FTFA: "They’ve been hiring H&R types and artist relation managers. Alright, alright, I have no link to the post. But I remember seeing this position when job hunting about a year ago for client-side marketing roles."
I assume the author means "A&R" (Artists and Repertoire) here, but the whole article smacks of an Apple fanboy with no clue about the music industry.
Indeed, as I understand it starting a record label is exactly the one thing which Apple Computer is forbidden from doing, thanks to an earlier deal with Apple Records.
I remember the story that this caused a little bit of concern in Apple's legal department when the first macs with built-in microphones were released. This, supposedly, is the reason why the update of the sound software released with those new macs included the new system beep sound "Sosumi".
I also remember in those days when I read the story how ridiculous the idea that Apple Computer would start a record label sounded. Just a sign of how much things have changed.
Author here: Excellent point. It fits with the story.
With Yoko's late confirmation on Twitter that the Beatles will be on iTunes tomorrow, the last hurdle is clear. The Apple Records/Apple Computer debacle will be put to bed at last as Apple turns iTunes into a label. Yoko, EMI, and the MJ Estate see a fat pay day in exchange (probably no cut taken by apple).
Apple already control the profits and destiny of all the existing record labels by being the gatekeeper of something like ~80% of digital sales (i.e. ~80% of ~99% of all sales, eventually) via iTunes. They have already managed, apparently without waking the slumbering record industry, to sneak in and take over control of distribution - the only profitable thing about being a record label in the first place. Not just one labels, or one markets distribution either, but all of it - all 'legal' digital music retail distribution, pretty much.
I'm not sure that the traditional phrase 'record label' really contains meaning, from here on out, anyway. If I can record some music using my digital studio (shhh, it's just a pc, but don't tell anyone), sign up to iTunes Music Store as an artist and just start selling it, I would. So, not only have Apple pinched the whole music distribution business out from under the majors, they've also provided the opportunity for people to sidestep most of the middlemen altogether. Notably, Apple will also sell you the software & hardware for your digital studio too, if you like.
So, the App store for Recording Artists, not Software Developers, with the artists getting a much bigger (like 20x bigger, or more) cut than they do now. Rating and reviews doing your marketing. Sounds like an idea who's time has finally come. The Monopoly is dead, long live the Monopoly.
There's a certain amount of internal competition within the iTunes market that prevents this working across the board. Also, the 99c thing is pretty sacred - if it went up to $2.50 across the board, there would be a huge backlash, which Apple (being teflon coated) would just redirect to the RIAA/record labels - who everyone already 'knows' are evil anyway; ergo (even more) huge PR disaster for the majors.
That's the problem. Some indie artits may do this, but not nearly enough, due to Apple's approval process. Most actually are refused as you mentioned, and this is why itunes is not a viable option for unsigned musicians, as many sites are not. The industry is catered to major label musicians, and FCC regulation stricken. It does not meet the needs of the unsigned musician. Checkout Pandora's plight.
(*Clueless) Author here: This process isn't streamlined, you need a hearty foundation of financials to accept payment and there's not a whole lot of relations or management support. PLUS: most of the data on this program is no longer in Apple's support. As of last week I couldn't find any process on their site, even with Dev login to iTunes Manager.
Well, I think Apple is going to start a car company, because they already have deals with some car companies to do iPod integration, and all car companies really do is design cars, build them, and put stereo systems in them.
I'm sorry, but this seems like the dumbest idea ever. Apple is a technology product company, not a marketing and touring services company. This would be completely outside their area of expertise, and I don't even really see the justification that it would worth the financial risk. iTunes is making money as the distribution arm for the entire industry...what do they gain by trying to pick up the less profitable parts of the value chain?
In addition, while the author of the post mentions that labels "book tours", he doesn't really delve into how much of a big deal this is. Nor does he cover how labels help setup and finance production.
Apple wouldn't be a traditional record label. They would re-invent the business. They'd probably handle distribution in a way somewhat similar to App Store while outsourcing tours and production of physical CD's--or, perhaps, setting up an ecosystem for artists to hire promotion firms and touring firms like LiveNation while Apple does the distribution side.
What? That makes no sense...Apple is already effectively outsourcing everything except for the distribution. Furthermore, they're not bound by the bizarre economics of trying to make up for 20 loser albums with 1 spectacular winner; Apple makes roughly the same amount on each song they sell. And with the way the music industry is going, it hardly seems clear that it would be a good idea to move more in the direction of a label, even a non-traditional one.
I don't agree with the general thrust of this post, but first, some nitpicking:
"Because in the end, all a label really does is market, distribute, and schedule tours."
No actually. For starters, touring is generally handled by the artists and their managers. Up till now, it's been uncommon to have labels involved -- although this is changing as we see majors scrabble for more money.
The author is also forgetting the actual production of the music. A label generally fronts the money for a producer, engineer and studio time. Not to mention the mastering required for distribution.
This isn't to say labels are the only avenue for funding recording, but it is one important thing that they do and that the imaginary Apple label won't.
"Digital music has reached an audience where this makes sense. 25% of all music sold in the US (physical and digital) is sold through iTunes."
That's impressive, but 25% still means there are a lot of other retailers shifting music. I can't imagine artists -- especially independent ones -- limiting themselves to just that chunk of the market. The only way around that is if Apple starts distributing music through other retailers. Not likely in my opinion.
"They’ve been hiring H&R types and artist relation managers."
A few AR and HR hires does not translate into the kind of marketing needed to support thousands of individual artists. If they did start a label, Apple may forego this, but a few hires is not evidence enough.
We should not underestimate the importance of _individualised_ marketing for artists. I have a hard time seeing Apple doing this.
"Why Jay-Z? Well, Jay-Z isn’t really on a major label."
He does run a label though. I don't think he wants to cut himself out of the loop by helping Apple launch a label.
One of the major roles a label has is to editorialise. They hunt for and preen artists. They pay for recording, they tailor the marketing and distribute the music. How can Apple do this on a large scale? If they can't do it on a large scale, why would they bother?
Is it open to all artists or are they going to pick and choose? Pick and choose means limiting the scale of the operation. Making it open risks having Apple associated with music and ideas that conflict with their tightly controlled marketing. Retail is just retail, but being a label means "blessing" the content. I can't see Apple wanting to lose that control.
I really don't think the author understands how music gets produced and sold. I know it's popular to underplay the role of a label and simply conflate them with distribution, but in reality it's more complex. Some labels are arguably leeches and some work really hard to make their artists successful. Irregardless, they're not easily replaced by some monolithic Apple label.
I'm not going to weigh in on the likelihood of this happening at all.
But if it did, I don't see why it couldn't function like the App Store (but for artists instead of software developers): let anyone publish music, the good stuff floats to the top the same way it works for iPhone apps.
> I really don't think the author understands how music gets produced and sold.
Isn't this kind of the whole point, though? The old way of music getting produced and sold is outdated. The industry will go through its own revolution, just like all the others, even if the labels don't want it to.
> The author is also forgetting the actual production of the music. A label generally fronts the money for a producer, engineer and studio time. Not to mention the mastering required for distribution.
Why bother paying for all of this, when (as the author mentions) you can just do it yourself? Equipment is only getting cheaper and cheaper, and as far as mastering goes, well, "MP3 is enough" (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/radiohead_guitarist_mp3...)
> We should not underestimate the importance of _individualised_ marketing for artists. I have a hard time seeing Apple doing this.
Yep, we won't, because who better to market the band than the band itself? Why pay somebody, when you can make a myspace/facebook/twitter/whatever and plaster it everywhere? Now, branding is still pretty important, but still, quite a huge part of the traditional marketer's job has been replaced by the Internet.
> One of the major roles a label has is to editorialise. They hunt for and preen artists. They pay for recording, they tailor the marketing and distribute the music. How can Apple do this on a large scale? If they can't do it on a large scale, why would they bother?
I don't mean to sound insulting, but it's early and I can't think of a better way to phrase this. My apologies.
Have you read The Long Tail? Why bother doing anything on the large scale? This attitude reeks of the Old Way of Thinking. If you don't believe in that, then fine, but really, all of that stuff is silly. That's what the old labels do, let them keep that, go after the vast majority of music instead.
Now, I don't know if Apple will actually do this or not, but it would make quite a bit of sense, and has the potential to make them quite a large bit of money. But I won't deny that I'm biased by my hatred of a backwards, self-centered, oligarchy of an industry. So, who knows?
Luckily, we only have to wait a few hours to find out, right?
"The old way of music getting produced and sold is outdated."
Recording processes haven't changed that much. If you have a band, recording still means sound-proofing, monitoring, mic selection and positioning; all the stuff an engineer does. If you're doing anything more complicated than a demo, this is not trivial. This costs money.
I agree when people criticise current retail and distribution -- physical distribution is expensive and wasteful, not to mention the fact that it inherently limits your audience. However to sell music -- enough to make a living -- just sticking it in a retail chain is not enough. You need to think about who the audience is, where they buy music, how you can promote your music to them etc. Again this is time and money.
"Why bother paying for all of this, when (as the author mentions) you can just do it yourself?"
Because mixing down and mastering is a skill in and of itself. There are plenty of musicians with these skills, but not as many as you think. The problem here is conflating writing and performance with recording and production. Related, but separate, requiring a different set of skills.
"Equipment is only getting cheaper and cheaper, and as far as mastering goes, well, "MP3 is enough""
Agreed, equipment is not the issue. It's now possible to get high-quality results with minimal gear -- assuming you have the skills. However, just because your target format is MP3, that doesn't mean you have to spend any less time or effort on the mastering. The final mixed stereo audio file needs to get the most out of the format. Issues to consider: downsampling, dithering and dynamic range.
"Yep, we won't, because who better to market the band than the band itself? Why pay somebody, when you can make a myspace/facebook/twitter/whatever and plaster it everywhere?"
Two reasons. Firstly, marketing is a lot of work. It takes time. Artists have a finite amount of time, so it's useful to be able to delegate it to marketing folk. Secondly, just jamming info on facebook etc, is not a replacement for an actual marketing push. Doing that in a coherent way takes knowlege and skill. Again, there are artists that can and do do this, but not everyone wants to devote the time to it.
"Now, branding is still pretty important, but still, quite a huge part of the traditional marketer's job has been replaced by the Internet."
That's wrong in my opinion. The internet has just become another medium for marketing. It's not a question of the internet replacing marketing, it's a question of who does the marketing on the internet, the artist or some professional they hire?
I'm not saying pro marketers are the only way to go, I'm just saying they're attractive part of getting involved with a label.
"I don't mean to sound insulting"
It's fine, I understand the internet makes it a bit hard to say critical things in a nice way :)
"Have you read The Long Tail? Why bother doing anything on the large scale?"
The problem here is thinking like this:
Labels = Major Labels = RIAA = Evil
In other words, you've been trapped into thinking all labels are large, slow-moving, customer-hostile entities, that labels on the whole are incapable of changing, while discounting the things they do for artists. I am not defending major labels -- I think they're largely fucked -- but it's naive to say that labels on the whole are incapable of participating in a changing market.
"Luckily, we only have to wait a few hours to find out, right?"
Yeah, and it turned out to be horse-pucky. I think we'll see some more inventive permutations of labels, but it's not gonna come from Apple.
Why? In order for that to be the case, all the other functions that labels provide need to be:
1. More profitable than what iTunes already does
2. Something that Apple has the expertise to be able to do
3. Worth the risk of labels ditching iTunes
#3 is fairly important...I wouldn't put it above the labels to get together and pull out of iTunes en masse.
Author again: #3 is the reason they didn't do this ages ago. Now that they comprise a quarter of all music being sold, there's simply no way for the labels to walk. Even if they all agreed to, one could stay and reap the profits. If they managed to split all at once they risk being caught as a cartel (but they never could pull it off).
Apple essentially owns the most valuable market they exist in. They can't walk.
