|
Beatport imposing sales requirements for labels: Less crap in the future?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tjpatel |
| quote: | Beatport imposing sales requirements for labels: Less crap in the future?
I stumbled upon this interesting discussion recently over at GU forums. Jay Epoch (label manager for Proton Music) has kicked off an interesting thread worth checking out.
Jay writes:
I've watched sales dwindle each month as Beatport adds more and more labels releasing more and more music. During the month of December, Beatport set a last minute deadline for labels to get releases to them if they wanted to get music out by the end of the year. As a result, there were far fewer releases on Beatport in December. We managed to get our releases turned in on time, but many labels didn't. Sales for these releases we got turned in were about 2-3x that of the normal releases. This got all of the releases into genre top 100 charts.
Anyway, here's the money line:
Anyway, I'm sharing this because I just got this notification from Beatport: "Any label that cannot produce $300.00 in GROSS sales each quarter will be put on a probationary status. If the label is unable to hit the $600.00 mark by the second quarter then that label will be cut from the Beatport system [...] by increasing your promotions outside of the Beatport store and providing a consistent new release schedule we are confident that many of our low producing labels will be able to achieve the quarterly sales goal."
Thank you very much. Maybe there's finally some sort of quality control being implemented. I'm sick of browsing through loads of crap everytime I log in to Beatport. But let's not be so fast here: I know that there's plenty of amazing small labels on Beatport that can't produce those proposed numbers. What about them?
Less crap in the future? Maybe not. |
|
|
|
| donnybrasco |
Interesting.
Good question too about smaller labels not being able to meet a "quota".
But I guess when you think about it, Beatport is a retail outlet, not a promoter of labels. It's always been up to the labels to promote and market their talent anyway in the music industries. And just like a retail location, their shelf-space (or in this case, server space), is limited.
Alas, even the internet isn't free from the pitfalls of supply and demand. ;) |
|
|
| Sadface |
| I think its good. 300 dollars is only 150 downloads. No matter how small the label is, it should be able to get 50 downloads a month if the music even decent. This should be a good change because there really is a ton of crap on beatport. |
|
|
| Junior Chavez |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Alas, even the internet isn't free from the pitfalls of supply and demand. ;) |
very well said! |
|
|
| gerard6975 |
i do see the point of Beatport implementing this quota so that they can delete all the useless tracks saved in their servers. however, this will really affect the small independent labels who don't have the marketing back up that the bigger labels have. even though they have excellent tracks.
they can always submit promos to big DJs so hopefully they'll play it but how many tracks do they get in a day and listen to them?
maybe the best thing beatport can also do to help these fledgling labels is to have another subcategory for these labels. or maybe, have a group of TAs review the tracks weekly in exchange for free wav tracks :)
it's a win-win offer |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| they should just create a category for all of the crap that isnt meeting the quota. Or in some way seperate all the crap that isnt selling and therefore only desperate or jobless junkies will even bother with it. And all other categories will be less diluted |
|
|
|
|
