Warner Music to layoff 20% of its workforce (1 Viewer)

[ElevSkyMovie]

Here is a rumour I saw online that was supposedly from a Rhino Records Rep:



Again, this is just a rumour, and I don't have any inside info.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I would love to have some nice pristine remasters of Van Halen's hits.

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

I have heard they'll be releasing the Sammy era remasters this year. The Dave era was remastered a few years ago and they sound quite good. No overcompression.

 

[Paul Stanley]

I absolutely "love" when I click on a seemingly interesting thread and it really has nothing to do with the topic anymore.

:star:

 

[Paul.S]

Paul Stanley:

Thanks for the missive from the Great White North, eh.

You obviously didn't bother to read the entire thread before thread farting.

1/2:star:

There are over two-and-a-half pages of interesting discussion (and debate largely between Lee and myself) about the layoffs and their implications/ramifications before some of us started discussing the WMG-related May 13 L.A. Times article and its mention of (former Warner artist) Van Halen.

-p

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Always a great quote but I think you are missing the main issue here: expenses for WMG are not in line with current demand due to past mis-management.

Until Warner has a staff to revenue dollar ratio that is reasonable, it may be in the best long-term interests of WMG to cut costs.

We both hate to see good people lose their jobs. They will be absorbed in some other part of the industry no doubt if they are good candidates.

As far as 50% of signed bands being released, my theory is that the best interests of shareholders & employees is served if those band's contract's were out of line with the potential value creation of the artists. I suspect that a number of these contracts were out of kilter with respect to advances versus revenue generated.

If, however, they are slimming down the number of band indiscriminately to allow more "gamlbing" on bigger acts with bigger contracts/advances then there is a real hazard that artist development and diversity will suffer and that is not a trend good for WMG or the industry.

 

[Paul.S]

Lee, re your above post: I wondered less about what you were gonna say than how long it took you to post and say it.

We've debated the issue thoroughly in previous pages of this thread and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Amongst other things, we speculate/theorize ("specularize") in different directions: whereas you "specularize" that bands' contracts "were out of line with the potential value creation of the artists," I "specularize" that--if those bands had been properly nurtured by a & r--some of them could have delivered good ROI.

There's also a debate about whether there truly is decreased "current demand." We've both already posted to the Nielsen Rating System At Odds With RIAA's Claim Of "Lost Sales" thread which, amongst other things, engages the issue of whether or not CD sales are truly off or whether the RIAA is playing disingenuous games with the numbers.

One might even argue that, instead of spending more time and money coming up with new business models that embrace digital delivery of music, the labels are instead screaming the sky is falling due to piracy. And not adequately supporting hi rez.

Clearly, demand for music still exists. You, I, lotsa other guys on here and elsewhere have not suddenly stopped listening to music. The thread you started about 'what hi rez have you bought lately?' is a great example of this. The labels just need to re-evaluate the ways they have traditionally met said demand. One of the ways to do that is NOT to jettison this many artists and executives. Notice that they asked execs to take 30% pay cuts OR leave, but summarily dropped a huge number of artists? Why aren't artists given a choice, such as, 'your next album has to cost 30% less OR you have to find another label'? I would argue the answer has to do with a complicated politicultural cocktail of differing "valuations"/prioritizations of art and commerce about which you and I have irreconciliable differences.

-p

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It's a good question. I have heard of this happening before. Most artists do have egos so they may opt to search for other opportunities...

There is a cost associated with artist development which may not be appealing (as perhaps it should be) to the new private equity owners of WMG. They might say they will think about that once "cash flow turns positive".

Unfortunately I know these LBO guys pretty well. Ideally it may be best if the label kept good artist development but downsized its ambitions until the business could be turned around. I suspect that 170 bands was a lot of weight to carry relative to revenue and I also suspect that there are ways to keep artist development but on a smaller budget.

 

[Paul.S]

Related news this week: WMG has bought out Madonna's and Ronnie Dashev's interests in Maverick.

On another note, today the EU has blessed the Sony-BMG merger.

-p

 

[DaveDickey]

"I'm talking about the context of this thread's discussion of the current management/status of WMG in general and my posts to it regarding accountability issues in particular, via which I think its fairly obvious that I'm referring to the kind of people who Eisner spent the better part of five-and-a-half hours listening to at Wednesday's Di$ney shareholders meeting in Philadelphia (which I'm sure you're familiar with from your having said in other posts that you read the New York Times business section), the kind of people screwed over by Enron management: public shareholders."

Does this break any "longest sentence" records?

 

[Paul.S]

Keep lookin' 'round, Dave--I've may have written even longer ones elsehwere (check the Super Size Me discush thread). :wink:

Btw, welcome to the thread.

-p