The Mastermind
This Illuminati Be Illin'
Interesting stuff there God.
Should a CD have more or less
- Thread starter UNORTHODOX
- Start date
-
beat this! voting starts in...
2nd_Man
The 2nd Generation Of Man
No, in Ghana specifically, Uniliver are the sole presence, they have a huge influence on the government. My point was, that regardless of the fact these companies are there to make a profit, they are also there to develop the economy (directly or indirectly), the companies presence is more a pre-empt that the economy will develop. Unilever arent making a great deal of profit, there there to establish themselves so when there is a huge market, they can monopolise in. The point being, the companies presence will bring stability and help with economic growth, the fact there Western companies means they can bring the Western mindset to the place. Including the idea of copyright.
The presence of these companies is so huge, that governments have to consider and consult them when setting their budgets. This western influence, in the future, will create a western state of mind, including the IP line of thought.
In relation to the 5% success covering the 95% loss, i didn't know. But wouldn't this be true of money companies who invest in R&D? It could be said that trying to find new artists is like developing new products, most aren't going to make it, and this loss is covered by those who do. I'm just guessing here
Sorry for going offtopic from the offtopic, lol
The presence of these companies is so huge, that governments have to consider and consult them when setting their budgets. This western influence, in the future, will create a western state of mind, including the IP line of thought.
In relation to the 5% success covering the 95% loss, i didn't know. But wouldn't this be true of money companies who invest in R&D? It could be said that trying to find new artists is like developing new products, most aren't going to make it, and this loss is covered by those who do. I'm just guessing here
Sorry for going offtopic from the offtopic, lol
God
Creator of the Universe
It's not like R&D because your successful artist (of the 5% that bring profit) maybe half of those will have a career longer than three years. That's 2.5% of all artists having a career of more than three years that is profitable to the RECORD COMPANY that initially signs him/her (not profitable to the artist.)
In R&D, a company like Xerox or Lockheed-Martin can develop optical devices/software/missile systems which can bring in a profit for 20-30 years. Then they just build on a patent.
If I find the next 50 Cent, I will be lucky to keep him signed to the label I work for etc., for more than 5 years or even less (if he fulfills his album obligations). Compare that to a weapons system that is the platform for a new missile system. The R&D for the weapons system will create far more value in share price AND pure profit for the company than an artist that will be "hot" for a couple years.
On top of that, the companies that develop R&D can also sell their legacy generation products (like weapons) to other countries - thereby compounding profit. A rapper that isn't "hot" anymore will end up like a Vanilla Ice or Q-Tip. At least before the digital revolution, these "has been" artists would have been relegated to a loss-leader "bargain bin." Not anymore. Technically Flavor-Flav should be sitting pretty because of Public Enemy's huge impact on the game - but he isn't - and is forced to a stature far lower than he deserves - he has that stupid show and is basically a VH1 joke. He created profit for his record company and then moved on - due to stylistic influences, crack habits, whatever.
As far as Unilever being the sole force in Ghana - it still isn't profitable unless you partner with Unilever like Jermaine Dupri did with TAG fragrances to make a "label." This would make Unilever products "cool" for the Ghanian people. But - if the product is already a necessity - like soap and toothpaste - and the per capita income of people in Ghana is shit - then what's the need for creating a "wedge" marketing campaign that "music label coolness" would give your product - since you don't have competition vying for basic products or another company infringing on your turf (according to you - I guess Colgate-Palmolive isn't a big thing there).
So, R&D in a corporate sense - in creating new technologies - give you a good "bump" in share price that can compound itself (citing my weapons system example.) If I sign a 50 Cent, I am constantly looking for the NEXT act, because 50 will only have impact on share price when the quarterly earnings report is filed - then his future may or may not be up in the air. On top of that, if the record company is owned by a larger company, like GE, Disney, etc- then your star artist's impact on share price is minimal. In fact it's pure shit. Not even the great profit from a 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Tryin' " can compete with a multi-billion dollar government contract that a parent company like GE or whatever will get for a particular service or product. In fact, music is never the biggest moneymaker for the parent company. This is the same with movies - although movies bring in more money on average.
That's why music agents always wish they were film agents - because film agents have survived (so far) the digital revolution - and bring in BIG money. A music agent is happy to get his act booked for $100,000 for a corporate show, or 40K for a concert. Compare that to movies, where the agent gets 10 percent of a higher salary for the movie star. And then you can better "package" movie stars with B-actors to increase your bottom line. So you can "package" a group of movie actors from your agency roster to a total worth of about $10-20 million (lead actor, supporting actor, other roles, director). Agency takes its cut of the 10-20million and then you get your 1 million or 1/2 million depending on the deal. In music, agents have to package shows - but the leverage is not really there anymore. You're lucky to package shows just like the movie agents. A good music agent is lucky to get 10-20 million in bookings for a year. They're lucky if they bring in 1-5 mil a year, depending on the territory they're booking (Western N. America, Europe, the East Coast, etc.) In fact, that's very lucky.
And for record companies... well, we're seeing what's happening there. You have A&R reps now trying to be artists if they're still around 30 years old - cuz they still look kinda young and have the connections. If they put in a couple years and save their money, they might make something out of it. Probably one of their agent friends "mercy signs" them to their agency and then pairs them with a profitable touring act on the roster so the ex-A&R's band/act gets a paltry $5,000-$10,000 per show. If A&R's are trying to get into bands and become acts, then what does that tell you about the industry?
Hope that opens your eyes a bit.
2nd_Man
The 2nd Generation Of Man
I think with some products and markets it may be more similar. Can't pick one out at the moment, but say food, say Masterfoods and the chocolate (or Candy as you would say) range. They may have hundreds and hundreds of initial ideas, but the percentage that ever make it to make is small. And the percentage which have an extendable life cycle has to be even smaller.
But I understand what your saying about the actual transitiion to market, and the actual money made.
And yes, the money goes fast, countless times you see these MTV shows, or VH1 shows, or rappers appearing in movies. Snoop even did a porno to get the money in.
I wasn't thinking of it from that point of view, more from the fact that in the coming decades the market may develop such that CD sales are a realistic possibility in the coming years. Thats a crazy idea about the joint ventures though to crack the markets, whoa. And yes its my beleif that Unilever are the only main force in Ghana, but I don't want to lay it down as absoltue fact.
Without a doubt, the music industry doesn't have a great bearing on the Parent companies.
I think movie agents have survived better, due to the line fact that music CDs have to be rippable to mp3, otherwise they wont sell, whereas DVDs can be locked. The nature of the product as well plays a huge part here, a song will take a matter of seconds to download and you can listen to it in minutes. A movie takes much much longer to download, and takes hours to watch. It doesn't fit in with our 'busy lifestyles'.
I never knew about the A&Rs becoming artists business, I had no idea stuff like that was happening.
Would a main problem be market saturation, and the fact that now every other rapper/producer is either desperate to get signed or is convinced they can set up the next Bad Boy or Roc-a-fella, when truth is, as you've said their not going to make it. Are little minor labels really springing up every where, or is it simply a marketing tool by the big boys which essential create the 'minor' label, to create the correct brand image. Roc-a-fella is praised by hip-hop fans as being its own start-up, going it alone and all that. But it was getting published for them, and BMG and NWS were in on the deal. Am I correct here, or way off?
Yes it does open my eyes, alot, thanks
But I understand what your saying about the actual transitiion to market, and the actual money made.
And yes, the money goes fast, countless times you see these MTV shows, or VH1 shows, or rappers appearing in movies. Snoop even did a porno to get the money in.
I wasn't thinking of it from that point of view, more from the fact that in the coming decades the market may develop such that CD sales are a realistic possibility in the coming years. Thats a crazy idea about the joint ventures though to crack the markets, whoa. And yes its my beleif that Unilever are the only main force in Ghana, but I don't want to lay it down as absoltue fact.
Without a doubt, the music industry doesn't have a great bearing on the Parent companies.
I think movie agents have survived better, due to the line fact that music CDs have to be rippable to mp3, otherwise they wont sell, whereas DVDs can be locked. The nature of the product as well plays a huge part here, a song will take a matter of seconds to download and you can listen to it in minutes. A movie takes much much longer to download, and takes hours to watch. It doesn't fit in with our 'busy lifestyles'.
I never knew about the A&Rs becoming artists business, I had no idea stuff like that was happening.
Would a main problem be market saturation, and the fact that now every other rapper/producer is either desperate to get signed or is convinced they can set up the next Bad Boy or Roc-a-fella, when truth is, as you've said their not going to make it. Are little minor labels really springing up every where, or is it simply a marketing tool by the big boys which essential create the 'minor' label, to create the correct brand image. Roc-a-fella is praised by hip-hop fans as being its own start-up, going it alone and all that. But it was getting published for them, and BMG and NWS were in on the deal. Am I correct here, or way off?
Yes it does open my eyes, alot, thanks
God
Creator of the Universe
It is market saturation, but an odd kind of saturation... follow me:
1. Cheap software gave every knucklehead with musical ambition the opportunity to "produce" hiphop tracks.
2. This led to a mass "democratization" of music.
3. This led to more "producers" on the market.
4. The more producers on the market, the more shit production is out there.
5. The more producers on the market, the harder it is to find the "diamond in the rough" producer. Conversely, though, there are more "good" producers out there that can deliver - the record company/producer just has to find that cat.
6. The more producers on the market - competition lowers the cost of the track. You see this with Static being offered a paltry $2,500 for a track w/royalties rather than something like $15,000 or more for a track 10 years ago.
Now, when you have so many cats involved in hiphop - you have "entrepeneurs" thinking they can be the next Puffy or Jay-Z because their friends have all the cheap production gear and records local artists. They have hubris and think "if that asshole can make it, so can I." They front money and start "record companies" - but they have their head up their ass and rarely make it.
If you're already in the industry, it's easier to start a record company - but why would you? Record companies are a dying breed - it's better to focus on an artist and make that artist a brand name - which can be relayed into products like fragrances, clothing, etc.
thedreampolice
A backwards poet writes inverse.
"Mark Cuban ? He's nuts !
He just got lucky , selling his web radio business during the dotcom bubble to Yahoo for a record price."
No he is a genius, he was a self made multimillionaire long before he started his "web radio business"
He just got lucky , selling his web radio business during the dotcom bubble to Yahoo for a record price."
No he is a genius, he was a self made multimillionaire long before he started his "web radio business"
Chrono
polyphonically beyond me
i would think it's important to establish a strong foundation of who you is to the community. So it makes sense to release one bomb after another (gradually) so that your listeners know you have an unlimited arsonal that is produced by a constructment which can adapt and do anything with skill sub-par.
you make more money in gigs or deals if you already have a solid fanbase so lock that down.
if you want a label deal, in this economy, then once you have a solid fanbase then you have clout to call shots. In this business confidence is your best friend only if you have the product... and you have one shot.
If you lock that down then you might find that you do not want a major label.. although if you are very special then you should search that for tv exposure.
my experience is in another field entirely though, considering that I hope this helps you.
you make more money in gigs or deals if you already have a solid fanbase so lock that down.
if you want a label deal, in this economy, then once you have a solid fanbase then you have clout to call shots. In this business confidence is your best friend only if you have the product... and you have one shot.
If you lock that down then you might find that you do not want a major label.. although if you are very special then you should search that for tv exposure.
my experience is in another field entirely though, considering that I hope this helps you.
God
Creator of the Universe
I agree with you dreampolice.
To categorize Mark Cuban as "crazy" may be right - but it's specifically that "craziness" that made him think outside the box and first sell a computer retailing company for millions of dollars by the age of 29.
Then he was "crazy" to start Broadcast.com and hustle Yahoo out of a couple billion dollars worth of stock.
He was "crazy" enough to see that there was a dot-com bubble, he diversified his investments and is even richer now.
He is still "crazy" to be involved in creating HD programming.
He is crazy - he's a fucking risk-taker to the core that will mortgage the house on an idea. But his ideas worked. In my book he's a fucking genius too.
God
Creator of the Universe
Any real fanbase gives you leverage in a negotiation - by creating a sense of "waiting" and some form of buzz with a singles release schedule - you are in a better position to negotiate. So Chrono makes a good point.
2nd_Man
The 2nd Generation Of Man
Yes, makes a lot of sense to me. This whole discussion has really opened my eyes to the industry, I held opinions before, some of which appear to be right, many of which appear to be wrong. But hopefully it will come round again, whereby artists return to the music, and take to agents/managers/A&Rs/labels etc to do the rest, allow each individual in the process to specialise what they do. But Diddy and Jay-Z have done an amzing job of creating the 'Business Man' as a huge marketing point, its crazy. They are good business men, they know how to make money, and this is evident in the fact that they have made money off making money. If that makes sense?
Anyway, thanks for the knowledge.
God
Creator of the Universe
Chrono,
You're right. In anything, like a business deal or this matter regarding a CD strategy. Artists are usually in the worst position to create a strategic business plan for their music, let alone do many of the other things that require objectivity and calculation in order to maximize profit or their career interests.
Artists are too invested in their work and usually can't seperate themselves in a dispassionate manner away from the situation and look at something through another person's eyes. In business, the "other person" is someone who looks at the artist not necessarily as they are, but as an investment that can make money. Many artists don't want to think they are simply looked at in dollars and cents, but they are. Obviously, the businessmen will not tell the artist this, and will lie to them - but it really is a fact. There are a few that do seperate themselves and ARE good businessmen. Those are rare, like a Jay-Z or 50 Cent but it's generally a good manager or someone behind the scenes that's pulling the strings.
In rock, it's even worse - since bands usually have a "creative leader" and that guy is an off-the wall nutjob (most of the time.) Though the cat can compose music for his band - he can barely take care of himself and his own bills. I remember conversing with a guitarist who saw music as "colors" and shit. That's great for being an artist. But you are NOT capable of handling negotiations with a bare-knuckled exec that owns a Ferrari, three houses and has been working in the recording industry for 20 years.
Artists see the world as they want to see it - which makes them great artists - but generally not good businessmen.
Chrono
polyphonically beyond me
that is so on point i think i'm bleeding.. i have noticed that many artists let the audience, girls and money convenience them that they are special and even a gift to the world.. that they will be around for good and might even enlighten the world of their "being".
it's a bipolar operation.. you got one personality creating the attraction and the polar opposite selling the attraction.