Slashdot Mirror
Music Biz Predicts 6% Decline in '03
jonerik writes "According to this article from Reuters, music industry executives gathering this weekend for the global music industry conference Midem in southern France are being told that a 6% industry-wide decline in sales is being predicted for 2003; not as bad as last year's 9% decline, but bad enough since '02 and '03 come on top of a five percent dip in 2001 and a 1.4 percent fall in 2000. As a result, talk of consolidation is rampant at the conference, with the most likely scenario being a buyout of EMI by BMG-Bertelsmann. Critics, however, are skeptical that the labels' problems will necessarily be solved by simply bulking up. 'The politics at the major labels hasn't changed. The guy who puts his neck out on the line could get fired. Whereas the guy who keeps his head down is safe, and he gets to keep his BMW for another year,' said Paul Myers, founder of Wippit.com, a subscription download site."
Economy slumps
Music sucks
Downturn...must be piracy.
Seems like...
1. Sign shitty artists
2. Sell shitt CD's
3. Piss on consumers rights
4. ??? (anything but restructuring)
5. Lose profit
Wait...that doesn't work
...and sales go down. Did these people take basic economics? The soft economy no doubt helped. Of course, the industry blames piracy...
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
Maybe if they stopped hyping pretty-looking but talentless actors and concentrated on people who could actually perform music in some way, we might actually be interested in buying it.
And, as an aside, many of us are so jaded from the recent crap, that we're unwilling to buy music basing our decision solely on the two (three if you're lucky) songs that get played on the radio. I want to hear a majority of the album before I buy it. Oh, sorry, that would require me to STEAL the music first. Oh well, no CDs for me.
Apparently, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
What's 6% of a bazillion, anyways?
Of course in this economy, lots of industries would give their first born for a mere 6% decline.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
is the fact that they put out less CD's than they have in previous years..
begun, the flame war has..
Is that they are going to reduce the number of published artists by 24% and jack up the prices by 18% and blame the resulting 6% 'loss' on Kazaa.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Maybe if they stopped cramming out so many remix CDs (Reanimation, Limp Bizkit New Old Songs), stopped charging so friggin' much (20$ a disc), and actually made them worthwhile as opposed to one or two good tracks, they will actually have a productive year.
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
... the stock market analysts would be clamouring for layoffs and restructuring. Period. No lobbying for laws or paying off your local congresscritter
Lets see, we'd expect to see the following:
1)A 5% reduction in operational expenses
2)A 10% reduction in global workforce, with a minimum of 3% coming locally
3)Announcements of 'diversification' by hiring some recognizably named 'diversification' consultant, who ought to leave after 5 months and make many speeches talking about how the environment wasn't conducive to change and (4 months later) will say it was a success
4)A number of consultants to help improve product flow
and finally
5)Several new products in time for a major tradeshow
Oh wait, this isn't 'industry', I forgot their lawyers make the money by paying off congress.....
Actually, I think it has nothing to do with either but is based on the fact that people love listening to themselves talk more. In fact the amount of people who love listening to themselves is projected to rise 6% in 03. Coincidence? :-)
In a completely unrelated story, a 43-year old man was startled today to find out that shooting himself in the foot does, in fact, hurt.
I predict that the music business will have a 0% change in their business model.
I'll wager that both of our predictions are correct.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Or with the saturation factor, i.e. after years of replacing vinyl and tapes everyone now has their favourite music on CD's and only need to buy new releases.
Well, the impending/current loss of profits hasn't stopped them from holding their global conference in the south of france.
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
is pandora's box, and their diminshing expense business model almost ensures a continuing growth/profit downturn.
QUESTION - How can you depend on a smaller subset of crappy music to support a more diverse and growing audience and still make a greater profit, with out Andersen Accounting 101....
ANSWER - you can't unless you can claim the losses due to an illegal act and get aid or a system slanted in your favor...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
- To sample the music you might want to purchase.
- To make backups of your music.
- To copy your music to a portable digital device.
- To create your own mix of music.
- To play CD's on your computer even though they support the 'Compact Disc' logo.
- To compress your music down to one CD so you don't have to carry tons of CDs around.
Yeah, I'm surprised about the decline. Everything people does to make music more fun is labeled 'piracy'.
And whatever favorite music didn't get re-released on CDs... well, everyone's got those on MP3.
They have MP3z because the artist's label never re-released it. And nobody else, (including the artists themselves) could re-release the out-of-print stuff due to the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension, so nobody could have bought it on CD even if they might otherwise have wanted to.
Hey, Hilary! Try this out for a business plan!
1) Don't release any more from the backcatalog, ... ]
2) Act surprised when the backcatalog brings in no more revenue.
3) [
4) Don't profit!
Is the industry really producing poorer music?
There is a big reason the music industry targets teenagers. People that go to college and start paying bills grow cynical about the status quo, including music. Not necessarily the music industry, but of course that's where people target their cynicism because the industry profits from listener's failure to find a musical style they're consistantly happy with (which is impossible).
People in high school don't really think about the music industry as being evil. They listen to what's popular, just like most wear what's popular, etc. Even if it's not 'popular', it's finding a niche, whether it be computers and academics, social life and sports, or drama/science fiction/goth. People in different clique's have a musical style targeted at them, and they take it mostly without thinking. They may complain about CDs being expensive, but they don't complain about quality or immoral lobbying.
As you get older, you think that it's not important to fit into a clique with your musical choices. Instead you try to find things that you like, both musically and morally. It's only natural that with your more mature, broader perspective on the world that you become cynical.
In conclusion, say all you want about the industry pissing you off and quality deteriorating. Everyone outside of high school says that, they did 20 years ago, they will 20 years from now. It's natural to purchase music less as you get older. Therefore it's not logical to expound your own buying experience with the revenues of the music industry.
When you're 50 and you never buy new music, the music industry will still be around and raking in even more money than it does now. Not that it's right, but that's how it is.
my blog
MTV has, finally - after flirting with the idea for years - officallly announced they will cut back to about 10 videos a week. It recieved a mention in TV Guide's Cheers and Jeers last week or the week before (I'm sure someone could find out).
From now on, they will select these very few videos, and then air them constantly.
The point? Such rigid control over the playlists, plus the dramatic scaling back of the numbers of new songs viewers and listeners are exposed to has killed MTV, VH1 and radio. If you don't like the NuMetal, Rap, PerlJamClone and TeenyBop tracks this week, you are out of luck. There will be nothing new for you to see. You will not be exposed to any new artists, new genres....nothing beyond what you already know.
So once you have all the U2, Radiohead, Bijork, They Might Be Giants, etc albums you got into, what else is there?
A lot.
But how the hell are you supposed to find out?
Play MP3.com roulette?
Good luck filtering out the crap from the music with some substance with the little guidance you can get. I lost track of the number of times someone reccomended a band to me that ended up being just another bottom-of-the-barrel garage band (not to dis garage bands in general, just the REALLY lame ones.)
MTV, VH1, etc have always shown lots of shit, but they also managed to dig up a few gems along the way. Playing video after video from bands that hardly sold anything, didn't have a good marketing budget and didn't fit into one group, live up to anyone's vision of what they "should" be, and what kind of music they "should make. The programmers were responsible for sustaining bands until they reached immense heights.
U2 albums didn't really start to sell well until their 4th album - "The Unforgettable Fire" - which had 1 top 40 hit. Before then, they never really had that much success on retail shelves -despite having a huge tour following.
MTV played them anywyay.
When their second album didn't do very well, they kept playing them.
When they went off in odd directions with their music they kept U2 videos in heavy roation. Didn't matter what rigid category they did or did not fit into.
It was music, and it was interesting.
Sometimes it sold well, sometimes not nearly as well as before.
But the videos kept playing.
That's over now. MTV has given up because they found the 14-year-olds love all their crappy non-music shows, and the single, 90 minute or so block of time when they do show videos (Total Request Live). These viewers are the most fiercely loyal. So MTV has decided to cater to them, and only them.
This demographic didn't tune in as much when a block of videos came on that didn't cater to only their tastes.
So MTV axed the very thing they are based on.
Radio isn't much better.
So now, it's down to 10 songs a week - mostly the same ones from last week - in a few, narrowly defined styles. Most of which will not appeal to a broad audience.
And the millions of listeners who have far fewer places to turn will find themselves uninterested in buying music. There simply isn't anything new being introduced to them.
And the music industry will see the downturn, and blame it soley on file-swapping.
And they will wonder why they can't find any new "hit" artists.
They will ignore the fact they simply don't have the paitence to nurture a band, but simply expect it to go Top 10 with its first album. A group that fails to do so will be dropped. And any group in the running will have no control over their music anyway, so the expectation that they will get any better is moot - considering they have no ability to grow as artists.
These people want 4 new U2s every year.
But, like many other groups before and since - the key to success was artistic control by the band, and relentless exposure - regardless of sales.
They didn't hit the Top 10 until album #5.
And few ever will again..
Nobody will wait that long anymore.
In just a few easy steps.
1. Return to a focus on music, as opposed to entertainment or product. Make a distinction once and for all that flash in the pan pop stars like Britney Spears or New Kids on the Block are not musicians, but entertainers. These groups are not so much recording artists as stage performers who also happen to have released an album. Considering relitivly short run longivity of these entertainers, keep promoting them the same way you've been doing for years: It works.
Now take the other side of the industry, the actual musicians; The folks who play their own instriments, the ones who formed a band together on their own and are creative and inovative forces are derived internally, not in a focus group. Employ A&R scouts and record executives with arts or music degrees, not business degrees. When deciding which bands to sign, make judgements based on individual merit instead of compliance to a winning formula.
In other words, promote and press music that is good, as opposed to an anaylist's predicted expectation for sales. In the end, this will provide quite a bit of profits as long as you:
2. Cut massive promotion costs. There is absolutly no reason why you should have to spend ~$5 million to promote an untested band. $1 million rock videos which are never viewed can be made just as effective as $50,000 videos in the hand of a novice filmaker who is allowed to innovate. Plastering the walls of every music store in America with posters will do nothing if nobody has heard of, or likes your band. Use low cost promotion methods, such as the Internet or word of mouth (hey, if the band is good, this does work). You can ultimatly generate low or no cost promotion with your best and most succesfull promotional outlet, radio, if you:
3. Stop orginized payola. Don't roll out a new untested band nationwide--they may fail! Allow individual radio stations and individual DJs the freedom to make programming decisions. If it's good, and the folks calling in keep asking for it, it will get played and eventually gain national attention. If it stinks, the DJs will soon drop it. When you allow programming decisions to fall into the hands of the folks who actually enjoy the music and talk on the phone every day and every hour with the people who will actually buy the music, you'll have a much better chance of knowing what music the people will actually buy then if you make those decisions in the board room.
Yes, this method is not as much a 'sure bet' as your current system, but then again, you will no longer blow millions on every new band which is essentially a crap shoot.
4. Finally, Value price recordings. ~$18 for a CD is simply too much money. Plain and simple. Consider a price point closer to the consumers willingness to pay. Make smaller recording runs for unknown or untested bands. As price per unit goes down, pass at least some of that savings to the consumer. Also, consider reviving the single. If you find yourself with a band that has a hit but an otherwise woefully uninspired album, charging $1.95 for a CD with just the one hit on it gives you more profit and allows the customer the ability to get the music he wants without making the often unprofitable (for you) decision to eschew the entire purchase.
As a personal note, you also might get me back as a customer if you stop calling me a theif or a terrorist because I've downloaded music off the Internet. Until recently I would purchase a few new CDs every month, but your public contempt for me has just frustrated me so much that I won't support your industry. You may think what I do is immoral, but you might want to consider this: If we make money in the long run, the custoemr is still always right.
The Internet is generally stupid
There's a huge, ever growing part of the "music industry" these days that is NOT a part of the RIAA, and is not being accounted for in those statistics, as far as I know.
We are not spending less on music than in the past. It's just that many bands have eliminated the middleman (major labels, RIAA). The whole "jam" scene, which now has engulfed many of the music fans that used to buy tons of RIAA CDs (like me), has effectively eliminated the middleman. And it's not just "jam", it's many jazz, funk, and otherwise non-mainstream artists that are doing this.
Most of these bands have their own record labels now, and do almost all of their CD sales at live shows or directly from their own websites. Some of them are quite popular, like Ween for instance. They used to be on Elektra (major label), but their next album will be sold in the fashion I described.
If you were in touch with this large, growing scene as am I, I think you would agree that a lot of money is being spent on CDs and not being accounted for in these statistics. And that amount is growing quickly year after year.
Someone with a Slashdot account who agrees with me here, please repost this and get it noticed!
I'm sorry, but this just gets my goat. The record industry insists that they're loosing business and it's just horrid what P2P is doing to them, and it's all piracy's fault.
Find me another mutli-billiion dollar a year industry that's NOT hurting in this day and age and I'll give you a cookie. On top of that, they're a non-essential industry! They should be hurting more than anybody else out there right now!
Okay, lets assume this is horrible to the record industry. The industry is just decimated by P2P right now for arguments sake -- who the hell do you know of right now that's been laid off by them and is hurting economically because of it? Anybody?
Lets step back into the world of -real- products with value right now. They're hurting... badly. I've seen Steelcase (a fortune 500 company recently) cut back their staff by large marks because of the economy. People aren't pirating office equipemnt, it's just a bad economy. There's rumors of a automotive parts manufacturer shutting down here too -- and that's not because of piracy. People still drive cars, and beleive it or not, they usually buy them. Yet, still, they're hurting. People are getting laid of from real jobs in real industries, yet these SOBs have the gaul to say that their sales are slumping and beleive that it's somebody else's problem that it's happening.
Bull... fucking...shit. Welcome to the real world, fellas. When people who make products people actually need are out of work you can sure as hell bet people that make things that noboby really needs are going to be hurting for money.