Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EMI Only Selling CDs To Mega-Chains From Now On

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the another-brick-in-the-wall dept.

Music 334

farrellj writes "According to Zeropaid, record company EMI has been notifying small music stores that they will no longer be able to buy EMI CDs from EMI, and will have to buy product from mega-chains like Walmart. Independent record store customers are some of the most loyal music buyers around. You are not going to find the back catalog, what used to be the staple of the music business, at your local Walmart. One wonders when the music business is going to run out of feet to shoot?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CDs? (5, Funny)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878063)

I'm 15

What's a CD?

Re:CDs? (2, Insightful)

kspn78 (1116833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878081)

A CD is a funky mirror (at least according to my workmates)

I can't imagine that this is going to do EMI much long term good!

Re:CDs? (5, Funny)

morghanphoenix (1070832) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878191)

I thought CDs were those coasters AOL used to send you.

Re:CDs? (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878459)

People here seem to taking the "music industry is evil and outdated" thinking route again. However when I saw the title and summary, I couldn't but think that they're starting to see how internet distribution starts to dominate.

So now they're cutting extra costs by only delivering physical media to the largest retailers, and maybe putting that effort into online sales. If so, for me this sounds good.

Re:CDs? (2, Insightful)

morghanphoenix (1070832) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878553)

Now if only they'd distribute DRM Free lossless files online, and kick the RIAA to the curb so the artists can be paid more than the lawyers, they might get a customer back. But let's be honest, that will never happen.

Re:CDs? (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878621)

Actually they already do and every other record company does aswell. Lossless is probably just issue with the music stores. They also provide music to spotify [spotify.com] and equivalent where users can listen to music for free or pay premium (9 euros a month) to listen to everything without ads. Speaking about spotify, it's said to getting close to US release soon, so americans can also enjoy the service we europeans have been enjoying for a year now :)

Re:CDs? (4, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878615)

Exactly! And now that they're cutting manufacturing and finally realizing the huge economic benefit of not having to produce and ship physical product, they're gonna drastically lower the price of downloads to reflect the drastically lower real cost of them! We all win!

wait.. what? what do you mean no?

Re:CDs? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878617)

Of course they might just be cutting costs and _not_ putting that effort anywhere except their bottom line.

The music companies' biggest addition of value to the product is their distribution network, i.e., the ability to get audio data onto small, shiny circles, and get those small, shiny circles into clear plastic boxes, filled with pretty, printed paper, and then get all of the small, shiny circles and the clear plastic boxes and the pretty, printed paper onto the big delivery truck and then get the big delivery truck full of all of the small, shiny circles and the clear plastic boxes and the pretty, printed paper, out to all the Small, Shiny Circles, Clear Plastic Boxes And Pretty, Printed Paper 'R' Us stores across the country, for the poor, downtrodden consumer to buy.

If the poor, downtrodden consumer suddenly doesn't want any small, shiny circles or any clear plastic boxes OR EVEN ANY pretty, printed paper, then the big ol' music companies are suddenly just ghastly, faceless corporate horror-shows who are charging customers obscene amounts of money for doing not-an-awful-lot for either the customer, or the musicians.

So, yeah. I'm thinking that they're probably not going to do what you said.

Re:CDs? (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878663)

However, their distribution network doesn't just consist of delivering those cd's to retailers or making them. There's lots of else involved too, from actually finding the artists that could be something, providing them studio time and sponsoring them so they can get their job done, making the music videos, doing promotion, making sure the actual product is somewhat quality (yeah, quality can be argued!) to actually delivering the products to retailers, tv and radio stations and whatever other places. Lots of times people forget that record labels do lots of other work too and sponsor the bands, and they're not there just to collect money forgefully.

This is why I think the record labels will continue to exist and will be used by artists. Yes, I said used. Its not necessary for artists to use them, noone force's them to. But lets face it, all that usually needs lots of money and time and work. Not a single person can usually do so much, but go work with record labels so they can handle all the other stuff and artists can spend the time on their core thing -- making music.

EMI eats feces (1)

eatspoop (1604225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878173)

I suppose it is no secret now, with the release of this rather earth shattering news blip. What the hell are they thinkin'? http://emi.eatspoop.com/ [eatspoop.com]

Re:CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878205)

Well, my son, in the days before there was a thing spelt A-M-A-Z-O-N and pronounced "PirateBay"...

Re:CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878223)

I'm 12 years old and what is this?

Re:CDs? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878399)

Marblecake, clearly.

Re:CDs? (1)

BryanL (93656) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878233)

A CD is a hard, physical back-up of data (eg. music). If your hard drive crashes, you can reinstall your daat (music) from the physical back-up. This has saved me many a times.

Further, you can play it in your DVD drive and get better sound quality than you normally get from your mp3s and AACs. /sarcasm

Re:CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878273)

Better sound quality? That's what they always say about obsolete media formats. And who really cares about the artsy leaflets you get with physical media? It's the music that matters.

Re:CDs? (2, Insightful)

umghhh (965931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878333)

Well obviously you have never experienced this 'bad money replaces good money' effect in your life yet.

Re:CDs? (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878403)

Well obviously you have never experienced this 'bad money replaces good money' effect in your life yet.

Or maybe he has always been an active practitioner of the "paying no money" methods of music acquisition?

Re:CDs? (5, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878293)

It's a Certificate of Deposit (ask your parents for details). I am still befuddled what this fiduciary tool has to do with EMI...maybe they are going bankrupt.

Re:CDs? (1)

Anonymos Noel Coward (1607485) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878587)

Don't be silly, it's a Credit Default [wikipedia.org] ! These are responsible for the current recession, and for the Great Depression II to follow.

Re:CDs? (4, Informative)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878463)

CD or compact disc is a physical medium that has spun off from the development of Laserdisc.

The audio CD has increasingly been sold in standards breaking versions with record companies pretending they are genuine Red Book Standard CDs. These fake audio CD's that the music industry has flooded the market with are used to distribute computer rootkits, or other Windows targeting malware hidden with music.

Music CDs are increasingly being marketed as remastered, this is usually a clue that the CD is basterdised in sound quality thanks to music industry obsession with loudness, making music completely unlistenable and giving ear ache in very short order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war [wikipedia.org]

Re:CDs? (4, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878491)

What you burn your music to after you get it from bittorrent, if you want to back it up or make a mix for a friend.

Re:CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878523)

there's an inherent advantage to the read-only nature of cds...also, the data on them is lossless.

Re:CDs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878633)

there's an inherent advantage to the read-only nature of cds...also, the data on them is lossless.

only for a few years...

Re:CDs? (1)

antic (29198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878543)

Shaun Micallef (Australian comedian) recently intro'ed a TV show "Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation" with something roughly as follows.

"In 1979, the CD or Compact Disc was invented, and none too soon: it finally provided a use for CD Towers which had been invented 20 years prior."

Last Purchase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878065)

Last Purchase

Not a surprise... (3, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878067)

It's been years since they stopped wanting my business. It's about times these stores stopped getting special treatment. Customers are overrated anyway.

What the hell? (3, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878073)

I'm obviously missing something here, how can this business model work when you're reducing your customer base? I realise that Walmart has the buying power but if they've paid for some sort of exclusivity deal then surely that adds expense back into their purchases unnecessarily?

Re:What the hell? (3, Interesting)

LKM (227954) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878159)

Presumably, one explanation would be that the profit from the smaller stores that it is smaller than the administrative cost of sending them CDs. They could ask for more money, I guess, but perhaps they just don't want the administrative overhead.

Re:What the hell? (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878219)

I'm obviously missing something here, how can this business model work when you're reducing your customer base?

Ever hear of the 80:20 rule?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle [wikipedia.org]
"roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes"

Hypothetically speaking, if 80% of the sales come from 20% of the retailers,
then you can cut your logistics costs by dropping the underperforming 80% of retailers.

I say "hypothetical" because we don't know EMI's real #s,
and I realize it's not going to be a popular opinion, but
if cutting 80% of retailers leads to more than a 20% reduction in costs...

This had to be a high level decision and I'm guessing the bean counters won.

Re:What the hell? (2, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878327)

I say "hypothetical" because we don't know EMI's real #s,

We do, however, have a pretty good idea of the general standard of their products. It would be trite to say "...and nothing of value was lost", but it would also be largely true.

Re:What the hell? (2, Insightful)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878501)

I think it's over-reliance on rules like that leads to companies like EMI doing silly things to begin with. It's the same reason why Microsoft are doing so poorly at the moment while Apple is actually doing well despite everything else. It's as if they're operating their business by treating it like some kind of machine and trying to understand it's separate parts and systems, rather than developing a more realistic overall view of the industry (perhaps like Steve Jobs).

Re:What the hell? (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878643)

developing a more realistic overall view of the industry (perhaps like Steve Jobs).

Jobs (Apple) targets the high end of the market. Apparently he'd rather make big margins selling to the top 20% than lower margins to the 80%.

Re:What the hell? (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878519)

if cutting 80% of retailers leads to more than a 20% reduction in costs...

It still wouldn't make sense - in the long run. It might make sense if there were no competition.

Re:What the hell? (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878285)

What will end up happening is a distribution organisation will be set up (or one of the mega-stores will set one up), that will buy in bulk and take on the costs of dealing with small orders themselves.

It's rather a shame for the small businesses who will end up paying for this, but I guess that's how business works.

Re:What the hell? (2, Informative)

SepticPig (444148) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878453)

Exactly, this is what already happens in other markets.

A wholesaler that already distributes Tshirts, posters, joss sticks etc will take on this role.

Upside for the supplier is they only deal in bulk.
Upside for the retailer is that they can now combine their CD orders with the Tshirt etc orders to meet minimum order values and be able to order more frequently.

It may cost the retailer a little more but that has to be weighed against the ability to reorder more often, from a stock aspect, the benefits of this cannot be stressed enough.

What will suffer is the tail, now a special order for that niche album will have to feed back an extra layer and so become slower. It is these sales that will end up as p2p searches instead, leading to reduced sales and then delisting by the supplier.

Expect more of the market to follow this model.

Expect it also to be reversed in 10 years or so as the suppliers look to bring back direct those smaller, higher margin, customers.

Re:What the hell? (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878311)

Probably more important: Why would an aspiring artist go to EMI and have a limited reach when he could as well go to some competitor and be sold also to customers of small music shops? The loss of small music shop customers may not directly hurt EMI (otherwise they wouldn't have done this), but a loss of content to sell will probably hurt them. And it will not be obvious until the current hot stars are not hot anymore, and the new hot stars are with different labels. And then it's too late.

I personally think it's a bad business move. If I had EMI stock, now I would sell.

Re:What the hell? (3, Interesting)

thesp (307649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878419)

Because often, aspiring artists are not being courted by many labels simultaneously. Remember, most in the music business are looking, and perpetually waiting, for their "big break" - a major label offering them a contract. No-one will turn down a label because they think they'll do better with another. Labels are not a service industry for musicians. Musicians are raw material for the labels' products.

Re:What the hell? (5, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878571)

Why would an aspiring artist go to EMI and have a limited reach when he could as well go to some competitor and be sold also to customers of small music shops?

As a long-time musical artist & bandmember myself, I can tell you why. Most don't know any better. Most bands and artists are so desperate to "make it" that any label showing interest in them is considered as being offered the gold ring. They're sick and tired of playing dumpy bars and clubs and making $50-$75 a night, two or three nights a week, four sets a night. That's if they can actually stay booked steadily.

One of the things that being signed gets you is that it opens up a whole new level of venues to play, with a whole lot more money. A band goes from a few hundreds of dollars a show to two or three thousand. Billboards and radio ads go up ahead of their appearances, and crowds increase. Merch sales skyrocket.

The fact that the label that's offering them a contract doesn't distribute to independent record stores doesn't even enter the picture to their thinking.

Again, that's not all musicians/bands/artists, but most that I've encountered in my many years in "the biz".

Strat

Foot (1)

suckmysav (763172) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878075)

Meet bullet

What a bunch of numpties

They're out of feet (4, Funny)

kawabago (551139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878077)

They're out of feet, that was an EMI gonad.

Meh. Don't buy RIAA regardless of who's selling. (5, Interesting)

fyoder (857358) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878085)

EMI is one of the big four RIAA member labels, along with Sony, Universal, and Warner. I stopped buying their shite ages ago, and I don't really care if I'm not buying it from a little store or a big one.

Re:Meh. Don't buy RIAA regardless of who's selling (-1, Troll)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878215)

I'll buy RIAA member labels' music if it interests me, thank you very much, so long as the CDs themselves are DRM-free (and frankly, even then, so long as it isn't a pain in the ass I'll buy it). I have no real problem with the RIAA suing folks who infringe on their copyrights, so no, I don't think I'll do as you suggest. Thanks for your concern. :-)

Re:Meh. Don't buy RIAA regardless of who's selling (2, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878511)

I'm inadvertently boycotting RIAA labels. Their hasn't really been an album released on a "big" label that has warranted my bandwidth or money in some time. I probably would buy something from them, if there was anything I wanted. Perhaps its my age, perhaps I have odd tastes, but I still haven't found anything new or interesting on a major label in some time. I manage to support a ton of small labels "accidentally" though.

So, here is my question, what has been released on a major RIAA label lately that has been worth listening to?

Most of the RIAA member labels are the McDonalds of music, they release passable crap, but never innovate or produce anything that smaller shops can't beat. As time goes on, most of the innovation comes from smaller labels, while the large ones pick up the watered down crap. This is in part that they shun controversial bands, or bands that cater to specific tastes. They only want the stuff bland enough to appeal to everyone.

Re:Meh. Don't buy RIAA regardless of who's selling (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878239)

that's right. i don't get music from big labels. i get it from isohunt.

Re:Meh. Don't buy RIAA regardless of who's selling (5, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878365)

I stopped buying EMI products the day the Harry Fox Agency accused me of being a criminal for putting my own work on the web.

Not only did I stop buying things from this company, I went from being an *avid* collector to them being *dead to me* and unlike some others, I never looked back.

At the same time, I started discovering independent music, *many* genres with artists who are far more interested in getting their message out than getting a 1/16th cent royalty from you. Many of these artists benefit from being discovered -- not by a record producer but by YOU, the person who might become a fan after listening, and who might actually attend a concert, not at a megastadium but at a club or a festival.

I don't really care what EMI does, or doesn't do. They are dead to me, and I do not believe in ghosts.

Re:Meh. Don't buy RIAA regardless of who's selling (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878497)

Now we can feel even more superior about where we don't buy it: Walmart!

One wonders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878087)

One wonders when the Music Business is going to run out of feet to shoot?

I am sure that there was a thorough business analysis performed that showed that the cost of maintaining the back catalog exceeded the revenue that it generated, or that margins are MUCH better on the high-volume stuff to the point of justifying dropping the back catalog to focus on the core business.

The music industry is now focused on shoveling out very high volume tripe through a consolidated distribution system.

Legal? (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878091)

Is it even legal to only sell to certain customers and not others based on size of business?

Re:Legal? (2, Informative)

Bureaucromancer (1303477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878135)

I'm pretty sure that it falls under right to decline business. My understanding (not that involved mind you) is that the rules are basically limited to some fairly obvious racial/gender/etc discrimination that can't happen and anti trust monopoly stuff. As bad as things are, one record label is most definitly not anyone's definition of a monopoly, so it looks to me like they are perfectly within their rights. Now what would possess them to do it I have no idea.

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878461)

but owning specific artists and their records is a monopoly.

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878537)

correct, but "legally" the artist could go to a different label.

Re:Legal? (1)

wbren (682133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878281)

How many "In Soviet Russia..." jokes will this generate? I'm taking bets...

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878521)

In Soviet Russia, jokes generate you.

No, wait a second....

Whacked business case (3, Insightful)

Lucky_Luke(void) (1608153) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878109)

Prosecuting file-sharers gives better revenue than selling music. No transportation/storage/etc.. overhead, Just some greedy lawyers to be paid.

Re:Whacked business case (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878277)

So why do they sell their CDs at all? Just put the torrents on TPB and sue everyone downloading them.

Re:Whacked business case (2, Insightful)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878429)

because they need to be able to prove that the music has some value. if its not on the market then it has no tangible value.

Re:Whacked business case (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878589)

Prosecuting file-sharers gives better revenue than selling music.

Hey, you know what'd be great? If they didn't have a revenue stream like that. Y'know, if there were no pirates out there to prosecute. Then they'd be forced to work on their music instead!

Ah, a world without piracy. That would be nice.

Re:Whacked business case (1)

Lucky_Luke(void) (1608153) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878673)

Well I always was a bit under the impression that all those user license agreements, copyright laws, etc. make everything so complex, that you will always breach a law and pay a fine. It has become a sort of value added tax, paid directly to 'the industry'. I could be wrong ofcourse :-/

Artists involved... (5, Informative)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878111)

From EMI's website [emi.com] :

New Music finds and develops new, exciting and successful music. Its record labels include Angel, Astralwerks, Blue Note, Capitol, Capitol Nashville, EMI Classics, EMI CMG, EMI Records, EMI Televisa Music, Manhattan, Mute, Parlophone and Virgin. Artists on EMI labels include Lily Allen, The Beatles, Beastie Boys, Coldplay, Depeche Mode, Doves, Gorillaz, Iron Maiden, Norah Jones, Massive Attack, Kylie Minogue, Katy Perry, Pink Floyd, Queen, Sir Simon Rattle, 30 Seconds To Mars, KT Tunstall, Keith Urban and Robbie Williams, as well as international artists such as Amaral (Spain), Camille (France), Empire of the Sun (Australia), Tiziano Ferro (Italy), Flex (Mexico), LaFee (Germany) and Utada Hikaru (Japan).

Catalogue maximises the value of EMI's historic and extensive music assets. Seminal albums in EMI Music's catalogue include Hunky Dory and Aladdin Sane (David Bowie), Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (The Beatles), Pet Sounds (Beach Boys), A Rush Of Blood To The Head (Coldplay), Birth Of The Cool (Miles Davis), Come Away With Me (Norah Jones), Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall (Pink Floyd), A Night At The Opera (Queen), OK Computer (Radiohead) and Songs For Swingin' Lovers (Frank Sinatra). EMI Music's Catalogue division also owns and runs the world-renowned recording studios Abbey Road in London and Capitol Studios in Los Angeles.

There's also this page [emi.com] , with a more complete listing of artists.

EMI's catalog includes some of the arguably best albums of all time, and some of the most popular current artists. I don't see any way how this will end well.

Re:Artists involved... (1)

hemp (36945) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878125)

there is no reason why e.m.i.
i tell you it was all a frame e.m.i.
they only did it 'cos of fame e.m.i.
i do not need the pressure e.m.i.
i can't stand those useless fools e.m.i.
unlimited supply e.m.i.
hallo e.m.i. goodbye a & m

-Sex Pistols

Re:Artists involved... (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878127)

Oblig: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EMI_artists [wikipedia.org] Probably not anywhere near complete. Sucks that Astralwerks is EMI though... I didn't know that.

Re:Artists involved... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878321)

Blue Note's an EMI label? Some of the best jazz albums ever were Blue Note

Well, no. (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878115)

You are not going to find the back catalog, what used to be the staple of the music business, at your local Walmart.

Well, no. But you won't find the vast majority of that at specialist retailers either, they don't have the space. They would order it for you, but everyone knows its easier (and frequently cheaper) to get it from amazon or their ilk. The web retailer own that long-tail retail space, and that's not going to change.

Specialist records stores will have to survive solely on the quality of information and advice their staff can provide -- it's their only market advantage.

Re:Well, no. (4, Insightful)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878535)

Let me see ... you go to specialist record store and the advice they give is "this album would be good but I cannot get it, buy it from Amazon" ...

No, the record stores cannot survive solely on the information they have.

What the hell? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878131)

What am I missing here? How can reducing your customer base make any kind of business sense? I understand that distribution costs will be higher on smaller consignments but unless your profit margin is exceedingly slim this can't be a wise decision.

Re:What the hell? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878209)

You're missing the misdirection that the RIAA will use to claim that shrinking CD sales are due to piracy and that copyright law needs to be extended to 95 years after the death of God and that eternal damnation should be mandatory for filesharing. People. including politicians, will forget or ignore this move and go along with the RIAA's rhetoric and if any questions arise, they will claim that anyone can just buy from the mega chains like good little American consumers should.

Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult)... (4, Interesting)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878229)

You gotta think like a Music Executive to understand their logic.
Fixed Costs and shipping costs per CD shipped rise uncontrollably when sending it in small batches to mom-and-pop stores.
Their sale price is fixed. WHich means, EMI earns less from each CD shipped to corner store as its shipping costs eat up money.
Better way is to ship HUGE amounts to a few stores and ask the corner stores to buy their copies from them.
Of course it assumes that small shop owner still want to waste their time & money and drive to Walmart supercenters, negotiate a price with manager and come back with 100 CDs of latest Jessica Simpson singles.
LOL
That wastes two days: one day for shopping and one for sorting.
Who the hell wants to do that.
If i were a mom-and-pop shop owner, i would point my customers to allofmp3.com or some other seller of mp3 songs.
EMI's CEO has proved his tactical sense for next quarter results is strong, while his strategic business sense is as low as the IQ of his Turd.
Good luck EMI. You have given me one more reason to pirate.

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878331)

Really? If your business was selling music CDs, you would really point your customers to a web site that competes with you and undercuts you on cost?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that you don't run a business. At least not a successful one...

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (2, Insightful)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878667)

If your business was selling music CDs, you would really point your customers to a web site that competes with you and undercuts you on cost

When i don't have the product a customer wants, and there is no prospect of getting the product for him at a profit [for me], why would i want to go to the trouble of pointing that customer to Walmart or HMV store and thereby enable my competition to earn a profit at my cost.
Better that they too lose the money.
If i can't earn, why should i help my competitor to earn at my cost?
Care to explain?

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (1)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878439)

Good luck EMI. You have given me one more reason to pirate.

If you honestly disagree with EMI - don't pirate. Just avoid their content entirely.

If you pirate, you're basically demonstrating a lack of scruples for your position. You talk the talk, but won't walk the walk, and because of this you can't be taken seriously. People will just accuse you of being a cheapskate instead of someone who will actually put his foot down and go without, as opposed to cheating by pirating and still getting the content.

Sure, the different to EMI is the same - no money to them, but at least you'll avoid being labeled a hypocrite. Believe me, it's damn hard to go without when it's so easy to pirate, but if you REALLY want to take a stand, you have to take a little pain. At least initially.

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878647)

You are right.
My bad.
Its better to avoid EMI completely to prove the point.

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878447)

You gotta think like a Music Executive to understand their logic.
Fixed Costs and shipping costs per CD shipped rise uncontrollably when sending it in small batches to mom-and-pop stores.
Their sale price is fixed. WHich means, EMI earns less from each CD shipped to corner store as its shipping costs eat up money.

Right. So. Their answer is obvious. Tell ALL the little guys to go fuck themselves, rather than say "Ok, you guys are paying the shipping for orders under X CDs."

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878641)

Wait wait, wait. You think that EMI inconveniencing small business owners, who willingly sell their goods, is a reason for you to personally pirate?

Why don't you just admit now that you'll use any flimsy pretence to pirate?

Re:Think like a Music Exec (i know its difficult). (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878699)

Actually i was over-zealous and angry. Kinda like the cop who arrested Gates Jr for swearing at him, even though MA has laws that specifically allow those swearing at cops even when confronted.
My bad.

Justifying Piracy (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878137)

Well at least this will give Slashdot to justify their pirating ways.

Re:Justifying Piracy (4, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878185)

You accidentally a word.

Re:Justifying Piracy (2, Funny)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878565)

He didn't accidentally the verb, however. That's an important.

I never bought CDs in the first place (1)

Knoeki (1149769) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878141)

Vinyl is where it's at.

The Corporate Plan (1)

AnonymousIslander (1603121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878167)

Step 1: Set prices for CDs at such a high level consumers start to turn to alternative sources

Step 2: Continue to follow out-dated market system into financial hell while suing average people who may/may not have downloaded music and alienating more of their former/potential customer base at the same time

Step 3:???

Step 4: Government Bailout

Step 5: Profit!

We now know EMI's Step 3!! Can't wait to see how the rest of the gang implements it :-)

Damn this would be a great business (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878169)

... if it only wasn't for the customers.

This is the motto for the music industry these days. Do everything possible to minimize the number of customers you have to deal with, I can only assume they don't like having customers.

This can only be good! (3, Insightful)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878181)

Now, when I look for music at my local store, I'll have a higher chance of accidentally finding a non-RIAA CD to take home. C'mon Sony, you go next. Make my store a better filter, it's annoying searching RIAA Radar for everything I want to buy.

Here's an analogy (1)

KneelBeforeZod (1527235) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878189)

We've all been saying that the major music publishers sales are shrinking, right? Well this is the moment where it really shows. This move of theirs will affect the artists signed underneath them as they re prioritize their marketable assets and just remove all the fringe bands/artists that fewer people listen to. Soon they'll be selling only the bands/artists on the Top40 chart (or whatever chart they've made anyways). It's AMPUTATION.

Re:Here's an analogy (1)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878475)

where's the analogy?

And they wonder why piracy is rampant (3, Insightful)

schizz69 (1239560) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878197)

It is motions like this which lead otherwise paying customers to pirate music that they just cannot find at big chains, as they are not 'Mainstream enough'. Well done EMI, you have just inadvertently promoted piracy.

And just try to find... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878471)

uncensored versions at Wal-Mart.

Guess it's back to downloading music so that I can get it as the artist intended, not how Wal-Mart thinks it should be.

sneaky business (1)

lordharsha (1101875) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878211)

EMI probably read this [slashdot.org] , figured something had to be done to get rid of piracy, and decided to hamper their sales. This way when the next study is conducted, they can blame piracy.

Before someone points it out, this is supposed to be funny. I might be overly paranoid, I might hate them greedy buggers, and a little conspiracy theory does the soul good, but this is probably just corporate stupidity. Been seeing a lot of it lately.

What's the big deal? This is a business... (3, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878247)

From the summary:

Independent Record store customers are some of the most loyal music buyers around.

When faced with the shear numbers Wal-Mart brings to the table, does loyalty actually matter? That's the problem here. A thousand loyal indie store customers are trumped by a million disloyal Wal-Mart customers. This is a business about making money, not about keeping indie shops afloat.
 

Regardless of your answer to the above question, if I have 100 customers, and 90 of them buy my product through Wal-Mart and other large chains, I would concentrate on selling to the large chain stores. That number is just a guess, but I suspect it's fairly close. My guess is that EMI looked at their distribution costs versus the number of customers reached and decided, "These indie stores just aren't worth the distribution costs." I can't really blame them. It sucks, but I can't blame them. Distributing a physical product costs money, and what better way to cut down on distribution costs than to ship to your two or three largest customers and make the indie stores obtain your product from there, at their own expense.
 

From the article:

It's a odd turn of events for EMI, adding another blow to its physical CD sales while inversely arguing that illegal file-sharing is the real culprit behind declining revenues. If its concerned with losses then why get rid of customers? It just doesn't make any sense.

This is a rare case of the music industry--well, at least EMI--moving away from a business model we all know is outdated, and people are still complaining? And no, phasing out CD sales has nothing to do with illegal file sharing. There are better, cheaper, more convenient, DRM-free options out there, like iTunes and Amazon MP3. They aren't trying to push away their customers; they are trying to encourage people to either buy from stores with cheap distribution costs or buy from digital stores with even cheaper distribution costs.
 

I don't like the record industry, and I think the tactics they use are despicable. That said, it's stories like this that make me think they just can't win sometimes. The article makes it sound like EMI is a big mean company trying to crush indie competition, when in reality EMI is itself a business trying to keep costs down and phase out a wasteful distribution system. Give them a break.
 

Cue anti-RIAA downmods.... now.

Re:What's the big deal? This is a business... (2, Insightful)

koreaman (835838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878315)

iTunes may be cheaper and more convenient, but how is buying a crippled (lossily compressed) file "better"?

Even if your ears can't tell the difference, you still won't be able to do things like transcode it to other formats, or play it on the high-quality sound system you might buy someday.

Re:What's the big deal? This is a business... (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878499)

iTunes may be cheaper and more convenient, but how is buying a crippled (lossily compressed) file "better"?

The average music listener couldn't care less about the quality, as long as it's listenable. MP3's are all I listen to. I have an average sound system hooked to my computer, I have a decent sound system in my car, I have a decent mp3 player, and mp3's suit me fine. I think this reflects the situation with most music listeners today. That's very obvious, or iTunes would be a niche market instead of serving millions and millions of customers. Besides that, though, I would much rather pay one dollar for a song I want than spend $20 on a cd that holds one song I want and 11 songs I don't. That alone is enough incentive.

Re:What's the big deal? This is a business... (3, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878451)

In the days when free market capitalism wasn't a dirty word and huge corporations didn't think they had a birth right to cashflow and generally worked hard to make money - 10 or 20 cents profit per CD would have still been seen as profit and worth working for.

Must be nice to have so much money that they can refuse to service customers because it requires some work.

Re:What's the big deal? This is a business... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878665)

Actually, it makes sense if they still make 2/3 of the sales but 30+ cents profit per CD from the bigger retailers or 1/2 at 40+ cents, etc. This isn't that unrealistic if their shipping charges are higher for small stores. Also, nothing keeps small stores from ordering their inventory from Amazon - they have enough of a drop from MSRP online that turning a profit reselling it may be realistic. I remember hearing about some grocery chains selling books as loss leaders and book stores buying their inventory from them rather than from the publisher as it was cheaper that way.

Finally... (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878257)

I can rid myself of EMI. I generally avoid RIAA member released CD's, but occasionally will buy one from one if it is something I really want. One thing I refuse to do however is to buy from the Walmart, Target or BB's of the world. EMI has made a difficult choice for me, and it isn't in their favor.

Monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878295)

Isnt selective selling indicitve of a monopoly?

Onestops aren't walmart, this article is wrong (5, Interesting)

JudasBlue (409332) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878325)

One stops are mid level distributors that carry product from multiple labels. Somewhere the person writing this article got very confused by what is going on here.

If you look at the article comments there is a guy there who is also pointing this out.

Not saying EMI isn't annoying as are most of the labels, but this article is seriously confused.

News Just In: (1)

julian67 (1022593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878369)

News Just In:

2nd hand gossip about unverified phone conversation to unknown persons passes for news at slashdot...oh wait...

the sex pistols were prophetic (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878373)

"Too many outlets in and out"

Grammar Nazi time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878485)

what used to be the staple of the music business

Am I the only one to notice this? "what used to be" should be "which used to be". I normally try not to make persnickety posts, but using "what" in place of "which" instantly makes me imagine the writer as a backwards uneducated hick who could tell you ten reason why "teevee wrasslin' is fer real" and ten reasons how "them moon landan's were fake". IMHO, it is one of those grammar mistakes that looks and sounds disgusting (most others I'm fine with). samzenpus, if your job is to write, PLEASE LEARN HOW.

Re:Grammar Nazi time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28878661)

"ten reasons" plural
also enjoy my complete lack of grammar and i m1ght even throw 1n s0m3 delib3rat3 numerals

Just another way to skew statistics in future... (1)

Sousuke (1268518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878505)

Small retailers: "Our earnings/profits are going down! Now we have to close!" RIAA: *points finger at piracy*

We need more music education in schools (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28878701)

Educate kids, expose them to everything from Bach to bluegrass and widen their tastes. Make them realise the stuff peddled by the big chains is actually junk produced by performers whose only real merit to the RIAA members is that they are contracted to them. That will in the long term destroy the RIAA, because their business model works by trying to reduce the range of what consumers buy. The logic behind that being that they can create a monopoly only by restricting what the customers want. Anybody anywhere can put a group together and record something original or out of copyright, so the RIAA members want to ensure that there's no demand for it. Creating demand that they cannot manipulate, and thus creating competition, is the only real way to get rid of them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?