[BC] Record Co's about to kill their best friend?

[Rich Wood]

------ At 06:49 PM 3/30/2007, WFIFeng at aol.com wrote: -------

>Sit down. Stay away from sharp objects and read this in amazement:

There are no sharp objects beyond a Swiss Army 
knife with which I can do anything and a few blunt instruments.

>     * Webcasting is to blame for the slump in CD sales.
>     * "CD sales have slumped 25 percent since 2000, while webcasting
>       audiences have grown dramatically."

Maybe my years in broadcasting where we deal in 
huge audiences makes me look at even the largest 
webcasting site and wonder how they survive. I 
recently saw a report that radio is still the 
most important vehicle for music sales, even as we wait to die.

>     * "The United States stands alone among the major developed nations
>       in denying artists any right to collect royalties for performances
>       on traditional FM/AM radio and television."

Those poor, poor, poor record companies. It seems 
to me they're all huge conglomerates. Huge 
conglomerates have never been known for 
creativity. Numbers, maybe, but not creativity. 
Those few amazing record company executives who 
could spot talent miles away, sadly, have died 
(Ahmet Erteg?n most recently) or gone on to other 
businesses and been replaced with empty suits who 
believe artificially generated Boy Bands could 
replace the genuine talent and creativity people 
like Erteg?n discovered over decades.

Even stranger is seeing the very record companies 
that screwed their talent (Little Richard comes 
to mind, among many others) by having them sign 
away anything beyond a one-time payment while the 
companies reaped millions from their work. I'll 
have a little more sympathy for record companies 
when they make amends to all the artists they screwed over the years.

>That webcasting is so powerful it alone is responsible for a 25% decline
>in CD sales since 2000.

>How about record company acts have by and large been sucky since 2000?

That's been my contention for both the loss of CD 
sales and the drop in radio listening. I believe 
someone sampled a rhythm track years ago and everyone uses it.

>Or that record labels are watching the bottom line more than what's
>happening on the street?

There don't appear to be any risk-takers. When 
American Idol provides Sony/BMG with new artists 
that sound like every other new artist, we have a 
problem. 60 Minutes interviewed the meanest of 
the judges and he admitted to making millions 
from the few winners who actually sold CDs. I 
don't see a lot of suffering beyond the TV audience viewing the losers.

>Radio is a chump.
>
>All those music stations have been exposing the record industry's new
>music and future stars and the labels have been making all the money
>from this free over the air exposure. Meanwhile the stations are also
>paying rights fees for the right to make the record labels rich.

I'm sure the term Payola will surface in all 
this. However, if radio stations required 
payments from everyone and listeners were 
informed, it's not illegal. We don't run 
commercials for free. Why should we play records 
and promote product for free. It's a tough call 
because that would seriously limit our playlists 
to songs companies are willing to pay for on a 
station-by-station basis. Two of the largest 
broadcasters have proposed this on a limited 
basis - an hour or two a week. i don't thin it 
ever got off the ground in any big way.

>Who wouldn't want it? Apparently the record industry. And that's why you
>don't have to look any further than the CRB flap over royalty rates for
>Internet streamers to know that radio stations are next.

Kurt Hansen runs a large webcast site. He was 
interviewed by NPR and revealed the figures. He 
currently pays about $48,000 a year. The new 
rates would jump to about $600,000 and, clearly, 
run him out of business. Many large and small sites would follow.

My modest proposal would be to consider each song 
as a commercial. Charge a minute rate. A 3 minute 
song would equal 3 60 second commercials.

The representative of SoundExchange denied the 
fees would put webcasters out of business. Even 
at a minimum $500 yearly fee for Billy Bob's 
favorite music mix how many people will be 
willing to pay even that small amount for a 
hobby? What annoys the Hell out of me is that 
it's all retroactive. Webcasters will be 
bankrupted for doing something they thought was 
legal. Those who paid the current fees, that is.

>So, if the record industry wants to be around in ten years it had better
>cut back the RIAA lawsuits against its customers and back channel plans
>to assault its only remaining friend -- radio -- or else they'll both be
>history.

A subpoena is hardly what I'd consider good 
customer service, even though it can't be outsourced to India.

Something has to be done to rein in this badly 
designed monster. I wonder if the NAB might be 
persuaded to put its fetish against satellite and 
LPFM aside and deal with what I believe will be 
the single most serious threat to media yet. We 
should string up whoever used the term digital 
and made them believe it actually meant perfect quality.

Rich