Re: [microsound] microsound future

[dave palmer <palmderski1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 12/21/00 9:14 PM, Davis Ford at forddavi@xxxxxxx wrote:

>> 
>>> well, i already posted one response to this trying to explain how it is
>> possible for a smaller label to turn bigger profits than a larger one. the
>> main point is that labels like TJ once they get well known have built in
>> crowds that buy for the label name as much as the artist. no major in the
>> world has this going! geffen,for example, doesn't even exist as an
>> independent entity(and really doesn't exist anymore at all) as they were
>> bought out by seagrams(the liquor company) and put under a huge umbrella
>> with several majors. once this happened(about 1.25 years ago) almost all
>> company heads and AR people were let go. LA has been in a panic ever since.
>> people who had worked at thier jobs for 15 years were scrambling to find new
>> work. to this day there is confusion and paranoia running rampant in the
>> industry. there are only 3 major labels left, i can't remember the exact
>> alliances but will post them later if anyone is interested. there are very
>> few signings going on right now with most money being invested in totally
>> manufactured bands like backstreet boys. hundreds of artists are stuck in
>> shitty deals with labels who have new people that don't even know who they
>> are. people used to making good money producing demos for a signed artists
>> "upcoming" cd are now working on spec and only get paid if the label thinks
>> it's radio worthy. most of these people are in a limbo wherein thier record
>> will never come out and they can't do anything else with another label
>> unless they sue to get out of their deals. smaller labels begin to look more
>> stable and profitable in this scenario, and ones that already have a high
>> profile and low overhaed begin to make good money.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous.  Below is a clip from VO (Seagrams, which
> owns
> Geffen and many others) SEC report.  Thrill Jockey doesn't come anywhere near
> this.  43% of total music revenues in N.America.
> 
> --davis
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> 2000 VERSUS 1999
> 
> Consolidated Operations
> 
> Actual - Revenues increased 66 percent, EBITDA more than doubled and operating
> income (excluding restructuring activities) of $288 million was
> earned in the current year, compared to a loss of $126 million incurred in the
> prior year. These significant increases primarily reflect the acquisition and
> successful integration of PolyGram, partially offset by investments in our
> electronic business initiatives. In fiscal 2000, over 64 percent of product
> sales
> were from new releases. Major album sales included those by Shania Twain,
> Eminem,
> Dr Dre, Limp Bizkit, Sisqo, Sting, Enrique Iglesias, Blink 182, DMX, Andrea
> Bocelli, Bon Jovi, Boyzone and the soundtrack from the Universal feature film
> Notting Hill, among others. We continue to hold strong chart positions in all
> music genres and major markets, including the United States, United Kingdom,
> France, Germany and Brazil. Internationally, we continue to maintain a strong
> local repertoire presence. In fiscal 2000, revenues generated in North America
> accounted for 43 percent of the total music revenues of $6,236 million. The
> European market accounted for 41 percent, Asia Pacific contributed 12 percent
> and
> Latin America accounted for the remaining four percent.
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 
you must keep in mind that although these are under the same umbrella they
are all different labels and each one of the artists mentioned represent the
financial saving graces of thier respective rosters. what this report really
shows is that these major labels are staying profitable through the
aquisition of other labels successful acts and through downsizing overall
staff. there are so many lawsuits going on right now concerning profit
rights to several of the artists mentioned. check the profitability of all
these labels as separate entities and offset that with development costs and
legal fees and the picture will change starkly. don't forget, we've been
told for several years now that we're living in some glorious new economy
and we've seen now that most of that money is fictional wall street numbers
that don't end up in anyones pockets. and certainly it is not ludicrous that
most people lost thier jobs when seagrams amalgamated all those labels and a
vacuum was created in LA that still has not been filled. this is one of the
reasons the"label" did so well in 2000. but, what business is better off in
the end, the one who sells the most or the one that is most profitable
relative to its place in the market?