Industry information that you can actually use
ROYALTY RECOVERY PROJECT UPDATE: ARTISTS DON'T SEEM TO WANT THEIR ROYALTIES So far, only ten out of about 100 artists have collected their share of the $1,000,000 in discovered money collecting dust in a European Performing Rights Organization (PRO). Last month the Moses Avalon Company was engaged by this PRO to assist in locating the US artists that were each due thousands of dollars from the broadcasting of their records in Europe. By European tradition if this money is not distributed to the US artists within two years, publishers in the European community get to KEEP IT ALL. Some attorneys and managers have been responsive and as a result, artists like, Arrested Development, Willy De Ville, Dr. Hook, Sugar Hill Gang, Van McCoy, Lovin' Spoonful, Us3, and Rock Steady Crew, will be receiving between $1,500 and $10,000 this month. However, despite the fact that this money will EXPIRE at the end of THIS YEAR and the fact that we are providing this recovery service for FREE, representatives for some artists have responded with a variety of peculiar reactions, ranging from indifference to irritation. Through his representation, Sting responded immediately to collect his share (which is about $2,500) but declined, with specificity, to express thanks to us for locating his money. (?) Ricky Martin, who is owed at least $90,000, has not responded, even though I personally informed the producer/co-writer of two of his hits, Desmond Child at this month's California Copyright Conference. What gives? In a time when record companies and artists are complaining about lost revenue and shrinking market share, an odd message is being sent: unless it's worth seven figures, please don't annoy us. And they wonder why the public has no respect for artists' complaints regarding the file-sharing of their music. I have asked the Music Managers Forum and NARAS (the Grammy Committee) to assist in contacting these artists. Hopefully, this will help. Here's what one attorney who represents Us3, the legendary British Hip Hop/Jazz act known for the hit song "Cantaloop" wrote: "This
is certainly a great opportunity for artist representatives to provide
a good service to their clients, as this is "found money".
Your system for collecting the Performing Artist Royalty is painless,
and we strongly encourage other entertainment attorneys, managers, and
agents to take advantage of the system you have streamlined so well."
Thank you Mr. Rresnick and Us3, on behalf of all artists on the list. If you go to http://www.mosesavalon.com/rrdap1.htm you can see the list of artists that are owed money. If you know any of them, please refer them or their attorneys ASAP. TIME IS RUNNING OUT.
The talk at a recent bachelor party I attended was not only about women, sports or poker. It was whether or not Sirius had made a good move in buying shock-jock Howard Stern. Okay, to be honest, the party consisted almost entirely of music and broadcast industry dudes; but still, you'd think eight men would have better things to talk about while in Vegas. It reeks of desperation on both sides of the deal. Stern has little choice but to move to a less regulated medium; so, I understand the value of the deal from his point of view. But Sirius Satellite Radio, with its fast-rising debt is taking a huge risk that may not pay off. I know the conventional wisdom: get Stern and get his millions of listeners. But will that pan out when most Stern listeners are not driving the $35,000 cars where you would generally find satellite radio devices? In about 1.5 years, when Stern hits the digital "airwaves," there will probably still be very few low-priced cars with Sirius as a standard feature. Thus, many Stern fans will have to pay about $200 for a satellite receiver and then $10 a month extra for service, just to hear the "King of All Media." I know that some will pay any price, but will enough of his chicken-wing consuming fans subscribe in the next few years to justify the enormous price tag of this deal? That is the $500,000,000 question. Theory #1: It took almost 15 years before cable TV (a very similar business model as satellite radio) became thought of as a "utility" in the American home. During that time the average cable-ready home paid about $11 per month (in 1977) for the service. Cable teetered on profitability for almost a decade and they had no direct competitors until Dish in the mid-1990s. Sirius, conversely, has the same uphill battle, and they're facing a strong competitor, XM Radio, a company that is vying for its market TODAY. Theory #2: Car manufactures move slower than Congress. CD players came into the market in 1980. It took about 20 years before they became standard in cars below the midrange price. During the next 10 years Satellite radio will be competing with the next big gimmick-- INTERNET RADIO, coming to your car far sooner than Satellite, due to the FCC opening up the wireless spectrum. (So I'm told.) Theory #3: Then there are the iPods, whose portability has given Apple a head-start in capturing the car market. And let's not forget traditional radio, which is FREE-and they don't have to pay for the music licenses. (Satellite pays about $200,000,000 a year.) During this decade-long war to gain market share Sirius will be paying Stern regardless of his success. CONCLUSION Lack of market share rising to meet the big salaries will cripple Sirius and lead to XM Radio buying them out. The consolidation of the two leaders (creating a monopoly) will result in FCC "influence" that will likely go into effect on satellite radio by that time--as it has on Cable TV today--and ironically, Stern will once again be entering the realm of his nemesis- decency standards, regulations and fines. [BTW- it is a commonly repeated misconception that the FCC has NO INFLUENCE over cable TV. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). Each state regulates cable TV and sets "decency standards" in their own way. When the FCC applys this legal standard to satellite in a few years, expect more of the same. For more on this: <<http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html>> and <<http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~colleen-oconnor/>>] I hear XM Radio was also negotiating with Stern and if I were a bit paranoid (never) I would guess that XM's strategy was to do nothing more than drive up the sale price so that Sirius would be stuck with tent-poll talent that they could not financially justify. I could be wrong. My argument was not a popular one. Mostly because many in the music business are pathologically optimistic about satellite radio's future. Also, few in the know completely understand why ClearChannel dropped Stern. His show earned the conglomerate 100s of millions in ad revenue. Well worth the $1.5 million in FCC fines they had to pay. So what does ClearChannel know about Stern know that Sirius doesn't? Try this: Stern listeners are generally between the ages of 17 and 35. For the past decade or so this has represented a significant amount of Americans. But here are a few stats from the US Census Bureau to chew on: "Roughly half of the nation's population will be 40 by the year 2010. Right now about 4 million people per year are turning 50 (That's over 10,000 people a day- Moses). Over 40 million Americans are already over 60." WHAT TO LOOK FOR Stern will have to adjust his format over the next five years, if he wants to follow the emotional development of over half of the US population. He will likely blame this on pressure and censorship by encroaching FCC influence over satellite radio, but the truth is in the census numbers; it's about market share, not altruism or freedom of speech. And I have no ill feelings for Stern. I was a fan of his show for a decade. I still tune in between taking calls in my car. But my tastes have matured. Nowadays, due to my 5-year-old, I have more information about what's going on in the world of SpongeBob than I do about Ba-Ba Booey. More
on cable regulations: http://www.cityofbellevue.org/page.asp?view=17022 This article from Forbes disagrees with me: http://www.forbes.com/home/services/2004/10/06/cx_sw_1006stern.html
It started with Disc Makers. Then, like a gold rush, it spread to many CD replicators: a barcode for as little as $30. An item for which one must normally pay $750, and buy from the UPC (United Product Code). Some replicators will even throw it in for "free." Artists have been "educated" to believe that a barcode is required to track sales on SoundScan. But does this $30 barcode really do the same job as the $750 version? There are many misconceptions about how SoundScan and barcodes work. Let's debunk two common myths. 1) Retail stores require a barcode to be on a CD in order to stock it. Not so. Even major chains such as Tower Records don't require them. Major record labels need bar codes on their products because they sell so many different titles. But an indie artist with only a handful of titles in audio CD format is another matter. Many Mom-and-Pop stores, e-tailers, and even major chains will gladly take stock without UPC bar codes. However, iTunes is an exception. 2) SoundScan tracks sales of all CDs. Also not true. Stores that have barcode scanning systems and that also report to SoundScan make up less than half of the record stores in the country. And, regardless, the SoundScan system is targeted toward major labels and large Indies. SOUNDSCAN CONFESSES A Soundscan representative, who would not allow me to use his name, confessed that he would probably ignore a surge in sales from an indie, until the indie label (or act) could prove that the sales were legitimate. This, of course, would take several days to weeks to tabulate; and Soundscan rarely goes back to correct its charts once it publishes them. This occurred only twice in the company's entire history, including a recent example where a chart was prematurely published without data from one of the country's biggest CD retail outlets, K-Mart.) NOT ALL BARCODES ARE CREATED EQUAL But let's say you're thinking of producing 10,000 to 15,000 units. You're more likely to benefit from having a bar code, but there may be a catch: The barcode given to you by the duper for $30 is not an entire, unique UPC. It gives your CD only the middle five of the complete ten-digit code. The front digits which, identify the distributor, remain the same. This practice is called "subbing," and is against UCC policy. Many replicators I spoke with know it's a no-no, but do it anyway, stating that the UPC can't do anything to stop them. Is there a sacrifice on your part? Yes. Each title that gets a UPC needs to have a form filed at SoundScan in order to track sales. Jer Olsen of MusicBootCamp.com, a replication agent that services the US and Canada, says that if you let the replicator send in that form to SoundScan for you, you could get "tangled credit information," and the credit for the sale might go to the distributor and not to the you as the label or artist. Tony van Veen, VP of sales and marketing for Disc Makers, confirms this: "If [the client] forgets to do it, then their stock is not going to be trackable." Replicators usually won't send in the forms for you, and some may neglect to inform you to do it yourself. The bottom line on this issue is that unless your CD really needs the prestige of a barcode, and unless you're going to anticipate putting at least 10,000 units in the pipeline, or are trying to get the product onto iTunes, don't let the offer of a "free" barcode sway your decision-making process regarding who will eventually get your replication or e-tailing business. On the other hand, if it's free, what have you got to lose? Just make sure to fill out and send in the SoundScan forms YOURSELF. Next month: Does your replicator really replicate? As it turns out, some replicators may not be "replicating" at all. Read the entire Duped By the Duper series.
Mo Out |
|||
|
|
Industry News Lobby | Scam of the Month | March-2001| September-2001| November-2001| February-2002| March-2002| September-2002|October-2002| November-2002 |
|
|||||
