Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

At 06:18 PM 3/18/2004 -0500, Steven C. Barr wrote:

> Well, with 78's, the record companies were under NO obligation to pay the
> artists anything more that the fee they got for participating in the
> recording session (until 1944, when the AFM strike was settled). Since
> 78's sold for well over the cost of their manufacture, most firms sold
> the players at cost or less on the assumption the purchaser would
> then buy the records, which were the high-profit items.

That's still the way it's done with some labels, notably the Naxos family.
It works for the producer, the artists and the market. Less known
performers get hard cash and exposure, less known music gets performance
and distribution, low prices with decent profit margins seem to work for
everyone as well. The advertising agencies aren't thrilled, though.

As with distribution, cost models may have to be updated from those of the
past sixty years. Most industries have learned that.


Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/