Warner absorbs Roadrunner Records EU and UK, people lose jobs, bands get pissed

[TribunalRecords]

Can you please define 'real distributor'?

Sony/RED, Caroline/EMI, Fontana, ILD, East/West (if still around), etc.

 

[dcowboys311]

Ok, well given that the criteria are that bands need to be able to make at least $25,000/year per member per year for singing about dragons or zombies or Satan whatever and said bands need to have the right connections to get their albums stocked in Best Buy, yes, DIY will not work.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I don't know

The thesis of every one of your posts in this entire thread. I'm not bullying your or anything like that by saying that, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know, so let's not make bold claims you can't backup brah?

how much of that is profit, or how much they pay their distributers for copies to sell on the road, or how they get those. What I'm saying is that if bands went to a distro and said "here's 5000 CD's. Get them out there, and take your cut."

100% is profit. How dumb do you do think a band is to willingly sell something it doesn't make a profit on and compete it against another item that it does make a profit on? The only time it isn't profitable is when you factor managers and other third parties that take extra %'s off merch sales and the band ends up with nothing on the backend, but that's the band's decision.

Bands that sell records on the road get those records two ways: 1) either they are guaranteed x amount of free copies (this usually comes out of an advance though) or 2) the band buys copies from the label at a retail rate (usually $6 per) and sells them on the road. Either way the band gets 100% of the profit from those sales.

The way I understand it working now, is that a distro/label will say "we have exclusive rights to get your CDs out there, and not even you can get more without our say so."

I don't know what you mean by "get more" but the typical royalty rate for bands is 15%. However, records sold on the road is another story. They buy the CDs from the label and sell them at shows for the same markup/profit margin as a regular retailer.

but I really think the change that needs to happen is that bands need to sell lots to Distros to do with as they will for a small % of profit. Example, if BandX sold to DistroY a lot of 5000 CDs for $3 a CD and DistroY sold them for $10 a pop, then BandX already has their $15,000, and now DistroY has $35,000 of profit. Meanwhile, BandX now has all of those CDs extra to sell at any of their shows, any small metal shops, or on their website. The work needs to shift from Distros to bands. Bands need to sell their own shit to make maximum profit.

First of all, we all need to stop confusing a label with a distro. A distro is a secondary middle man that ships product to stores. They don't print the product, they don't market the product, and they don't advance any money to pay for the creation of the product. Distros just distribute, and they take a very small cut for their services.

Second of all, you can't sell a CD for $3 and make money. The standard is around $6 and the profit margin for labels (or whoever is responsible for pressing the CD) is around $3 after pressing expenses (when people tell you it only costs a few cents to make a CD, they mean the CD itself, but they don't factor into account that pressing the art, multiple booklet pages, etc increases the costs exponentially).

Lastly, what "extra" CDs to sell at shows are you talking about in your example? You said they sold 5,000 CDs to the distributor - so what extra?

Labels should have similar deals in place with bands. Bands should be able to cut a deal for a label to sign them for X dollars, or X sales, and not see a penny from the Label until those numbers have been eclipsed. The problem as I understand it now, is that bands are NOT free to do what they will with their own product, or can't recoup 100% profit in any way.

Depends on the label and depends on the deal. Lots of labels do progressive royalty deals where the royalty rate for the band increases after a certain sales milestone is met. Other times labels do licensing deals where the royalty rate for the band is 50% or higher and all of the recording costs are on the band to take care of. A notable band to get such an agreement is Periphery, who signed licensing deals with Sumerian, and (ironically) Roadrunner.

 

[nailz]

When a band signs to a label they are signing their music over to the label to OWN it for designated time in the contract. They are getting ready to invest a ton of capital in it so they want to OWN IT.

If it's not working for the bands anymore, then eventually that's going to stop. If piracy continues to be "detrimental", labels and distros are going to stop buying these music endeavors, and bands are going to adapt, find a better way, and it's going to become apparent that other bands can follow suit. We're already seeing it with bigger bands, especially and most notably Nine Inch Nails; Trent Reznor fucking around with models like this.

Labels sell CDs to bands. i have never heard of a label not selling CDs to bands who want to take them on the road with them.

That's silly. Bands should be able to press their own product.

This discussion looks good on paper, but it's not a reality at all.

Coming from a distributor, I have a hard time not taking your argument with a grain of salt.

 

[TribunalRecords]

Ok, well given that the criteria are that bands need to be able to make at least $25,000/year per member per year for singing about dragons or zombies or Satan whatever and said bands need to have the right connections to get their albums stocked in Best Buy, yes, DIY will not work.

That is my criteria for my own band mind you, if i told you that KWD has sold 30,000+ units collectively of our catalog would you deem that successful? it's a matter of opinion. But i cannot live off that money for my lifetime so therefore i have what i hope to remain my career, my record labels.

Best Buy doesn't even work for labels with distro. Best Buy has so many hoops labels need to jump through to get product stocked there it's not even funny. Even FYI selects stock from a few distributors and that is it. It's all a big dance we labels must go through.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Can you please define 'real distributor'?

Sure, a distributor that gets your record in stores as opposed to a mail order distro or something like tunecore or CDbaby.

I'm being objective mind you, so don't think I hold E1 or Sony/Red higher in regard than tunecore or CDbaby when I use the world "real". If anything, I think much much more highly of tunecore or CDbaby than I do "real" distributors.

 

[TribunalRecords]

If it's not working for the bands anymore, then eventually that's going to stop. If piracy continues to be "detrimental", labels and distros are going to stop buying these music endeavors, and bands are going to adapt, find a better way, and it's going to become apparent that other bands can follow suit. We're already seeing it with bigger bands, especially and most notably Nine Inch Nails; Trent Reznor fucking around with models like this.

And why was Trent Reznor able to do this? because of all the years on a major label funding his videos and tours and EVERYTHING so that he could amass this following thus allowing him to do whatever he wants now.

Smaller bands DO NOT have this luxury and you seem to forget that. Sure they can follow his path and not see a fraction of his sales.

BLIND GUARDIAN could do that same thing now as well, but all these new power metal bands cannot because why? BG had EMI and Century Media and now Nuclear Blast funding promotion, etc for the last 20 years making them a household name. When was the first time you heard Blind Guardian? and how did it happen? I bet marketing the record labels paid for had something to do with it.

 

[TribunalRecords]

Coming from a distributor, I have a hard time not taking your argument with a grain of salt.

I am a record label, not a distributor. I have a little distribution of products that i have traded with a few labels, but a distributor i am not.

 

[nailz]

The thesis of every one of your posts in this entire thread. I'm not bullying your or anything like that by saying that, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know, so let's not make bold claims you can't backup brah?

Because everyone says the system doesn't work but never presents another option, and those who know how the system works yell vehemently when people say the system needs to change.

100% is profit. Bands that sell records on the road get those records two ways: 1) either they are guaranteed x amount of free copies (this usually comes out of an advance though) or 2) the band buys copies from the label at a retail rate (usually $6 per) and sells them on the road. Either way the band gets 100% of the profit from those sales.

100% of the profit after they buy their own product. My point here is that a band should be free and clear to create their own media to take on the road and rather than having to buy their product back after they've signed it away, they should be primarily responsible for creating their own product and then selling it to the distributors to do with it what they will, and pay labels to promote their product. I guess my main point here is that Artists should keep the rights to their material.

First of all, we all need to stop confusing a label with a distro. A distro is a secondary middle man that ships product to stores. They don't print the product, they don't market the product, and they don't advance any money to pay for the creation of the product. Distros just distribute, and they take a very small cut for their services.

Thanks for the clarification. My bad.

Second of all, you can't sell a CD for $3 and make money. The standard is around $6 and the profit margin for labels (or whoever is responsible for pressing the CD) is around $3 after pressing expenses (when people tell you it only costs a few cents to make a CD, they mean the CD itself, but they don't factor into account that pressing the art, multiple booklet pages, etc increases the costs exponentially).

Ok, if it costs $3 to print a CD, bands could sell them for $4 each to a distro, distros could sell them for $7, and stores could sell for $10-12. Bands could sell them for $7 at shows, keep $4 of profit per sale. It costs next to NOTHING to distribute digital media, as well, which would be a huge bonus at shows. If bands make a large majority of money at live gigs anyway, what does it matter if they don't make a huge amount from a large distro? Especially for a smaller band. If the distro wants more, the band presses more and sends it to them.

Lastly, what "extra" CDs to sell at shows are you talking about in your example? You said they sold 5,000 CDs to the distributor - so what extra?

Any amount of theoretical CD's they pressed. If you want a number, lets say they pressed 10 billion theoretical CDs.

Depends on the label and depends on the deal. Lots of labels do progressive royalty deals where the royalty rate for the band increases after a certain sales milestone is met. Other times labels do licensing deals where the royalty rate for the band is 50% or higher and all of the recording costs are on the band to take care of. A notable band to get such an agreement is Periphery, who signed licensing deals with Sumerian, and (ironically) Roadrunner.

Those seem like pretty good deals, as far as I know and the short context of this forum topic.

 

[TribunalRecords]

That's silly. Bands should be able to press their own product.

How is that silly? If a band signs to record label X, then record label X owns their music and therefore they press the CDs. Why would record label X, having spent money on recording, mastering, promotion, pressing, tour support, etc then let that same band press their own CDs and go sell them? the bands DO NOT OWN THEIR MUSIC anymore until the contract expires.

This is going around in circles because I don't think you understand how the industry works. Not trying to be mean, but bands on labels pressing their own product? sure DIY bands do it, because they are "Doing It Themselves" if you sign a record deal the record label is doing it.

 

[nailz]

And why was Trent Reznor able to do this? because of all the years on a major label funding his videos and tours and EVERYTHING so that he could amass this following thus allowing him to do whatever he wants now.

Smaller bands DO NOT have this luxury and you seem to forget that. Sure they can follow his path and not see a fraction of his sales.

I was giving an example of a producer who's decided to take this route. I undertand that he's able to do it because he's got his own financial backing and ability to experiment, but someone has to pave the way.

When was the first time you heard Blind Guardian? and how did it happen? I bet marketing the record labels paid for had something to do with it.

I was at a friends house talking about DnD and LARPING, and she played me some Blind Guardian. Every band I hear of now is mostly by word of mouth or shows I go to. If it wasn't for word of mouth I still wouldn't know who Blind Guardian is. I have no idea where or how these labels advertise, and I am just on the other side of the fence of "casual" metal fan. You might want to consider that these Labels aren't reaching people as readily as you think they are.

I am a record label, not a distributor. I have a little distribution of products that i have traded with a few labels, but a distributor i am not

Sorry, your flashing "Tribunal Distribution" banner threw me off.

 

[nailz]

How is that silly? If a band signs to record label X, then record label X owns their music and therefore they press the CDs. the bands DO NOT OWN THEIR MUSIC anymore until the contract expires.

This is going around in circles because I don't think you understand how the industry works.

THIS IS GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THAT ALL I AM DOING IS PROPOSING AN ALTERNATE BUSINESS MODEL OF BANDS OWNING THEIR OWN MUSIC AND NOT SIGNING THEIR WORKS AWAY.

Also, lol "the way the industry works." I think you mean: "The way the industry is failing miserably."

 

[TribunalRecords]

I was at a friends house talking about DnD and LARPING, and she played me some Blind Guardian. Every band I hear of now is mostly by word of mouth or shows I go to. If it wasn't for word of mouth I still wouldn't know who Blind Guardian is. I have no idea where or how these labels advertise, and I am just on the other side of the fence of "casual" metal fan. You might want to consider that these Labels aren't reaching people as readily as you think they are.

"Word of mouth" is a long chain. And usually begins with label promotion, PR firms, videos, Ads, etc. Point is the label started the chain somewhere and in Blind Guardian's case the chain was started 20 years ago, it just continues to this day because of the amount of capital invested all those years ago. I can probably name twenty other german bands from the mid-80's you wouldn't know who they were, because their labels didn't invest as much money as EMI did in BG back then.

 

[nailz]

That's really terrible logic, and an unprovable statement. I found out about Freternia through Napster when searching for Elvenking. Would you attribute A&M Records for 2 Freternia Disc sales? I heard about Elvenking on the BG forum. I would never have been there if it wasn't for a 20 year old chain started by EMI years ago. Do we attribute EMI for that find, too?

 

[TribunalRecords]

THIS IS GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THAT ALL I AM DOING IS PROPOSING AN ALTERNATE BUSINESS MODEL OF BANDS OWNING THEIR OWN MUSIC AND NOT SIGNING THEIR WORKS AWAY.

Also, lol "the way the industry works." I think you mean: "The way the industry is failing miserably."

Well, you keep mentioning record labels in statements bands being on labels but then pressing their own records. there are two paths and they are as follows.

1) Sign to record label, record label owns your music until contract expires. Bands tour and sell cds they buy from the record label at shows, but in return they get promotional budgets, video budgets, tour support, etc. A wealth of investment capital labels have for bands that they wouldn't normally have.

2) DIY Route where the bands fund everything themselves, press and distribute their own music. Pay for video budgets, tour support, ads campaigns, PR firms, etc.

Just to clarify your posts constantly mesh the two and there cannot be both. Even if the business model for the labels is "failing" they will not give up ownership of music if they are investing their capital.

 

[TribunalRecords]

That's really terrible logic, and an unprovable statement. I found out about Freternia through Napster when searching for Elvenking. Would you attribute A&M Records for 2 Freternia Disc sales?

Apples and oranges. Those are new bands, BG is 20 years old and around before the internet.

But funny if you consider Napster "word of mouth" you were advertised to by Napster because of your love of Elvenking, no?

Not sure how Napster works, but if pitched to you as a "similar artist" or "here's another artist you might dig" that is Napster advertising their music to you because it's their goal to sell as much as they can to each consumer, no?

 

[TribunalRecords]

And some website charge labels for that extra little bit of exposure, not saying Napster, but other sites. So even if people think they are finding out about bands on their own they are being advertised to by record labels.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

100% of the profit after they buy their own product. My point here is that a band should be free and clear to create their own media to take on the road and rather than having to buy their product back after they've signed it away, they should be primarily responsible for creating their own product and then selling it to the distributors to do with it what they will, and pay labels to promote their product. I guess my main point here is that Artists should keep the rights to their material.

I'm not even sure if I want to continue debating with you on this because you've just confirmed to me that you don't know how business works. Here's a protip though: you cannot sell a physical product without paying for it to be manufactured first. There is no difference between a band buying records from its label and bands buying records from a pressing plant (which in some cases can actually be more expensive). You still have to "buy your own product." That's how business works. You don't just get the records for free to sell them - not sure what planet you were living on to even think that.

Ok, if it costs $3 to print a CD,

HURR BUT OH NO THEY'RE BUYING THEIR OWN PRODUCT HA DURR

bands could sell them for $4 each to a distro

Okay.

distros could sell them for $7,

uhh...

and stores could sell for $10-12. Bands could sell them for $7 at shows, keep $4 of profit per sale.

I don't think you understand the concept that this is happening already and it's no different from a band buying CDs from the label. When you say "bands could sell them..." they don't grow records from the record tree, they still have to pay to have them pressed. This is not rocket science. You are LITERALLY going around in circles arguing for the same thing you are criticizing.

It costs next to NOTHING to distribute digital media, as well, which would be a huge bonus at shows.

agreed 100%. But this isn't news though.

If bands make a large majority of money at live gigs anyway, what does it matter if they don't make a huge amount from a large distro? Especially for a smaller band. If the distro wants more, the band presses more and sends it to them.

First of all, not all bands make a large majority of money from gig fees, only the bigger ones do. MOST bands make nothing from gigs, and small touring bands will make enough to barely cover living in a van for 2 weeks. Also, if you don't care that bands won't make that much from CD sales, why are you arguing for better royalty rates?

tl;dr you are contradicting yourself, not sure if you even know what you want here.

 

[nailz]

But funny if you consider Napster "word of mouth" you were advertised to by Napster because of your love of Elvenking, no?

Not sure how Napster works, but if pitched to you as a "similar artist" or "here's another artist you might dig" that is Napster advertising their music to you because it's their goal to sell as much as they can to each consumer, no?

Lol no. I searched for Elvenking and found a song called "woods of the elvenking". This was when napster was strictly P2P and you just browsed other people's shares and queued up what you wanted. There was no sales.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

THIS IS GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THAT ALL I AM DOING IS PROPOSING AN ALTERNATE BUSINESS MODEL OF BANDS OWNING THEIR OWN MUSIC AND NOT SIGNING THEIR WORKS AWAY.

Also, lol "the way the industry works." I think you mean: "The way the industry is failing miserably."

The only one going around in circles here is you, because you have no clue what the hell you're talking about arguing for the same thing your criticizing and pretending one is different than other because you think you're internet angsty trying to posit a NEW SYSTEM.

You also have a lot of nerve to heavy-handedly deal death knells to the industry when you A) have no idea what you're talking about and B) we're in a shitty economy right now and everyone's hurting. If EA can get get bought out by a shitty Korean company due to horrendous loss of profits over ONE GAME, it's obvious that it isn't just the music business that's hurting now.


And by the way, you've been high-horsing your job, but when the student loan bubble bursts due to unemployment and kids stop going to college simply because they can't afford it, who will complain then hmm?