antiMUSIC is reluctant to present Slapped!
with Scott Slapp. Hes been bugging us to do this for a while. So we figured
what the hell, lets give him a shot at it. If he isnt assassinated by
an irate fan, Scott will check in with us every day to tell us who needs
to be Slapped.
.
Slapp of the Day: Bonehead Label
Execs
As always the views expressed
by the writer do not neccessarily reflect the views of antiMUSIC or the
iconoclast entertainment group
A major label's latest brainstorm in the
attempt a make a bonehead move designed to shoot themselves in the foot
didn't get much play in the media last week. So I figured a slapp was in
order. In fact, I wouldn't have heard about this unless I was given the
ultra fun assignment at my day gig to pull together some news blurbs for
our next issue. And I stumbled upon this story by accident.
Ok get this; Universal Records have decided
to screw themselves out of free exposure to millions of people each month.
Just how did the boneheads in suits at their corporate office decide to
do this? They figured that websites and satellite companies shouldn't be
giving their artists free exposure any longer by showing music videos.
Instead they have decided that this marketing tool should instead be a
revenue tool and they will charge companies for the privilege of giving
their artists free exposure. And your profits are going down why?
Wait it gets even better
According to News.com, Universal plans
to pressure websites to sign up for this new scheme. "As an inducement
to sign up, Universal plans to stop buying advertising on any site that
does not strike a deal under the new policy," News.com said in their report
last week. This is brilliant. Isn't there a word for this kind of
policy? And isn't this kind of a new spin on payola?
The good news is that the big sites like
Yahoo's Launch and AOL who get the advertising contracts have the cash
to pay for the privilege to advertise Universal's artists. And if they
don't, then Universal can always count on MTV to show their videos at 3
in the morning and get that revenue. Oh, wait, does MTV pay for the few
videos they play? No, but most likely the artists that are going to lose
exposure pay for it as "recoupable" expenses out of their royalties.
I asked my boss here at anti if he heard
about this and what he thought about it. He did his usual lifting of one
eyebrow as he shrugged and replied, "If they don't want the free exposure
for their bands, there are plenty of other labels that do". I wonder if
the folks at Launch and AOL had a similar reaction. I doubt it, but you
know what, I had a brainstorm of my own to turn this around.
Since videos are basically advertisements
for CDs, why are websites and cable and satellite companies giving away
this advertising for free? They should be charging the record labels for
this valuable exposure for their artists, not the other way around. Even
if the labels pull the regular advertising as a result, in the end they
are ones hurting themselves because they will sell less CDs. I can't
believe Yahoo and AOL and all of these other sites are just giving away
this advertising for free. Are they nuts? This is a cash cow. AOL
reportedly gets 4 million viewers a week for their video section. If they
charged 10 cents a view that's an additional 1.6 million a month added
to their bottom line! Time Warner Cable reportedly shows 8 million
on demand videos a month, they are throwing away 800K a month in ad revenue!
I know that most people could care less
about this topic but it did anger me because this is just another example
of how the labels are screwing their artists. That baby band that might
have received valuable exposure with a cool video will now have one more
hurdle to overcome in their uphill battle to succeed. This is just another
example of some of the bonehead thinking that goes on at the corporate
offices at major record companies. It seems that they like to loss money.
First they hire A&R people without any balls; these are the people
that flood the market with mediocre copycat bands that don't sell because
people prefer the originals. (Forget exciting new bands that offer something
different, we want clones!) They fought one of the greatest promotional
tools since radio (MP3s) and now they are shooting themselves in the foot
by removing another major tool to get the word out about their artists.
Sorry but magazine ads don't come with sound but videos do and hearing
is believing. I can't tell you how many CDs I have purchased after seeing
a video for a song that radio wasn't playing. This even helps crap bands,
think of all the CDs Motley Crue sold because of their ultra cheesy videos!
Even if the big corporate sites sign up for this, the bands and labels
are losing exposure from the entire collective of smaller independent sites
(you know the ones with credibility with the cd buying public?) So
a year from now when we read yet again about the falling profits at the
major record labels, remember this slapp and the fact that they helped
once again to bring it upon themselves.
Scott Slapp is a professional
a**hole and rock critic, as well as antiMUSIC contributor. His biggest
aspiration in life is to become Eddie Vedder.
Your
turn.
Fan
Speak:
Posted by YFOT:
Morality? It is called the MUSIC INDUSTRY. The key word being INDUSTRY. This is business.
When I get an offer for $50K for a commercial, and all the exposure it brings for my artists, why would I let somebody make $$$ off the same piece of work by letting them use it for free. (other than a student film, which I have signed off on for NOTHING).
My artist have always been paid in full for the money they earned. I do not get paid unless my artist(s) do. And any honorable manager operates the same way.
BTW -I once turned down $3,000,000.00 for record because the artist did not want the deal. that was more important than my $600K commission
Posted by solitary:
It's all about diminishing returns. The labels would rather have 10 artists who see 5 million copies than 100 artists who sell 500k. The audience they are shooting for could care less about videos - just show some "live show" footage and leave it at that. It's like the record label equivalent to reality TV - cheap to make and gets the job done.
Posted by Hum:
morality? How about labels and artist managers ripping off artists left and right. Do you PAY the band out of your pocket to represent them or blackmail them for money by saying if they don't pay you x dollars you won't pay them what you owe them? Do magazine pay you to advertise your bands? Do instrument companies pay your artists to play their instruments? Do bands pay fans to wear their t-shirts and listen to their cds? Until labels and managers start making sure the band gets most of the money before they make a cent, don't talk about "a free ride".
Posted by Porcupine:
You're still talking in terms of morality. What people deserve is not the issue. Artists want to make money, right? The best way to do that is to advertise. When you charge people for the 'right' to advertise for you, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Posted by YFOT:
The point is NOBODY deserves a free ride on the back of artist(s) who actually create the content that drives the companies and the profits they reap. There is more than enough $$$ to pay everybody, labels included, for creating said content.
BTW - I am an artist manager and a label, so I see and deal with ALL sides of the issue.
Posted by Keavin:
Not sure if Scott knew this and didn't mention it, but the artists that own the publishing to their songs do get royalties from ASCAP or BMI from online companies (just like radio). Both companies charge licensing fees to use the music contained in the videos. This is an interesting argument. Videos have always been a marketing tool to sell more CDs, thus the artist will theoretically earn royalties there (remember the recoupables that Scott mentioned). Take away this form of advertising and the artists will sell less CDs, thus make less money. This move may hurt artists in the long. If the band really wants to make extra money from their videos, they always have the option of issuing a DVD. A lot of bands are doing just that. The reason the relationship worked for everyone before this was that the AOL's and Yahoos made money from advertising on their video pages and in the videos, the visitors to those sites got to see the videos and the record companies got free promotion for their releases.
Posted by Porcupine:
You forget one thing (YFOT henceforth), that's a foolish position. Advertising is everything in business. Good advertising can save a business with shoddy, overpriced products (witness certain American car companies). It is worth so much more than your paltry royalties. You can take your silly moral stand, but if you want the bucks, you need to get your name out there. Universal just wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Posted by you forget one thing:
Yahoo/Launch, AOL etc..all attract 4 million viewers per month BECAUSE they show the videos. They sell advertising that generates big $$$ BECAUSE they show videos. If there were no videos, where would those big advertising $$$ be?
Not there. And by not paying writers performance royalties, the artists you claim to care so much about, get screwed yet again, by AOL or Yahoo, whose advertising revenues are generated by the performances of said artist(s).
If somebody is earning money off the performance of MY music, be the label, AOL, regular radio (who do pay performance royalties by the way), a commercial of show I've decided to license a piece, it does not matter, I want my f'ing money. AOL and MTV do not deserve a free ride anymore than KROQ or Clear Channel.
Peace
Posted by Caught in a Mosh:
Thats got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard the execs do so far....along with about 473209483209 other things
Posted by pop will eat itself:
I'm gonna start billing universal for everytime I see their corporate logo. Then maybe I'll have to charge sony for the fact that they constantly advertise their corporate logo inside my house; at the bottom of my tv set, etc....
Posted by willy c:
you can write whatever you want. im as much of a free speech supporter as you are. but the problem is that weak writing fails to get people to support your cause. its just like how no one likes nickelback. their music sucks, so no one wants to hear what they have to say.
Posted by Runicen:
Very glad you're bringing stuff like this up. How long is it before we're all singing the "Sue Me, Sue You Blues?"
Damned lunatics would blame everyone they could for the consequences of their own ill-advised business practices.
Hey, I know! We'll all start companies, drive them into the ground, and sue our customers for not spending enough money on our shoddy product!
...Well wait.. doesn't Metallica have the copyright on that?
Meh, sorry - annoying issues such as this deserve cheap shots to keep it light. Keep 'em coming Scott!
Posted by dreibel:
add to that how Universal screwed MP3.com - at one time that web site allowed people to post original compositions for download for free or for a modest fee (fair enough for overhead) and in turn they could have their songs sold in CD form and get royalties. But when Universal bought it, they jacked up prices on access to the site, and then tied payment of royalties condusive to paying the inflated prices. Excuse me, but why should an artist PAY a record label to get his songs heard and not get enough royalties back to cover the cost of access? Add to that Universal using the site to promote their own artists. The Uni/Vivendi deal wound up going sour and MP3.COM was sacrificed to the gods of red ink.....
Posted by DeadSun:
To me, the heart of this lies in your reference to payola. In spirit, that is exactly what this is--- it's just a reversal of the same idea. I don't believe that Payola ever went away, Scott. Perhaps it put on different outfits, and changed techniques with the times--- but it has always been, and dare I say, always will be.
Posted by thir13een:
Universal has made a habit out of screwing artists. Flaw, Cold, etc.. they just need to shut down before they get laughed out of the music industry all together.
Posted by dolly d.:
good slapp, but "good" will be upgraded to "eerily prescient" in coming months.
