7 comments

• 

  ianbetteridge

  1 year ago

  Guy Hands has been making some very interesting noises which - if I'm reading him right - actually make me think he might be smarter than his critics are making out. For example, he told this to The Guardian:
  
  ""The thing we have been trying to find is a model that will give the artists who cannot support the full functions of a label some income."
  
  That sounds to me like he's looking at breaking up the functions of a record company into different packages, allowing artists to choose which functions they want. So, for example, an artist could engage a record company to do its PR and marketing work, while not relying on it for sales or distribution - effectively making the artist a client rather than part of a roster.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  That's an interesting idea, Ian -- I must have missed that comment. I
  think that approach actually might have a lot of potential. Then the
  record company becomes a kind of service provider, rather than the
  be-all-and-do-all provider of everything from marketing to hookers and
  coke. That could be a very interesting model.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  1 year ago

  "Hookers and coke"? Surely you mean "flowers and candles" ;)
  reply
• 

  tomreeves

  1 year ago

  Would you please stop with the reasonable, insightful commentary that's fun to read? Your hogging it is all I'm saying.
  
  I'd point out that the subtext is that labels should give the bands more of the revenues. Wishing it will never make it so. I commented on this on my blog, linking to this article.
  
  So Radiohead tried out a different model. They wanted a different, and perhaps better alternative. They sure seemed successful.
  
  Odds will always be stacked badly if your business model is 90% for you and 10% for me. Volume is a b***h if you are an obscure band with a small fan base.
  
  Apologies for the link: http://pwnership.com/your-band-can-live-off-of-...
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Sorry, Tom -- I'll try and knock it off :-)
  
  No need to apologize for the link -- that's a good post.
  reply
• 

  maths

  1 year ago

  Matt, agree with you here. As Sandoval has conceded that labels only manage to achieve profitably with roughly 5% or less of their roster, surely something is wrong with the way they manage the rest of it? And this is a business model that we should be aspiring to?
  It's time that labels are more discerning in what they want to achieve in a focused manner and also in terms of marketing, be more focused on niches and the Long Tail instead of a scattergun approach
  reply
• 

  Mark Forman

  1 year ago

  Interesting post and I agree with most of it. Many different models being talked about but none of them being pursued yet with a vengeance. The record industry re-grouping,pfft! yeah, nothing is impossible but I'd say better chance of a pure marketing company to fill that void in that way.
  
  Radiohead and Trent neither are saints and yeah I think Trent is the Net savvier of the two. In RH's case I think they were just throwing crap against the wall and see what would stick more than trying to be revolutionary. What they probably didn't expect was they'd do better with web pirates and tight-wads(I know being redundant here) coughing up some money which when aggregated will probably pile up higher than cd release. besides who wants stupid cd now that it's not fresh anymore and it's all been jacked into people's IPods for months.
  
  Trent-no dummy but not a businessman either. The rock star model is dead. These people are an anomaly from previous scarcity proprietary walled model. Not gonna see many of them in a few more years so enjoy it while you can.
  
  See also recent posts by Mark Cuban on some ideas and also Lefsetz on RH's true colors.
  reply