February 5th, 2007
More thoughts on Starting a Label with $100.00
I am glad to see that this idea has been receiving a ton of feedback of which most has been really positive. I am really excited about moving this idea forward and will from time to time pick your brain on how to set all of this up. A couple questions I need your feedback with include:
- It was suggested that investors should be able to purchase more than one share and that maybe their vote would be stronger if they owned more shares. Do you think if we stuck with 1 share having a cost of $100.00, do you think it would be better to allow shareholders to have more shares or should we keep everyone being able to purchase only one share? I am thinking there might be a couple people who would be interested in owning a bigger stake into things. While we are discussing this, what do you think would make most sense as far as dispersement of profits?
- Any ideas for a name? I think a name that embodies the new approach we are taking to running a label. It would also be handy if we can find a name that has an available URL.
- I have been thinking about the process that bands would be suggested and voted on. How about each shareholder would be allowed to submit one band per quarter. Those bands would be voted on with a point system (1 to 5 with 5 being the best) and the top x number of bands with the highest number of points would be selected for the vote. For example, if 500 to 1,000 bands were nominated, there would be a span of weeks where everyone could vote. The top 10 to 20 bands would then be selected and we would again vote. The top band would be reached to see if they are interested and if they are not, the 2nd highest vote getter would be contacted.
- I would also like to get votes from shareholders in regards to where we might record, how we might market the records, and most of the major decisions with regards to how we run the label. I would in most cases, come up with the scenarios and put them up for vote.
Let me know what you think of these thoughts and I will continue to put together the foundation for this project. The more I think about it, the more excited I get.
Written by Virgil Dickerson
Subscribe
View more articles about
On February 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Jase said:
In answer to your first point. Allowing people to buy more than 1 share / vote goes against the original concept we were all excited about. If the members are not all equal then what makes it any different to any other label?
I for one would not be interested in throwing my $100 into the ring if I’m competing with John Doe who has zero taste but a huge wad of cash.
1 person equals 1 vote.
On February 6th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Virgil said:
Jase, that is a very good point. I figured I would throw that out there to see what others thought, but I agree with your point.
On February 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Seth Progression said:
I also agree that no one should be able to buy more than 1 share. I really like the voting for bands to decide who to sign, where to record, how to promote, etc.
On February 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Nicole said:
This was a concern I had as well, an individual with more resources havig more say/power, but moreover, how would you regulate it? At this point it could be very easy, even for a major affiliate, to purchase multiple shares under different guises. I agree one vote = one share = equal power. I do think you should allow people to vote for most of the label activites, even submitting contractors like one would bands (i.e. recording studios, web design, printers, even publicists …) because that could expose some unfound talent AND encourage a wider range of investors, as some people are motivated by personal gain.
Would shareholders have a vote in marketing plans, tour scheduling and locations, promotional opportunites, etc. ? Would you post the various options, and shareholders would have , say, 24 hours ot turn-around a vote? This could be time consuming otherwise .. Lastly, what if someone doesn’t vote- are all decisions majority rules?
Name .. hhmmmm CentiRecords? Millenium Records … Our Records (might not be avail) … InspiRecords… Brainchild Records (jokes! ok .. I’m done …)
On February 6th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Jacobe said:
As far as names, what about something like “Unified Force Records” or “Unified Voice Records”
On February 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Bill said:
The idea of a company as a democracy is a great idea… and you can count on my $100. However, if a referendum is required on all decisions… that can wind up being a pain in the ass. However, as a republic (i.e. election of a board of directors) that could work. Certain tasks should always be left up to the community at large- signing bands, but the administrative stuff should be assigned to those deemed worthy and knowledgeable.
Also, sometimes the “will of the people” isn’t always the best thing for a company. Sometime’s it’s one man, one vision type thing. i.e Steve Jobs or dare I say, Tony Brummel.
On February 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Bill said:
Also, not to be nuts but 100k in this market isn’t enough to create the brand ubiquity required to really “break” a band. All of these big tours are pay-to-play, tour sponsorships are big money (25k minimum), and advertising is also expensive. Plus overhead for a capable staff or freelancers to work. If I was starting (another) label… I’d shoot for 2mm - 5mm capitalization.
On February 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Sean-Michael Dore said:
to be honest… allowing people to buy more than one share would, at least to me, drop my interest in all of this… i have a feeling that when it comes to voting for bands, recording, etc (which is a good idea) more often than not it’s going to come down to a margin of less than 10… so allowing someone to control more than 1/100 could really discourage people when a band/studio/producer is chosen.
but one thing that should be expressed to each person who is investing is that intentions should be for the betterment of the label itself… Bil’s right, $100,000 isn’t really enough to be a contender in a world like this, but with a group effort based on a DIY ethic… this could be something really special.
On February 8th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Sean-Michael Dore said:
sorry… I was thinking about this and i realized i said 1/100, and i meant 1/1000… i duno what i was thinking… because that kind of discredits half of what i said… why was i thinking 100 people? haha… egh scrap what I said, I will post something bettwen when I am not over-tired
On February 8th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Bill said:
Additionally, the traditional “record label” model is dead. Labels provide two things to bands:CASH and MARKETING. In exchange, we’d make 80% of the money, but leave the artist to reap rewards from touring, t-shirts, publishing, and selling effigies of themselves via McFarlane Toys. Not so anymore. Records don’t sell and to make money back you need to administer everything… functioning more like a venture capitalist for talent as opposed to a money pit that prays to sell “units.”