|
A world without the big fat record labels
StoreTags: big bad labels
Viewed 4845 times. 21 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: reehc, airliner, jdg, mrpanda, Roshi, skab, VC, celibacyclub, ignatius, bodo, Leonid, 11t1, lilt, Tenine, tooth, Plissken, soft, bbwax, vveerrgg, albatrocity, jogn
-->
Today I did some thinking about big labels, super-rock stars and gathered some quick numbers from the inter wide web. I know it's not this simple, but it's interesting:
Lets assume all 4 of the major record labels vanished, but the amount of money spent on music stayed the same.
Total music sales in 2005: $33.5 Billion
The 4 big labels control 95% of this, so that's $31.8 Billion which goes to the top 2% musicians.
Lets say that record sales of $100 000/year allow an artist to "make a living" from selling music. Depending on how much the label takes, (none if the artist decides to do all the promo and distribution work)... i.e. if the label takes 25% (for an online release for example) the artist makes $75 000 a year.
***So if the big labels vanished, that means 318 000 more artists could be make a decent living off selling their music.***
The funny thing is, this doesn't *necessarily* mean that those big named artists would make less money. Most artists make money of concert tickets, and that is not included in the above $33.5 Billion.
| |
Comments
11/14/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
adcBicycle
lunatinker said: "i seriously doubt that kind of take home pay for even, say.... 50cent.
you get an advance, maybe some tour food.....
i think a little more research on the actual cash in hand earned would prove revealing..."
I know, I am being very general and simplistic.
But anyway, I'm only talking about the CD selling part, not playing live, that would generally be covered out of the concert ticket revenue. And of course the artist must have there own studio, do their own promo, etc. etc.
My point was that it would be possible for 318000 artists (like em411 artists) to live off the record sales and make between 30 000 and 100 000 depending what route they take. A point of general interest, not an accountant's analysis.
edited: Nov 14 2006
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
ignatius
adcBicycle said: " lunatinker said: "i seriously doubt that kind of take home pay for even, say.... 50cent.
you get an advance, maybe some tour food.....
i think a little more research on the actual cash in hand earned would prove revealing..."
I know, I am being very general and simplistic.
But anyway, I'm only talking about the CD selling part, not playing live, that would generally be covered out of the concert ticket revenue. And of course the artist must have there own studio, do their own promo, etc. etc.
My point was that it would be possible for 318000 artists (like em411 artists) to live off the record sales and make between 30 000 and 100 000 depending what route they take. A point of general interest, not an accountant's analysis."
yep. depending on where/how you live you can sell a few thousand CD's and pay the bills but it's a real hustle. you need to clear at least 5000 copies (per band member).. unless you are selling them all yourself w/o distribution. it's possible. there was a blues band i worked with that would sell 10K copies in their home state by touring.
edit: if i could sell enough copies of a CD to break even i'd be happy.
11/14/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
jogn
The record labels are only part of the picture. If they're gone, the power will rest in the distribution. Eventually someone will have a network set up. and you'll have to pay him a major cut to distribute the CDs out to the stores. Because unless the public starts to want to purchase CDs from your shopfront, you'll never be able to push that many without doing serious legwork.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
adcBicycle
yeah... good point ignatius, touring definitely does sell cds.
and yes jogn. That's the capitalist kicker right there... this hypothetical situation will never happen because there's going to be a million middlemen along the way to take a cut.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
datathinner
VC said: "I say STFU or stfu. All we need is an MTV(for us)."
yea somebody should definitely invest some capital into STFUTV
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
daswesen
VC said: "I say STFU or stfu. All we need is an MTV(for us)."
youtube is the new MTV.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
celibacyclub
tv?
tv is old media, i dont even watch tv. (except on dvd)
i think this revolution is already happening and this is the medium.
maybe some really good melding of music sites like em411 and video production site could result in a sort of emtv... just needs to be open enough and solid enough, like you tube, wikipedia ect.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Raaphorst
according to Chris Anderson (writer of The Long Tail) only one out of ten records makes profit. Based on big4 figures.
edited: Nov 15 2006
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
VC
youtube is the new MTV.
Theres a problem with youtube as with the rest of the internet aswell since you have to kind of know what you start looking and its more active than passive form of entertainement. The beauty of MTV was that it gave the impression of just delivering all good to the viewer, without that much effort(ie giving it any thought at all).
tv?
tv is old media, i dont even watch tv.
People are still watching tv, for its simplicity and the fact that you can do it in company.
Now with digital broadcasting it opens a whole lot of possibilities.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
stube
People watch tv to relax, all you need to do is turn it on. You don't need to know what's on or anything. You don't really need to pay any attention on what your watching, unless it turns out to be something special. I think that's what tv is for. If you want to watch or hear something specific, there are better medias for that. Tv sucks cause of the timetable, but tv is easy. People expecting internet to run over tv are expecting a bit too much. Most people are fucking lazy after their 8 hours in work and do not care about the quality of their entertainment.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
airliner
Raaphorst said: "according to Chris Anderson (writer of The Long Tail) only one out of ten records makes profit. Based on big4 figures."
it's the same with movies too. most don't make back their production costs for years and years. (it used to be that lots of them never did, but dvd has changed that). the thing is, that 1 movie out of 10 that makes a metric assload of money finances the next ten movies. and since you usually don't know in advance which movie is going to be the big moneymaker, you have to make a bunch of them in hopes of getting that big hit.
edited: Nov 15 2006
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
everamzah
celibacyclub said: "...maybe some really good melding of music sites like em411 and video production site could result in a sort of emtv... just needs to be open enough and solid enough, like you tube, wikipedia ect."
shhhh, don't mention the word open around here in regards to em. kidding, but seriously now: that's a fucking awesome idea. and an awesome name... i agree about the revolution already happening, just slow like normal so we don't notice ;)
edit: a lot of people may watch tv, but i don't. when i want to elax i watch internet tv. i like the active quality of it, and i'm sur eothers do too.
also: tjat's a good point about tv and mtv just "delivering the goods" it makes an excellent goal in mind for internet video producers and idealists.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
p
airliner said: " Raaphorst said: "according to Chris Anderson (writer of The Long Tail) only one out of ten records makes profit. Based on big4 figures."
it's the same with movies too. most don't make back their production costs for years and years. (it used to be that lots of them never did, but dvd has changed that). the thing is, that 1 movie out of 10 that makes a metric assload of money finances the next ten movies. and since you usually don't know in advance which movie is going to be the big moneymaker, you have to make a bunch of them in hopes of getting that big hit."
yes but why do those possible money makers have to cost in excess of 200 million dollars? ...And how much do they spend on talent, crazy demands, and gear/studios for possible hit records. The systems' are both flawed, if there was some pairing back and more notice/finance of the independent scene in general...well, there's just a better possible system practically in place.
sorry I yelled.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
airliner
nah, i totally agree with you, p. there's so much waste and excess in the entertainment industry as a whole, and they're looking at piracy as if it's the source of their woes. does tom cruise need another $20 million to star in a rehashed action movie that was written by committee? could that money be better spent on making a quality product with unknowns? absolutely! but the people who control the marketing and distribution and production of mass market movies, albums, tv shows, etc, are so entrenched in their thinking that it won't change until it becomes unprofitable.
11/15/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
p
good point, why would they change...It's still working in that those who've set it up to get richer still do. Here's hoping that it eventually breaks.
I hope that last post didn't sound hostile. The whole entertainment system angers me...I tend to rant.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
