February 1st, 2007
Starting a label with $100.00
I need your feedback. I have an idea that I think would be a lot of fun and be a way to get a lot of people involved in running a small label. The idea would involve getting 1,000 investors to each invest $100. That investment would total $100,000 and with that capital, we would start a brand new label in a completely new fashion. Each investor would have equal voting rights on the bands/releases the label would put out. Each investor would also be able to help facilitate some of the best word of mouth since there would be 1,000 people involved in this project. Each person could bring something to the table whether it be web design, graphic design, internet marketing, tour promotions, etc. It would be almost like fantasy football where people are involved in the game without having to put up with the risk or the headaches. Obviously there would need to be a strong plan constructed, but given the above basic idea, is this something you would consider doing? Why or why not? If there is enough response, I might consider putting this project together.
Written by Virgil Dickerson
Subscribe
View more articles about
On February 1st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
southpawnation said:
interesting
On February 1st, 2007 at 6:23 pm
nicole said:
http://www.sellaband.com/
Ssssouuuunnnndddddsssss good, but also sounds messy, particularily when I think about who gets signed and how label jobs/work and outsourced expertise/jobs get dispersed, but shit .. I’d throw $100 against this plan …
On February 1st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Sean-Michael Dore said:
It’s a good idea… but i doubt the ability of even 1/4th of the 1000 people agreeing on a band… but at the same time, it would get a lot of attention of a lot of people… hopefully that would guarentee 1000 CDs sold first week…. and just think… if each person involved got only 3 people to buy the album thats 3,000 copies first week… that’s not too far from hitting the indie charts.
On February 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Shannon said:
Count me in!
On February 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 am
Jase said:
I’m in too. I’d pay a hundred bucks just for the experiment - successful or not.
You could set up a private digg style voting interface - using a ready-made open source application like Pligg. http://www.pligg.com
Then set a minimum threshold of votes required to consider an artist “approved”. This may circumvent and of the messiness Sean-Michael has alluded to. I think anything more complicated than a yes/no voting system is just asking for trouble.
Also, having an instant team of 1000 promoters means there’s probably a few hundred blog sites you’ll get promoted on immediately.
Anyway - I’m curious to see where this idea goes.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 am
mike said:
democracy is a fine thing… but not for label. too many people => compromises => mediocrity
On February 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 am
Nick Dominguez said:
Getting a 1000 people to agree on 1 release sounds a big headache.
How about this? Create a label that has a digg like style web site under a one label umbrella. Create groups for genres, so that people with like minded tastes can congregate around the music they like and have a better chance of agreeing on the release.
Now, to join the group there would be a one-time fee that would go into the release budget. The digg-like site would help users vote on which band/release they would want to do and band/artists could come to the site and pitch for doing a record with the label. So the whole thing would be sort of a hybrid of a label and a social digg-like site. I think I got enough buzz words in there :-)
The only problem I would see is sustainability. If one group does a release and it tanks, where does the money come from for the next record? Something to think about.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 8:38 am
Shannon said:
I think either 100 people with 1000 dollars each.
Or 1000 people with 100 dollars per quarter for one year.
Releases are picked by non-formal web page/site that contains no more than 10 releases each release time. The 1000 members will review no more than 3 songs from each band, and based on voting by the charter members the top vote getter becomes the release for that cycle.
By signing up each member full excepts that they have a 1/1000 vote, and the outcome is final. No getting together to debate the issues, you simply get 1 vote for each “share”
I think this is a GREAT idea Virgil, and I do think it could be a great experiment. I love it, and seriously would be thrilled to be a part of it.
The really cool part of the whole idea is spreading the reach with all the people and the people they know. And like someone above said each person can get five people to buy it week one you chart, thus gainging a ton of press. Further, and more interesting to the sucseess of this program, IF each member woudl buy 17 copies and let’s just say the SRP was such that the wholesale rate that the distributor would pay is $6.00 then you would see a release that is profitable on it’s first week. This would of course increase each member exposure to a little more than double, although the amount of press selling that number would generate, could create a story like no other, and draw attention to the release and cause many people to rush out to buy the CD as well. Could be totally cool!!
My 2 cents…
On February 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
MRacanelli said:
There’s an easy way to sum this up, and I live by these words.
“You can’t have too many cooks in the kitchen.”
Doing this causes some serious decision and goal-oriented problems….just look at what the voting system does for America.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
Virgil said:
I love all the feedback so far. I think we have something here. I realize that it could get into a headache with so many voices, but one of the understandings would have to be that there are going to be some releases not everyone will love. But I think with that many people involved, you will get some really incredible music and having a thousand people involved means word of mouth like never before. The vote wouldn’t have to be a yes or no vote, instead a points system not unlike Alternative Press’ 1 to 5 voting system. A threshold could be set and if a band reaches that vote threshold, then we have something. With that many people voting, I think that although not everyone will love every release, there will be a standard of quality. And having a thousand people involved, each band would have an instant fanbase and instant support base.
I like the idea of a private digg style site where people could discuss and vote. In either case, I think it would be something fun that we could all be involved with to some degree.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
J Wynia said:
I’m in on the $100 a year (just to see it happen) or even the $100 a quarter or more especially if a good model can be worked out.
I have found that collaborative work tends to work best when someone is responsible for the first pass: rough draft, nominating, pre-selecting, etc. At that point, you get much less of the design-by-committee problem.
There’s a lot of work that’s been done on election methods that lets people express their true opinion on the options available and ensures that the “winner” is truly representative of what the voters wanted.
So, for instance, if there was a person who’s job it was to screen the demo submissions and pick out the best XX per month/quarter/year. They’d dump the obvious crap and pass on the filtered list for voting. All of the investors listen to the demos and vote either up or down on each (one of the more fair voting mechanisms). Then, you tally the number of for and against votes for each demo and sign (or release if we’re talking about albums instead of demos) the artist with the most positive voting results.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
Virgil said:
I should note that I have already received an offer for distribution by a very big, very reputable distributor who has titles on the indie charts every week. I won’t say who, but it looks like this idea is already getting good interest.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Sean-Michael Dore said:
Time to work on a name.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Virgil said:
100 grand records? Pyramid Scheme records? Just kidding.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Andrew said:
Thats a great idea. I would do that for sure. I have great knowledge of the music industry in Canada and am a business and management graduate. Count me in!
On February 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
John Cox said:
I’d definitely buy in to this, especially with Virgil at the helm. I think the implications of having 1,000 financially-interested owners as sort of a guerilla marketing force are huge. All of the communication between the president and the owners and all decision making would have to be very structured, though, or you’d have a phone ringing off the hook all day. Despite the talent made available by 1,000 people, just finding it and utilizing it could make full-time jobs for several people.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Seth Progression said:
I’m in.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
casie said:
i think it sounds like an awesome idea. it might be the kick this industry needs to get people involved and interested again. it might be tough to organize the whole thing, i’d love to hear a conference call with this board of investors, but you can definitely count me in.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Shannon said:
In the spirit of the Fall Out Boy post. How about Minimum Wage Records.
On February 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Jackson Ellis said:
i’d do this virgil. i think it’s a really innovative idea, and in this industry just about everything has been thought of by now.
i read that post and had a lot of hesitancies brought on by some potential problems already addressed…but i like your reply (esp. the voting system) and it’s low risk, so why not…i’m in.
On February 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 am
jacobe said:
This sounds like a really interesting concept, I’d be in for sure.
On February 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Tom said:
Its a really interesting concept and I think if it followed the digg like format that people are suggesting it could work, I know I’d be in.
On February 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Keith said:
The idea is awesome! One concern. There will be a natural tendency for some investors to be more involved than others, so there should be some sort of tiered compensation. You know that some people out of 1000 will put in their $100 and wait for the money to roll in. Methods to prevent the dreaded “someone else will do it,” “large group mentality” should dealt with in the planning stages or else it will create problems down the road between investors.
Should dead beat investors (i.e. don’t vote, repeatedly) be compensated or should there be minimum participation requirements or you forgo your rights to compensation?
On February 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Kay said:
Sounds good, i’d certainly invest. But how do you choose the 100?
On February 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
jeff said:
i’d love to participate in this grand experiment of yours.
would this be a cd (and mp3)-only label or would pressing vinyl also happen (although i’m not sure if this would fall under ground rules or something for the thousand to decide)?
On February 5th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Virgil said:
Kay, what do you mean by “How do you Choose the 100″?
And Jeff, I guess it would depend on the release options whether we would do formats other than CD/digital. I think if it would make sense, we would consider vinyl.
On February 5th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
will said:
I LOVE the general idea of this but I don’t think it would ever work…far too many people involved.
On February 5th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
will said:
I think if you upped the investment to $1000 and brought the amount of people down to 100…it could be a great idea. You wouldn’t have to worry about people flaking so much as most people are going to do their part with an investment of a grand. I do really like this community idea though Virgil. You might have something here.
On February 6th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Virgil said:
Will, that is a great suggestion. I agree that having a hundred people might make voting and getting investors that much easier. I just thought that $100 was such a low amount that most people wouldn’t say no. I will put some feelers out about this and will definitely consider it.
On February 6th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Rob said:
I’d too would be willing to partake just to be part of the experiment.
I also have experience writing by-laws for non-profits and co-ops and I am now working on an incorporation [shareholder voting etc.] so would be willing to assist with the drawing up of rules governing the operation/shares/voting if interested in any assistance on that front.
Regarding the 1 share = 1 vote issue: It’d be easy enough to include a clause requiring anyone investing to divulge relations with anyone else that might be investing [an arms length provision], such clauses are designed specifically to address undue influence of a limited number of people over a group.
On February 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Rob said:
Please ignore the grammar in that last post too. Long day.
Cheers
On February 7th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Virgil said:
rob, thanks for your comment and thanks for your offer for help. It sounds like with your experience you would be perfect in helping plan the foundation for this company. I will get in touch shortly as things start shaping up a bit more. thanks.
On March 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Clifford said:
Cool idea! Consider this band! www.kritickill.com
On September 6th, 2007 at 10:03 am
IndieHQ 2.0 » Launchalabel.com looks suspiciously like an Idea I posted at IndieHQ said:
[…] Starting a label with $100 […]
On September 6th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Stephen Chilton said:
I see three problems with this. One some one would still need to be in charge and responsible to make sure everything was getting done. It’s rad to have the people who invested doing the work, but if you need a design for an ad and you have to wait for some one who is only marginally invested in the project but an equal to you it could be hard to get things on a deadline.
And second if people voted on to much it could be a nightmare for a band on the label “Can we get X$ in tour support that we need” “I don’t know I have to have 1,000 people vote” “We want to use this director” “I don’t know I have to have 1,000 people vote” ” We want to use this as our cover” “I don’t know I have to have 1,000 people vote” “Here is our album are you going to release it now that you signed us” “I don’t know I have to have 1,000 people vote”
And last, I think you would need the 1,000 people to come from a similar taste. If you had 600 indie rock fans and 400 metal fans an indie rock band would win but down the road the 400 metal fans would be disenfranchised and you would lose a lot of the support that was thought to be there.
On September 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Electrophon| $100 Record Label said:
[…] via IndieHQ […]