3 ms·
Being a businessperson I really don't understand the recording industry's strategy. They know that their industry is under heavy disrpution and that their old
by mixmax 16y ago
Being a businessperson I really don't understand the recording industry's strategy.
They know that their industry is under heavy disrpution and that their old income model is increasingly obsolete. Thus they need to innovate and find new sources of income, while milking their old sources for all they're worth. This much everyone agrees on, including the recording industry.
They have done no innovation, and I can't point to any serious attempts. They must have seen this coming but it took Apple and their Itunes to implement a system that actually worked. Before Itunes there was no easy legal way for me to download music. The recording industry did nothing. At the same time they're using their resources to alienate their customers as much as humanly possible by suing them and harrassing them at every turn. Not a day goes by where I don't see some kind of bad press for the industry, ranging from articles like this to takedown notices on youtube.
Go to the local mall and ask the cool kid who hangs out with the cool girls what he thinks of the recording industry. He'll tell you that they're bloodsucking maggots because he's seen the same articles and takedown notices that I have. And he'll tell you that there's noway he's giving them money, and that you shouldn't either. He's the opinion leader that all industries need to be friendly with.
A whole industry whose best idea of making money is to sue their customers needs to seriously rethink their strategic stance.
- wmf 16y agoTheir behavior may be rational if they believe that no new business model can work.
- gigawatt 16y agothat's an excellent point that i hadn't considered. maybe they realize (correctly or incorrectly) that there's no way to sustain their business at the level to which they're accustomed, so they're just slash-and-burning the whole thing and taking the lumber to build new houses.
- mixmax 16y agoInteresting point, but I don't think that's what's happening. If it is then some people need to be fired. Apple is raking in billions from itunes that could have gone to the recording industry.
- wmf 16y agoThe labels are already getting 70% of every sale; it's hard to imagine that getting 80-90% would save the industry.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- generalk 16y agoThis is almost ridiculous to imagine. Artists fifty years ago couldn't imagine -- or would have killed for -- near-instant global distribution of their work. Record companies only existed to record and distribute their works. They've now been out-done on the distribution front, but that should be fine for them, because a recording contract isn't about distribution anymore, it's about marketing and promotion, which (to be fair) they're pretty damn good at, and already making tons of money with. I honestly don't understand why they don't just concede distribution, or at least set up their own official torrent tracker you can subscribe to for a paltry sum, and focus on promotion. This is obviously speculation from someone who doesn't know the internals of the recording industry, but I believe it's smarter than attempting to sue your customers.
- gibybo 16y agoIt may also be rational if they aren't sure what new business model would work and figure it would be too expensive to find out themselves. Or they recognize other business models can work better, but they aren't in a strong position to capitalize on them so they take advantage of what they can while they still have some position of strength.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoIn 2009 I dated an actress (musical theatre) who was being approached by the recording industry to do an album. So I went to a lot of parties with Music execs and I'll tell you what they told me. Their strategy IS to be the bad guy. Ask any record exec over 35 and they'll tell you people have always hated record companies. Heck, the artists themselves bad mouth the record companies and always have (James Taylor wrote a whole song bashing record execs in the 70s: http://tinyurl.com/49greg6 http://tinyurl.com/49greg6). So the strategy is to use that. Let iTunes, Pandora, Mog and the rest be the good guys. While the recording industry uses the RIAA to punish anyone who dares pirate with fees outrageous enough to make $10 a month seem like a gift. One thing record execs realize that most of the general public doesn't: They have an unregulated monopoly. For example the law treats hiphop music like it's all one product and so it's held to the law in that way. As long as there are multiple hiphop record labels there's no anti-trust issues. But that's B#llS#it. If you love Eminem than you want his music and that only comes from one label. And if that label can force you not to pirate than they'll get your money no matter how much you hate them.
- dereg 16y agoMonopoly over what, exactly? A lot of my favorite music is not under the purview of the RIAA.
- erikpukinskis 16y agoI'm not sure what Tom was referring to, but for example, SoundExchange (an RIAA spinoff) "is designated by the Librarian of Congress as the sole organization authorized to collect royalties paid by services making ephemeral phonorecords or digital audio transmissions of sound recordings, or both, under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange
- ryanf 16y agoI think he means a monopoly over the output of any given artist, under the traditional system where artists sign restrictive multi-album contracts.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- erikpukinskis 16y agoNot only have they alienated their customers the listeners, they have also taken the shift to digital as an opportunity to alienate their other customers--the artists. They somehow managed to work it so (unless they renegotiate contracts) digital downloads and streaming are an even WORSE deal for artists than CDs were (abysmal).