Comments on: Interview With Peter Strickland, Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Warner Nashville

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:09:03 +0000

Kind of like “an innovative distribution model” is still a free giveaway.

By: Chris N.

Chris N. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:54:28 +0000

Still an EP.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:35:10 +0000

At least WB is thinking of a way to make the changing industry work for them.

As for singles from “SixPaks,” it’s my understanding that they’ll be the ‘title’ cut and that the other tracks, like “Kiss My Country Ass” from the Hillbilly Bone record, will get marketed various other ways…

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:05:54 +0000

…why not taking the whole thing really a step further. forget about that castrated album they call ep, nowadays.

why not releasing music like career-threads. fans then can buy it song by song if and when released or they buy certain creative periods like “martina mcbride – pregnancy”, “dierks bentley – on the tour bus”, “brad paisley – insects” or time periods say “kenny chesney 1996 – january 1996″ or rascal flatts – still thinking, still thinking…still thinking….,anyways. and for old dinosaurs like me, they make the choices and make an album out of it but charge double the price of today because of the extensive use of the last brain at the label.

By: Mother Hubbard

Mother Hubbard — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:12:48 +0000

Good point Jon, will be interesting to see how it all flushes out.

By: Chris N.

Chris N. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:55:15 +0000

So renaming EPs is going to save the music industry? Hoo boy.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:52:48 +0000

@Jon, @Jim: But there are still hard costs that will be the same or at least close in the campaign regardless of number of songs on the record or frequency of release; I am thinking; publicist;, radio promotion,retail buy to name a few. (Granted some of these are in house but the personnel efforts and associated costs are still the same regardless of how many songs on the release). It costs the same to mail out 2,000 packages to radio/media regardless of 6 or 12 songs).

I think that’s generally true; I was specifically addressing the idea that higher costs would be a matter of indifference to a label since they’re recoupable. They’re still laying out the cash, which is not a matter of indifference, and it’s especially not a matter of indifference if they don’t actually recoup.

In looking at the major label, mainstream country radio world, where radio promotion is on a single-by-single basis and largely separate from album promotions, I agree that promotional costs probably will be higher over-all for a given period of time, but I think the changed shape of release/promotion in that given period of time may have a payoff to make it worthwhile; for instance, you basically get one big print media push at the time of an album release, but relatively little press with subsequent singles released off the album; if you can get 2 or 3 print media bangs over the same period of time by releasing 2 or 3 smaller collections, you might net out better even with the higher over-all cost. Again, I’m only talking about the country mainstream, where radio is heavily singles-oriented while the buying audience is still relatively album- and physical product-oriented; I think the math probably works out differently elsewhere.

By: Mother Hubbard

Mother Hubbard — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:09:41 +0000

@Rick, Oh by all means say hello, he considers the description a compliment :)
@Jon, @Jim: But there are still hard costs that will be the same or at least close in the campaign regardless of number of songs on the record or frequency of release; I am thinking; publicist;, radio promotion,retail buy to name a few. (Granted some of these are in house but the personnel efforts and associated costs are still the same regardless of how many songs on the release). It costs the same to mail out 2,000 packages to radio/media regardless of 6 or 12 songs).
@Josh, I would bet the farm that all the songs are written,recorded; packaged before the first of the six pack drops. The whole process takes so much longer than 6 months to implement from first song written to first record sold that I hardly see the artist would have time to reflect and then react on what worked and what didn’t in such a short time. Of course I come from a place where the artist doesn’t put any thought into what worked and what didn’t; he just writes the damn things and is happy if they rhyme.
I would imagine Blake Shelton sells enough to recoup any campaign and again my experience is based on budgets and sales numbers considered chump change compared to his league but math is still math. I will be sure to bring these points up if Warner comes a knockin :)

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:01:01 +0000

I like the idea of artists continuously working on his/her craft on a half-year basis because that should guide them to looking back on their songs and seeing what works and doesn’t. However, taking a year off from an album produced year(s) later DOES give breathing room to branch out and refresh in a different direction. Maybe a hybrid of the two could be the best thing for artists?

By: Jim Malec

Jim Malec — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:27:32 +0000

@MH: If you want to look at it like that. But I think what Peter is saying is that the idea of a “campaign” will change. So, the question is this: What’s the overall marketing budget (recoupable) over the span of an album cycle when compared the a trio of SixPaks? I mean, if the budget is spread out as opposed to tripled, I don’t see a major downside for the artist.

@Brady: My understanding is yes and yes, although I have conflicting information on both of those points. I am awaiting confirmation, but didn’t feel it was worth holding the story back any longer for those minor points.