Terry McBride’s New Music Industry
A WIRED Magazine article on music manager Terry McBride’s plans to reinvent the way his artists (including Bare Naked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne and more) sell and promote their music is well worth reading:"…McBride’s success will depend on what he calls "collapsed copyright" Nettwerk will represent artists like BNL, but the bands will record under their own labels and retain ownership of all their intellectual property, an anomaly in the industry. The bands, in turn, can expect to earnconsiderably more money – say, $5 to $6 from the sale of each CD instead of the standard dollar or two."
"Nettwerk is also poised to take advantage of the significant changes in music marketing wrought by social networking sites like MySpace. Radio, and the labels that provide tunes for radio playlists, are no longer the gatekeepers to stardom…Nettwerk has tapped this phenomenon to the fullest, offering prizes to people who sell a certain number of CDs to friends and using software to keep close tabs on its extensive network of volunteer marketers, formerly known as fans." (more here)
It’s easy to dismiss McBride as the latest media darling using the major labels as a whipping post, but he and his artists are acutally out in the trenches, taking risks and trying to create a new paradigm.
Share on:
Your link to Nettwerk in the article is incorrect.
Otherwise thanks for the good reference.
This isn’t a new paradigm, but McBride has done a good job being very vocal about his desire for some kind of change.
There have been a lot of artists who have taken their popularity and put out their records themselves. I think a good recent example is Collective Soul. And Tommy Lee did the same as well. There are enough freelance sales/marketing people and publicity companies for these folks to hire. Get a distributor to manufacture and distribute and then get the product out there.
What I’d like McBride to address is how his vision applies to new artists or artists without much popularity. It’s a lot easier for an established artist to take ownership and assume all the risk (because there’s far less risk than if they were unknown). But what about artists who don’t have a fanbase that was won through the efforts of a major label?
Artist development is what separates the BNL from a group like the Pink Spiders, for example, who would still be on an indie and playing in Nashville if Suretone/Interscope didn’t sign them. In the event they become big huge stars, they can eventualy go the McBride route, take ownership of their recordings, maybe start their own label and assume all the legal, marketing, sales and publicity duties. They can assume all the risk. The McBride Method won’t work for them until they reach a certain level of success. In the meantime, Suretone is assuming all the risk.
It boils down to this: Is it better to own your masters and have less popularity, or give up ownership of your masters and have a better shot at becoming well known? The answer probably depends on the personality of the artist and the level to which he/she wants to or is able to handle his/her own business affairs.