Why does Sony BMG have so many labels?

[Doc]

Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG


There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many? How is it decided
which label a particular artist will be released under?

[jtougas]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:40:29 GMT, "Doc" >
trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write:

>Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG
>
>
>There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many? How is it decided
>which label a particular artist will be released under?
>

Image.
--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings

[Paul Stamler]

"jtougas" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:40:29 GMT, "Doc" >
> trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write:
>
> >Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG
> >
> >
> >There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many? How is it decided
> >which label a particular artist will be released under?
> >
>
> Image.

Also keeping trademarks active.

Also niche marketing.

Also what happens when companies which already have multiple labels merge.

Peace,
Paul

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Paul Stamler" >...

> Also what happens when companies which already have multiple labels merge.

Sperzactly.... the MG stood for Music Group. IE more than one...


;-)

[David Satz]

Doc wrote:

> Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG
>
> There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many?

The present company is the result of a large number of mergers and
acquisitions. The original labels are still familiar to many consumers
(e.g. "RCA Red Seal"), and this gives them substantial value as
marketing assets. Thus the company maintains some activity in most of
these labels just to keep the names in public view.

As you've noticed, though, under that strategy there may be little
rhyme or reason to what material is released through which label. That
is not necessarily due to some ingenious strategy that you and I can't
fathom; it is more likely due to advanced cluelessness, which is
chronic at the major labels. To me, the main surprise is that their
failure rate is not even higher than it has been historically (i.e.
nearly 100%).

And let me just say, as a classical musician and engineer, that these
past few decades have been a disaster with almost the entire fate of
our small, vulnerable part of the business dangling on the brilliant
success of these genius graduates in business administration, who see
every business as having the same fundamentals whether it be shoes,
clothing or culture. Everything must be "cross-promoted" and "tied in"
to popular phenomena to maximize value, or it is not produced at all.
As a result few people in this country hear classical music outside of
their dentist's office.

[Richard Crowley]

"Doc" > wrote ...
> Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG
>
>
> There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many?

In the corporate world, it is called "Mergers and
Acquisitions". Somewhere out there on the interweb
you could likely find a "family tree" that traced where
all those labels came from.

>How is it decided
> which label a particular artist will be released under?

They probably have contentious staff meetings where
they throw things at each other.

[Scott Dorsey]

Doc > wrote:
>Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG
>
>There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many? How is it decided
>which label a particular artist will be released under?

A lot of those labels aren't taking any new artists on, but are just releasing
back catalogue. For name recognition purposes, it's best to keep the original
label name, which means when a company like Sony goes on binges of buying out
other labels, they find themselves with lots of names like this.

If you strike out the back-catalogue-only labels, you'll see what is left
are labels with a rather specific musical genre. A label that issues
reggae isn't going to sign Van Cliburn up.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Richard Crowley > wrote:

> "Doc" > wrote ...
> > Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony BMG
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG
> >
> >
> > There's a long list of labels under them. Why so many?
>
> In the corporate world, it is called "Mergers and
> Acquisitions". Somewhere out there on the interweb
> you could likely find a "family tree" that traced where
> all those labels came from.

When I wanted to use some material from one of their defunct labels, I
had to tell them that they owned it.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/HXP001/hxp001.htm


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[hank alrich]

David Satz wrote:

> And let me just say, as a classical musician and engineer, that these
> past few decades have been a disaster with almost the entire fate of
> our small, vulnerable part of the business dangling on the brilliant
> success of these genius graduates in business administration, who see
> every business as having the same fundamentals whether it be shoes,
> clothing or culture. Everything must be "cross-promoted" and "tied in"
> to popular phenomena to maximize value, or it is not produced at all.
> As a result few people in this country hear classical music outside of
> their dentist's office.

So now Kenny G is _classical_? What happened to his jazz career? <g>

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"