Showing posts with label Bob Lefsetz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Lefsetz. Show all posts

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Warner Music Goes To Kickstarter

Warner Music Group logo image from Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0 blog
If you've never read music insider Bob Lefsetz' newsletter, then you really should. Love him or hate him (he gets equal parts of both), he comes up with both an interesting global perspective of the music world as well as some breaking news or commentary on breaking news.

One of the bigger stories that he's let us in on is the fact that Warner Music has just tied in with Kickstarter to offer a recording contract to any act that raises $100,000 or more, or if they get 1,000 people or more to contribute.

First of all, I don't know why anyone would want such a deal under those circumstances, since if you've raised that amount or have that many fans willing to support you, you probably don't need a major label, at least under their terms.

What this offer does go to show you is how well an old adage really applies. It goes something like this - "A record label doesn't sign you for your music, they sign you for your audience." This means that they generally don't give a crap about you or your songs, but if you have a line around the block waiting to see you when you gig, they're interested big time.

Another Lefsetz piece of news is that Warners has also hired Amanda Palmer to teach their acts how to self-promote. I don't know much about her music, but I do know that she's great at getting people to passionately care about her, so this is probably a good thing. Will her methods translate to other artists? I don't think we can be sure, since she has such a strong personality, which is part of her allure with her fans.

If all this is true (and there's no reason to think it's not), you have to hand it to Warners for at least trying to stay relevant and trying something new. It's long been held that they've been the major label leaders when it came to understanding our new digital world, now they're trying harder than ever to prove it.

PLEASE NOTE: This news might be a product of April Fools day. I'm still checking out the validity. It's not like Lefsetz to do this sort of thing, but you never know.
----------------------------------

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Land Of Fake "Like's"

It never takes long for someone to come up with a way to game an online measurement that the music industry finds useful. Once upon a time, the major labels used MySpace followers as a measure of a band's popularity. That's until it was discovered that there were multiple ways to fake the numbers. Of course, the number of website hits were once used as a measurement until every unknown band seemed to have a million.

We knew this days was coming for some time, but now we have proof that Facebook likes are being paid for. Take a look at the graphic below and you'll see a number of tell-tale signs that the number of Like's may not be what they seem.


We live in a high-tech era that claims to have popularity measurement figured out, but it's interesting that the only sure way to determine popularity is decidedly old and low-tech - the number of people you pull at your concerts. Sales have always been gamed (although it's a bit more difficult these days), but if you have a string of sold out dates with people fighting to get tickets (that's the key), then you can be sure that an act is popular. Ironically, the artists above don't have any trouble on that front.

Yes, I know all about "papering the house" (giving away or offering tickets at extremely low price), but which would you trust more; a venue packed with rabid fans or a bunch of Facebook Like's?

Thanks to Bob Lefsetz for the heads up on the graphic.

-----------------------------------
You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

String Cheese Incident Takes On Ticketmaster

String Cheese Incident image from Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0 blog
We all hate paying convenience charges when buying concert tickets. It's hard not to feel ripped off when you're suddenly asked to pay as much as a 50% premium on the face value of your ticket. There is sometimes a way around that though; buy your tickets at the box office where sometimes those fees are waved, instead of from Ticketmaster.

That's what the jam band String Cheese Incident did recently at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles in order to supply their fans with the cheapest tickets possible. The band gave 50 friends about $20k in cash to each buy 8 tickets apiece (the maximum number allowed). The band then advertised those tickets online and sold them to fans for only the face value and the cost of shipping.

The fact of the matter is that most bands already get about 8% of the tickets that they can sell at face value or give away, but SCI wanted more and was refused, so they responded with a grass roots workaround.

But here's the thing about convenience charges, as Bob Lefsetz laid out so well in his newsletter (he's a skeptic of the situation, by the way); that's how both the venues and the promoters stay in business. With acts demanding 90+% of the gate, there's not much money left, and sometimes the superstar acts even demand some of those convenience charges as well.

While SCI could have just lowered it's guarantee in exchange for more face-value tickets, that's not the way the business is built these days. It would take the power of a Live Nation to change the current pricing policies, but we all know how unlikely that's going to happen. In the meantime, it's at least nice to see a band think about their fans a little.

You can read more about this in a New York Times article, and on the Lefsetz newsletter.
-----------------------------------
You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Income Inequality Killed The Music Business

The Story of the Decline graphic image from Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0 blog
I'm a big fan of Bob Lefsetz, the industry gadfly who tells it like it is in his newsletter. Bob is never afraid to call an exec or an artist out if he thinks they deserve it. He's not on anyone's payroll. He's an insider with access simply because he's trusted for speaking his mind, yet he's still an outsider. As much as the industry denies it, the movers and shakers still care what he thinks.

Recently he wrote a post called "Income Inequality Killed The Music Business" that pretty much nails the current state of the music business from a macro level. If your an artist, you're probably not thinking about what he's presenting, but you need to be. In fact, if you're in the business on any level expect VP or higher, you're not thinking about these issues, probably because you don't have the information to see the forest from the trees. That's why you have to read this excerpt.

By the way, you can read the entire post and subscribe to Bob's newsletter at lefsetz.com.
---------------------
"Twenty million a year. There are bankers and CEOs who make this much each and every year. This is not U2, going on the road, raping and pillaging in stadiums for years. If U2 went out again, they'd have trouble selling tickets. Hell, they had trouble moving tickets for the last leg of their tour. They played it out, they mined the depths, they've got to let it lie fallow. Costs for the U2 360 tour were prohibitive. How much did each member of U2 end up with at the end? I'd say no way a hundred million, but let's just start there, let's go with that number. There are bankers and CEOs pulling down nearly a hundred million dollars a year. It took U2 years to achieve this goal, to make this amount. They're spent, but the bankers and CEOs are still rolling in dough. And the U2 360 tour was the biggest in history!

So you're graduating from college, playing in a band all the time you were in school, and you ask yourself, should I give music a go or get an MBA, go to work for Goldman Sachs?

Now it's no longer the seventies. Take a year or two off and you miss the bus. You've got to start now. There's only one band making mucho coin, but thousands of bankers and CEOs getting rich. Odds are better if you become a CEO.

Or you could go into tech. Mark Zuckerberg is not the only young techie worth millions. There's that guy running Groupon and the guy running Zynga, and so many of the worker bees end up making millions too, that's what all the employees at Facebook are counting on. Do you think you can make millions as an A&R guy?

1. The Labels
Used to be running a label paid well, but it was mostly about the music, the lifestyle. Then, with the advent of MTV and the CD, suddenly Tommy Mottola [ed.- the former president of Sony Music] was far richer than the acts. And Tommy and his ilk started hanging with other rich people in the Hamptons, they felt entitled to their wealth. Such that when Napster blew a hole in the paradigm, everybody was sacrificed but the top guy. The people running the labels are still as well paid as they were before Napster, before the recession. They're keeping up with the joneses, they're in charge, everybody's expendable but them. As for those people still working at the label...they're thrilled to have a job. Glad to be slaves on the plantation.

And everything is driven by the bottom line. Hell, Warner is privately held, Sony and Universal are parts of giant corporations. Theoretically, they could invest in the future, they could leave money on the table, but they won't. The execs want that money in their pockets. And they don't really care about the label anyway, they don't own it. As long as they get paid for their multi-year contracts, they're cool.

Music is not the focus, money is. It's a change in our entire culture, why should the label heads be any different. They've fought their way to the top, the top are handsomely rewarded, usually with double digit million incomes. If the guy running some industrial firm makes this much money, shouldn't they, providing entertainment for the masses?

2. The Acts
The best and the brightest don't go into music. It just doesn't pay. The only people pursuing music as a career are the lower classes, who are struggling to get on top. As a result, they'll do whatever it takes to make it, they'll whore themselves out when they get there, it's all about the bucks.

Ergo the crazy endorsement and product deals. The acts feel they're entitled to the money. Look at all the other half as famous people, they're loaded, so the acts feel they should be loaded too. And the corporations are willing to lay cash on the acts, because the corporations have money to burn, their taxes have been lowered, check the statistics, they're sitting on huge cash reserves. The CEOs can use this cash to hang with stars. This is how the Gaddafi family got household name talent to play their shindigs. This is how that guy who made bad body armor got the biggest stars in the world to play his son's bar mitzvah. Used to be no CEO could afford it. But now, they can. And the acts see no reason not to take it. Hell, they don't want to fly commercial, they too want to vacation in St. Barth's. Music has become about the money. But the odds are low and so is the money, so you get the desperate, willing to do anything to make it, kind of like the athletes. Those NBA players are not model citizens, but they're essentially one-dimensional, it's comes down to their playing ability, their performance on the court. But we believe musicians are their music, that they're three-dimensional, that we can believe in them, but we can't.

a. Artist Development
Few of the classic acts did their best work on their first records. But labels allowed them to marinate and mature, to develop. Now the label says no, because the executive wants his money up front. There is no long term. And that's why there's no "Hotel California." Nobody peaks on their fifth album, there usually isn't even a fifth album.

b. Writing Your Own Material
This is what blew up the rock acts. This is what made us believe in them. Now, material is written by committee. If the label's gonna take a risk, it wants insurance. It doesn't want the act blowing half a million dollars on something that won't sell. So inherently, we've got less believable stuff. Sure, there will always be music, but the heyday of the music business was when the rock star was responsible for everything and was beholden to no one. Ain't that a laugh.

3. Concerts
Sure, there was scalping decades back, but tickets were not the equivalent of a thousand bucks. Because no one had a thousand bucks to blow on a ticket. But the bankers and CEOs do. So the hoi polloi can't get a good ticket. And since the acts need to make as much money as they can, and recorded music revenue is down, the price for all tickets is heavily inflated. Therefore, people go less, they just can't afford it. And they take no risks on new acts, not at these prices. And what are the odds the new acts are good? They're just moneygrubbers like the rest of them.

Conclusion
Meanwhile, everybody fighting his way up the food chain is spreading disinformation, saying his hands are tied. And when finally nailed down, they utter some b.s. about just trying to feed their family. But with the money they've already made, they can feed their children's children's children.

The incentive to be an artist, to make great, lasting music, has been blown away. Used to be, a working act could have a middle class lifestyle and maybe some future performing rights income and other royalties. Now, you're either starving or fighting to hold on to what you've got so the bankers will hire you for a private. It's desperation all the time.

Back when we were all in it together, when the gap between rich and poor was smaller, it was reasonable to be a musical artist. One took a chance expressing himself. You could always give up and go to law school, find a place for yourself on the middle class spectrum. But now if you're not on your way to riches immediately, you're boxed out. Which is why parents push their kids to get into the Ivies, why teenagers are creating websites and apps. They want to get in on the ground floor. Used to be people picked up guitars. Now they flock to their computers.

But what if a label exec couldn't make millions, whether it be as a result of taxes or the demands of employees and acts. What if CEOs and bankers made this same amount. Hell, what if forty acts could make the same amount of money as a CEO or banker, and there were another hundred who were solidly middle class, and being so meant you could live comfortably and pay the bills?

Then you'd have the sixties and seventies all over again. Because this is the way it was."

Take this post to heart. Bob really nailed it. Once again, you can subscribe to his wonderfully informative newsletter at lefsetz.com.
-----------------------------------
You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.




Monday, July 19, 2010

Another Take On How Music Videos Have Hurt Music

We all know that music videos were responsible for changing the primary emphasis of most record labels from artist development to image development, but it seems that there's more to it than that.

In an interesting email to music industry gadfly Bob Lefsetz, former MTV exec Bob Wilson (who was also the founder of the now defunct industry trade magazine Radio & Records), talks about some of the research that the network did when it first began in the 80's. Among the surprising items they found that appear to have had a profound effect upon current music:
  • Music is personal and a song means different things to different people (although we intuitively knew that already). When you put visuals to a song, the visuals over-power the personal meaning and everyone "sees" the same thing, which also de-personalizes the music.
  • This visualization of music makes songs burn out much faster than just hearing them.
  • Live performances are perceived differently since the mind sees them as "events."
  • It usually takes 5 to 6 times for a person to hear a song and like it enough to buy it.
  • "MTV doesn't play videos any more and the Internet has moved in to replace the new music void for those that crave new music. Things have changed but the way the brain takes it all in remains the same. The Internet allows a person to hear a song as many times as they want - whenever they want -- which should reduce the time to the purchase cycle -- especially when they can purchase and download the song they like from the source they are listening to it on..rather than have to make a trip to a record store. I think it will take some time and more research to monitor this but as you say - the model is changing."
Wilson goes on to say, "I believe history will prove the MTV period to be the beginning of the end of what music used to be to each of us." We already knew that, but perhaps we didn't really know the reason why.
-----------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Festivals Score Big While Concert Attendance Down

The concert business is in real trouble. Industry gadfly Bob Lefsetz wrote  in his newsletter yesterday that uber-promoter LiveNation has cancelled 200 shows this summer because of poor advanced ticket sales.

We're in a recession, people don't have the money, they're not interested in many new acts and everyone's seen all the classic acts before. There's no incentive to pay an inflated ticket price laced with service charges, extra parking fees and outrageous beverage and swag prices.

But there's one area of the business that's hitting  it out of the park in terms of attendance and that's the festivals. Both Bonnaroo and Coachella were major hits this year despite higher prices and I think there's a major factor involved.

Festivals match the new listening habits.

Music fans no longer listen to an entire album, they listen to singles. It's Short Attention Span Theater for music, which is the perfect mentality for a festival attendee. There are usually multiple stages, so if you don't like one act, go find another that suits you. Pretty soon another act will be on to check out anyway.

Of course, a festival is a big band for the buck as well. Multiple headliners over several days with a lot of up and comers? For many, it's heaven. Of course, the conditions aren't as civilized as a concert at a modern venue, but for many, the communal nature of the event is just icing on the cake.

Europe already has many more festivals than the US, but expect that to even out over the next few years. For the concert industry, this may be on the only growth area available.

-----------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...