why do record labels still send out promos?

[george]

in the age of widespread file-sharing, is it really worth having a new album leaked months in advance? i bet highly anticipated albums like "the new romance" would sell alot more copies (initially at least) if nobody heard them before they were available in stores. i mean, supposedly promos are meant to create buzz and generate hype, but at this point i think you would get twice the hype if your record was kept completely secret until it's release.

and while we're on the subject... don't people miss the old days when this didn't happen? remember how excited people would get about upcoming releases? i really miss that a lot.

i've come to really loathe file sharing. being able to listen to anything at any time for free has made music really disposable. yeah, maybe cds are overpriced, but at least having to invest money in an album made you kind of demand your money's worth. it also made people approach albums less cynically. when you have to blow $12 on an album, you WANT to like it. just look at discussion boards like "i love music". totally joyless. it's all just "this sucks.. next! this is ok. next! this sucks. next! this sucks. next!". blahhhhhhh...

[TheSadDebaser]

I've been thinking lately if records are really worth buying/listening to at all as opposed to seeing bands live.

[vesper]

Live shows can be really wonderful, but sometimes I prefer the recordings. Black Dice is my case in point. I saw them with Godspeed last February and was bored senseless. I just recently acquired Beaches and Canyons and love it (assuming I have a pair of headphones handy). I still probably wouldn't go see them live - unless it was to see if my first experience was simply tainted somehow.

[wut wut]

i agree with whoever started this thread, and for those reasons only.

[Patrick]

Well, reviewers need to hear the record in full, and see the artwork, in order to review it prior to release - or even on release. (Remember most mags run on a 3-month advance schedule or so.)

Similarly radio programmers, store buyers, etc.

These people don't want to just get digital files, at least not yet. And even if we did service them with (likely inferior audio-quality) digital files, or even (inferior visual-quality) digital artwork, that wouldn't solve the problem of the music getting out there earlier - it might even exacerbate it.

We're resigned to the music getting out early, and hoping that people still buy the record anyway - since the ones who care want the good sound, the good artwork, and the satisfaction of listening to a record the way the artist wanted them to listen to it. So far, this strategy seems to be working. At least as long as we continue putting out great music.

Patrick

[Jason]

Originally posted by george

i've come to really loathe file sharing. being able to listen to anything at any time for free has made music really disposable. yeah, maybe cds are overpriced, but at least having to invest money in an album made you kind of demand your money's worth. it also made people approach albums less cynically. when you have to blow $12 on an album, you WANT to like it. just look at discussion boards like "i love music". totally joyless. it's all just "this sucks.. next! this is ok. next! this sucks. next! this sucks. next!". blahhhhhhh...


Just ignore it. I do. I don't even know HOW to use Soulseek, etc.

[Miss Tasty Princess]

Originally posted by Jason
Just ignore it. I do. I don't even know HOW to use Soulseek, etc. Same here.

[frank]

I agree with the initial sentiments about file-sharing making music disposable and devalued. Me, when I do download something it can take weeks before I get around to listening to it, whereas when I buy something it generally goes into heavy rotation immediately. Why? Cause I had to go out and make the effort to find and buy it, it cost me hard-earned money... I have something invested in it. Not so with mp3s. I refuse to download albums I know I'm going to be buying on day of release - I like the ritual of going to the store, finding it on the shelf, buying it, peeling off the cellophane, etc etc. I'm a tactile kinda guy.

As for soulseek, I had that installed and managed to download something once. I have no idea where it went, though.

[9000]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/business/media/22INDY.html?pagewanted=prin
t&position=

September 22, 2003
Upstart Labels See File Sharing as Ally, Not Foe
By CHRIS NELSON


Four years ago, Rich Egan couldn't fathom the usefulness of Napster.

Mr. Egan, the co-owner and president of the independent music label Vagrant
Records, had heard about the software — which let users trade songs over the
Internet without paying artists or labels — and could not imagine how such a
setup could benefit his business.

But as soon as Mr. Egan tried it, he was hooked. Today he says — seemingly
counterintuitively — his label simply would not exist without file-sharing
services like Napster and its successors KaZaA and Morpheus.

Even as the major labels of the music industry pursue file traders for
copyright infringement through lawsuits and the court of public opinion,
Vagrant and many other independent label owners cheer them on. File sharing,
these owners say, helps their small companies compete against conglomerates
with deeper pockets for advertising and greater access to radio programmers.

"Our music, by and large, when kids listen to it, they share it with their
friends," Mr. Egan said. "Then they go buy the record; they take ownership
of it."

As the music industry suffers through its third consecutive year of falling
sales, a decline the major labels say is primarily a result of file sharing,
Vagrant is one of many independent labels having some success. Of the 100
top-selling albums of 2003 through Sept. 14, six come from independent
labels and collectively have sold six million copies, according to figures
from Nielsen SoundScan. During all of 2002, only four independent releases
made the Top 100 and together they sold 5.5 million copies.

And in an industry where the five major companies — the Universal Music
Group, which is owned by Vivendi Universal; BMG, a unit of Bertelsmann; AOL
Time Warner Inc.; the Sony Corporation; and the EMI Group — have more than
80 percent of sales, the independents have actually increased their market
share this year by nearly a full percentage point.

By no means have the independents escaped the music business's three-year
sales slump. In 2002, album sales dropped 17.3 percent, to 650 million
units, from the year-end total of 785 million units in 2000. They are down
another 8.6 percent for the first eight months of this year, compared with
the period last year. "The industry's in a disastrous situation," said Josh
Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research. File sharing, illegal CD
burning, competition from other entertainment and the weak national economy
are all cited as contributors to a downturn that has led to layoffs and
budget cuts.

In January, one of the best-known independent labels, Artemis Records, laid
off 15 people, 40 percent of its staff, said Danny Goldberg, its chief
executive, who started the label in 1999 after running major labels like the
Mercury Records Group, Warner Brothers Records and Atlantic Records. "It's a
battle," added Alan Meltzer, chief executive of Wind-up Records. "We go to
war every day fighting for our little piece of territory."

Nonetheless, the sense of worry that permeates the mainstream industry does
not consume the independent labels to the same degree. Wind-up, which is
distributed in the United States by BMG, is one of the more successful
modern independents. "Fallen," by the rock band Evanescence, has been a
staple of the Top 10 for the last six months and has sold more than two
million copies. Creed's "Human Clay" (1999) has sold more than 11 million
copies, making it the seventh-best-selling album since SoundScan began
tracking sales in 1991.

For some independent label executives, their confidence stems from
subscribing to unconventional barometers of success. (For this article, an
independent label is one that is majority-owned by a person or group outside
of the five majors, although it may be distributed by a conglomerate.
Because the independent companies surveyed are privately held, none would
reveal annual earnings.) Success for Vagrant, Mr. Egan said, means bands can
make a living from their music. Most Vagrant albums turn a profit after
selling 25,000 copies. Some albums on the independent Minneapolis hip-hop
label Rhymesayers Entertainment can be profitable after selling just 10,000
copies, according to Siddiq Ali, the label's co-owner and chief executive.

Financial success for a major label release often does not start until half
a million copies are sold.

"None of us are buying Bentleys," Mr. Ali said, but the label's modest
recording and promotion budgets are quickly recouped. The label's
best-selling album, "God Loves Ugly" (2002) by Atmosphere, has sold 71,000
copies.

Jaime Meline, who co-owns the Definitive Jux hip-hop label and raps under
the name El-P, counts his company fortunate because it has cash on hand to
pay for six months' overhead and continues to split album earnings 50-50
with artists. (Major label artists often earn about 10 percent.) Definitive
Jux's most popular disc, "Fantastic Damage" (2002) by El-P, has sold 48,000
copies.

In recent years, major labels, much like the movie industry, have depended
increasingly on first-week sales to determine whether a release will be a
hit. The cost of bringing a CD to the public, which often includes hiring a
consultant to get a single on radio and a top director to shoot a video, not
to mention the tab for recording, can run into millions of dollars.

If a CD does not show smash-hit potential immediately, a major label is
likely to stop promoting it to concentrate on the next possible blockbuster,
sometimes even dropping the band. Independent labels will often promote an
album, single or tour a year after a CD's release. An informal survey of
independent labels that vary in size from tiny (4 employees) to relatively
large (50 employees), and in genre from rock to country to hip-hop, found
executives crediting their successes to developing artists' careers over the
long haul rather than the pursuit of immediate hits.

A prime example is Vagrant's rock band Dashboard Confessional. Their first
album for Vagrant, "The Places You Have Come to Fear the Most" is also the
label's most successful release, having sold 434,000 copies. But it took two
and a half years to reach that total, Mr. Egan said.

That constant promotion continues to pay dividends. Dashboard Confessional's
third album for Vagrant, "A Mark, A Mission, A Brand, A Scar," was No. 2 at
its debut on Billboard magazine's album chart and has sold 256,000 copies in
two months. The group is featured on the cover of the October Spin magazine
and recently performed on "Late Night With David Letterman."

"An artist may make his or her best record three albums in, four albums in,"
Mr. Egan said. "We'd like to be there when they make that artistic
statement."

Building an artist's career and building a fan base to support that career
go hand in hand. As radio station playlists have shrunk in recent years,
independent labels have turned to other avenues, including file-sharing
software, to help listeners discover bands.

The unified response of the major labels has been an effort to shut the
file-sharing programs, charging they foster piracy and, in turn, displace
sales. On Sept. 8, the Recording Industry Association of America sued 261
file-sharers. The trade group represents the major labels and numerous
independents.

Vagrant and Palm Pictures are among the independents that encourage file
sharing. But even those who frown on it, like executives at Wind-up, Artemis
and Definitive Jux, acknowledge that unauthorized downloading has been
useful for exposing their artists to new audiences hungry for music.

"In artist development, file sharing — it's not really hurting you," said
Chris Blackwell, the chief executive of Palm Pictures, an independent label
manufactured and distributed by the Warner Music Group. Mr. Blackwell, who
in 1959 founded the independent Island Records, the original home to Bob
Marley and U2, likens file sharers not to shoplifters, as the major labels
do, but to grass-roots promoters whose efforts eventually increase sales.

"You want people to discover your artists," Mr. Blackwell said. "You're
building for the future."

That tack may prove dependable, but it is still a volatile time in the
industry.

"That's the chess game," said Mr. Meline of Definitive Jux, "to be able to
hold on to the company and to still continue to grow while the rest of the
industry is just completely going down in flames."

[chabysinisterra]

Well, reviewers need to hear the record in full, and see the artwork, in order to review it prior to release - or even on release. (Remember most mags run on a 3-month advance schedule or so.)

i remember when i used to scribble reviews for a little zine a few years back. i got a few matador promos. they never came with the artwork, though, as nearly as i can remember. band photo: check; press kit: check; but never the artwork. out of curiosity, why would a reviewer need to see the artwork?

[Paul]

Yeah! That Matador promos I buy (at stores which shall remain unnamed) usually come in a white sleeve sporting a black & white sticker on the front with the song titles and the release date.

[mojo]

interesting interview here...

http://www.mundanesounds.com/555.html

[Paul]

You know what? Boo hoo. Should I be feeling sorry for 555 just because it's a small label? It's obvious to me that their business model was just as behind the times as Universal or Warner Music. A few labels, Matador included, who embraced internet technology from the get-go, will come out alive at the other end of this storm.

If 555 really does shut down, the bands themselves should be fine. The owner himself says right in that article that he can't be bothered with looking into the new technologies. And, really, if the label's that disinterested in making money, its days were numbered anyway.

[mojo]

I don't think anyone should feel sorry. It was just an opinion.

I just thought it was interesting. I know if I had started a record label when I wanted to, I'd have had to have used MP3's more than I'd have wanted to.

I'm of the stance MP3's used in an interesting way and with the artists full consent, can work well. But I'm also a bit wary of how MP3's are seen more and more by people as something they're getting for free.

which isn't really how it should be.

I like what we're doing across the Beggars Group - the Digital Singles idea is a start, although I would include videos in that format. But thats probably a debate for somewhere else...

[Paul]

Originally posted by mojo
...I'm also a bit wary of how MP3's are seen more and more by people as something they're getting for free.

It might not be too late to rectify this error, but the fact that almost no one in the business anticipated the p2p boom until after it happened means labels are constantly playing catch-up now.

I remember reading articles in the early 90s which predicted instant album purchases online, complete with cover art and other perks. At the time, it sounded outlandish and improbable. After all, was anyone going to wait 12 hours to download a few songs when they could drive down to the store and have the finished product in just a few minutes? The music industry knew this would be too much of a hassle for most consumers and sort of brushed the concept under the rug. Enter broadband ISPs. High speed connections popularized p2p networks because the industry wasn't quick enough to act on the predictions of a few analysts from a decade ago.

In 2003, people want everything NOW. It's just the way it is. All modes of industry are starting make adjustments, and some are having problems. The music industry just gets the spotlight, though.

[9000]

where does matador/beggars opinion fall? is the wave of technology perceived to be more helpful or more of a hinderance to traditional sales?

[mac]

Originally posted by Paul
[
In 2003, people want everything NOW. It's just the way it is. All modes of industry are starting make adjustments, and some are having problems. The music industry just gets the spotlight, though. [/B]

I'm not sure this is the issue with the 555 article. It's the fundamental shift in attitude of 'kids' these days. Downloading & file-sharing is, quite unfortunately, an acceptable means for acquiring new music. Without any impetus for actually buying the product and supporting the artist (or in this case, small indie label).

AND This guy is completely baked: "Our music, by and large, when kids listen to it, they share it with their
friends," Mr. Egan said. "Then they go buy the record; they take ownership
of it."

& then they go buy the record? really? based on the last time I was was in my local independent record shop (not to mention the 1,000's of shops that are closing, and have closed, nationwide) apparently not.

technology can be embraced when it's an effective tool for communicating and promoting new releases in the record industry. NOT when it replaces purchasing CD's.

[george]

paul, you are apparently very pro-file sharing. tell me: in a future world where everyone has the ability to get the music they want for free, how will musicians support themselves? what should that 555 done differently? their story seems to me to make absolute logical sense and i believe we'll start seeing more and more cases like theirs.

[Paul]

Originally posted by george
tell me: in a future world where everyone has the ability to get the music they want for free, how will musicians support themselves? what should that 555 done differently? their story seems to me to make absolute logical sense and i believe we'll start seeing more and more cases like theirs.

While I am pro file sharing, I don't think it's right that certain people just take and take without ever giving anything back. I hear a lot of stuff. I buy what I like. But now, unlike before, I don't have to blow cash on what I don't like. Still, the longer the industry keeps wasting time with lawsuits on 12 year old girls, the longer it will take to actually develop some sort of internet presence that rivals Kazaa or Audiogalaxy or even Soulseek. Offer preview streams for free, and then high quality downloads for a price. Sounds good to me! The only caveat would be selection. Without putting up everything they still hold licensing for, illegal p2p sharing will still prevail (due to having no such boundaries).

555 was doomed from the beginning. The most telling signal of that was when he said he couldn't be bothered to look into modernizing. It's apparent (to me, at least) that the guy's desire to bitch and moan outweighs his desire to stay in business. Companies that operate that way always go belly up for one reason or another.

I'm no psychic, but I don't see the music industry in ten years even resembling the mess it is today. If someone like me (a former hardcore appreciator of digging through racks and racks of used cds and an enjoyer of the packaging on the better ones) can turn a 180 and collect things in a digital format almost exclusively, then anyone can.

[bitterfruit]

Filing a lawsuit against an innocent 66 year old woman chaps my ass.

[vesper]

Kinda-sorta related, I wonder how this will pan out.

http://www.wral.com/technology/2508685/detail.html?treets=ral&tml=raldigs&ts=T&tmi=raldigs_1_03150009242003

RIAA Drops One Lawsuit, Faces One From Kazaa
66-Year-Old Sculptor Called 'Neophyte'


The maker of the most popular file-sharing network is turning the tables on record labels even as they have to drop a lawsuit against one suspected music pirate.

Sharman Networks -- the company behind Kazaa -- is suing entertainment companies for copyright infringement.

The federal lawsuit filed this week accuses the companies of using unauthorized versions of Kazaa software in their efforts to snoop out users.


The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."

Earlier this month, recording companies sued 261 music fans, claiming they were illegally distributing hundreds of digital song files apiece over the Internet. However, the RIAA withdrew a lawsuit that accused a 66-year-old Massachusetts woman of illegally sharing hundreds of songs.

The woman says she never even had the technology to do it. Sculptor Sara Ward was said to have offered more than 2,000 songs, including rapper Trick Daddy's "I'm a Thug."

The industry threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 dollars for each song.

The Boston Globe reported that Ward's lawyer described her as a "computer neophyte" who never even put file-sharing software on her computer. The suit was dropped, but the industry says it reserves the right to refile the complaint.

[george]

Originally posted by Paul
Offer preview streams for free, and then high quality downloads for a price. Sounds good to me!

i think you're being a little naive. and by "a little" i mean "very". the industry could set up something like that, but things like soul seek will still exist. so it would be a matter of "ok, i can open this program and download the new flat top tony album for $10, or i can open this program and download the new flat top tony album for free". like most indie bands, flat top tony's fans are 18 - 24 years old. most don't have credit cards. honestly now, which program are they going to choose? that's right.

it seems like most people with your view on the situation paul envision a world where most people will pay $10 for a clear conscience. that's very cute.

555 was doomed from the beginning. The most telling signal of that was when he said he couldn't be bothered to look into modernizing.

that doesn't answer my question of what you think they could have done to save themselves.

[tinobeat]

I wrote a tremendously long and stupid answer initially. I deleted it, here's a shorter, hopefully less-stupid answer.

Originally posted by george
that doesn't answer my question of what you think they could have done to save themselves.

1) maybe nothing. restaurants and bars close all the time because of poor business. record labels close all the time because of poor business. small indie labels going out of business isn't a new phenomenon. But its not file-sharing's fault. We're in a recession. business is bad for everybody. believe me, I know.

2) publicize more using avenues he might not have thought of. He's married to this idea of "punk rock" that honestly doesn't work anymore. kids download music. these same kids also go to shows and buy records. its not one or the other.

I dunno, it sucks that 555 is closing, I liked the label. It sucks that Slumberland's closing. I'm sincerely sorry, but a lot of it is luck, but its mostly a lot of hard work convincing people to like what you're putting out.

I dunno, its hard. there's no easy answer.

[McMurdo Sound]

I agree completely, I think filesharing is slowly but surely killing music. I recently read an article in the Cleveland Freetimes where one of the file sharer programers was stoked that soon their will be no need for the physical form of music. That just seems really disgusting to me, I love spinning records and holding the actual artwork in my hand. Everything has to be convientant now,why can't people just go out and buy records like it always has been. Fuck Technology

[Paul]

From McMurdo's homepage: "I listen to records not CDs or MP3's (yes I am a fan of music not a cheap fuck)"

Ooh, how precious. You're a vinyl purist.

[McMurdo Sound]

Hahaha yes you caught me.

[george]

Originally posted by Paul
From McMurdo's homepage: "I listen to records not CDs or MP3's (yes I am a fan of music not a cheap fuck)"

Ooh, how precious. You're a vinyl purist.

ho! only slighty less obnoxious than a website that claims to be the word of god.

[McMurdo Sound]

Heart.

[Paul]

Originally posted by george
ho! only slighty less obnoxious than a website that claims to be the word of god.

Blame the Mink Lungs. They wrote the lyric.

[tinobeat]

now, now, kids...

I actually have been really into george's argument, though I don't entirely agree, but he brings up extremely valid points. The main one being "the kids don't know what paying for music means anymore," and honestly, I can't answer that.

I know *I* spend far more than I should on music, considering my income, and I also download mp3s to learn about things. If the whole world was like me, the music industry would be making money out the ass. But I don't know what the average 16-year-old does, and george makes a very strong point. Just as I use the internet in ways people 10 years older than me just didn't grow up with, people 10 years younger than me *could* have a completely skewed perception.

I still need to see hard evidence that that's why the industry is failing, because I don't. 1) 555 Records demise seems more like a combination of bad luck and insufficient marketing (mostly the former), which is nothing new, and 2) the major music industry is still running a racket that shouldn't be legal (as *gasp* Orrin Hatch put it: "the way the system works is that the artist pays the mortgage and in the end still doesn't own the house" (paraphrased). Everyone gets paid heartily *except* the artist, unless they go at least gold. Its an antiquated system that should die and get replaced ASAP.

But george is admirably taking a different tack from the usual kneejerk "its stealing, plain and simple" crap and really going into the ethics and psychology of it. So yeah, this thread's been very civil so far, so lets keep it this way, because its really fascinating. so everyone, be cool.