At Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:13:19 Josh wrote:

>A major label makes money selling a million units of a single release-- but
>not, apparently, 20,000 units of 50 titles each.
>
>But this is product-centric thinking, and it is axiomatic that good
>businesses are consumer-centric.  Because I feel like the million sellers
>are bought by the guy who wanders into the record store 2 or 3 times a 
>year,
>and the 20,000 sellers are bought by-- well, us.  Heavy purchasers.
>Shouldn't there be a way for a record marketer to target my share of 
>wallet,
>as a heavy spender?

Josh,
You've figured out what many of us have been doing for awhile - RHINO was 
the first, I think, to take this tactic.

My label's approach has always been to release more product, by more 
artists, than the five major labels combined in a given year. We're sending 
out 20 titles every quarter. A lot of them won't sell more than 200 or 300 
units, but the REPEAT business is booming because we're attempting quality 
re-issues and remastering packages. We're not everyone's cup of tea. Right 
now we're scaling back signing new talent, but continue distributing 
finished goods and completed projects requiring less capital 
investment...thereby allowing us to tap into more talent, more audience, 
more purchasers (or at least satisfying the same customers more frequently).

So far it's working. Would love to have a million seller, but not at the 
cost of excluding a lot of people who count on our output -- it's called 
investing in the industry. We employee staff and keep a lot of 
manufacturers, graphic designers, photographers and musicians working.

Now, if the other labels would follow suit, the business would be a lot 
healthier right now.

Jaimie Vernon,
Bullseye

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca