Â Russia is known not to act out on its claims.
Sony BMG’s director of digital services, Gavin Parry, was one of the few industry executives to talk publicly this week.
“It has been pretty erratic,” he says of physical sales this year. “Some months have been down 10 per cent and other have been down 30 per cent. Globally there are some indications that digital isn’t replacing the void but for Sony BMG, it is. We are up. If people are sitting back waiting for iTunes to fix it, they’re in strife.”
Read the article in Digital Music.
Steve Gordon the author of The Future of The Music Business and the former Director of Business Affairs at Sony TV and Video has this to say……..
Gordon is skeptical that musicians will ever see a dime of money from Microsoft’s “royalty” payment. He writes, “Although this pattern of not paying artists for digital music sales is dreadful, the chances of artists seeing anything from the royalty placed on Zune is even worse. There is nothing in the standard recording agreement that says the labels must share income derived from licensing digital devices. Labels are only responsible for paying for exploitation of music, not licensing electronic devices. So why would the labels share anything with the artists when they already disregard clauses in the recording agreements that would benefit the artists?”
How do labels survive in the techonoligical transition? First,
technological transitions are great times to make gobs and gobs of money. You need to start thinking about creating new revenue streams.
Universal Music Group chief executive Doug Morris saidÂ he may try to fashion an iPod royalty fee with Apple Computer Inc. in the next round of negotiations in early 2007.
Universal was the first major record label to strike an agreement with Microsoft Corp. to receive a fee for every Zune digital media player sold.
“The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology,” he added.
MP3s are a fad like any other. Sure, digital music files will most likely be around forever and will continue to grow, however itâ€™s probably premature to say that it will be the end of the physical product. Digital files are in response to a quality of music- disposable. There is no commitment in a digital file as it can be obtained and erased with a click of a mouse. You may throw a track on your iPod and rock it for a while until a hot new track comes out and you need to make some space. Then itâ€™s like you never had the song in the first place. Digital files are being heralded as â€˜the future of music,â€™ but as someone passionate about great music, I find that somewhat sad. If the future of music is disposable, replaceable and forgettable, then I am glad I hung onto the cds that I purchased, because it looks like Iâ€™m shit out of luck when it comes to new music.
Newcomers to the music industry are putting all of their eggs in the internet basket, the polar opposite behavior of old timers who think if they close their eyes and wish it away things will return to â€˜normal.â€™ The web-obsessed entrepreneurs are trying to bank in on the theory that people live their lives almost exclusively online. They live there, they work there, they shop there, they hang out there, and itâ€™s where their friends live. As MySpace and other sites have shown us, the novelty WILL wear off. Young Americans, especially, do not have the attention span to make a real commitment to something like a website, no matter how many people are on their buddy list and no matter how addicted to it they once were. The internet is unreliable, and I am not talking about connection. Sites, often times, are here today and gone tomorrow. Those who do stick around and obtain some level of popularity are quickly purchased and commercialized, stripping it of all â€˜cool factor.â€™
Those in favor of internet only marketing cite the success of Gnarls Barkley as an example since their iTunes sales were so impressive. It seems they have already forgotten how much they spent on television advertising and the large amount of radio play they received, not to mention the video and press. The internet buzz and promotion definitely played a part, but it was in no way their sole outlet for promotion. What got people interested was the band name. Itâ€™s clever. Their music is unexpected. A name like Gnarls Barkley conjures up all kinds of assumptions, none of which are realistic. Again, clever. The song was good, hence the downloads. The album, however, is quite another story. If digital files have replaced anything, itâ€™s the single, which hasnâ€™t really existed in the US for years anyway.
One thing has become very clear over the last couple years- things are changing. Everyone is looking for a way to make music marketing easier. The industry wants a simple formula they can plug any artist into and be successful. Unfortunately, that is no longer a possibility. Things have changed and they will continue to change. Cookie-cutter marketing is no longer an option. You need great, unique artists, and you must market them in great and unique ways. If the artists are original and are bringing something special to the table, why would you even consider working them the same way as Joe Average and The Typicals? Iâ€™m sorry, but itâ€™s not going to be easy, nor should it be. As professionals in this business we should be armed with the creativity, ingenuity and passion to be successful and work with successful artists. If you canâ€™t take the heat, get out of the oven.
Digital music in 2006 represented 12% of all revenue posted by record labels. iSuppli predicts this will grow to 40% of the overall record label revenue by 2010. With nearly $33 billion in total recorded retail music revenue accumulated in 2005, this is an enormous opportunity for those involved in mobile and broadband distribution across the supply chain, the company noted.