For those lucky enough to see Terry Fisher lecture, this is nothing new. But for everyone else, this is a four slide presentation that tries to identify the potential savings to a record company from internet distribution of CD content.
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
If record labels are no longer necessary for production, promotion, distribution, and risk spreading, then aren’t necessary for A&R either.
Note to record companies: You are no longer the gatekeepers, you are now the Pony Express.
The break-down is interesting. But I don’t get it. Why are the two pie-charts the same?
The “Results” blurb on slide #3 is amusing. Raise your hand if you honestly believe that eliminating expenses through Internet distribution would free up money to be passed along to artists, writers or consumers when that money could just as easily go straight into the record companies’ pockets.
The less expenses for record company means less profits. For evrey dime they spend they mark it up and pass along the cost. The fact that the record companies can save money is why they are so mad.
The old expenses represented the value they once added to the equation; the value that they no longer add.
That’s why proprietary copy control schemes are so important to the recording industry. They can own that part and can set any “cost” for it they want, effectively recouping any losses they might take from direct electronic distribution of music.
The slides seem to be broken — in the reduction to PDF, I think a dynamic powerpoint got killed.
Nothing’s lost in the reduction. The white represents costs that disappear; the patterned represents costs that would change.
Thank you Lawrence (Larry?) for bringing this persavive fallacy of the copyfight into the light.
Many people seem to believe that once you no longer have need for silver discs, you no longer have need for middle-men. Another fallacy, as suggested by the PDFs you linked to, is that once you no longer have need for silver discs, record company can save on costs. Middle-men, as pointed out, do not want to save on costs. Their profit margin stems from the friction between creation and distribution, or in the words, from the costs of distribution.
Creators, on the other hand, are lazy bastards. Nothing wrong with that. They want to do what they are good at, and nothing else. If a magic fairy flew through the window of an artist’s house today, and made it happen that the artist no longer had need for outsourcing distribution of his works, I am sure within weeks the artist would have identified other ‘chores’ that could do with outsourcing.
The reason that middle-men fear P2P is not because they fear middle-men will no longer be needed, but because other types of middle-men will be needed; they have no idea how to adapt.
The record companies are vertically intergrated monoliths. There are no middlemen. The record companies are the middlemen. Is that what was meant? I’m a little slow sometimes.
In any event, artists will only need managers, agents, promoters, IT peolpe and bankers. Oh yea and fans.
Raoul, anyone standing between the creation of a work and the enjoyment of the work; so yes, record companies are middle-men.
In your example, it’s the IT people who will replace the record companies. In that case, the record companies will have to transform themselves into IT people. Some of this transformation is underway, but not much, as far as I can tell.
I found it remarkable that Metallica is bringing out registrations of their concerts as MP3 and FLACs as produced nightly by the band’s own sound engineers. It seems to me that if they offer this as a service to other bands, the record companies might be in a whole lot more trouble than those record companies think they are in now with file sharing.
After all, a band might just decide to bring out a recording of a particularly good show as their next CD, rather than go into the studios. A lot of bands feel they perform better in front of an audience.
I assume you’ve all read the fantastic article by Chris Anderson in the October 2004 Wired magazine. It explains that there is as much profit in the small markets that can’t make profits with physical distribution as there is in the entire market for physical distribution.
I read with interest the comments about internet distribution of music CDs. I do have a couple of questions/concerns.
I’m a librarian for a medium sized public library, and I’m trying to envision what this would look like for us. If we were to continue buying “hard copies” wouldn’t the price rise if fewer CDs are manufactured in the traditional manor? Or, and I may be answering my own question here, would the library be required to buy a CD burner and burn their own CDs. If the cost if sufficiently less, then I can see some advantage. If the price isn’t sufficiently less, however, staff time spent in burning CDs may end up costing us more.
Secondly, how would this scenario work with those who can’t afford to have computers and an internet hook-up. We get quite a few patrons in our library that can’t afford their own computer, or, we get some of those who just are not technologically savvy and don’t wish to learn how to use one. It seems to me that they are potentially being left out in the cold? Thanks. robert
Robert,
Time spent on burning cds is usually just time spent on putting a blank disc in the burner, and clicking a couple of buttons.
However, I can imagine that that is still a lot of time.
Perhaps another option would be to lend USB memory sticks with music on them to your patrons.
You can probably do other work while burning CDs… the only issue I can see with that from a practical standpoint is that the constant stoping and starting of the other project is inefficient. You have to readjust and refocus. Not that it can’t be done, and not that it might not be beneficial to the library (hmmm… I could probably have thrown a few more “nots” into that last sentence).
Can USB sticks be locked so that the information on them won’t be erased or altered?
Well, Robert, regarding the digital divide, it seems to me that prices won’t drop as long as any industry steadfastly refuses to move into the 21st century. Record companies aren’t the only companies out there that refuse to save money with new technology.
Today a CD costs something like 75 cents to mass-produce (the packaging costs more than that). The rest of the $13 or $15 your library pays goes to somebody’s profit (about half to the store you buy it from). Let’s assume that online distribution of music leads to reduced CD manufacturing (so that the same fixed costs are spread among fewer CDs), and ends up doubling the cost of CD manufacturing (so it $1.50 to make each CD).
If large numbers of people get their music online, will record companies dare to double the price of CDs in order to get back that extra 75 cents? One reason people aren’t buying as many CDs today is that a movie on DVD costs the same as a handful of decent songs on a CD. Doubling the price of CDs would simply price them out of the market. Record companies aren’t used to thinking this way, because they aren’t used to competition, but I’m sure they’ll wake up some day.
So, it seems to me that companies will instead lower their prices in the face of competition, and find ways to cut costs and accept smaller profit margins. Eventually the price of a CD will be no more than what the average consumer is willing to spend on a blank CD plus a markup for burning the music. Distributors won’t be out in the cold, by the way, since blank CDs are profitably distributed through the same channels as music CDs.
Collin’s idea of using USB sticks is (in my opinion) brilliant. As long as patrons without computers exist, however, somebody will think of a way to make money off them by selling CDs, and your library will be able to find those CDs.
I am not sure of all the portions of the pie. I would suspect that the ‘Retailer’ pie would still exist. That is the iTunes music store or other similar music stores. I think the number that would go away is the distributor number. Clearly the manufacturing slice gets ‘outsourced’ to the consumer and their CD burner.
There are a number of slices of the pie that are ripe for redistribution. For example, what is overhead? Isn’t A&R the same as Recording artist? Regardless, this will create interesting discussion within the recording industry and shortly thereafter within the movie industry.
Thank you for the comments and the information.
I am looking at if from a very narrow perspective… as a librarian. As a consumer, it sounds great to me.
I hope the price of CDs will stay the same, or will drop if this model of distribution is adopted.
Is there a movement to put computers into the hands of everyone, and to provide extremely cheap, or no cost, internet connections? We have enough of an information divide as it is. The more services we provide by the internet, the more we widen the gulf between the poor and everyone else.
I am aware of movements to provide free or low-cost computers to people in Asia and Africa (Simputer), but not of any in the US. My understanding of economics is that goods produced by government (and “goods” include regulation, national defense, social security programs, etc.) are regularly underproduced.
It is also my understanding that US governments are “providing” computer and internet access through libraries and similar locations where computers and connections can be pooled for economic benefit. Since this doesn’t satisfy you, I think this wiould be a good that is underproduced.
I happen to live in a rural part of North Carolina that doesn’t have high speed internet access, other than through satellite hook-ups (if those are still around, I haven’t looked), since companies don’t believe they can make enough of a profit laying that much line for so few people. The local governments (county, towns, etc.) are looking to subsidize a fiber optic line through the area so that we aren’t left completely behind. That may fall under the kind of program that you’re looking for. If so, it’s not an unusual problem.
Another program that makes you wonder about the need are government-run Wi-Fi networks. Parks and sections of downtown Greensboro (NC) have free access to a Wi-Fi network paid for by the city. Of course, that means it’s not truly free (where did the city get the money?), and it means that only people with laptops and Wi-Fi cards actually get to use the service. Other cities have similar programs.
This bothers people who would prefer the city use tax money to help out the poor, but (in Greensboro’s case) I think the service makes some sense because it is meant to attract yuppies and high-tech businesses (and their tax dollars). I haven’t seen the balance sheet involved, so I don’t know if this is a loss-leader or a reasonable idea. That’s probably not the kind of program you were wondering about, but it is a “no-cost internet connection,” although it requires the kind of equipment poorer people wouldn’t have.
Hey all,
I don’t know that retailer costs would disappear entirely. Even with existing internet stores, certain percentages are consumed by the retailer.
Of all the changes present, the manufacturers are the ones that will be completely obsolete. Those folks need to find a different line of work, and fast.
The areas that should get more attention, or a larger percentage, IMO, would be marketing and A & R. W/ all the options now available to the general, internet-wielding public, how they hear of the music, and how it is marketed will be a huge difference-maker. A & R dedication will be needed to help develop specific music markets. As w/ any shift in business model, certain characteristics will be prevalent. For years, major labels were an oligopoly- the market is now shifting to a near-pure competition state. A & R will play a crucial role in determining niche markets for smaller labels, and how that label develops a loyal fanbase by consistently delivering quality, accurately-grouped music is crucial.
However, if this discussion is about “major” labels, it is moot, because their existence is waining, and their survival in this new-found market is impossible.
Great reading all the posts, though.