Something I said on ILM yesterday.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Which nobody addressed - the thread was moving fast and this was a tangent.

I can think of two long-term marketing triumphs for the record industry. The former possibly accidental (but probably not), the latter definitely on purpose. First is the promotion of the album as a format and the repackaging of popular music as non-disposable. Second (linked to the first) is the promotion and success of the CD format as a way to buy old music as well as new.

It's the level of accident I'm interested in really. The move to album format, the move away from disposability - when did these happen (I know that in the UK 1969 was the year album sales overtook single sales), and how proactive or reactive were the record labels in this?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm really glad you brought all this up on that thread, btw. I was interested in knowing (aside from your specific points) Poptimist positions on the corporate structures of the record industry, the nuts and bolts of how this stuff gets sold (e.g. media monopolies, how albums are distributed -- not just "marketed" -- and the corporate wheelings and dealings that dictate how music is sold).

My sense is that people following chart and major label stuff are actually MORE in tune with how labels work (though maybe not in the time period you're describing; my sense is that corporate entities behind the labels themselves were far more scattered during the rise of the album both aesthetically and commercially, and therefore it's harder to pinpoint "general trends" since if something worked for one label or company, it might or might not catch on...whereas now, as goes one conglom -- e.g. SUE THE SHIT OUTTA YOUTUBE -- so go the other four).

It's easier for me to follow, say, Hollywood filmmaking practices in this institutional sorta regard, because (1) I've studied it more, (2) it's far more massive and transparent (and awful) than the record industry and (3) the end product is so much more expensive (and not just the production -- marketing and production costs on multi-mil Hollywood films are about equal) that there's not much room for "accidents" (e.g. you're not going to hand someone 100 mil and say "go nuts, be creative!" but "go nuts" seems to happen fairly often in major label music world -- so execs aren't as invested in content-controlled "sure things" in music than they are in film)

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

(woops, that was me)

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

You get it sometimes, EG $35 million for the new TMNT film by a guy who's never written or directed a film before. But I agree in general, yes.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Well, in that case they have a reliable franchise ("sure thing") where they know they're making the vast majority of their money back on merchandising and cross-promotion (which is true for most films, actually, but "merchandising" is really DVD sales, cable deals, etc.). I'm thinking more of auteur-types, a Scorcese or Tarantino, or more recently maybe a Cuaron or Innaritu, who have a kind of artistic freedom + huge budget that other directors don't have. (And within this sort of mini-model, you'll get interesting anomalies like a Darren Aranofsky, but then after his last one who knows how he's going to get funding like that again...Terry Gilliam being the poster child for getting totally screwed/jerked around as an "auteur")