A2IM President Rich Bengloff On Polyphonic & The Artist As A Label
EXCLUSIVE: A growing number of artists and managers are challenging the importance of record labels in the new landscape; and technology and service firms are rushing to support the trend. To find out what the indie label community thinks of this new challenge, Hypebot asked its chief advocate, Rich Bengloff, the President of the American Association Of Independent Music, for his reaction to emerging models like Polyphonic that encourage the artist to act as their own label.
RICH BENGLOFF: The definition of a label and the services they need to provide has morphed over the years, but the one constant is that for an artist to be successful they need to have support resources with experience and access. This has never been more true as it is currently, with the number of releases growing exponentially, 105,000 new full length releases in 2008, as the current glut of releases makes it harder and harder for an artist to stand out.
"for an artist to reach beyond a subsistence revenue level they need toeither have the support of a label or create a label team…"
There are numerous artist owned music labels, owned by people like Ani DiFranco (Righteous Babe), Burning Spear (Burning Music), Gillian Welch & David Rawlings (Acony), the Hanson Brothers (3CG), Joan Jett (Blackheart), etc., who in many cases had started their labels a long time ago for the creative independence and potential greater financial reward.
Many independent music labels have different models, some out-source their support functions while others create these support functions internally. But for an artist to reach beyond a subsistence revenue level…
they need to either have the support of a label or create a label team that can provide them with the technology, publicity, marketing and promotion, touring support, licensing contacts and many other label functions needed to reach consumers. My understanding of the Polyphonic model is that the funding they receive will allow artists to build that label team to provide the artist with skills and contacts they need to be successful.
Depending on what team the less established Polyphonic artists hire there is an element they might lose. Independent labels are often seen as brands in many genres, whether that be blues, hip hop, metal, etc. and that branding attracts fans. In addition, as to Direct to Consumer marketing and selling becomes more important, these labels have fan lists that allow them to reach genre fans without which newer less established artists must start from either small base of fans or from scratch.
The bottom line from our perspective is that a label's support has never been more important to an artist. As the industry transforms, the menu of services to support artists has never been broader, with labels configured to meet artists' individual needs on a bespoke basis.
Again, spoken like a true major label rep.
No specifics – no real game plan for new artists?
It’s still about HMV ( haven’t been in one in 8 years), MTV – don’t watch it and radio ( we find most of our new music these days online.
You want total control and ownership of the masters and we get 10-12% of whatever’s left after tour support advances and MAYBE famous?
The new artists needs are being better served by all the new online services – Tunecore, Amazon, CD Baby, Youtube, Facebook , Myspace ……. the WHOLE WORLD.
Mr. Bengloff raises the crucial issue with a plan like this: A label traditionally provides the infrastructure needed to form a team, while Polyphonic provides funding to hire such a team.
There are clear benefits to “rolling your own” team, and since most major label’s rely on 3rd parties for most promotion and marketing, it’s becoming a buyers market. An artist-team with solid funding should be able to afford, and possibly be capable of managing the same kind of team a major would hire. The cost savings here is the label’s cut – often effectively recouped in rights and downstream opportunities, not always as release expenses.
But to realize even those small (and speculative savings), the ability to identify the right partners, negotiate separate deals for each aspect of operations (it’s not just making records, but merch, licensing, publishing, PROs, online distro, physical distro etc etc). In many cases, these negotiations are by definition with major label-owned subsidiaries like Red, IODA, et al, who are not particularly inclined to cut you slack, regardless of management skills. Without care in setting up then managing the team you’ve assembled, this deal could easily turn WORSE than working directly with a major.
I have mixed feelings that the principals of the venture are in fact pro managers. This is good, when the investment’s performance is so tightly tied to excellent management. But it’s also a potential conflict of interest as serious as that in the old model. In the best case, you might have access to the people behind Polyphonic, and their collective knowledge. But the press releases hints that’s not the case, unless you engage the principals in your new “partnership/deal” directly – in which case, it becomes a pretty standard deal, with artist-management types replacing old-hippies and A&R types. Not so radical.
At the end of the day, this model ensures the team get’s paid, which means the hard work of marketing and promoting a band will get done. Whether or not it works still depends on the artist and music being pushed. Beyond that, this model is too small to provide a basic, decent living for a working band; after you pay off the managers and free agent team, you’re back to Albini’s famous model. You’re last to recoup, and eating canned beans and ramen until the ship comes in (which 90% of the time remains never).
In many ways, the hype and excitement surrounding this model seem like just that. When you look deeper, it looks pretty conventional in most respects. The only innovations are:
– the partnership is strictly sharing cashflow, not rights (a good, real innovation).
– who fronts the money on what terms.
-d-
I’m not sure there is a true music business model anymore. Recorded music isn’t really a money maker.
Live music isn’t a money-making proposition until a band is popular enough to sell out venues of a certain size and at a decent price per ticket. So someone has to pour quite a bit of money out in the beginning to cover all those touring costs and to support a band while it is on the road.
That leaves merchandise and related goods. Then you are in the same business as other personality-driven brands. There have been some highly successful models: Oprah, Martha Stewart, the Olsen Twins, Shaun White, etc. And some in music (e.g., Jimmy Buffet). So I guess if you are going to fund start-up music projects, that’s maybe where you would want to head.
The limitation with a music brand is that if it is based around a band, the band may be short-lived. You need to built it around an artist or a concept where all the members can be replaced as needed.
Disney seems to be the most successful at creating music franchises, and it is able to do that through its television and movie tie-ins.
No conflict, no interest.
The Polyphonic model needs to be put into perspective. It’ll cater only to those artists that are already generating revenues and to those artists who were on labels and are no longer. Any DIY band that thinks this’ll be like a high street bank where one can wander in off the street and get a loan needs to wake up quick and smell the roses!
Much like the PowerAmpMusic and Ingenious VC music funds in the UK, and the old model of The Sanctuary Music Group (who I was signed to as an artist), Polyphonic will only work with ex-label established artists with sizeable fan bases with a purchasing history or serious emerging talent that has demonstrated it’s ability to generate 360 revenues.
Yes, from an investment point of view, why would you put your money into music? There are better ways to get your money back.
To go into music, you either want something that looks like a sure thing, or you need to own everything to reward you for taking the risk.
Even for small investments, maybe $5000 to $20,000, you want to fund activities where you are certain the money will return. For example, a few years ago, if you were pretty certain that an artist could sell 1000 CDs at shows, putting in $15,000 toward a CD project was pretty risk-free because you had a salable asset.
If you can’t specifically identify where your return is going to come from, then the money you put up is really more like a sponsorship. You’re helping out, but not expecting to see that money again.
We should probably reference this.
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ie61d143e27d114d6f4c243a86e7bdd1c
There are only so many slots at any label, so, the likely hood of a signing with any label is unlikely.
If you want to make it in the music market; then you can provided you truly commit to it. It takes:
….Much time
….MUCH PATIENCE
….MUCH PASSION
….Daily diligence to your music & your music business
….Developing into a great entertainer
….Great songs
….Great covers
…Making a connection with your fans while on stage
….Creating moments within your songs
….Decent merch.
….Working your social media consistently
….Continuous improvement
….Building your fan base each day
….Building effective street teams in your markets
….and many more, but,t he bottom line is: DON’T LET ANYONE TELL YOU A LABEL IS NECESSARY. WHAT LABELS ARE CONCERN ABOUT IS ALL THE GREAT UNSIGNED TALENT THEY CAN’T SIGN TAKING PART OF THEIR ARTIST MARKET SHARE.
WILL IS EXACTLY RIGHT!
No new music models is correct. But, who really needs a model. Figure out how to build your fan base and you will never have to be concerned about financially supported yourself or your band working in music. And I don’t mean the type friends most have on any of the social media sites. Arts must bring on board fans that will not only buy from the; come to their shows; but will become recruiters of fans for them.