Comments on: How Collective Idiocy Left the Record Companies in Bits http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2008/03/how-collective-idiocy-left-the-record-companies-in-bits/ A fresh look at the media industry and how trends affect the independent artist and publisher. Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:14:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Trumpton http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2008/03/how-collective-idiocy-left-the-record-companies-in-bits/comment-page-1/#comment-18890 Trumpton Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:19:35 +0000 http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2008/03/26/how-collective-idiocy-left-the-record-companies-in-bits/#comment-18890 I've just done some deep research on this topic, and from a scholary point of view the main points I've found are: a) Competing Ego's - ASCAP, RIAA, DiMa & IFPI some or all could be out a job with P2P distribution, therefore each is trying to keep itself in a job! b) Polarization of offline distribution. Look at how Wal-Mart and Best Buy in the US limit choice of music available to consumers. And guess what, a study in Spain showed that P2P users like using P2P because of the range of music available. Outcome: Good case for digital distribution. c) Record companies "we invest a lot in promotion and any hits we do have cover those acts that do not return a revenue". This sounds like an industry that needs has been running on excess fat for a long time. d) P2P is having a direct impact on our sales. Look at the Canadian experience where the private copying levy actually took $120M in the first 5 years, offset against $2M in lost revenues at the cost of piracy as submitted by CRIA. e) business models for online music : Monthly subscription services such as Napster. Single item downloads such as ITunes. The problem is the latter system, runs the risk of the credit card processing adding up to more than the cost of the transaction. With a better sytem, costs could be reduced and music be made available more cheaply. f) Publisher/Artist conflicts - a study actually showed that illegal P2P networks had a positive effect on artists revenues taken through live performances (they get more well known). On the other hand the publisher loses out because they loose the publisher monopoly on the music in the markets where P2P exists, therefore less money made through sales. Bottom line: The answer is not simple but a change is needed. I’ve just done some deep research on this topic, and from a scholary point of view the main points I’ve found are:

a) Competing Ego’s – ASCAP, RIAA, DiMa & IFPI some or all could be out a job with P2P distribution, therefore each is trying to keep itself in a job!

b) Polarization of offline distribution. Look at how Wal-Mart and Best Buy in the US limit choice of music available to consumers. And guess what, a study in Spain showed that P2P users like using P2P because of the range of music available. Outcome: Good case for digital distribution.

c) Record companies “we invest a lot in promotion and any hits we do have cover those acts that do not return a revenue”. This sounds like an industry that needs has been running on excess fat for a long time.

d) P2P is having a direct impact on our sales. Look at the Canadian experience where the private copying levy actually took $120M in the first 5 years, offset against $2M in lost revenues at the cost of piracy as submitted by CRIA.

e) business models for online music : Monthly subscription services such as Napster. Single item downloads such as ITunes. The problem is the latter system, runs the risk of the credit card processing adding up to more than the cost of the transaction. With a better sytem, costs could be reduced and music be made available more cheaply.

f) Publisher/Artist conflicts – a study actually showed that illegal P2P networks had a positive effect on artists revenues taken through live performances (they get more well known). On the other hand the publisher loses out because they loose the publisher monopoly on the music in the markets where P2P exists, therefore less money made through sales.

Bottom line: The answer is not simple but a change is needed.

]]> By: Hm http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2008/03/how-collective-idiocy-left-the-record-companies-in-bits/comment-page-1/#comment-18860 Hm Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:22:53 +0000 http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2008/03/26/how-collective-idiocy-left-the-record-companies-in-bits/#comment-18860 Well dont give them so much created for just "ignoring" the internet. Maybe they were just coc'd up to much in the late 90's from all that money they made...as a result they missed an opportunity because they were to stupid. This really is a lesson on how to be a success and how to be a failure. People with the hunger (Napster, Apple, iRiver) they stayed up all day and night and solved the problem of MP3 Players, easy to download online, etc. But those who partied day and night (Sony, Universal, Columbia Records, etc) well they enjoyed the good times and let a major and obvious opportunity slip. End of story. Moral of story: have fun but do some work as well. Well dont give them so much created for just “ignoring” the internet.
Maybe they were just coc’d up to much in the late 90′s from all that money they made…as a result they missed an opportunity because they were to stupid.
This really is a lesson on how to be a success and how to be a failure.
People with the hunger (Napster, Apple, iRiver) they stayed up all day and night and solved the problem of MP3 Players, easy to download online, etc.
But those who partied day and night (Sony, Universal, Columbia Records, etc) well they enjoyed the good times and let a major and obvious opportunity slip.
End of story.
Moral of story: have fun but do some work as well.

]]>