Post by James KahnPost by William SommerwerckThe people you should most be listening to are folks such as
Tepper and me. You need to give us what we want, or convince
us that what Sony/BMG offers is optimum (with respect to marketplace
realities) and couldn't be meaningfully improved, or some combination
of the two.
I just wanted to echo an earlier poster and express gratitude for
Mr. Meyers's participation here. He seems to be willing to listen
(and tolerate a certain amount of abuse, even), and I think we
should also listen to what he has to say. People here seem to
think that they know better how to run an operation like Sony
better than those who are doing it. I don't doubt that their
operation can be improved, but its raison d'etre is not to serve
Tepper and Sommerwerck. A little respect or politeness
wouldn't hurt -- I'm enjoying the discussions and hope Mr.
Meyers sticks around.
The following is a bit blunt in a few spots, but I hope Mr. Meyers and the
rest of rmcr will read it, consider, and respond.
I, too, am grateful that someone from a company whose products I've been
purchasing for more than 40 years is willing to communicate directly with
his customers. And I appreciate Mr. Meyers saying that he wishes he knew of
a way of burning an SACD to a DVD blank, rather than casually dismissing my
suggestion. (Sony probably hasn't developed the software to do this -- they
don't want people duplicating SACDs.) Few businesspeople would enter "into
the fray" or admit that a customer's suggestion has merit. Mr. Meyers has
done both.
But too many businesses think customers are supposed to be happy with
whatever they deign to offer. (Microsoft is a good example, but hardly the
only one. Look at Apple's mishandling of the iPhone rebate.) Why should
they? Are we supposed to get down on our knees and say "Oh thank you, thank
you, thank you, Sony/BMG, for making only a sliver of your back catalog
available in modern formats or improved transfers?"
As a customer, it is indeed my place to tell any company what I want, and
how I think they should run their business. It is Sony/BMG's obligation to,
if at all possible, meet the requests of me, Mr. Tepper, and everyone else
in this group. That's why they're in business -- not to make money, but to
sell stuff people want and will purchase (of which making money is the
by-product).
Although the numerical majority of my purchases are $2 CDs from BMG Music, I
nevertheless regularly support my local independent dealer, Silver Platters.
In 2006 I bought over $600+ of recordings on Black Friday, and almost $200
worth on this year's BF. (Almost all SACDs both years, by the way.) I buy
several hundred dollars worth of other recordings throughout the year.
(Paradoxically, it's the cheap BMG CDs that make it possible to give that
sort of support to Silver Platters.)
As are many of the members of this group, I am a true music "consumer". I
purchase far more -- in quantity and price -- than the average (pop/rock)
listener. So I have no hesitation in feeling I have the right to tell
companies what I want, because if they provide it, I'll probably buy it.
I'm fully aware that any business has to at least "break even" to survive.
It can't do that if it invests its (too-often limited) capital in products
no one wants, and (to a lesser extent) if it fails to promote its products
in a way that creates an interest in them. Deciding where to invest that
capital can be confusing.
Mr. Meyers pointed out that some recordings sell less than 1500 units
worldwide. I see no reason not to believe this. (Remember a recent opera
recording that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, and sold
only a few hundred copies?) Of course, it's not so important whether any one
title makes or loses money, but whether the business as a whole is
profitable. A few bombs don't matter if other titles more than make up for
them.
As new recordings become more expensive to produce, record companies have to
find ways to squeeze more money out of their older recordings. Sony/BMG
doesn't seem to have been very successful at it with respect to the Columbia
back catalog. I suspect the general failure of the Heritage series might be
the problem, and might explain why Sony/BMG seems unable to stop feasting on
Glenn G[h]ould's musical corpse -- it's desperately afraid to reissue
anything from Columbia it isn't reasonably certain will be a success.
On the other hand, the SACD Living Stereo series has been a resounding
success, despite SACD's relatively small penetration. (Does anyone know what
percentage of "serious" opera/classical listeners own an SACD player?) Why
is this?
1. These are "golden-age" recordings, which sell on the basis of sound
quality almost as much as performance.
2. Many are great performances from great performers.
3. They've been released in groups, as part of a continuing series. This
both draws attention to the reissues and engages the natural desire of males
to acquire "mass quantities" of material possessions. <ahem>
4. They're fairly priced ($12). (Silver Platters told me the SACD Living
Presence recordings don't sell as well. Whether this is because they cost
50% more, or there's less interest in Paray and Dorati, isn't clear. I'd
like to think it's the former.)
5. They're _promoted_ as great recordings.
The third, fourth, and fifth points seem crucial to me. The Living Stereo
SACDs (at least initially) were promoted vigorously -- these were great
recordings of great performances you absolutely _had_ to have. And the price
made them virtually an impulse purchase.
Sony/BMG should initiate a parallel series of Columbia reissues drawn from
its '60s (and later) multitrack recordings, releasing 20 to 30 titles a year
as hybrid multi-ch SACDs. There are enough great performances and/or sonic
spectaculars among these recordings to keep Sony/BMG busy for a couple of
years. If they promote this product, even to the point of shoving it the
customer's face, IT WILL SELL, just as it did with RCA. (And let us not
overlook the promotional value of reissuing "The World of Harry Partch" with
a "Parental Advisory" sticker on it.)
So my question to Jeremy Meyers is... Why isn't this being done? I don't
expect an immediate answer. All I ask is that Mr. Meyers to research the
question, and return with a considered answer. And if he'd like to discuss
it with me (425-235-9579), I'd be more than happy to go through my 100+
Columbia SQ LPs and decide which would be likely to sell well.
I'm not an ogre -- I just play one on UseNet.
PS: Dr. Land was famous for letting anyone ask him any question they liked
at the stockholder meetings. He wasn't afraid. Of course, until the early
'70s, Polaroid was a highly profitable company.