Information on the Rihanna & Chris Brown Incident.
Click pictures to view larger images.
Disturbing stuff!
Opinions...
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Synch Licenses the way to go or is it all in the brand???
“We can't pay you, but its great promotion for your record”, is a familiar line for most musicians and if you’re a new artist, free promotion can be extremely tempting and very beneficial. But surely if a company use’s your music or content for the benefits of their business to the extent of multi-millions in the way of profits, surely one would argue that your content should be paid for.
If for example you consider US radio, performers don’t get paid for airplay while radio claims its great promotion. The only other countries where this happens is in Iran, North Korea and Rwanda, not exactly the most forward thinking in regards to liberty. With this in mind, commercial radio in the US is funded by advertising and is worth $16billion dollars a year, while the entire industry would be redundant without the music that it acquires free of charge.
In an era where physical record sales are dwindling I pose the question, “Is promoting an actual record, promoting the past?” With that said ‘synch licenses’ are becoming a key route to profitability and vital for artists to be able to survive on their music. What are ‘synch licenses’ I hear you say? A synch (meaning a synchronisation license) is when music is used in TV shows, movies, advertising or computer games. Yet in Japan it has almost become the norm to not pay writers and performers for music used in advertising - it's regarded as promotion for the artist's record. MTV uses the same argument and so do many computer games companies. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick even went as far to say “record labels should pay for the privilege of having their music in their games.”
Viacom built the largest television network in the world on the back of playing music videos on MTV without paying a penny for them, (they started paying recently, but only in certain territories outside of the US). Of course it's fair that these companies make a profit, because without them there wouldn’t be the vehicle of promotion. However, one could argue that music videos promote the channel as much as the channel promotes the artist.
So now I’m thinking with all of this in mind, where and how does an artist make their “cash monies”... In my opinion, with record labels taking a larger percentage of live performance revenues, an artist’s/performers key attribute is his or her “brand”. Once the artist solidifies their core audience the fundamental goal must be to hone the brand and everything one wants to represent. Once the public or group of the public buys into you, so will the corporate conglomerates, and thus, you get paid your CASH MONIES...
If for example you consider US radio, performers don’t get paid for airplay while radio claims its great promotion. The only other countries where this happens is in Iran, North Korea and Rwanda, not exactly the most forward thinking in regards to liberty. With this in mind, commercial radio in the US is funded by advertising and is worth $16billion dollars a year, while the entire industry would be redundant without the music that it acquires free of charge.
In an era where physical record sales are dwindling I pose the question, “Is promoting an actual record, promoting the past?” With that said ‘synch licenses’ are becoming a key route to profitability and vital for artists to be able to survive on their music. What are ‘synch licenses’ I hear you say? A synch (meaning a synchronisation license) is when music is used in TV shows, movies, advertising or computer games. Yet in Japan it has almost become the norm to not pay writers and performers for music used in advertising - it's regarded as promotion for the artist's record. MTV uses the same argument and so do many computer games companies. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick even went as far to say “record labels should pay for the privilege of having their music in their games.”
Viacom built the largest television network in the world on the back of playing music videos on MTV without paying a penny for them, (they started paying recently, but only in certain territories outside of the US). Of course it's fair that these companies make a profit, because without them there wouldn’t be the vehicle of promotion. However, one could argue that music videos promote the channel as much as the channel promotes the artist.
So now I’m thinking with all of this in mind, where and how does an artist make their “cash monies”... In my opinion, with record labels taking a larger percentage of live performance revenues, an artist’s/performers key attribute is his or her “brand”. Once the artist solidifies their core audience the fundamental goal must be to hone the brand and everything one wants to represent. Once the public or group of the public buys into you, so will the corporate conglomerates, and thus, you get paid your CASH MONIES...
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Daily Mail’s Record Label???
This could be either the greatest stroke of genius a UK based media company has taken in years or the making of a disaster. The Daily Mail has announced that they will be launching a record company. In my opinion it really depends upon the approach the Daily Mail take. In the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers have a great vehicle for direct marketing as can be seen when they gave away Prince’s (I think that’s what he calls himself these days) album away free with the newspaper.
Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright, in an interview with Music Week, claims the whole project is "very exciting" and that the label hopes to launch its own acts on the world. You see the problem is that the music industry is in dire straits as C.D sales continue to tumble, while the future of the music business lies in live entertainment and sponsorship deals.
Live Nation is a perfect model of how to capitalise on the dramatic change in the ever changing music business. It’s the biggest concert promoter in the world, it employs a 360-degree model that incorporating venues, festivals, artists and merchandise as key routes to profitability. Over the last year or so they have signed long term deals with U2, Madonna and Jay-Z, each rumoured to be worth over $100million.
If The Daily Mail is able to create a similar model, this move could create one of the most forward thinking, relevant media companies the UK have to offer. However, the alternative is not worth thinking about for the UK based newspaper.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
