Tag Archive for 'Business'

Sony-BMG Uses Pirated Software

Published
by
Mic Mell
on April 3, 2008
in Blog
. 3 Comments

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
Thanks for visiting!

Spotted on: Ars Technica

The major labels are very outspoken about the evils of piracy, and aggressively pursue those who chose to download music and not pay for it. That being the case, there is great ironyin the fact that up to 47% of Sony-BMG’s software is pirated.

Recently, a tech support call for a program called Ideal Migration (a Windows server management tool) was made by a Sony BMG employee, and the product code given was pirated.

The ensuing drama included a seizure of some of Sony-BMG’s assets.  Paul Henry, The CEO of the maker of the software, was quoted as saying “I think piracy is linked to the policy of a company. If the employee has the necessary funding to buy the software he needs, he will. If this is not the case, he will find alternative ways, as the work must be done in one way or another.”

Bottom Line: A company that is using pirated software should not be surprised when their products are pirated.

Music Royalty War Escalating

Published
by
Mic Mell
on February 21, 2008
in Article and Blog
. 0 Comments

Spotted on: Hollywood Reporter

“Music publishers, the record labels and digital music distribution outlets began a three-way legal wrestling match Monday over just how much songwriters and the publishing houses should get paid for digitally delivered music.”

At stake in this debate is mechanical royalties for internet streams. Major labels, Apple, and Yahoo want the royalty rate for artists to be lowered. The big publishing houses are currently promised nine cents a song, a figure that often gets negotiated lower, and the consortium against them wants that rate moved to 8%. Apparently, publishing revenues are up, while major label revenues are down. The Digital Media Association is upping the ante, pushing for the royalty rate to be dropped to 4%.

On the other side of the fence, the National Music Publishers Association wants the rates raised to 12.5%.

The driving concern here is the financial ‘burden’ that paying these royalties puts on the large companies that offer music. The claim is that streaming media should be treated like terrestrial radio.

Bottom Line: Without content, there is nothing to stream.

How Serious is the Sales Decline in the Music Business?

Published
by
Mic Mell
on February 7, 2008
in Blog
. 1 Comment

Syndicated from: Digital Music News - Paul Resnikoff

Despite strong digital gains, recent quarterly losses at Warner Music Group are part of a continuing profit slide. But just how serious is the financial picture?

This isn’t a rosy period of double-digit gains, that’s for sure. And flagship CDs are in a free-fall. But the financial picture at Warner is showing more resilience than you might imagine under the circumstances.

Warner Music Group first went public in 2005, a period that featured far more investor optimism. But the profit picture has been slipping since, and Wall Street has been mostly unsympathetic.

What was once slightly-in-the-black has now gone red. During Warner’s calendar fourth quarter of 2004, profits landed at $36 million, only to improve to $69 million the following year. But by 2006, the holiday story started losing steam. The company earned a smaller $18 million during the period, though profits turned to losses - of $16 million - during the most recent Christmas buying quarter.

But not everything is so bleak. Major label executives often temper the picture by pointing to more stable revenues, less severe profit declines, and bullish digital gains. Of course, some of that is spin, but in the case of Warner Music, balance sheets actually support those claims.

In fact, the revenue story has not been disastrous. Revenues topped $1.088 billion during the fourth quarter of 2004, roughly 9.1 percent greater than revenues reported during the recent period. Of that total, digital assets now account for 14 percent of total revenues - up from nearly zero several years ago.

On an annual scale, a similar revenue picture emerges. Dialing back to the fiscal year ending November 30th, 2003, revenues neared $3.23 billion. Fast-forward to the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2007, and revenues of $3.39 billion appear - hardly an implosion. Not the envy of companies worldwide - after all, a flattening revenue picture is rarely good news. But not exactly a sinkhole, either.

Why the revenue resilience? Is creative accounting at work? Almost every company dances the numbers a bit, but artistic accounting has its limits - especially in the current regulatory climate.

And ugly profit losses year-after-year prove the point. Warner Music dropped $21 million during the most recent fiscal year, and actually gained $60 million during the previous year.

But the worst financial losses happened during the earlier part of the decade. In 2005, the company lost $169 million, an improvement over 2004 declines of $1.42 billion. And losses hit an immense $1.35 billion in 2003, and a disastrous $6.03 billion in 2002, in part because of accounting methodology changes.

Those are major drops, though at least the earnings picture is showing improvement. The question is whether Warner - and other majors - can survive the current turmoil, one that now includes a massive, 15 percent US-based album sales decline in 2007.

The current terrain is characterized by serious overhead cuts and slippery traditional retail declines. That is a worsening picture, though major labels like Warner carry enviable recording and publishing assets.

Perhaps the best prognostication involves a breed of smaller major labels ahead, though survival depends on a leaner, greatly diversified model. And in the case of Warner, and other labels, the financial picture is less severe than generally reported - and that spells a little more wiggle room for radical reinvention.

EMI Taking First Steps to Quit RIAA, IFPA

Published
by
Mic Mell
on January 24, 2008
in Blog
. 0 Comments

Spotted on: Ars Technica

Although still unconfirmed, rumor has it that EMI is seriously considering pulling their funding from the RIAA.  According to a recent Variety article, EMI has taken early steps to exit from the IFPI, the international version of the RIAA.  Part of the move is a demand by EMI that the RIAA and IFPA produce a proposal on restructuring by March 31.

Citing the massive cost of participation in these trade organizations, it seems EMI is very unhappy with the results being produced by the RIAA and IFPI.  The public relations nightmares these organizations have created has been a major contributor the devaluation of music.  If file sharing wasn’t labelled an almost terrorist act, it could have a huge impact on the perceived value of music.

More as this develops….

A World Without the RIAA

Published
by
Mic Mell
on December 5, 2007
in Blog
. 1 Comment

Spotted on: CMJ

The RIAA is funded by the big four record labels, to the tune of around $130 million per year for each label. EMI was recently bought by a private group, and are now considering drastically cutting their investment to the lobbying and enforcement arm of the music industry.

Given that the RIAA’s legal moves over the last few years have been disastrous at best, it’s a great sign for artists that the RIAA’s financial base may diminish significantly. The amount of money that the RIAA has spent suing mothers and college students as been astronomical, and has led to a severe loss of credibility toward the record business in the public eye. Let’s take a moment to look at what a world without the RIAA might look like.

Without constant legal pressure to buy, audiences would begin to feel confident that albums they buy are supporting artists’ careers (this is part of consumer confidence). File sharing would continue, but people would be more willing to buy music they love knowing that they aren’t labeled as criminals anymore. The business model of turning artists into products, overcharging for albums, and using hype instead of quality would fail.

The music industry would become a free market, where any artist with great music and dedication could create a viable career. Rather than a few mega platinum artists, we would begin to see a massive amount of artists selling between 50,000 - 200,000 units on releases. This level of sales can cause an artist to be dropped from a major, but on an indie label, this is a great living for an artist, and a massive success for the label. Royalty rates for artists would also become much higher. Some artists already see similar profits selling 200,000 units with an indie label that they would see selling a million on a major.

New contracts would become the industry standard, similar to Polyvibe’s practice of leasing artist’s copyrights rather than owning them. Artists would have freedom to call the shots in their careers. The industry would shift to artists owning their masters, with labels existing to empower artists rather than to exploit them. Album advances would shrink; the amount of money owed to labels would shrink, too. In the major label world, an artist owes almost every penny the label spends on them. Label investment in artists would become the cost of doing business, rather than a loan.

The practice of shelving albums would become non-existent, as artists would have the ability to have promises for release dates in their contracts. Polyvibe currently includes release dates in our contracts, with a provision that if deadlines are not met, we will set a new release date. We even promise in our contracts that if we do not release an album within a set span of time after receiving masters, the artists is free to go elsewhere with their album. This type of provision would be standard fare, as well as other artist protection clauses.

Marketing, promotion, and booking companies would become the major players in breaking artists. The media will flock to what people want instead of what the Big Four tell them to promote. New and far reaching models and methods of grass roots promotion will become the norm. Music quality will again become the primary factor in an artist’s success; promotion and hype will be a second tier service. Radio will begin to offer a wider variety.

Without the ability to force legislation in their favor, major labels would become the victim of a music economy they no longer control. Consider that what allows major labels to force low quality music down our throats at high prices is their ability to grab politicians ears, to threaten us with lawsuits, and their near domination of media exposure and radio. We are now at the tail end of a 60 year monopoly on the music business. Rats swarm off of sinking ships, a perfect analogy for the exodus of mega-artists from major labels (getting off the ship, not the rats). In this new music environment, there will be dozens (maybe hundreds) of popular labels, and everyone will have the opportunity to create success.

Bottom Line: Without the RIAA, the major label business model will be obsolete, and a new paradigm and renaissance for music will appear within five years.