Money for Music

Digital Frontier Warfare: Artists vs the RIAA and Record Labels

2009-04-06T12:39:00.000-07:00

With cd sales on a continual decline, profit margins for both record labels and artists have shrunk to the point where digital media has become intertwined with success and revenue for both sides in the new music industry landscape. However, there appears to be no guidelines as to how both record labels and artists can make money together off of online monies and it is an issue that is sure to come to a boiling point sometime in the near future for artists who are tired of seeing no money from new experimental online business models or any of the RIAA lawsuits against the very consumers who support them. With this thought in mind, I have devoted this week’s post to two different aspects of the online revenue sharing issue found within the blogosphere.

The first blog post, from the website Torrentfreak, is about how Radiohead has agreed to testify in a landmark filesharing lawsuit. Although, they wouldn’t be the first band to testify in court on the topic, see Metallica, they are making headlines because they are going to testify in favor of the defense. They hope to take a stand against an industry that is killing off artists' consumer bases and show that sharing music actually helps musicians and their music. The second blog post is written by Jennifer Lane for Blog Critics Magazine and is about the attempt to make sure that artists are properly compensated when record labels strike deals in the digital business realm to distribute music. The first attempt to regulate this practice has been the creation of a non-profit organization called the Future of Music Coalition (FOMC) that will lobby on behalf of artists and there will surely be more measures taken in the near future. You can find my responses to these posts below or at their respective webpages.

Radiohead to Testify Against the RIAA
Comment

First of all thank you for the heads up that this was coming in the near future. If there ever were a band in position to take a stand against the RIAA it would have to be Radiohead. Not only are they a band with a big following that is no longer a part of any record label, as your subtitle says, the are a band that made money by giving their music away for free to their consumers. The RIAA should be very worried if this testimony comes to pass what was just another peer to peer lawsuit against a college student will be receiving much more attention from the population and by proxy, scrutiny as well. I have to wonder if the RIAA lawyers are considering dropping the charges because there is no positive endgame for them here, not there ever has been for them, but especially so in this case. A major band saying that filesharing has helped them make money, combined with expert witnesses in the Pirate Bay trial saying that their research has not been able to show that there is a definite link between the illegal downloading of music and the decline of cd sales certainly makes it seem like the RIAA is desperately grasping at straws in a dying business model.

I have to wonder, what exactly do you think the RIAA is getting out of these lawsuits? I guarantee that the lawyer fees themselves are more costly than the damages that are being sued for so it is not like anyone is gaining net profit from these suits. If anything, it seems like the RIAA is helping to create a generation of people that will do anything in their power to not buy music from record labels, as they have been so poorly treated as consumers in the past. What Radiohead has shown, and what the record labels do not seem to understand at all, is that the customer is always right. That and suing the same people who are needed support your company is not very good business sense.

Artist Compensation in a New Marketplace
Comment

Jennifer, thank you for bringing this news to my attention. While I knew that artists probably were not being compensated properly for all of these online ventures, I had no idea that the artists had done anything to try and remedy the situation for themselves. Although I think FOMC has done its intended job by promoting its issues, I wonder how successful they will end up being in changing the landscape to benefit artists. It may not be such an issue for new artists, but for the artists signed as short as three or four years ago, it may be a very real possibility that there is nothing written into their contract about splitting up monies from these kind of online ventures, and their may not be a whole lot artists can do about it. I imagine that if push comes to shove, the record labels would argue that all of these new digital media systems, online music streaming for example, are not for profit but promotion and that the opportunity cost of licensing their catalog is higher than the revenue they receive back from ad supports. I am not saying that this is correct or fair, but rather it really does seem like something that the record labels would try and do don’t you agree?

Additionally, do you think that final goal of the FOMC should be to lobby for another nonprofit entity like Soundscan, or even Soundscan itself, to control the distribution of funds to artists and record labels? It would appear that the best way to make sure that musicians are getting their fair cut of the revenue is for the whole thing to be taken to a third party to reduce the amount of shenanigans that might occur when its time for the record label to pay out. Soundscan has proven to be quite effective for monitoring digital downloads so I think this is an idea that should be considered with some merit.

iTunes New Pricing Scheme: Good Idea or Final Cash Grab?

2009-03-30T12:50:00.000-07:00

The big buzz in the music industry right now is that Apple, after years of resistance, will begin implementing a variable pricing scheme for its iTunes downloads. The pricing tiers would be $1.29 for the new hot tracks, $.99 for the majority of music, and $.69 for music by new artists or old tracks that do not sell as much. Needless to say, the thirty percent hike in cost is drawing ire across the industry. People have strongly disagreed with the timing of this change as the United States continues to struggle in one of its largest financial recessions. The belief among much of the population is that prices should be lowered across the board in order to encourage people to consume new music, especially in the face of illegal music downloading. Furthermore, industry professionals and shoppers alike are calling this change nothing more than one final price grab in a dying business before all of the income dries up and music is offered for free, which I talked about here. Yet, the fascinating part in all of this drama is the fact that five years ago, the record labels were the ones that wanted different pricing for music, and Apple was the one that refused because they felt it would hurt the bottom line for sales. However, with the push for DRM-free music on iTunes by consumers, the labels have finally forced Apple to compromise its pricing.

Although the idea of introducing different prices for music is not new, there are some legitimate issues with Apple’s new changes. As a couple of articles have pointed out, the change to different cost levels would have been much easier before millions of downloads had occurred at the $.99 price. That could be a habit that is hard for a music consumer to break, especially in the current economy, and the total number of downloads might drop as a result. Industry professionals such as Jim Guerinot, who manages musical acts Nine Inch Nails and the Offspring among others, is quoted in the above linked LA Times article as saying, "Wouldn't it make sense to try to price it cheaper instead of squeezing the handful of people who are still willing to pay for music?" Guerinot does have a valid point and raises another issue with this model. Namely, that iTunes still has competitors in music streaming along with Amazon.com’s own music downloading site, a site that continues using a flat rate for each song that is less than what Apple would charge for new singles. Apple could very easily lose market share if people completely reject the system. Another potential problem is that the risk sharing for this venture is not equally spread out between Apple, the record labels and the artists. Certainly if the idea is a huge success no one will be hurt by increased sales or revenue from those sales, but if the concept flops in practice, the burden will be overwhelmingly on artists and record labels. For Apple, iTunes(pictured bottom-right) downloads are ancillary income. They make the majority of their money on selling hardware like iPods and iBooks, iTunes is simply a way to promote these devices. On the other hand, music sales are the major income for record companies and for artists to a lesser extent. If variable pricing is instituted for three months and really hurts sales, labels are going to be in trouble.

However, if done correctly, I think that Apple’s variable pricing system could be an interesting experiment in supply and demand economics and might persuade customers to buy more music in the end. Just like in all other consumer goods, people who want the new and hottest item immediately will have to pay an extra cost for that right. I seriously doubt that a $.30 increase would inhibit people who really want the next Flo Rida single from buying it. Additionally, anyone who decides to be patient and hold off on buying the download will be rewarded with a lower price. An interesting idea that could take advantage of the different pricing levels would be to have alternate pricing for a mp3 when bought as a single or as part of a whole album. For example, a single download of a hot song would be priced at $1.29, but if the single is bought as part of a whole album, the price drops to $.99. This method could be very beneficial to the artist as people may be willing to spend a little bit extra to buy the whole album instead of paying the premium for three singles off of that cd. Finally, it is important that Apple do everything in their power to not portray this change as simply a cash grab. The way to avoid this problem would be to have a significant number of downloads move from $.99 to $.69 to counteract the other shifts upward. As of now, the plan is to still have the majority of music sold at the same $.99 price, but consumers might force Apple to reconsider this tactic.

Still, I believe that this pricing modification could open some other pertinent doors and the experimenting should not stop with only three price layers. It would truly exciting if Apple introduced a one hundred percent variable value scheme for all the music available. They could still set a baseline where the price cannot go below or above, but within that range a song could cost anything based on how many people have bought it during the last week. I would like to see artists with songs that were not promoted as singles, but still quality music, sell for $1.04 cents because the majority of the demand is coming from the musicians core following. The various levels could be used as information by more casual consumers when considering if the whole album is a must have, or if the singles will suffice. Hopefully, Apple does not abandon this idea too early, and I doubt they will because at any rate, as long as the download drop off is less than thirty percent, this venture will probably be deemed a success. From this jumping off point, the possibilities for structured change are only limited by the creativity of Apple, something that they have never had a problem with in the past.

Record Labels: Free Music by 2013

2009-03-09T11:23:00.000-07:00

While last week I talked about the problems facing the live music industry in the coming years, this week I thought it would be relevant to discuss the future of record labels, especially since these music behemoths have apparently convinced themselves of a very specific future scenario. The intriguing interview making the rounds throughout the blogosphere comes from an unnamed record label executive who says that the labels are not as blind as people think, that they see the writing on the walls. More importantly, this unnamed executive revels that by 2013, all music will be free. If there ever were a quote worth its weight in gold, this would be the one. It is morbidly fascinating that record companies not only appear to see the writing on the walls for recorded music, but seem to be totally fine with those prospects (see the picture to the right where record label executives are enjoying throwing themselves off a bridge). Obviously this executive thinks that his company will be making that money off other revenue streams if they are going to be giving music away, which means that the artists are probably going to be the ones to suffer in the long run. Using this interview as a jumping off point, I thought it would be interesting to and find posts related directly and indirectly to the content of the interview. One blog I found, Tech.Blorge, directly commented on the views of the label executive, and provided some interesting and insightful commentary on the implications of making such a statement. Additionally, I took a look at a blog called the Mediafuturist, which is written by Gerd Leonhard, who discusses a band that has forgone labels altogether and given their music directly to the consumer with the help of an iPhone application. Both posts serve to illustrate the huge problem record labels are facing in today’s market. My responses to these two entires can be found below as well as on the respective sites.

Record labels admit music will soon be free, but they have a plan
comment

First of all, thank you for an excellent post and for helping to disseminate this fascinating interview. Although the record companies look like they have finally identified the problem they are facing, their solution functions to show how they got themselves in this mess in the first place. I find it unbelievable that a label executive would come out and say that music would be entirely free by 2013. This does not serve anyone’s purposes, as it seems that he or she is basically indirectly endorsing illegally downloading music, as apparently it will be without cost within the next two to four years anyway. If I am an artist on this person’s label, or really any artist signed to a major label I am angry that someone involved in my livelihood is supporting a practice that hurts me financially. It also seems fairly ridiculous that record companies are absolutely fine with just suing startups and anyone else on the wrong side of the law, while taking money from music downloads and making that their entire revenue. It certainly gives the impression that they are twiddling their thumbs while their companies burn down around them. I think the real question this higher-up needs to ask himself is that in 2013, what happens to the artists that are not signed to these 360 deals? One would think that if businesses started to give music away for free there would be a huge amount of breach of contract lawsuits, which would result in a mass exodus of artists from their respective music homes. Additionally it is hard to believe that labels can still be arrogant and assume that artists still depend solely on them and would be more than willing to sign 360 deals. As you say, "Surely the point is that they now have more options than just taking the first deal thrown at them by a record label" and it should be a point that these businesses need to wrap their heads around or risk continual decline. Would you agree that the majority of established artists probably do not need a giant corporate structure to distribute their music anymore? Even a more middle of the road band like the Presidents of the United States of America has found a way to circumnavigate around the companies by releasing their music through an iPhone application. It might be high time for record labels to start assessing why artists need them at all, and adjust their business model accordingly.

Band offers mobile app for streaming music
comment

Thank you for great post and your insightful commentary is much appreciated. This trend certainly seems very exciting and full of opportunity for artists. For one thing, it offers yet another way of circumventing record labels and providing content directly to the user. If a band like the Presidents of the United States of America (pictured left) can effectively use this sort of tool, I look forward to seeing what a band like Nine Inch Nails or Radiohead might be capable of creating. It looks like there could be a whole new market for web developers who could help big bands that have gone independent create dynamic software interfaces that easily bring content to their fan base wouldn’t you agree? Additionally, these mobile applications also seem like a much more likely alternative to illegal file sharing than the subscription services because of the extra media that consumers get along with the music. As you said, it is not just music, but concert webcasts, video footage, merchandizing, and other avenues. It would be a great asset to bands on tour if they could webcast their concerts and sell them for five dollars to people who want to find out if they are worth going to see, basically a sneak preview of coming attractions. Combined with the fact that mobile apps can support online/offline music listening and most importantly, portability, I think we have a new favorite for the direction the music industry should go in. The only real question I have is do you think that this type of application might cause artists to lose some of their more casual listeners? As you say in your post, "Most artists will probably have basic free versions available" and the implication here is that the majority of well known bands will offer some kind of content app. However I think this could be detrimental because even if the mobile applications for artists are free, at least the basic package anyway, the fact that one would need the specific app to download music makes it unappealing in large numbers. For example would people want to have one hundred apps for one hundred bands, or would they simply have their top ten or so and leave it at that?

Live Music: What Happens when the Heritage Acts Retire?

2009-03-02T12:13:00.000-08:00

One of the more disturbing trends in the music industry today is the rising cost of ticket prices. According to Pollstar, today’s live music consumer attends roughly 1.8 concerts per year now on average and it is not hard to see why. With ticket prices often 60 to 80 dollars, not many people can afford to make shows a regular activity. Part of this rising cost can be attributed to various convenience charges, which I briefly mention here, but that does not explain the full situation. The reality is that concert purveyors such as Live Nation are trying to make as much money as they can off of a revenue stream that is slowly but surely disappearing.

One of the major problems in the concert business that no one seems to have an answer for is what is going to happen when the veritable cash cow of the industry, heritage music acts, decide to hang up their collective shoes and stop touring. Heritage music acts would be the artists that can fill arenas and stadiums alike on any given evening, and make millions upon millions of dollars each time they schedule a tour. Such acts include the Rolling Stones, U 2, and even Madonna. These artists have been around for a long time and have fans worldwide that do not mind paying up for the overpriced tickets at the drop of a hat. In short, heritage acts are a concert promoters dream and they plan to ride the gravy train for as long as it will sustain them. The culmination of this practice could arguably be Live Nation inking exclusivity deals with U2 and Madonna to be their sole promoters for upcoming tours. At the time, people thought Live Nation was crazy for signing Madonna to a multi tour and album deal for 120 million dollars. Yet, it looks like Live Nation made a good call, she has almost made that money back this current tour cycle alone. The next time Madonna goes on tour, Live Nation will be seeing nothing but profit from this venture.

However, the question the industry needs to think deeply about is not how does Madonna still have enough fans to make 100+ million dollars a tour (although that is a valid question unto itself), but rather what happens a decade from now when Madonna decides the rigors of touring are too much and she retires? The Stones and Eric Clapton are in their 60’s, U2 and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are getting up there as well. Sooner or later these artists are not going to care about going on tour anymore because they have made enough money, or they simply get to old to perform at the level they expect of themselves. In theory, retirement should not be a problem, except the next generation of big bands has not filled in the gaps. Better stated: there are only a few newer bands that can consistently fill large clubs and amphitheaters, and virtually none that can consistently fill arenas and stadiums. This is very bad news for the music industry. According to Pollstar’s concert tracking numbers for the past two years, heritage acts basically comprise almost the entirety of the top 20 grossing tours. The box office receipts tell the same story. Although the number of total ticket sales dropped from 2007 to 2008, the revenue actually increased by a slight amount. This is a trend that cannot sustain itself. In ten or fifteen years these artists will most likely not be able to prop up concert promoters like Live Nation and profit margins will start to feel pretty thin.

Still, the people who should be most scared of this dearth of incoming talent are not the promoters, but the concert venues themselves. Lack of musical acts that can fill a place to capacity may not be as important to arenas and stadiums as they are supported by sports franchises in most cases, but they are a serious issue for the larger size venues that have a capacity of around 6000 seats. Such venues in Los Angeles include the Greek Theater (pictured below) and the Gibson Amphitheater. Traditionally, these venues were booked for acts on the way to superstardom as well as those on the downswing of their career from stadium and arena tours. Unfortunately there is not a whole lot of either right now, and it is only going to get worse. For example off the top of my head, I tried to think of fifteen non heritage bands that would consistently sell out a Greek Theater type of venue. I came up with bands like the Kings of Leon, John Mayer, and Nickelback. However, after naming the truly obvious, I struggled to find fifteen. The point of the exercise is this: for a venue to be profitable, it needs to have about fifteen shows lined up per month to meet and cover expenditures while making a profit and I labored to come up with one month of revenue for the Greek Theater. Unfortunately the problems do not end there. In Los Angeles alone, there are four venues that have that 6000 seat sweet spot. There are the aforementioned Greek and Gibson, along with the newly built Nokia Live and even the Shrine Auditorium takes acts occasionally. All of these places need a multitude of acts to fill their venue on a monthly basis to cover the cost of keeping the lights on and quite frankly I am not convinced there are enough bands out there with a large enough following to keep them all open. I would not be surprised in the least bit to see one or two of these venues up for sale over the next decade as the old acts take a permanent break from touring.

Music Dissemination: ISPs vs. Streaming Music

2009-02-23T12:51:00.000-08:00

While much noise has been made recently over the future of live music, especially in light of the pending Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger and its implications, which I examined here, it is certainly not the only aspect of the music industry in upheaval as to where their future may lie. The way in which music is disseminated to the masses is seemingly at a crossroads, and the United Kingdom looks to be the testing ground to see which way the industry heads. One direction is based on working with the oft-maligned Internet Service Providers that would be used to provide record labels a partnership to regain revenue through combined advertising and distribution powers. The other direction is the rise of sites that stream music, whether it is subscription based or an ad supported model. The seemingly meteoric rise of the streaming website Spotify, who just received an exclusive first look at U2’s new album, makes this issue as pertinent as ever. For this week’s post, I thought it would be interesting to examine two blogs that offer opposing viewpoints on the issue. On one side, I look at a post by Mark Mulligan on his Music Industry Blog entitled What the ISPs and the Record Labels Need to Do Next, which looks at what needs to happen to make this venture viable for the future. Additionally, I take a look at a music fan’s thoughts on using Spotify and what that might mean for the consumer. My responses to these posts can be found below and in the comments section of their respective websites.

What the ISPs and Record Labels Need to do Next
comment

It is good to see someone criticize both the record labels and ISPs for their relative inflexibility when they tried to partner the first time around. The potential compromises you have created seem like very viable models that would have good benefits for both sides, especially streamlining their products across all sorts of media, whether that is through online, mobile. Etc. However, regarding your compromise between downloading and streaming, I think you may be understating the most important aspect of MP3’s in that they are highly portable. In today’s age where almost everyone has an Ipod or other MP3 player, portability is a key issue that at least at this stage has not been resolved by streaming music. There was a study done in Los Angeles on driving habits, and although it is a little dated (1999 to be exact) it showed that 95% of people listen to music while driving. It seems that streaming music ignores this important aspect of people’s listening habits. Because of this fact, do you think the idea of having an ISP surcharge that would go toward record labels should hold more sway? Granted it would take a lot of work from government bodies to oversee the pricing and dissemination of these fees, but if they can get together and continue to update the pricing for mechanical royalties every couple of years, the surcharge does not seem totally unfeasible.
Additionally, do you think that the record labels will get their act together quick enough to all create deals with the ISPs before the next wave of technology comes through? Because it is not just one body that controls the music, I am sure that each major label will jockey with the ISPs to get them the most favorable deal splits. It seems like the time that it would take to get everyone to agree to any kind of deal could render that deal obsolete. It could be a Napster situation all over again where the labels do not see future and respond to late. I think this problem is especially pertinent based on some of the new technology we are beginning to see, including the new high speed internet that CERN developed that would be about ten thousand times faster than current broadband. Labels could be cutting deals with ISPs that are only profitable for a very limited amount of time before being stuck in an old way of disseminating music once again.

Spotify - The Future of Music Delivery
comment

This an excellent post on a fantastic new music streaming site. As an American, I have not had to chance to test Spotify out, but I am interested to see how it plays out in the UK and whether or not it ends up being ported to the states. The fact that the developers are currently working on taking it to mobile devices could really make it an attractive option if it is done correctly. I was curious as to what you thought about the pricing levels for Spotify on both the single day and monthly passes. Do they seem reasonable to you and do you think the average UKer would be willing to put money down on it month after month? I am not totally sold on the concept of subscription models at this point in their product cycle for the reasons you mentioned, most importantly the fact that you cannot take them into your car and drive with them yet. As someone who listens to a majority of music while driving, it does not seem like a reasonable expenditure to me yet. Until this portability happens, do you think people will really be willing to switch over from downloading mp3s illegally, as some 95% are done today, to listening to ad based music? Without the portability it does not seem likely that the majority of the population would be willing to switch over to a service that would seem to be inferior to just downloading music and taking it with you, regardless of the legality of doing such a thing.

Along the same line of thought, I am not entirely unconvinced that an ISP surcharge is a bad idea, particularly while the technology for streaming devices is still in the beginning of its product cycle. It would appear that a surcharge would at least provide a blanket to cover all of the illegal downloading and give record labels some much needed cash inflow. It would be interesting to see how it would compete with streaming services if say there was an opt in or out clause that made downloading mp3s legal and free as long as you agreed to pay the monthly fee for that right. If they made the monthly fee’s similar to what Spotify and other streamers charge, do you think ad supported music would still exist as a truly viable option that would dominate the online market?

Devil's Advocate: Why the Ticketmaster/Live Nation Merger Could Help Concert Goers

2009-02-18T09:48:00.000-08:00

Seeing as the purpose of this blog is to explore the relationship between music and economics, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the biggest music industry news of the new year; the pending merger of giants Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Without going into too much depth, as many other places have already chronicled the details, Live Nation has agreed to merge with Ticketmaster and create a concert industry conglomerate worth about 2.5 billion dollars. Much noise has already been made over this event, most of it expounding on how creating this near monopoly will be the end of the live music as we know it (example here). These concerns certainly have merit: Live Nation is the world’s number one concert promoter and owns a substantial number of concert venues in many different cities while Ticketmaster accounts for around 70 percent of concert ticket sales in the United States. Together, this new company would be an absolute force to reckon with and threaten to push ticket prices sky high with little to no reprieve for consumers who want to see their favorite acts or independent promoters who can no longer book competing shows. However, rather than rehash all of the arguments against the merger, I thought it would be much more interesting to instead look at how a monopoly (and make no mistake, this would absolutely create a scenario of monopolistic competition) in the concert business might actually benefit consumers, as well as look at the possible unintended consequences of allowing such a monopoly to exist.

For both companies, their main motive (other than greed) to agree to unify is that it allows them to vertically integrate their business and streamline their operation. By streamlining their business model, they would naturally save money by reducing cost. If Live Nation/Ticketmaster operated in a perfectly competitive environment, these savings would be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower ticket prices in order to get a leg up over everyone else. Even though Live Nation/Ticketmaster would be operating with monopolistic competition, there is still reason to believe that vertical integration will keep ticket prices static for the time being, if not offer lower prices. Reason number one is simply that there is a strong likelihood that integration leads to the death of convenience charges on Ticketmaster. For those who have never had the aggravation of paying these charges, they are costs paid above the ticket price from everything from “venue” charges to the right to print out your own ticket at home and can add a significant amount to the overall cost of a ticket. Most convenience charges are used to pay the venue to help cover the cost electricity, staffing, insurance and other costs commonly referred to as the “house nut” and make them a slim profit. However, because Live Nation currently owns a significant number of venues, they have the option of waiving those costs every time they book a show in a venue that they own (which would be all of the time). If Live Nation thinks it can make the convenience charges back through ancillary income streams, such as parking and concessions, they could likely do away with these charges as a sign of “good will” toward the consumer, and make up the difference in other ways. An added benefit/incentive for Ticketmaster to do away with the convenience charges is to potentially legalize their business in Ontario, Canada where there has been a class action lawsuit filed against Ticketmaster for selling tickets above face value.

Additionally, a merger could reduce ticket prices in one other fashion: by reducing artist clout. A few decades ago, concert promoters often received as high as 20% cut of ticket sales for an artist paired against a money guarantee. Essentially, an artist would be paid a guaranteed amount of money, or a cut of the ticket sales, whichever was higher. However, over the years the guarantees have gotten much larger while the ticket cut for the promoters have gotten smaller, often 5% or less today. This disparity has translated directly to ticket price, as promoters need higher and higher ticket prices just to break even on their artist guarantees. By having a concert promotion monopoly, it is entirely possible that Live Nation could get more favorable deal structures because the artists would not have much other recourse. Granted, this problem is exactly why anti trust laws were written up in the first place, but it could lead to a very real drop in prices.

One final important question to ask about this merger is what are the unforeseen consequences that may arise in the future as a direct result of this monopoly. Other than the obvious one of huge price increases, which everyone else has talked about, I think there might be two major consequences. The first is there may be a void in ticket sellers that ends up being filled by a company that specializes in working with individual artists. Much in the same way that Pearl Jam tried to circumvent Ticketmaster in the 1990’s, it is possible that the major artists get fed up with Live Nation/Ticketmaster and put on a tour that uses neither. Although Live Nation owns a lot of venues, they certainly do not own them all and a big name artist could plan their own tour and set their own ticket prices using this new ticket seller to handle those operating costs. The other consequence could be that Live Nation inadvertently causes a resurgence in the club type of venues such as Roxy or Key Club on the Sunset strip. Although this resurgence could only really hold true if ticket prices stay at their current level or continue to rise, it seems very much in the realm of possibility that people will begin to rather spend 10-15 dollars a ticket and go to a multitude of shows as an evening out as opposed to spending upwards of 80 dollars a ticket only once or twice a year. Who knows, it might be entirely possible that a Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger could lead to the resurrection of CBGB, (see picture above) and that fact alone might make it worth it to throw pure competition out the window.

History of This Blog Part 1: The Linkroll

2009-02-09T13:00:00.000-08:00

For as long as I can remember, music has been a passion of mine. Whether it was saving money to buy a cd, or saving up even more money to buy my first guitar, music created an itch that I have yet to successfully scratch. Although music started as a creative pursuit for me, while attending classes at USC, I have found the business of music to be just as intriguing. It is an industry rife with turmoil, and is more open to new ideas and ways of thinking than ever before. It is with this turmoil in mind that I have decided to create a blog dedicated to exploring how the music industry is changing, with an emphasis on how economics is affecting this change. To keep this blog up to date on the proceeds within the industry, I have compiled a linkroll composed of both websites and blogs read by common people and music insiders alike using various search and blog engines including Google, Best of the Web: Blogs, and Google Blog Search. From these searches I applied standards of criteria to judge their value including the Webby Awards and IMSA blog evaluation guidelines. The criteria include everything from the structure, content, and interactivity of websites, to who the blogger is and where that blogger gets his information. The first tier of links is composed of various national distributed magazines that have an online component and are extremely related to the music industry. These magazines include Billboard and Rolling Stone, as well as The Economist, all of which have wonderfully insightful views on the music business every so often. The second tiers of links is composed of websites read religiously by industry insiders and provide a wealth of information on a daily basis. These websites include Pollstar, Radioworld, and the Music Industry Newswire. Finally the last tier of links, and most plentiful, is composed entirely of blogs written by both industry people and regular people interested in music. These blogs include Jason Feinberg’s Music Business Blog and Kings of AR. Thank you for coming along on this music industry journey with me and I hope that I can provide insightful analysis that sheds a new light on a fascinating industry.