New Business Model for Survival of Artistes and Music Companies
WHY DO WE NOT HAVE GOOD MUSIC NOW A DAYS
Today I read an article in HT Café ‘Sabse bada rupaiyya’ by a very old friend of mine Parag Kamani, a music industry old timer. He has expressed his concern about the lowering quality of music in the recent times.
Yes, there was a time not long ago, when music companies used to sign multi album record deals with artistes/ groups, pay for recording, and promotional videos. Besides, the recording artists/ groups were provided with a fair share of the revenues from sales too. The musicians/ performers were also an integral part of family.
Now, ther are record deals, studio recording costs still exist, there are pay outs towards composers and/ or studio musicians, and there is the making of inevitable video, among the several other expenses. But the difference now is that the artists wanting to sign a recording deal requires to pay for all these expenses.
While it is easy to fault of the record companies for ‘exploiting’ the artistes-after all the artistes should be left doing what they do best i.e. perform. The model has changed since the sales are barely taking place the old fashioned way- being purchased in a physical format initially vinyl record then cassette and now predominantly CDs as far as the International Music is concerned although cassettes are still a major force to be reckoned in the low price segment and especially rural and small towns.
Record company may argue that there is no income from sales in this manner so where is the resume model for them to invest in artistes ? Paradoxically, the question has an answer that rings ‘True’ or ‘False’
No doubt there is a loss in revenue through the conventional sale. .And there are several artistes- established or at least identifiable- those that have still backed there creative juices by funding virtually the entire gamut of recording process and have kept the
recording ready for release. However, the artistes have been told to find out sponsor for making video and/ or someone to offset the recording/ marketing costs. There are instances when the record companies have actually funded the recording costs but now want to tie it with a percentage of all future revenues earned by the artiste, whether it is from the live performances or the income generated from commercials/ acting opportunities, prior to launching an already ready product.
Is this termed as protection by the record company or should be dubbed as ‘exploitation’
By the artiste? Do not arm twist the artiste once he has completed his hard creative work.
Is there truly a revenue model that exists where both the artist and record company are in win-win situation. Sponsoring a product is the simplistic solution, but both the record company and artiste must reach a consensus as to how much money required. The other solution is to effectively market the product from what it is or was known as ‘new media’ i.e. digital space. Both the parties should consider providing consumer an opportunity of downloading the recording content for the free. .It will not be a charity but utilizing a formula where the downloadable music on the net is interspersed with ads.
Can artists and financially ailing record companies consider this as a new revenue model
Today I read an article in HT Café ‘Sabse bada rupaiyya’ by a very old friend of mine Parag Kamani, a music industry old timer. He has expressed his concern about the lowering quality of music in the recent times.
Yes, there was a time not long ago, when music companies used to sign multi album record deals with artistes/ groups, pay for recording, and promotional videos. Besides, the recording artists/ groups were provided with a fair share of the revenues from sales too. The musicians/ performers were also an integral part of family.
Now, ther are record deals, studio recording costs still exist, there are pay outs towards composers and/ or studio musicians, and there is the making of inevitable video, among the several other expenses. But the difference now is that the artists wanting to sign a recording deal requires to pay for all these expenses.
While it is easy to fault of the record companies for ‘exploiting’ the artistes-after all the artistes should be left doing what they do best i.e. perform. The model has changed since the sales are barely taking place the old fashioned way- being purchased in a physical format initially vinyl record then cassette and now predominantly CDs as far as the International Music is concerned although cassettes are still a major force to be reckoned in the low price segment and especially rural and small towns.
Record company may argue that there is no income from sales in this manner so where is the resume model for them to invest in artistes ? Paradoxically, the question has an answer that rings ‘True’ or ‘False’
No doubt there is a loss in revenue through the conventional sale. .And there are several artistes- established or at least identifiable- those that have still backed there creative juices by funding virtually the entire gamut of recording process and have kept the
recording ready for release. However, the artistes have been told to find out sponsor for making video and/ or someone to offset the recording/ marketing costs. There are instances when the record companies have actually funded the recording costs but now want to tie it with a percentage of all future revenues earned by the artiste, whether it is from the live performances or the income generated from commercials/ acting opportunities, prior to launching an already ready product.
Is this termed as protection by the record company or should be dubbed as ‘exploitation’
By the artiste? Do not arm twist the artiste once he has completed his hard creative work.
Is there truly a revenue model that exists where both the artist and record company are in win-win situation. Sponsoring a product is the simplistic solution, but both the record company and artiste must reach a consensus as to how much money required. The other solution is to effectively market the product from what it is or was known as ‘new media’ i.e. digital space. Both the parties should consider providing consumer an opportunity of downloading the recording content for the free. .It will not be a charity but utilizing a formula where the downloadable music on the net is interspersed with ads.
Can artists and financially ailing record companies consider this as a new revenue model
Comments
Post a Comment