Ok so my question for my dissertation isn't 100% pinned down but at the moment it lays loosely around this:

 

"Should record labels have a target number of CD sales for an artist to reach to be classed as “successful” or should there be other methods of measurement to deem an act as successful?"

 

It would be great to read some thoughts on this and if anyone knows of any good articles they have seen online or in the press feel free to let me know and ill have a read :) If you know of any books I will be A - stunned! and B - forever grateful :)

 

Personally I am thinking these "other" methods should include sustainability and consistency with their performance. I mean e.g. Alphabeat, they where consistent if i recall and their touring was successful in mid size venues, so should they really have been dropped just because they where not no.1 or top 5. every single? Should artists really have to sell 300,000 albums to be classed as good enough for a label to keep?

 

Or Darren Hayes, who despite no longer being with a major has been able to sell out a full UK tour (Ok so it was a yr or 2 ago, but it just sticks in my head). Should his consistency with successful touring and strong fanbase not have been taking into account?

 

you get the gist of where I am going right? :)

Should you not write your dissertation yourself?

 

I didn't have any help with mine ;)

Should you not write your dissertation yourself?

 

I didn't have any help with mine ;)

 

ahuh :rolleyes: and believe it or not asking for opinions and ideas from people is part of the process..... sheesh bitter much? Clearly your dissertation topic wasn't of much interest to people if you spoke to nobody about it then?

 

and oh get this... I WILL have to interview people too and *shudders* quote them... heck thats going to eat into the word count of things i should have written myself *damb* :arrr: :unsure: :dance:

ahuh :rolleyes: and believe it or not asking for opinions and ideas from people is part of the process..... sheesh bitter much? Clearly your dissertation topic wasn't of much interest to people if you spoke to nobody about it then?

 

and oh get this... I WILL have to interview people too and *shudders* quote them... heck thats going to eat into the word count of things i should have written myself *damb* :arrr: :unsure: :dance:

No, it was science based (field work) and in the 90s before the internet took off to help me :lol: Not bitter, I am just questioning the value of asking random people on the internet for help with something as important as your degree.

Only in the case of bankruptcy (whatever it is spelled) or lost of money. ^_^

Some won't care about the aim because they have a lot of money. :D

Edited February 3, 200916 yr by funmaker11

No, it was science based (field work) and in the 90s before the internet took off to help me :lol: Not bitter, I am just questioning the value of asking random people on the internet for help with something as important as your degree.

 

its not quite as random as if I went onto any other forums I read, this one is peers with an interest in music and the charts and artists regardless of sales in many cases. A perfect place really in my opinion to use as a sounding board.

 

Gosh I'm starting to think perhaps this is why I haven't posted much since cool clarity closed.

Ok so my question for my dissertation isn't 100% pinned down but at the moment it lays loosely around this:

 

"Should record labels have a target number of CD sales for an artist to reach to be classed as “successful” or should there be other methods of measurement to deem an act as successful?"

 

It would be great to read some thoughts on this and if anyone knows of any good articles they have seen online or in the press feel free to let me know and ill have a read :) If you know of any books I will be A - stunned! and B - forever grateful :)

 

Personally I am thinking these "other" methods should include sustainability and consistency with their performance. I mean e.g. Alphabeat, they where consistent if i recall and their touring was successful in mid size venues, so should they really have been dropped just because they where not no.1 or top 5. every single? Should artists really have to sell 300,000 albums to be classed as good enough for a label to keep?

 

Or Darren Hayes, who despite no longer being with a major has been able to sell out a full UK tour (Ok so it was a yr or 2 ago, but it just sticks in my head). Should his consistency with successful touring and strong fanbase not have been taking into account?

 

you get the gist of where I am going right? :)

 

 

in girls alouds book they said that their debut album never sold as well as expected and they were unsure whether their would be a 2nd album, so id imagine record labels would require a certain amount of sales for each single and album they release to cover their costs and make a profit worthy of another album. for example hear'say sold in excess of 1,000,000 copies of 'popstars' but their second album 'everybody' sold around 200,000 copies - now, in reality polydor would have wanted around 400,000 plus, but they still were willing to invest in a third album, provided the lead single ('lovin is easy') got into the top ten. but to cover the costs of that their second tour was cancelled.

Edited February 3, 200916 yr by robjames18

I'd say the word 'downloads' needs to be included somewhere in the topic title as CD's have an ever decreasing share of both singles and albums markets... Or just have sales rather than CD sales.

 

Like all business the music industry is about returns and profitability. Two scenario's: A record label may spend loads of money promoting an act worldwide. However to recoup that money they'd have to sell a million tour tickets and 5 million records. They sell exactly that, a million tickets and 5 million records. Another band may have a much smaller budget, one which would only have to sell 100,000 tickets and a million records for the record company to break even, but they sell 200,000 tickets and 2 million records. Which band has been more successful and which act is better to go with in the future?

 

Merchandising is something else which needs to be considered, a large number of (especially young) people wear t-shirts with band names on, especially rock/metal bands. They're sold in fairly sizeable quantities too, especially in most HMVs, it might be worth contacting one to see if you can get any information on it.

its not quite as random as if I went onto any other forums I read, this one is peers with an interest in music and the charts and artists regardless of sales in many cases. A perfect place really in my opinion to use as a sounding board.

 

Gosh I'm starting to think perhaps this is why I haven't posted much from cool clarity closed.

Hmmm, I guess this could be one way of getting some raw facts/opinions I guess. Ignore me, my degree wasn't in anything I am interested in (what is your degree in then, Media?)

 

For the record, I think touring success is way more important for bands for their record companies as that is where the money lies. Album sales usually follow from successful tours, and singles success is relatively pointless from a money perspective.

 

 

Hmmm, I guess this could be one way of getting some raw facts/opinions I guess. Ignore me, my degree wasn't in anything I am interested in (what is your degree in then, Media?)

 

For the record, I think touring success is way more important for bands for their record companies as that is where the money lies. Album sales usually follow from successful tours, and singles success is relatively pointless from a money perspective.

 

 

I do Music and Entertainment Management as my degree @ LIPA (set up by Paul Mc Cartney). The reason I am focusing on sales is down to something Anne Harrison said in a masterclass we had the other week that one of the majors require artists to hit 300,000 album sales to even think about doing anything else with them.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you know the act will be consistent at 200,000 albums for e.g. and will tour well, have consistently charting singles, then pump less money into the deal to even up the recoup with the spending.

 

Rabbitfurcoat - u r of course right about downloads, i think i just wrote CDs down at the time i came up with the question so i wouldn't loose my train of thought. Ill amend it to save any future fudges :) Thanks! Funny you mention HMV - I can actually speak to somebody fairly high up there to see if they can put me in touch with whomever would be able to get me figures on merch :)

I personally think a label should aim to make a certain ammount of money from an artist through a whole album campaign, not necessarily just judge success on total sales.

 

Sometimes they reduce an album loads so that it sells loads but hardly any money is made and some artists sell loads of singles but hardly any albums.

RFC has already pointed out the major flaw of your question.

 

Interesting topic should keep you busy! :)

 

Firstly you’ll have to ascertain how much weight record companies place on download sales, CD album sales, touring and merchandising ect. This will depend on the nature of the contract as often touring and merchandising can be far more lucrative than album sales and often acts are signed to a different entertainment organisation for this.

 

My view is that if a lot of money is spent on a campaign or ear, the record company will try to break even at the least, whether most of the money comes from gigs, albums or anything else it doesn't matter if the get a good return. Also if a respected artist sold well on all their other eras and not on a most recent one they won't necessarily be dropped, e.g. Sugababes, with their latest era that has undoubtedly lost the record company some money but that doesn't matter when they've made so much money previously so they are trusting them with another era.

It all comes down to simple profit and loss calculations. A band or act that costs nothing (like Tupac after he died) can stay on a label for years and make a profit for them even though the band in question only sells 200,000 units per campaign. The absence of an expensive video and promotion costs means their overlay is recouped. On the other hand Hearsay, as someone mentioned above, would have had loads of money spent on promoting their 2nd album, only for it to be a relative flop, despite selling 200,000.

Edited February 3, 200916 yr by Giselle

i think it also depends on the record label. some major record labels may spend more on a certain artists then other low profile record labels that dont have much money to offer and therefore the bigger companies need more money back to break even.

Also if a band or solo artist is writing/producing there own music like Take That or coldplay they wont have to cover costs to the writers etc.. whereas someone that has high profile writes/producers writing all there songs etc.. might mean the record label have to give more money away to other sources.

Also if a band or solo artist is writing/producing there own music like Take That or coldplay they wont have to cover costs to the writers etc.. whereas someone that has high profile writes/producers writing all there songs etc.. might mean the record label have to give more money away to other sources.

 

Songwriters aren't paid upfront, they are paid royalties from sales and performance so it doesn't make any difference whether an act writes their own songs or not.

Alphabeat werent dropped. They left.

Alphabeat were dropped from their UK distribution deal. Presumably because of poor sales but are still very much signed to their Danish label so could in theory distribute their next album through another record company here.

Alphabeat were dropped from their UK distribution deal. Presumably because of poor sales but are still very much signed to their Danish label so could in theory distribute their next album through another record company here.

 

Alphabeat have revealed that they have parted ways with EMI Records.

 

The Danish pop group, who scored a top ten hit with 'Fascination' last year, insisted that they left the record label of their own accord.

 

"Have we been dropped? Nope," the group wrote on their MySpace page. "But before Christmas we had the opportunity to leave - and we did.

 

"We (this means us - Alphabeat) sat down round a table before we went on X-Mas holiday and decided that we needed a change before starting recording our new album… and one of the major changes would be a new label!"

 

The group, who released their debut album This Is Alphabeat in June, revealed that they are "signing with a new label as we speak".

 

"We're heading into [the]studio to start recording our new album as soon as possible! We hope to release it during 2009," they added.

 

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a143939/...cord-label.html

Edited February 3, 200916 yr by Joao.

Well thats their spin on it... If you leap before your pushed the result is the same. :lol: