The more I think about it, the more the coincidence between both U2 and Eminem being with the same label (Interscope/Geffen) becomes less amazing.

Let’s allow our imaginations to run wild, and see if there is some sort of a pattern here:

Two monster acts both have big follow up releases. Each of their CDs, scant weeks before their official release date, "mysteriously" end up on the P2P networks. Eminem’s album goes on to sell sells 19 million copies; Now, its U2’s turn; Their album comes out November 23rd.

We can also presume that both U2 and Eminem understand P2P a wee bit better than does their label.

What else do we know? Traditional radio stations as a source of breaking new music is way past the height of its power; Now, its glory is fading. We’ve discussed too many times how consolidation has led to increasingly narrow playlists; An artist that wants to break away from rigid formats might find themselves hamstrung by new radio.

Both U2 and Eminem are well established, multi-platinum selling  artists. They are each in their own ways anti-authority, in their music as well as personas.

And as we’ve mentioned yesterday, each of them — get out your tinfoil hats — have Interscope/Geffen as a label. (“Just because you are paranoid doen’t mean they aren’t after you” said Philip K. Dick).

Tragedy Of The Commons
Are these P2P releases being done with Interscope’s tacit permission? Are some younger execs secretly greenlighting these P2P promos, unbeknowst to senior management? I cannot say for sure, but its an intriguing possibility.

Consider the competitive advantage for the first label that breaks ranks with the others. While the big 4 (3?) labels maintain their uniform opposition to P2P in public, behind the scenes, they have adjusted to some new realities. Many use tracking services like Big Champagne to keep abreast of the P2P top movers. They know the old model is dead; They simply haven’t come to grips with a new one.

The first label to embrace P2p as the new radio promotional machine will garner a windfall. The other labels will either let them maintain this enormous advantage — or they will have to join them.

Makes for interesting theorizing.

Category: Finance, Music

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

4 Responses to “No Coincidences”

  1. jim says:

    As long as we’re just theorizing, couldn’t it be that it makes sense that both albums are under the same label, since it only takes one person to release misappropriated recordings?

  2. Monday & Some Trouble

    Short one today. Thought the dns propagation would take a bit longer. Many things to correct this morning. One correction should be to stop posting like a telegram. One major kink and two minor kinks to work out and I’m done here on the new server. It …

  3. Monday & Some Trouble

    Short one today. Thought the dns propagation would take a bit longer. Many things to correct this morning. One correction should be to stop posting like a telegram. One major kink and two minor kinks to work out and I’m done here on the new server. It …

  4. David Bennett says:

    This reminds me of the big debate over pirated software which started a generation ago. One very persuasive argument is that it in many cases increased sales. People had a chance to try out software, it’s dominance spread. This same individuals often went on to buy the software as they acquired income or went to work for companies, updates and other added value also worked for legitimacy.

    In contrast to the “tragedy of the commons” one thing that many conservatives forget is the “responsibility of the commons.” I think a good argument can be made that one aspect of success in Anglo/American capitalism was a sense of responsibility for public spaces. Individuals often picked up litter in parks or at least the streets in front of their houses. One can see the process in queuing which establishes rules and “fairness.” We saw the difference in Iraq when fod and other things were distributed. People pushed their way into the front, a different set of habits.

    One concept of citizenship was that this shared wealth is ours and we have responsibility for it.

    A tangible economic and technical miracle based on shared resources is the Internet. In the eighties and the early nineties the rapid expansion was fed by gifts. Programmers in corporations, government and academia built the pieces. Privately owned communication lines were shared. Value was multiplied. This is why it eclipsed privately developed systems such as Compuserve.

    I strongly suspect that an offshoot of this, “shareware” has appiclation in the music industry. Many young pirates feel no obligation to support corporations or rich bands, but are inclined to support the struggling. Tapping into this is an opportunity.

    Historically the Grateful dead encouraged bootlegging. It’s interesting that a fairly complex community built up around them.