It's not often that I find myself agreeing with (or even interested in) stuff coming out of 50 Cent's mouth, but for once, he seems to understand his surroundings in the music world. An excerpt follows:
Pål asked 50 Cent: “How are G-Unit Records doing in these times of file-sharing?
“Not so good.” he responded. “The advances in technology impacts everyone, and we all must adapt. Most of all hip-hop, a style of music dependent upon a youthful audience. This market consists of individuals embracing innovations faster than the fans of classical and jazz music.”
“What is important for the music industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists.”
Thats quite a statement. Organizations like the RIAA are always talking about how the artists get hurt by file-sharing but 50 Cent clearly doesn’t agree. In fact, he appears to appreciate the value of a good fan, whether he buys or file-shares his music, as he explains:
“A young fan may be just as devout and dedicated no matter if he bought it or stole it.”
Indeed. It’s been said time and time again - get the music out there by any which way, fill the gigs and capitalize on the merchandising and ends will meet. 50 Cent agrees:
“The concerts are crowded and the industry must understand that they have to manage all the 360 degrees around an artist. They, (the industry), have to maximize their income from concerts and merchandise. It is the only way they can get their marketing money back.”
He finishes up: “The main problem is that the artists are not getting as much help developing as before file-sharing. They are now learning to peddle ringtones, not records” he said.
“They don’t understand the value of a perfect piece of art.”
Showing posts with label P2P. Show all posts
Showing posts with label P2P. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Oh, Canada!
Oh, those crazy canucks. The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) has proposed a $5 monthly fee on the internet, collected by ISPs, in order to compensate artists for songs being transferred via P2P sharing. Yikes. Not that many people would really notice that extra charge (considering they probably already pay a good bit in weird taxes and fees above their rate quote), but this just ISN'T a solution. First of all, how does the revenue from this get distributed fairly and evenly? Chances are pretty good that the vast majority (if not all) of the funds will go directly into the pocket of the major labels. Not only that, but since this would be a new thing, the labels wouldn't be contractually obligated to pay ANY of it to the artists. And if the labels needed another way out of paying the artists, there's no way of tracking exactly how many times each artist's music is downloaded. So what it would come down to is essentially the government taxing people because they're not making as much money as they're used to. Great.
But think further--wouldn't the movie industry want in on this, too? I mean, clearly music isn't the only thing getting pushed and pulled through those tubes of the internet. Heck, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but isn't porn likely to have about as many downloads, too?
Let's break down a few numbers:
Canada's Population= 32 million
Multiply by approx 2/3, since presumably not each individual has their own internet account= 20 million
x $5 = $100 mil
x 12 months = $1.2 billion (1/1000th of Canada's GDP--that's a pretty significant tax)
That's no chump change they're throwing around. Especially since not everyone (in fact, percentage-wise, relatively few) downloads music and movies for free. In fact, it's double punnishment for those who choose not to steal--not only are they taxed for things they don't get (taxation without representation!), but they're also still paying for the music they want.
Am I insane, or is exploiting loyal customers a bad strategy? Clearly the labels are not flat broke (by any stretch), so the majority of people still do evidently pay for their music--why make them pay again?
If, somehow, this proposition gets through, don't be surprised if download rates skyrocket and music sales plummet in Canada. The oldest lesson is business is if you piss your customers off, they'll find alternatives. Why can't industry folks put their money and business accumen to use towards a constructive, rather than destructive solution?
But think further--wouldn't the movie industry want in on this, too? I mean, clearly music isn't the only thing getting pushed and pulled through those tubes of the internet. Heck, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but isn't porn likely to have about as many downloads, too?
Let's break down a few numbers:
Canada's Population= 32 million
Multiply by approx 2/3, since presumably not each individual has their own internet account= 20 million
x $5 = $100 mil
x 12 months = $1.2 billion (1/1000th of Canada's GDP--that's a pretty significant tax)
That's no chump change they're throwing around. Especially since not everyone (in fact, percentage-wise, relatively few) downloads music and movies for free. In fact, it's double punnishment for those who choose not to steal--not only are they taxed for things they don't get (taxation without representation!), but they're also still paying for the music they want.
Am I insane, or is exploiting loyal customers a bad strategy? Clearly the labels are not flat broke (by any stretch), so the majority of people still do evidently pay for their music--why make them pay again?
If, somehow, this proposition gets through, don't be surprised if download rates skyrocket and music sales plummet in Canada. The oldest lesson is business is if you piss your customers off, they'll find alternatives. Why can't industry folks put their money and business accumen to use towards a constructive, rather than destructive solution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
