"Music Giant EMI Axes Artists and 1,500 Jobs"
Johnston West
Reuters
Music Giant EMI Axes Artists and 1,500 Jobs
Wednesday March 31, 1:52 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Music giant EMI will cut 1,500 jobs, axe one fifth
of its recording artists and stop making its own CDs and DVDs in
Europe and the United States in a bid to cut costs, the British firm
said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
EMI, home to the Rolling Stones, Coldplay and Radiohead, also said
recorded music sales in the year to end-March 2004 held close to the
previous year's levels, despite rampant piracy and competition from
other entertainment.
Announcing it would close its U.S. manufacturing plant in
Jacksonville, Illinois and transfer its Dutch plant to another firm,
MediaMotion, EMI forecast savings of at least 50 million pounds a
year.
EMI said it would take a cash charge of 75 million pounds and a
non-cash charge of around 80 million, tied to writedowns and its
shrinking artists roster, in 2003/2004.
"The time is right to further reposition EMI Music. Exiting
manufacturing in our two primary regions of Europe and the US will
allow us to lower our costs while flexibly meeting our supply needs,"
said EMI Music's Chairman Alain Levy.
"We believe that by concentrating our efforts on a tightened roster of
artists we will increase our revenue-generating potential while
reducing our costs." Niche and under-performing artists would go, EMI
said, without giving names.
In recent years EMI has seen two merger attempts blocked by
regulators, one with Warner Music and one with Bertelsmann's music arm
BMG. Last year it bowed out of the race for Time Warner Inc.'s music
business. ($1=.5502 Pound)
ryanm
news:7ecb413a.04033...@posting.google.com...
>
> EMI, home to the Rolling Stones, Coldplay and Radiohead, also said
> recorded music sales in the year to end-March 2004 held close to the
> previous year's levels, despite rampant piracy and competition from
> other entertainment.
>
> artists we will increase our revenue-generating potential while
> reducing our costs." Niche and under-performing artists would go, EMI
> said, without giving names.
>
music that people want to buy, practically guaranteeing that next year they
will actually take a loss (which can be blamed on piracy, of course), and
then they can tell everyone that it was their brilliant move to outsourcing
duplication (eliminating *more* American jobs) that saved them? Are they
sure they're not just trying to cover the cost of buying Barry Gordy's
catalog for $80 million?
Once again, stupidity. A child can look at the music industry and tell
them that what they need is to release more niche artists, because people
have stopped buying Brittany Spears and Backstreet Boys en masse. Hell, look
at the indies, they're having their best year *ever* right now, because
they're releasing the niche artists that people want to hear. Are they
really this stupid? And if they are, do we really care if they go bankrupt?
ryanm
EggHd
sure they're not just trying to cover the cost of buying Barry Gordy's
catalog for $80 million? >>
if you are talking about his publishing, that was a great deal. The copyrights
in that catalog make zillions.
<< A child can look at the music industry and tell
them that what they need is to release more niche artists, because people
have stopped buying Brittany Spears and Backstreet Boys en masse. >>
You seem to be a couple of years off. usher sold over a million this week.
backstreet was over years ago.
Spears is over 2 million on this release.
<< Hell, look
at the indies, they're having their best year *ever* right now, because
they're releasing the niche artists that people want to hear. >>
Which indies?
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
ryanm
news:20040331122043...@mb-m15.aol.com...
>
> if you are talking about his publishing, that was a great deal. The
copyrights
> in that catalog make zillions.
>
> You seem to be a couple of years off. usher sold over a million this
week.
> backstreet was over years ago.
>
You know what I mean. Mass market, lowest-common denominator,
homogenized pop. Apparently they haven't figured out that not everyone wants
to listen to usher.
> Which indies?
>
See the "Some Industry News" thread I posted a few days ago. It contains
links to several news articles, including one about many of the indies who
are having their best year ever as well as some articles about ARIA having
it's best year ever, despite it's prognostication of failure due to piracy,
but utterly failing to mention it in it's annual report, instead lamenting
the poor sales of cassette singles.
ryanm
EggHd
They paid a multiple. Jobette was a VERY sought after catalog. There aren't
any like this left to pick up.
<< You know what I mean. Mass market, lowest-common denominator,
homogenized pop. Apparently they haven't figured out that not everyone wants
to listen to usher. >>
What makes you say this? And to the millions that will buy this they won't
feel the same as you do about it.
<< See the "Some Industry News" thread I posted a few days ago. It contains
links to several news articles, including one about many of the indies who
are having their best year ever as well as some articles about ARIA having
it's best year ever, despite it's prognostication of failure due to piracy,
but utterly failing to mention it in it's annual report, instead lamenting
the poor sales of cassette singles. >>
OK so you have seen an article saying the indies are doing well. You don't
know which indies of which genre.
EggHd
sales were up 13.7%, or 1.5 million units, compared to the previous week, and
up 11.2% (1.3 million units) compared to the same week last year. For the year
so far, album sales are up 9.2% (13.3 million units) over last year. Eleven of
this year’s 13 weeks so far have seen increased sales compared to the same
weeks last year.
ryanm
>
> What makes you say this? And to the millions that will buy this they
won't
> feel the same as you do about it.
>
That's what makes me say this. As long as they cut the niche artists and
push the few that have the highest profit margin, they're going to continue
to lose customers as they outgrow those few mainstream pop artists.
> OK so you have seen an article saying the indies are doing well. You
don't
> know which indies of which genre.
>
Rounder, for one. But I refer you to the other thread rather than
retyping all of it here. See the other thread.
ryanm
ryanm
> As of Sunday, in a week that saw five new releases in the Top 10,
industry-wide
> sales were up 13.7%, or 1.5 million units, compared to the previous week,
and
> up 11.2% (1.3 million units) compared to the same week last year. For the
year
> so far, album sales are up 9.2% (13.3 million units) over last year.
Eleven of
> this year's 13 weeks so far have seen increased sales compared to the same
> weeks last year.
>
ryanm
EggHd
Sign them and promote them.
<< As long as they cut the niche artists and
push the few that have the highest profit margin, they're going to continue
to lose customers as they outgrow those few mainstream pop artists. >>
Sorry to tell you this but the niche artists have the highest profit margin and
the pop artists the lowest.
<< Rounder, for one. But I refer you to the other thread rather than
retyping all of it here. See the other thread. >>
Rounder does well, yet is distributed through Universal.
You know who is one of the biggest indies? Welk Music Group owner of Vangaurd
and Sugar Hill.
Scott Dorsey
>
>OK so you have seen an article saying the indies are doing well. You don't
>know which indies of which genre.
I dunno about the rest of the industry, but folk music is doing lousy right
now. The classical market is also crappy, but it's been crappy for thirty
years now, so that's no surprise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mikey
They're in the additional higher sales increases that didn't happen
due to music theft.
You certainly don't seem to care about the loss of 1500 jobs.
What is your music industry affiliation again?
Mikey
Nova Music Propductions
hank alrich
> EggHd smartly posited
> usher sold over a million this
> week. backstreet was over years ago.
> You know what I mean. Mass market, lowest-common denominator,
> homogenized pop. Apparently they haven't figured out that not everyone wants
> to listen to usher.
Of what artist will you and your fellow music appreciators be purchasing
a million this week? Is the problem that a million is too big to be a
niche?
--
ha
hank alrich
> So, let me get this straight... they're going to release even *less*
> music that people want to buy, practically guaranteeing that next year they
> will actually take a loss (which can be blamed on piracy, of course), and
> then they can tell everyone that it was their brilliant move to outsourcing
> duplication (eliminating *more* American jobs) that saved them? Are they
> sure they're not just trying to cover the cost of buying Barry Gordy's
> catalog for $80 million?
> Once again, stupidity. A child can look at the music industry and tell
> them that what they need is to release more niche artists, because people
> have stopped buying Brittany Spears and Backstreet Boys en masse. Hell, look
> at the indies, they're having their best year *ever* right now, because
> they're releasing the niche artists that people want to hear. Are they
> really this stupid? And if they are, do we really care if they go bankrupt?
How's your lable going? Move a lot of product last year? Or did you bust
a nut trying to keep the server stuffed to meet download demand? Curious
minds want to know; I'm thinking of going into the music business. Might
as well ask an expert.
--
ha
hank alrich
> You know who is one of the biggest indies? Welk Music Group owner of Vangaurd
> and Sugar Hill.
Does this mean that the more successful label would have in its lobby a
bubble machine instead of a lava lamp?
Just researchin' startegy here...
--
ha
hank alrich
> I dunno about the rest of the industry, but folk music is doing lousy right
> now.
Listen, pal, I just got home from over two hours of playing what might
be niched as folk music, and I assure you there was nothin' lousy doin'
about it.
--
ha
ryanm
news:526517d0.04033...@posting.google.com...
>
> They're in the additional higher sales increases that didn't happen
> due to music theft.
>
> You certainly don't seem to care about the loss of 1500 jobs.
>
I mentioned it in the very first response in this thread, but no one
else seemed to want to talk about that part.
> What is your music industry affiliation again?
>
I am both a musician and a consumer.
ryanm
Andrea
> They're in the additional higher sales increases that didn't happen
> due to music theft.
>
> You certainly don't seem to care about the loss of 1500 jobs.
>
> What is your music industry affiliation again?
>
> Mikey
> Nova Music Propductions
Mikey, this isn't the end of the world. When those axed "Label"
artists continue on as successful independants, they will represent
some of the success of independants vs label artists and contribute to
a continuing, inevitable shift in environment where the most success
comes from being independant.
The other "Label" artists will be salivating in anticipation and hope
of being let go too, so that they can be free to participate as
indies. How else could they get a better deal... Not with any label
that puts profits and shareholders first and artists last. Those let
go, will spring forward and grow, bigger and better than before.
Think about it, if the music industry is reported to be a 36 billion
dollar a year industry, why is it the artist who create the music, and
the salaried people within the label that do the actual work, are paid
the least in proportion to the money they generate. Imagine if now
that they are free, they continued to work together, and shared the
profits between themselves, and not have to give any to a record
label. They would have real wealth to continue to grow and replace the
old industry.
Andrea
Michael
@msn.com says...
> The other "Label" artists will be salivating in anticipation and hope
> of being let go too, so that they can be free to participate as
> indies. How else could they get a better deal... Not with any label
> that puts profits and shareholders first and artists last. Those let
> go, will spring forward and grow, bigger and better than before.
I'm sorry, but that paragraph had me laughing out loud... Talk
about putting a spin on things.
---Michael (of APP)...
hank alrich
> Andrea says...
> > The other "Label" artists will be salivating in anticipation and hope
> > of being let go too, so that they can be free to participate as
> > indies. How else could they get a better deal... Not with any label
> > that puts profits and shareholders first and artists last. Those let
> > go, will spring forward and grow, bigger and better than before.
> I'm sorry, but that paragraph had me laughing out loud... Talk
> about putting a spin on things.
> ---Michael (of APP)...
Andrea's version of the Brave New Music Business is that people of whom
no one has ever heard will be selling a lot of product because there is
the Internet. I appreciate her enthusiasm for commercial freedom, and I
agree that here and there some folks of whom nearly no one has heard are
doing much better than they would if under the big label umbrella. But I
don't understand how most unknown folks are going to get expsoure unless
we see some serious revitalization of live performance opportunies. The
folks I know who are doing nicely in the present situation have
established a following for their live shows, and many of the people who
go to those shows buy product directly from the artist. They're doing
better than they might be, but in general they still cannot afford to
own their own housing in America today. Forget medical insurance and
other pleasantries.
--
ha