[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Having disposed of art and science, now music and economics...
Nobody has any comments as to whether the economic basis for selling a new
Who album might have changed? Hmmm. Well, okay.
I notice the UN has temporarily blocked Mr. Bush's economic plans, so while
they're figuring out what to do, I've been thinking about the music
business. We've had a few discussions here of how artists are coping with
the new economic climate, i.e. Internet access, and just now I'm very glad
Pete and Roger are now set up with Eelpie and some individual contracts for
distribution, and not just depending on MCA to handle things for The Who.
I was kind of alarmed to see that report last week that Sony was laying off
workers. Other lists have reported the most recent drop in CD sales, which
amounted to 7.2 percent in the first six months of 2002. That's pretty
radical. The issue of new CDs has dropped sharply. Vevindi is for sale.
The crash of the music business might be at hand.
Of course, the big record labels and the musicians are still blaming each
other and relations are getting ugly, but it's occurred to me that they
might both be laboring under a misunderstanding of how the business works.
The record labels, of course, are blaming file-sharing and piracy for the
drop in sales. Artists are blaming the record labels for failing to support
and develop new talent. Here's what I think is really going on.
What we normally see when we look at the music business is the oligopoly of
the bigger recording labels. Originally they held the resources for
recording and distribution, but live recording eventually undermined studio
recording to an extent. Still, they've held onto their market power (and
their artists) because of their control of the distribution network. With
the advent of file sharing, they've lost control of this, and now their
business model is going to fail.
This much has been fairly obvious, though it may have come up quite a bit
faster than I had expected. This is because what the artists are asking for
is not a workable system. The record making and distribution business is
built atop the business that bands and individual artists do, which is
called a monopolistic competition. This is a large number of small
businesses that have somewhat different products and compete against one
another. On a small town basis, bands might have a artistic monopoly, but
then it's harder to manage on the national or international tour circuit.
The competition gets really stiff.
So, lets transfer this market structure to the recording business. Back
when recording started out, it was quite a novelty. Consumers were thrilled
with the recordings and sales of ANY recording were brisk. In the Fifties
and Sixties, the recording business caught the rock explosion, which in
retrospect featured real genius. About this same time, consumers became
affluent enough to afford good recordings, so profits were unprescedented.
However, the problem with monopolistic competition is that when the market
is completely open, profits are eventually competed away. Fifty years
later, the recording market is
saturated. The big problem for consumers is sorting through the HUGE volume
of international recordings available to find something they might like, and
it becomes impossible for the record companies to make enough money from
current issues to cover their costs.
This is the problem that Pete is looking at when he says it's impossible to
compete against what has gone before. The volume and the quality of it are
just too much for consumers to deal with.
Part II later.
keets
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail