Don't Overreact To EMI Losing The Rolling Stones
from the weeding-out-the-old dept
The news that The Rolling Stones have ditched EMI for rival Universal Music is being painted in the press as the latest blow to EMI since it was taken over by a private equity firm. It’s already lost Radiohead and Paul McCartney, and other artists like Coldplay have complained about the direction that EMI is moving in. However, before people bury EMI, perhaps it’s worth looking at the upside for EMI here. The Rolling Stones, from the sound of things, were looking for a hugely lucrative deal, knowing that they were a premium brand. But EMI is in the process of trying to reinvent itself for the next generation of music. Getting tied into a hugely expensive deal with a legacy band would make that much more difficult. Yes, losing an old school big name band is a blow to the EMI brand, but the next generation may be a lot more interested in being represented by a label that actually understands the market, rather than one that is actively trying to fight where the industry is heading.
Filed Under: business models, record labels, rolling stones
Comments on “Don't Overreact To EMI Losing The Rolling Stones”
I would think the Stones are a prime candidate to use or experiment with business models such as Trent Renzor’s.
At this point the Stones should be giving the music away, it’s not like the Glimmer Twins need to pay for blood transfusions anymore.
The Rolling Stones? Does any one under 50 even care about them? I sure as hell don’t, and I can’t imagine a lot of others do either. Get rid of old, washed up bands and sign new, young, innovative, forward thinking bands. Good riddance to old, alcoholic, druggies.
EMI's value as a music pubisher
EMI’s true value as a publisher and distributor of music lies not in assets of liabilities like the Rolling Stones , but in their back catalogue. EMI’s back catalogue goes back to the dawn of sound recordings. They hold one of the most valuable single archives of this kind in the world. It is matched only by the **aggregated** assets of Universal/Vivendi when you take into account all the smaller companies they have acquired.
When push comes to shove, and economic times are TRULY bad, (not just bad because they’re not making quite as much money as they think they should be), the best survivors are the companies rich in their own back catalogue. In terms of their back catalogue, the Rolling Stones are but a spec of sand sand on the beaches of all the oceans and all the deserts of the world. We should be more worried about how well EMI manage their archives!
EMI won’t miss them one bit!
Do the Rolling Stones still release anything? Aren’t they in the “Eternal Greatest Hits” phase of their career?
With all the advents of Emi over the past years, why is it they just cant keep out of the headlines?
All i ever hear from this label is bad news, i came across this article http://bit.ly/be44gG and was shocked to see what Emi are trying to offer to other labels.