Yamaha Extends Marketing Efforts With Launch Of In-House Label [Updated]
The Yamaha Corporation of America (YCA) has extended its deep relationship with musicians with the launch of an in-house record label under the Yamaha Entertainment Group of America. Though comparable to such innovative corporate experiments as that of Red Bull Records and Hard Rock Records, these comparisons pale in the light of Yamaha's even longer history of artist support.
I'm still hoping to speak with Chris Gero, who is the Founder of Yamaha Entertainment Group of America and has a history with YCA dating at least as far back as 1992. In addition to being a songwriter/producer/composer who has worked with a variety of film, tv and record companies in that role, his career at YCA has involved artist relations from the very beginning.
But since many of our readers are likely most interested in Yamaha Entertainment Group's new in-house label, I'll focus there rather than pursuing what turns out to be a rather complex corporate and personal history.
[Update: An anonymous commenter made a solid argument
for why I should not refer to this label as "indie." Upon further
reflection I have updated the post and replace "indie" with "in-house."
Beyond that I still think it's a smart move by Yamaha and a great
opportunity for the artists involved.]
LEOGUN – Let's Be Friends
Billboard.biz got first dibs on the story and it's clear that there are some similarities to the wide range of interesting corporate experiments of recent years. From Red Bull Records to Hard Rock Records, such corporate labels are more about marketing than about providing a corporate revenue stream. In fact, for a corporation the size of Yamaha, it would be quite difficult to generate enough income to justify the existence of such a label for reasons other than marketing.
As Gero stated:
"Traditionally, what we've done with advertising has been print, down to the dealer level. But we need to compete against larger market manufacturers, and the best manner to get that messaging out is through artists."
Their first signee is British rock band LEOGUN who are currently on tour in the U.S. According to an official announcement, LEOGUN is:
"affiliated with Elton John's Rocket Entertainment Group…LEOGUN will release a five-song EP through Yamaha Entertainment Group of America on October 16 and a full-length album in February 2013."
Gero told The Tennessean that "two other acts have been signed and are working on projects." In addition:
"The label does not focus on any particular genre and will release about five records each year…The imprint will keep overhead costs low by employing just seven people and working with a team of about 30 independent consultants…Yamaha also has built a recording studio in Franklin [TN] where it will record all of the artists it signs, using as much Yamaha equipment as possible to keep recording and production costs low."
Gero also stated:
"The artist is going to be able to surround themselves with people who can finance and produce and market at a higher percentage. We're giving up a lot more territory to an artist than a traditional label would."
For example, artists will receive a "50% share of recorded-music revenue."
I'm guessing that Yamaha's extensive range of artist relationships mean they're less likely to take direct submissions but if I hear otherwise I will pass that news along. If you're interested in connecting, I'd suggest checking out their Artist Submission process for becoming a Yamaha artist. If you think you'd fit, it's definitely worth pursuing whatever your interest in the Yamaha Entertainment Group label.
Hypebot Senior Contributor Clyde Smith (Twitter/App.net) blogs about music crowdfunding at Crowdfunding For Musicians (@CrowdfundingM). To suggest topics for Hypebot, contact: clyde(at)fluxresearch(dot)com.
INDIE? Worldwide distribution rights to Elton John’s music was consolidated when MCA Records’ then-parent Seagram acquired PolyGram, the owner of Island, Mercury, and A&M, in 1998. Universal Music Group, which oversaw Seagram’s recording operations, now co-owns the Elton John catalogue with the singer himself, continuing to distribute it worldwide to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Records
I didn’t call Elton’s business indie. And he’s not on the new label.
I don’t really know anything about his business.
The point was that it’s kind of an insider’s game among artists already connected to Yamaha. That may not be the case as more signees emerge but it seems only reasonable and smart that they would work from their networks.
Elton John aside, I don’t think it’s correct to refer to this label as an indie. You’re talking about a subsidiary company of the American arm of a multi-national conglomerate. It’s a corporate brand extension. My two cents…
That’s a fair point except that nobody knows what indie means.
My understanding was that it initially had to do with distribution which meant that everybody except the major labels was an indie label.
Now it’s a confusing term that has more to do with politics.
Honestly, thinking about it, I agree with you. It’s just the term that struck when I was writing this post and it was the least important part of the post. If I write about it again, I probably won’t use that term even though they’re not an imprint of a major label.
I’d probably call it an in-house label and add some other terms to come up with something more awkward but satisfactory.
Yeah, the terminology has definitely become muddled. I think distribution does play a part, but it doesn’t account for everything.
Most labels you would consider “major” tend to be subsidiaries of larger companies. Interscope is part of Universal Music Group, which in turn is part of NBC Universal, which also has ties to Vivendi, blah, blah, blah. You could trace similar paths from the Sony and Warner major labels as well. EMI and its labels are a bit of a trick bag, but they’re generally considered majors too.
I think scale (or being owned by a company with scale) and impact on the marketplace play a part in how you would define a company, labels included. Early on in its history, Apple was definitely regarded as an independent (or small) business, but there certainly came a point when it became classified as being part of “big business”.
An interesting example: even though a company like Concord Music Group and its labels are largely considered indie, you could make an argument that they’re not.
In any event, I think being aware of a company’s ties (if it’s tied to a larger entity) and classifying them as accurately possible are important in analyzing a business, its performance, and its impact. And I feel it’s important to be aware of when big companies are operating behind the scenes through subsidiaries and sub-brands.
It’s pretty obvious who’s behind this label.
And given that there is no longer a clear definition I probably shouldn’t have used it.
But it seems so vague I don’t see why it matters.
PS – I don’t mean that your points aren’t worth considering but once a word means so many things it becomes kind of a waste of time to get worked up about it as some do.
I hope you’re not implying that I’m worked up about your use of terminology. Maybe that’s true of Nelson, but I’m actually just trying to help. I check this site from time to time, because you guys do a good job of gathering up recent news items, but the analysis and writing about those items tends to be less than great. Sometimes even lazy. I’m not trying to troll you, but the quality of reporting and editorial on this site is part of why you guys do get trolled quite a bit. It seems like you’re trying to get the last word in here…I also see you frequently respond to commenters defensively or dismissively. If you’re going to go point/counterpoint with every person who criticizes you on here, it’s your choice. But it’s a waste of your time. Ignore the outright mean or ignorant comments, and maybe try to glean something useful from the others. There’s always room for improvement if you’re open to it. Again, just my two cents…
I didn’t mean you. Sorry, I tried to clarify that with my ps.
I don’t respond to most commenters. I do go head to head with some who are either outright aholes or are anonymous and their responses just seem like trolling and that actually shuts most of them up.
I actually get trolled far less now than when I first started. I hope that’s partly because my work has improved but I also think it may be because I’m the only one here who challenges people in the comments. I notice some of them still comment, just not on my posts.
But it’s not my best side and you’re right. I may stick out because I’m the writer that actually responds most often to commenters.
Also, I’m not responsible for site policies beyond my posts and many of my headlines weren’t written by me, so I can’t address certain concerns that you mention.
Nelson represents an indie distribution company and jumped to conclusions. Obviously he did not respond to my comment so I have no way of knowing if he really cares or if he’s just marketing or is simply annoyed or had a bad day.
I try to have more positive exchanges than negative in the comments. Lately I’ve been cutting loose a bit and will rein in that given your thoughtful response. I think David Lowery’s bitter attacks gave me license but I do need to pull back in general.
Also, most of the time when I clarify something in a positive manner, no one responds to let me know they heard me or whatnot. So positive comments often don’t get reinforcement. I may just pull back in general.
Beyond that, indie became symbolic of a whole way of viewing the world tied to young white males with guitars and that’s when it became useless in terms of communication around almost anything but that.
So I should probably use it only to refer to small labels without major corporate sponsorships. I assume it’s ok if they have a distribution deal?
Beyond that, when I’m dismissive about such concerns it’s usually due to my own disappointment in realizing yet again that most people who talk social change don’t want to do anything but talk and occasionally vote. And that’s why the world will keep sucking ass for so many poor people including many of my musician friends who complain but do nothing.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. If we had more people like you, it would be easier for me to ignore the ongoing flow of bs that the web so readily enables from trolling to comment spam marketing.
I thought about it and I agree that most usage of the term indie doesn’t fit this label.
So I replaced it with in-house.
Hey Clyde, I checked back in and saw your post – thanks for your thoughtful response! I really appreciate your willingness to actually have a conversation with me. I hear you on Lowery. I’ve read some of his stuff and I think he’s a pretty bitter guy, if you ask me. I’m sure being in his line of fire is an unpleasant experience. Good luck with everything, I’ll certainly be back to see what’s new on Hypebot!
Cool!
Another great move and achievement by Yamaha. They have been in the industry for so long which proves that their products are of high quality that people just can’t get enough of.