While LNM Consulting is not a business that has forays into the music world, I personally have always been a huge fan of music, a musician and friend of many musicians, composers, singers, song-writers... and even drummers.
I have recently been reading some articles that refer to issues with musicians not getting a fair deal from record companies, but this is in response to the record companies getting a raw deal from the consumers, who have a 4:1 ratio of pirates to purchasers. That is not good. It means that artists, who previously went on tour in order to garner more album sales, from which they would make their "real money" now need to resort to innovating different ways of making money.
Fan rules:
1. Don't charge me more than another similar artist for your album.
2. Don't charge me more than another similar artist for your concert.
3. Don't charge me moth than another similar artist for your t-shirt.
It turns out that unless you're Coldplay or Cliff Richard, or rub shoulders with either, you have no entitlement to put a high price on any of your works. Mechanical royalties pay for everything so that real songwriters get their due, right? Yes, the songwriter gets their due, and their artistic expression gets applied. But what about the engineer's viability in the studio? What about the families of the drummer, or the triangle player or the session flugelhorn player? Do they not deserve to be compensated for the time that Mum or Dad was out of the house?
I live by the idea that if you're good at something, you should be valued for it. In this world of commerce, this value is shown by paying money.
I'm probably going to get into trouble for saying this, but if you don't feel you want to pay iTunes or a CD shop for your album, be responsible and at least cut a cheque to the artist. Read the sleeve (if you bothered to even download it) and have a look at all of the people inside of it. How about you write each of them a cheque too, each posted care of the headline artist. I'm sure that if we develop a culture that acknowledges every individual contributor for their efforts, we will start to turn around the entitlement mentality of this community and start to see more flourishing artists blossom. The may never be another Beatles or Michael Jackson, but you can bet for sure that there can't be with people stealing music.
I played at a gig at the Esplanade Hotel in St Kilda, Victoria in 2007 and was preceded by a weathered, yet young and naive singer/guitarist/songwriter whose repertoire was, to me, less than impressive (notably also, to the establishment, as they discontinued his set early). For all of his lack of talent and stage presence, I would not have remembered him, drowned out amongst the hundreds of other acts that have been of similarly unimpressive composure, however this man I do remember. Very well. He said something that stuck a chord with me in a foul way that I will share. He said "Don't pay for music. You can't charge for sound." as his parting shot, while leaving the stage. This evoked thoughts in my head that informed me just of the depth of his naivety. He truly believed the convicted words pouring from his mouth, but I don't think he realised the implications of that. While I would struggle to put dollars towards purchasing music that he contributed, given its purgatorial squalor, I can't fathom robbing artists who inspire me of their due. When you further consider that the average charting album (which in itself is a gamble by the record label to the typical tune of 100k-200k) employs the talents of, on average, 15-20 people for about 6 months or so, each individual intermittently.
In effect, to "stick it to the man", this young man's telling these artists that they should go and work day jobs, more than likely for "the man", while giving up their time in studios for free with a songwriter who writes music and performs it for free and has it recorded by an engineer for free, and it's then mixed and mastered for free and then hosted and shared via torrents on some other person's computer for free, just so that he can justify his own indiscretionary downloads of artists toil and labour.
Like it or not, Phil Spector's version of "Let It Be" is just as valuable a purchase as Paul McCartney's tweeked "Let It Be... Stripped" is (possibly moreso, if you, like me, were too a fan of their rendition of "Maggie May").
Pay for your music. Even if you send a check straight to the artist and the contributors. It's just the right thing to do.
» business coach
» technical advisor
» marketing consultant
» change expert
» sales strategist
Better Measurement leads to Better Business
I recently read an article on "How to Exert Authority At Work without Yelling or Screaming" on Forbes. It was an interesting read, but what struck me most is that when people write such articles, they neglect to realise that their suggestions almost go against the grain of the adage of "a well oiled machine". Their suggestions are well thought through and well documented and would frankly be a fantastic way to apply oneself in the event that you had a big "pause" button on your life and a mute button on your mouth.
But the reality is that we don't have that, and our personal filter systems when we're pressed to the edge are poor, at best. The trouble is that the sequence is out of order. Rather than resolve issues when they arise, which is an important skill best suited to people who think well on their feet, not people with anger issues, is to plan better: measure intrinsically every arbitrary thing that can impact on a project or a sale and then collate and collect this information. It sounds simple and obvious, but most of the biggest companies in the world don't do this, and it is why their smaller competitors are rapidly approaching their pace.
I agree that it’s important to manage your responsibilities with a keen check on your temper, but the guidance from the article doesn’t address the root of the problem. Because of this, people who are like this who read this (i.e. a very small percentage) will likely think to themselves “okay, I’ll do that next time” and next time rolls around, and they’ve shouted the whole room down.
No it comes from a much deeper sense of better time management to begin with, better anger management and a slightly more relaxed attitude towards contigencies.
The trouble in most workplaces is that people who only know one or two levels deep in a, say, 6 level deep project make decisions about the outcome and make promises that they don’t know whether they can keep and, more dangerously, that they don’t know HOW will be kept, and if it worked before, it’ll work again this time, right?
Well, no.
Many tenders are won by organisations who have project managers who have no clue and scarily, they don’t ask the levels below them to get timing and materials estimates and so they pretty much just guess. Obviously this has massive implications, but if their price is lower and they can deliver on time, then the buyer will choose them. But at what internal cost? Migraines and headaches from the people responsible for delivering on the inaccurately predicted forecasting, lost jobs for those who just couldn’t get it over the line, because the KPI was set by someone else without an understanding of the complex nature of the request.
I would relate it to a child asking their parents to practically instantaneously produce a Big Mac exactly as they would at McDonalds. The result would likely be a lopsided almost-hamburger with a not-so-special sauce and no sesame seed bun, that would have taken 40 minutes to prepare. The child would chuck a tantrum because its not in their time or taste expectations, because mum and dad don’t have a miniaturised purpose built assembly line factory to cook and prepare the menu, and deliver under strict time expectations.
This comes back to my biggest suggestion to businesses everywhere: if you can quantify and measure every action you take to a practically microscopic level and have clear lines of reporting, a project manager can very easily obtain the times and resources and their costs associated in order to provide a competitive and meanwhile accurate quote.
But the reality is that we don't have that, and our personal filter systems when we're pressed to the edge are poor, at best. The trouble is that the sequence is out of order. Rather than resolve issues when they arise, which is an important skill best suited to people who think well on their feet, not people with anger issues, is to plan better: measure intrinsically every arbitrary thing that can impact on a project or a sale and then collate and collect this information. It sounds simple and obvious, but most of the biggest companies in the world don't do this, and it is why their smaller competitors are rapidly approaching their pace.
I agree that it’s important to manage your responsibilities with a keen check on your temper, but the guidance from the article doesn’t address the root of the problem. Because of this, people who are like this who read this (i.e. a very small percentage) will likely think to themselves “okay, I’ll do that next time” and next time rolls around, and they’ve shouted the whole room down.
No it comes from a much deeper sense of better time management to begin with, better anger management and a slightly more relaxed attitude towards contigencies.
The trouble in most workplaces is that people who only know one or two levels deep in a, say, 6 level deep project make decisions about the outcome and make promises that they don’t know whether they can keep and, more dangerously, that they don’t know HOW will be kept, and if it worked before, it’ll work again this time, right?
Well, no.
Many tenders are won by organisations who have project managers who have no clue and scarily, they don’t ask the levels below them to get timing and materials estimates and so they pretty much just guess. Obviously this has massive implications, but if their price is lower and they can deliver on time, then the buyer will choose them. But at what internal cost? Migraines and headaches from the people responsible for delivering on the inaccurately predicted forecasting, lost jobs for those who just couldn’t get it over the line, because the KPI was set by someone else without an understanding of the complex nature of the request.
I would relate it to a child asking their parents to practically instantaneously produce a Big Mac exactly as they would at McDonalds. The result would likely be a lopsided almost-hamburger with a not-so-special sauce and no sesame seed bun, that would have taken 40 minutes to prepare. The child would chuck a tantrum because its not in their time or taste expectations, because mum and dad don’t have a miniaturised purpose built assembly line factory to cook and prepare the menu, and deliver under strict time expectations.
This comes back to my biggest suggestion to businesses everywhere: if you can quantify and measure every action you take to a practically microscopic level and have clear lines of reporting, a project manager can very easily obtain the times and resources and their costs associated in order to provide a competitive and meanwhile accurate quote.
We're booming... but we're struggling... Why?
We're all hearing in the news that the Australian economy is booming right now. Yet, at the same time, we're hearing that industries are struggling. Why is it that we have this seemingly contradictory newsfeed coming into our minds all the time? I have had a few chats with financial advisors I have consulted with and some accountants from small and large firms and the conclusion might seem almost too simple.
To be rather blunt, it's because the mining boom is having a great impact on Western Australia, South Australia, the mining areas of Queensland, and much of the top end. Down here in Victoria and New South Wales, as well as our close-by neighbours in Tasmania, ACT and southern Queensland.
The mining boom has delivered an enormous benefit to our nation in our taking the minerals from the ground and selling it to the world to make stuff. These are amazingly profitable business opportunities that much of the Australian economy sector misses out on. The "trickle down" effect doesn't have a "trickle across" parallel.
Why is this? Well I could draw up a bunch of conclusions, but the reality lies in three main contributors.
 |
| Salaries have stagnated in the East, whereas have risen tremendously in the West. Source: payscale.com |
I think it's an obvious thing that the East Coast is different to the West Coast: the sun rises in the East, sets in the West, our accents are different, we both are multicultural, but our blends are made up of different countries... the list goes on. But the biggest difference right now is that there are rich internationally demanded mineral resources in the West that do not exist in the largely populated areas of the East.
While having different backgrounds, our staples essentials are basically the same, right? We all need food, water, electricity, gas, clothing and community. But our selections of these vary drastically due to our different types of population. On average, men in Perth earn $78,057, meanwhile Sydney men are earning $73,322, and Melbourne men are a further $5,000 less than Sydney's, an inverted trend from a decade ago where Melbourne's earnings were greater than Perth's, and both were behind Sydney, all of which is a direct correlation of the mining boom causing a boom on the West Coast, yet having little effect on the East.
So you add money to the mix, but take the different heritages from which the West draws itself, and it has developed itself into a unique lifestyle which isn't similar, nor can it be copied or even superficially simulated on the East. And that's a good thing.
The West is - unlike the East - Primarily Self Sufficient
Some time ago, if you wanted almost anything on the West Coast, you had to source it externally and rates for just about everything was higher, because skilled labour was harder to find and materials would traditionally be imported via Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.
No so any longer, now that Darwin and Perth themselves have become vital ports for international trade. Additionally, as the mining boom has taken more and more effect, the manufacturing and distribution industries have moved westward in order to cash in on the boom and to provide a gap in the market.
In the East, the only resource that was ever lacking, by comparison, was the natural minerals, yet it overcame this dearth by being essential to the West by all of its commerce. As the businesses that Perth and the West once relied on set up or galvanise operations in the West, the demand on the East diminishes.
Sydney is SO 2000
Okay, that is a bit harsh, since Sydney will never, in the foreseeable future of Australia's tourism, slip behind any other Australian city in bearing the throne of the spectacle of our tourist hotspots. But its margin has slid from the remarkable lead it always had on Melbourne, but even more remarkably, Perth and many places in the West have risen at swift rates. This would be largely due to those who have moved to the West, either from around the world or from within Australia, have their family and friends visit and this has an immediate effect, but additionally, the extra money the state has earned have been directly invested into some clever and very well targeted marketing campaigns to those who would benefit from travelling and visiting the western regions of our nation. Sydney's mantle is still magnificent, but is a bit passé, when Perth is considered, internationally, to be a breath of fresh air.
Where to from here?
Well, realistically, the East has always been self sufficient and right now it's rocky because it's the Greece whereas the West is the Switzerland, and unless the West can bail out the East, there's going to be some hard times ahead. Is a mineral resources tax the right way to go about it? I don't think so. The reality is that a tax is just simply that, and it's discouraging to investors wanting to gain financial benefit from mining investment.
An alternative would be to introduce mining investment leverage incentives, that co-opt a mining dollar towards a nationally accredited investment pool, which benefits the nation in its core, not in a locally skewed geo-demographic. Perhaps this would be from re-dispersion into Superannuation funds, perhaps another way. I don't know the answer because, realistically, if there was a conclusive way of doing this that was infallible, it would have already been done by now.
But from what I've discussed with my colleagues, it seems better than the alternatives.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)