<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:03:01 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22635</link><description>Seems to me that the records companies were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.  Their refusal to adopt free music strategies probably delayed the decline of their business by 5 years or so...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Anon</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:03:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22378</link><description>I'm not supporting them. Just saying that if there is *any* positive to be seen from them having pushed back so hard, it is quantified by cash in the door as a result of so doing. And, yes, there are plenty of offsets and they have still ended up in a nasty spot, but given that I have wondered what would have happened in, say, online travel if other players and suppliers had pushed back harder early on, I think that the knowing the bottom line impact here would be a really neat thing, if we ever could.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Stuart MacDonald</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:47:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22369</link><description>They can turn it around. Embrace the change. Selling digital and drm free is good. Embrace it. make it a value for money product. Most music is disposable, 1% are classics. If customers can enjoy buying again then they will buy (yeah it used to be fun to go to the record store on a saturday and bring back a few LP's or CD's). A CD costs $1 to produce. So songs can be much cheaper.... the profit margins on downloads should be bigger. Sell the stuff! that is the ONLY reason you guys aree in business. If you don't want to sell at a price we think is value for money... th go and don't come back!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dc crowley</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:29:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22363</link><description>Of course, that figure would also have to be balanced against the&lt;br&gt;massively negative PR the industry experienced by suing high-school&lt;br&gt;kids, World War II veterans, single moms, etc.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:22:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22360</link><description>I know it's almost unknowable, but it really is the critical piece in measuring whether there was *anything* gained by the massive pushback, from a shareholder, short-term perspective.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Stuart MacDonald</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:16:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22353</link><description>If there's a problem, I'll alert the folks in charge of the doo-hickey  :-)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As for the protection of revenue by their litigation efforts, it would&lt;br&gt;be pretty hard to show exactly how much money they "protected," since&lt;br&gt;there's no way of knowing for sure what CD sales would have been like&lt;br&gt;in the absence of those lawsuits -- or how much money the industry&lt;br&gt;could have taken in from digital platforms, if they had spent more on&lt;br&gt;those types of efforts and less on litigation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My suspicion is that they protected exactly nothing, and wasted a lot&lt;br&gt;of time and money for little or no return. But what do I know?  :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:07:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22348</link><description>Here's a calculation I'd like to see 'thewie: the $$$ value *protected* by the media companies over the past years by fighting the emergence of "new media." It'd would be really interesting to see what, if any, money they kept flowing into their coffers by having put so much effort into fighting the emerging onslaught. They could be staring at a black hoel now, but I wonder how much, if any, they kept flowing in the coffers in the meantime?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;- Stuart&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;ps: I tried to login to your new comment doo-hickey but don't know if it's worked or not.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Stuart MacDonald</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:00:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22284</link><description>You're right, Lewis -- I was trying to throw the industry a bone there  :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:53:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22283</link><description>You're right, Lewis -- I was trying to throw the industry a bone there  :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:53:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22277</link><description>Four of five years?  You're being generous!  They should of been working harder about nine years ago during the rise of Napster.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Lewis Salem</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22274</link><description>Yes, I saw that -- another move that comes years too late.  Can't put&lt;br&gt;Humpty Dumpty back together again.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:47:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warner Music: We&amp;#8217;re totally screwed</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/29/warner-music-were-totally-screwed/#comment-22268</link><description>It's nearly 10 years after Napster emerged yet it's only now that some people within the music industry are getting it. As well, it looks like EMI could be backing away from its support of the RIAA.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Evans</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:41:17 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>