Dubstep Forum Co-operative Label

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:45 pm

Thats a pretty general, but decent how to. Offers some good insight, everyone interested should have a look at it.

blackdown · Post by **blackdown** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:58 pm

how are any decisions going to get made - by voting? that's the first step...

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:08 pm

Yeah, a decision making process should be figured out.

I wonder if we should take a more affirmative route, to really take this more seriously. Otherwise this whole topic could be talked into circles.

Perhaps we could try this. Everyone who wants to seriously, and responsibly be involved should say "I AM IN" (or something to that extent) and leave there email address.

and lets say we give this whole topic a few days so enough people can get on board.

Then we can have some sort of meeting - perhaps an online chat - given we are all spread out, or maybe start some serious email planning.

We will have to also figure out how to divide the forum in terms of involvement.

We can have a small group dedicated to tasks and production.

Another maybe larger group, depending upon location/city, dedicated to promotion and the like.

and then the board as a whole that could also help in terms of figuring out what to release - according to timing and availibilty - this could be done with polling.

and we all invest a few clams each.

Now, the whole thing about everyone that invested immediately gets a record might not work. There should be a compromise with that as people will be giving various amounts, some lots some less.

I suggest that whomever donates gets the record at cost, so if you did invest a few clams to begin with you really did not pay more than an average price for a few tracks you REALLY wanted.

autonomic · Post by **autonomic** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:21 pm

I think this is a really good idea that could take off if handled right.

From a practical standpoint I think adruu's got the right idea. You would need a core group with specific duties and decision making abilities. It would make sense for them to be based in the UK at this point if the music is coming from there (an international co-op would be cool too but it would have to have a different structure). Broader particpation could come in the form of the broader co-op membership subscribing to releases (but not at cost unless the artists want to give their music away). There could also be a designated group of international people who would work on distribution outside the UK.

A completely horizontal structure, on the other hand, based simply on forum membership, would be complete chaos.

There's been a lot written on co-op organisation. It would be worth going through some of this stuff early on rather than anyone trying to reinvent the wheel. Build on what already exists.

autonomic · Post by **autonomic** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:26 pm

dubstep.coop would be a cool domain

auralassassin · Post by **auralassassin** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:30 pm

We could set up a corporation and those who invest would be shareholders. I don't know how they work in the UK, but in the US a Corporation is LEGALLY BOUND to protect the interests of the shareholders. Obviously, anyone who invests has some sort of say in what should be done.

If, and this is an ENORMOUS IF, there is a profit turned after the artist gets paid and the bills get paid, I'd like to know how the investment gets returned. I see a lot of room for error here.

I'd be pretty pissed if I invested in a company and it blew up, and got no return on the investment. If noone is making any money, obviously I don't expect to make money--but if we ever get to the point of a major(by dubstep standards)...

for instance:

I throw down 1000 dollars to facillitate the release, mastering, artwork, pressing, whatever... for a record for this supposed label.

I would still, then, have to pay for records which I already paid for to press/label/promote?

I just don't follow how that would work. I donate money to a parks association and then have to PAY to use the park... or pay taxes on a new road, then have to pay a TOLL to use the road that I donated time/money for?

I think if someone invests a serious amount of time/effort/energy/money into a label they should get a couple of copies of this record for themselves, if nothing else. I mean honestly... assume for a second that there is somehow paid for by this place a 2000 record run of a Lucky Strike/8 Bit/Reso tune/s...

Seckle invests 2000 US, time and energy into designing the artwork. He would then have to pay for the records that he already paid for? I'm not saying that he gets 2000 dollars worth of records for himself to play around with, obviously he invested to get them out there.

But the point is, there shouldn't be a problem with getting a few copies of a record if you are part of the reason that they are coming out. Are we not giving the producers a few copies for themselves?

I'm not trying to be down on this, merely understand and point out some of the major flaws I see. I am ready to invest large money on this right now, but want to make sure we all have our bases covered. I have no doubt of anyones intentions or motives here being pure, I do want some kind of assurance that if the label is making money that everyone involved is making money... and if it's losing money then that should be shouldered pretty fairly, as well.

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:44 pm

Yes. this sounds excellent. perhaps several individuals could be elected to handle different parts of the production, such as pressing or mastering.

elgato · Post by **elgato** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:46 pm

autonomic wrote:Broader particpation could be in the form of the braoder co-op membership subscribing to releases.

This seems to be a good idea to me...so some people, rather than contributing financially to the whole process in an abstract sense early on, would rather dedicate themselves to the purchase of a copy, thereby assuring from the off that a certain number of units would shift without doubt. From seeing the experience of a guy who attempted a similar enterprise elsewhere, it seems the biggest problem for him was in terms of people not buying the record despite having supported the idea previously and saying that they would. It means that a core of people would have to front more cash, but provided it is done properly, the risks can be minimised (such as by ensuring the aforementioned purchases)

autonomic wrote:There's been a lot written on co-op organisation. It would be worth going through some of this stuff early on rather than anyone trying to reinvent the wheel. Build on what already exists.

definately.

Regarding a decision making procedure, this is a very tough one...it seems that perhaps a good method would be that if an individual were to dedicate themselves to a purchase then they would be allowed a vote in polling. This is good in that it means that more people would dedicate themselves (thus providing more financial stability), but bad in that it restricts the voting procedure to less people (negative both inherently in its exclusionary nature, but also practically in perhaps reducing the probability of making it more broadly 'commercially' viable?). A further issue is that of deciding who plays the key executive roles...perhaps this wont be a problem, depending on the response and how many people feel strongly enough about it to dedicate themselves to it properly.

autonomic · Post by **autonomic** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:47 pm

that's generous of you auralassassin. two things though:

corporations can be a huge pain in the ass (i know from experience), expensive to setup, and might be overkill.

also, is the idea to have a non-profit co-op or a for-profit corporation? blowing up wouldn't really be an issue with a co-op.

8bitwonder · Post by **8bitwonder** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:51 pm

on the train to london woo hoo! wireless technology gotta love it

personally ive heard so much great music from around the world since i joined here that i wouldnt have heard otherwise!

i would be well up for putting up cash so that the likes of my tunes and other peoples touch the platter

so much talent on here

my oppinion

elgato · Post by **elgato** » Sat May 06, 2006 6:02 pm

in terms of getting copies of the record for investment, surely it would be better to keep inputs for production and inputs for purchases seperate? So someone invests a lot of money, they buy a copy of the record, and they recoup their investment. Is there a problem? The main difficulty i foresee with that is maybe people wouldnt want to invest in that case, but that remains to be seen. The idea of proportionate returns in terms of copies seems a pretty difficult one to work out. It depends of course on the priorities of the people who eventually were to be dealing with the matter.

Regarding corporation, I dont feel good about that at all. I agree that a strong degree of formalism and structure is required, but bringing in legal liability on the abstract norms of company law seems like a bad idea. It adds too much pressure on the roles of those in the 'executive' (as it were). Contracts between the various investors seems a much better option...much more straightforward legal liability, far less uncertainty for those involved. Plus (I imagine) far less expensive in terms of legal costs.

And as ive just seen autonomic say, a not for profit organisation would lessen such problems. Profit would surely just go back into the label. If the unlikely situation came about whereby there was too much cash to know what to do with (very very unlikely in my opinion) then more presses, better payment for artists, more releases etc. There are issues to be addressed in terms of time and effort and appropriate payment for various roles played, but these are issues to be decided by individual ideologies, which cant really be done until more is established. I personally am not into the ideals of middle-man, nor shareholder profiteering

auralassassin · Post by **auralassassin** » Sat May 06, 2006 6:12 pm

I'm absolutely for this idea...

I think that in the record industry you have better odds of making money if you set your startup capital on fire. I know that the odds are that not only will this not profit, but will most likely lose money.

I can handle losing my cash due to failure, but losing it and still having to pay MORE for the finished copy of the product seems kinda sketchy to me.

I'm the type to buy doubles of records I really like, anyway. If someone invests a large sum, or even a reasonable sum of money, they should get something for that money other than satisfaction.

If I were to start my own label and put out tracks and give a producer 50% of the profits after all the other costs, I'd still get a few copies of the product to keep for myself... the producer would get a few copies of the product to keep for himself, etc.

I wouldn't then charge myself for the few copies of the record... I already did charge myself by paying the money to the producer, the plant, the mastering lab, etc...

autonomic · Post by **autonomic** » Sat May 06, 2006 6:31 pm

auralassassin wrote:I can handle losing my cash due to failure, but losing it and still having to pay MORE for the finished copy of the product seems kinda sketchy to me.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that you should have to pay for a copy or two after already putting up a couple of thousand dollars to get it out.

I had a different structure in mind whereby a co-op's finances could be based on small inputs from broad base of subscribers so a known amount of money would be guaranteed ahead of the pressing process. But, unless the artist wants no compensation for making the track, the subscribers should not expect to get the record at 'cost' (cost meaning simply the cost of phyically producing and shipping the records).

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 6:45 pm

Well I was thinking that in terms of having to pay for a record it would be more like this:

Forum Member 1234X donates 1 or 2 dollars/pounds

Forum Member 1234X's name and donation amount are kept track of in an spreadsheet of some sort along with everyone elses contribution.

Since Forum Member 1234X donated under 'x' amount they are entitled to getting the record at cost, or about half price.

Now in the case of donating a larger sum of money, I feel that that person - for example donating 1000.00 - would of course be entitled to free vinyl. In addition to this, if the release does completely sell out and end up in a profit area. I think maybe this investor could either have their money recouped, or choose to put it towards the next release.

And, to a degree you may not need donations for the entirety of the label's lifespan - just mostly in the beginning. If you can get each release to sell out, you end up getting the initial investment returned and also having the funds to continue on to the next release without having to require donations again. At this point a subscription service would really make the most sense, if it were to remain CO-OP.

I think that its just a matter of determining what this X value is. Because really, if you only donate 1 dollar or so to this whole project and invested 0 time - are you really entitled to a free record? Of course the fact that this person donated anything at all should be appreciated, but it just wont work financially for every single person to get free vinyl out of this.

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 6:53 pm

Also here is where the subscription thing will also help to make this work - if it is factored in.

If we can really get a few artists on board with specific tracks signed over to the project, we can compile a short list of releases.

With this we can then initiate the subscription service, with the cost of each supscription factoring all the necessary details financially.

So in this case everyone pays the same rate, and know exactly what to expect when the release is due. Everyone gets their record.

so let's say to subscribe to a release someone pays 5 or 6 pounds / 10 or 12 dollars (price inclusive of production, shipping and packaging costs).

If you can get 100 to 200 people to subscribe to that release, your costs are covered right there. Also, since the subscription would be done in advance, we would know what to account for in terms of the number of 'units' to produce - making the whole production process that much more efficient - and then you get to worry less about how to get distribution or worry about promotion, etc.

The only downside is that in the beginning you will have a lot of wait time between when you pay your subscription fee, and when you receive the record - but if all goes well the more releases that can be done and come out on a regular basis - so that you can expect your record on a certain day of each month, or every other month.

autonomic · Post by **autonomic** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:16 pm

i honestly don't know enough about this to say a whole lot. but i'll bet there some punk co-op lablels about that could serve as models.

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:20 pm

Haha, I would think that any good punk co-op label would be defunct by now. Didnt it go all mainstream?

Maybe someone should grab a copy of Maximum Rock n Roll, and see whats what.

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:22 pm

Hmm, you know the subscription aspect for generating intially funds is entirely possible. Looking at the number of members here, if only a fraction signed up it would still work. 25 % or so?

autonomic · Post by **autonomic** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:24 pm

CEDE wrote:Haha, I would think that any good punk co-op label would be defunct by now. Didnt it go all mainstream?

Maybe someone should grab a copy of Maximum Rock n Roll, and see whats what.

well there's still plenty going on at local levels. i'd look at punk planet before mrr. also message boards, etc. and even if something is defunct it could still provide the model a project like this would need. it would just be such a waste of time to start from scratch without learning from other people's mistakes and knowledge, whether it's punk distros or other co-ops.

cede · Post by **cede** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:32 pm

Right, I understand what you mean. I just think its fun to joke about all that punk stuff because I was a young teen going to all those shows, and just think its funny to think back on stuff like that.

I understand how labels work, since its already part of my day to day, but understanding the CO-OP aspect a lot better is definitely important in this situation.

Dubstep Forum Co-operative Label

Who is online