MUSIC INDUSTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN DEMISE :(

[joshzz]

Radio has always helped to spawn music sales but new technology has had the opposite effect. Unfortunately, execs at Sony, RCA and the like don't see the real problem.
For years, people would hear their favorite songs on the radio, then quickly go out and buy their favorite artists' new records, cassettes & CDs - thus making everyone happy - the artists, the labels and the consumers.
Nowaday, people still listen to the radio but when they like a song - they will either 1) find the video on the internet and watch it endlessly until they grow tired of it, 2) go to the Pandora website, type in the group's name and listen to their entire album - until they grow bored or 3) find another site that offers the same .
Why pay, when you get the same for free?
The Record Labels need to realize that they are responsible for their own demise! Don't blame the public when you're giving your product away for free. .. If the public wants to watch a particular music video, then put a price on it! Don't allow sites like Pandora to play your artists' music OR charge PANDORA a huge fee so that it will be worth your while- LIMIT ACCESS TO YOUR MUSIC AND YOUR MUSIC SALES WILL SKY ROCKET!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There are a lot of folks second guessing the music industry today, Josh. And after reading the various news stories and commentaries I think many of us agree the music industry could have done things differently to better protect their long term business plans.

Technology does change things. I don't see many Conestoga Wagons out on the Interstate these days with horses moving the freight. I doubt that the horses could have gotten together and changed the course of history by refusing to deposit their droppings where people were fertilizing their gardens for free.

My memory is that the first inroad on this change was Sam Sophomore and Janie Junior putting music on their computers and leaving the gate open for Frank Freshman and Seth Senior to grab all the free music they wanted. What business plan could the record industry, the music industry, have implemented that would have most effectively dealt with this amateur piracy?

What business plan could Greyhound Bus Company implemented that would have stopped the airline industry from becoming the passenger transportation giant?

Come to think of it.... radio hasn't done much better than has the music industry in formulating a long term business and survival plan.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

The music industry DOES charge Pandora large sums of money for the right to their music. Usually around 1 millions dollars per quarter if I remember right.

But this is the music industry's new strategy. Remember in 2004 when the problem was a drop in CD sales due to Napster / LimeWire / whatever music "sharing" service? RIAA now wants to let listeners get their music for free, but charge those who provide those music-providing services, so that they can survive on a smaller number of CD sales. That includes the proposed "performance tax" on radio, the fees imposed on Pandora and other streaming services (Live 365, B101, YouTube, etc.)

Let my play devil's advocate here. I'll put on my "Rolf Scmhidt-Holtz" (Sony Music CEO) hat and say to you:

If it weren't for decades of free radio airplay, people wouldn't feel entitled to hear "Sweet Escape" and "Put a Ring on It" whenever they want without paying for the privilege. If people hadn't become used to the free music on radio, they would not have thought about sharing songs on Napster and we wouldn't have had to go after them to reduce our public perception. Its all radio's fault.

 

[TheBigA]

If people hadn't become used to the free music on radio, they would not have thought about sharing songs on Napster and we wouldn't have had to go after them to reduce our public perception. Its all radio's fault.

The other thing that happened at the time was that the PRODUCT got cheapened. Record companies economized on the packaging of their music, so there was no advantage to BUYING the CD. The CDs themselves only had a couple of worthwhile songs on them. And the lawyers got involved and downplayed the concept of "owning" the music. In the old days, fans felt they had a certain amount of ownership of music, but buying the CD. That concept disappeared as lawyers made sure consumers had no ownership. All the reality shows, giving us a look inside the homes of recording artists didn't help. When even a new artist with only one hit lives in a huge mansion with ten cars, you know something is out of place. Talk about public perception.

As for free music on the radio, that's hurt radio's ability to monetize their web streams. People aren't go to pay subscription fees to radio stations for web streams. But other web radio stations are charging for their content. One of the issues with the proposed Performance Royalty is that it will add a 15% charge without providing a way for radio stations to pay for it, except by playing more commercials.

The music industry is caught in a contradiction. They want their music to be heard and available everywhere without restriction. But they want people to pay for it. You can't have it both ways.

 

[CaptBob92]

The fundamentle problem with charging radio and the resultant loss of music stations that may result will be that new music will no longer be viable. Why? because without radio new groups have no platform. That garauge band with some of the greatest tunes you'll ever hear will only be heard by the neighbors down the block on a clear night without radio. If people don't know about you they can't request you. I had an argument once with a musican who'se answer to my question " how will people learn about you?" was simply "the internet". I answered " but how will they know you exsist so they know to Google you? " He had no idea because all he knew was the internet would SOMEHOW tell everybody about his group. He wrote a nice web page and all his buddies logged on and then,,,,,,,nothing. Why? no mass platform i.e. no radio to make him popular in the first place.

New up and coming artists should be fighting charging radio instead of listening to the record producers,,,either that or hurry up and get famious

Charging radio works great for established artists but new performers,,,without radio your dead.

 

[TheBigA]

New up and coming artists should be fighting charging radio instead of listening to the record producers,,,either that or hurry up and get famious

Unfortunately they've all been brainwashed into thinking this is a good thing for them. I had a debate with the Future of Music Coalition, who tell me this will be great for new artists. They simply don't understand how the system works. They won't realize what they've lost until it's gone. I can't tell you how many wonderful internet radio stations were forced to shut down because they couldn't afford the royalties. That same metric will be applied to terrestrial under the law.

It doesn't help when the RIAA and MusicFirst try and turn this into an anti-corporate debate. That has nothing to do with it. At the end of the day, the big corporations will find ways around the royalty. It's the small guys who will be hurt. And there are a lot of small guys who make more than the $1.6 million cut-off in revenues. That may seem like a lot, but I know rural stations in Wisconsin that make more than that.

 

[adma]

Nowaday, people still listen to the radio but when they like a song - they will either 1) find the video on the internet and watch it endlessly until they grow tired of it, 2) go to the Pandora website, type in the group's name and listen to their entire album - until they grow bored or 3) find another site that offers the same .
Why pay, when you get the same for free?

Yeah, just like when I was a kid, to hear the current songs I liked, I listened to radio endlessly until I grew tired of them. And through this, I learned: why bother buying records?

Plus ca change...