bloodlust
12-18-2009, 10:40 PM
I don't download music because I don't have the money. I download music because I do not care for the RIAA and the way they do business.


Band games suck. And you suck for liking them.

Why I oughta... If it wasn't for your HK-47 avatar, I would totally not do anything anyway.

Mystlyfe77
12-19-2009, 12:43 AM
It was inevitable. In some respects, I can understand where the record labels are coming from. If they're going to spend the money and effort to promote a band, they should be compensated for it. And if piracy has caused sales of the music itself to no longer be a viable means to do so, then it's only logical that they would look at other means of compensation for their efforts. What surprises me most is that they never went after that revenue before.

No, it just means that record companies need to adjust how they're making money via music sales. Music sales are still incredibly profitable if done correctly, but the major labels are completely ignoring the changes in the way music is distributed and trying to force people to stick with what the labels are comfortable with.


Someone already stated something similar to this, but I have to say it again...

I do not understand what an established band would need one of these record labels for? I would think making and distributing CDs would be well within the band's own budget, and selling the music through digital means, such as iTunes, would be even more cost effective. Would the radio stations not play a song by "popular band x" simply because the song is not from a major label, but produced by the band itself? I understand a new, unknown band needing backing, but bands that have already made it...I just don't get it.

I am no music industry guru, so if there is a reason why these bands need these labels...please explain it to me.

The cost of distributing millions of CDs is quite large. Especially given how little of the profits most bands see from their early success. A vast majority of major label bands never reach the "recouped" stage, where they actually earn royalties.

Beyond that, labels do drastically influence radio plays, record reviews, advertising, concert venues, tourmates, recording studios, producers, music videos, and virtually every aspect of the industry.

Self-released are really only feasible at the lowest levels (where you're only expecting to sell a few hundred copies of an album, if that).

plague
12-19-2009, 05:47 PM
I think it will be cool when they all go bankrupt and new bands have to become venture marketing businesses. I think we'll get a completely different taste of bands becoming popular.

Transbrak
12-19-2009, 05:53 PM
Just remember that a band has to sign a contract. If they can accept these terms then a fan refusing to attend a concert or buy a t-shirt seems like a moot point.

killer_roach
12-19-2009, 06:50 PM
If anything, it's now a case of where musicians have to weigh just how much the label is actually doing for them before signing on the dotted line.