EMI cuts 1 in 3 jobs

[Lysander]

Yes, £80million, apparently. It's just bonkers.

Considering Rudebox sold something like 5 million albums worldwide and albums sell the most durnig the first six months of release, that gives a takeback of something like £20million, a massive loss considering his popularity is waning.

 

[platypus]

Yes, £80million, apparently. It's just bonkers.

Considering Rudebox sold something like 5 million albums worldwide and albums sell the most durnig the first six months of release, that gives a takeback of something like £20million, a massive loss considering his popularity is waning.

But wasn't it £80m for five albums? Which on that return would make a rough estimate of £100m?

Plus, factor in competition margins. They may be making a loss, but having such a huge name artist on their books means their competitors aren't getting those album sales. It's exactly the same way that Tesco remove competition from an area, and place three shops where one would do. To drive out competition.

 

[nero120]

But wasn't it £80m for five albums? Which on that return would make a rough estimate of £100m?

Plus, factor in competition margins. They may be making a loss, but having such a huge name artist on their books means their competitors aren't getting those album sales. It's exactly the same way that Tesco remove competition from an area, and place three shops where one would do. To drive out competition.

Very true. Many artists are signed on this basis. Even though they may not sell anywhere near the amount of records to meet the costs to the label, they are simply a trophy signing, so that competitors don't get to have them on their roster. Gallows are a recent example.

 

[Lysander]

But wasn't it £80m for five albums? Which on that return would make a rough estimate of £100m?

Plus, factor in competition margins. They may be making a loss, but having such a huge name artist on their books means their competitors aren't getting those album sales. It's exactly the same way that Tesco remove competition from an area, and place three shops where one would do. To drive out competition.

A multi-album deal still doesn't justify the £80million advance though. If EMI made a profit off him, they could have made a bigger profit by not giving him such a ridiculous advance. However, signing to labels is about how much they give you more than anything else, and it generally turns into a bidding war if there is more than one offer on the table.

 

[Muffin`]

I'm not saying that doesn't play a part, it certainly does, but it's not the main reason for the job cut. Many labels - and bands - spend thousands and thousands of pounds on recording when they could do it a lot cheaper by using different studios and producers. In addition to this, a lot of labels will spend money shuttling their scouts and executives round the world and putting them in extremely expensive hotels when it's not entirely necessary.

It's how business operate, it was all fine and dandy send off the best scouts for the money and if they are the best they demand the best so, first class here and there - but they need to keep selling their product to keep the books right, they didn't and now they have to cut back.

 

[Welshy]

I think it's funny that their new boss is called "Mr Hands"

Made me snigger too

What I don't understand is how they can lose so much money, when they've got some of the highest earning musicians signed to them..

 

[nero120]

Made me snigger too

What I don't understand is how they can lose so much money, when they've got some of the highest earning musicians signed to them..

Because the majority of the music produced is garbage that no one wants to buy?

 

[Lysander]

Made me snigger too

What I don't understand is how they can lose so much money, when they've got some of the highest earning musicians signed to them..

Because the recording advances they're giving some bands are way too high to break even or make a profit from the record sales

 

[pitchfork]

It's because no one pays for music any more. And heres the problem, if theres no money in record companies, how do we find any good talent.
It's why half the new releases are absolutely awful, plus most of the time gorillas could find better.

In a way it's good, it'll get bands out gigging to make cash, but the music industry is going to change, thats for sure.

I agree though, 80m is stupidly excessive, I could compose and record a really good album for a few grand. If I already had the band and songs, a couple of hundred quid would do.

 

[Lysander]

It's because no one pays for music any more.

I've bought seven CDs this month and another five or so through digital sales but I accept that I'm in the minority If most kids want an album they just download it.

 

[chimaera]

A multi-album deal still doesn't justify the £80million advance though. If EMI made a profit off him, they could have made a bigger profit by not giving him such a ridiculous advance. However, signing to labels is about how much they give you more than anything else, and it generally turns into a bidding war if there is more than one offer on the table.

I don't think that the size of the advance was the key mistake, I believe that it was based upon him cracking the American market and sales from multiple regions.

In the end it never happened and he only really makes money from the limited UK market. If he had broken America then the advance could have been a good deal.

It was also after the £80m that he broke up with Guy Chambers who (co)wrote most of his biggest hits. In hindsight it was a big mistake but i doubt it's any less an advance than other AAA list performers get such as Beyonce or Kanye West, and at the time he was considered in that bracket.

 

[SpicyDuck]

The sooner they stop spending millions of Pounds promoting absolute trash, the better. The world will be a better place when 12yr old girls stop watching whores on TV.

For example: Britney, Aguilera, Wine(Crack)house and too many others. Something is bound to go wrong when you give money to promote this crap. It's called greed and, worse still, they didn't have an ounce of care in the world as long as it brought in money.

EMI: The Porn Industry for your Kids.

The very basis of these huge record labels is crumbling now. But will they learn? Will they ****.

 

[Muffin`]

The sooner they stop spending millions of Pounds promoting absolute trash, the better. The world will be a better place when 12yr old girls stop watching whores on TV.

For example: Britney, Aguilera, Wine(Crack)house and too many others. Something is bound to go wrong when you give money to promote this crap. It's called greed and, worse still, they didn't have an ounce of care in the world as long as it brought in money.

EMI: The Porn Industry for your Kids.

The very basis of these huge record labels is crumbling now. But will they learn? Will they ****.

They realised what they could achieve over 20 years ago. The 12 year olds grow up, and when they do they churn out a whole load of new bands and artists. It's just good business. If there was no internet as we know now the cycle would still happily be in rotation.

The record companies stopping p2p, torrents, newsgroups and websites like YouTube will not happen. Large media corporations see the internet as their demise and other as their saviour - but with Information so freely available and so easily available be spread it will be an interesting decade for the media.