LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  February 2007

ARSCLIST February 2007

Subject:

Re: interesting!

From:

"Paul T. Jackson" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:17:55 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (124 lines)

Back in the 70s I was doing research for Xerox University Microfilms in 
Ann Arbor (UMI changed hands several times over the years from Xerox to 
Bell and Howell, et al). Anyway they were interested in bringing out 
re-issues of the London label on cassette, and were trying to find the 
market. I researched and showed them where the market was (over 1 
million record collectors in several genres, via a research report, 
reported in Billboard...although I can't remember who generated the 
research.) The business plan required a guarantee of $200,000 profit in 
the first year...I guess they didn't think it was possible, even with 1 
million collectors.


  Trescott Research  Paul T. Jackson


    Information & Library Development


    26301 SE 424^th St., Enumclaw, WA 98022

http://www.trescottresearch.com <http://www.trescottresearch.com/>



Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>   
>>   It seems to me that record companies need to concern themselves more with
>>     
> marketing and libraries should focus on the preservation of our intellectual
> history. I also wonder if record companies should focus more on making history
> available, for I cannot help but think that there might be more of a niche
> market for those old scratchy records than they might have thought there was.
> Well probably not since the marketing of music, both classical and popular,
> seems to have the performer as its primary focus.I remember how quickly after
> his passing, the recordings of the great pianist William Kapell disappeared from
> the catalog. Once a musician is gone, they become part of a niche
> market...perhaps a market for those who are more interested in the music than
> the personality. I wonder how different the business of music would be if the
> marketing was based on the quality and content of the music...I know, a bad
> idea.
>   
> First...record companies:
>
> They seem to be permanently locked into the world they once lived in!
> The demographic to which they market (and have marketed since the
> "swing era!") is YOUNG people (with the age steadily dropping over
> the decades)...and the quantities in which they prefer to sell are
> in the "gold record"...now "PLATINUM record" category of numbers!
>
> Two things happened. First, "pop music" fragmented completely. From
> c.1936 to c.1942, they sold "Swing"...from c.1954 to c.1962 "Rock'n'Roll"...
> and in later years "Rock." Oh, they had niche markets...country, race,
> "easy listening" and some classical...but those were treated as
> "side issues" since they had small, but steady sales. These days, there
> is NO single format which enjoys...or CAN enjoy...the kind of sales
> figures they dream of! Even "Urban Dance" exists in a dozen or more
> sub-forms.
>
> Then, recording went digital. The young people, who were often
> "techies," quickly figured out that one could make identical copies
> of commercial records using only his/her/its computer...buying new
> releases was no longer necessary. So far, the industry has figured
> out no long-term way to stop this...worse yet, their attempts have
> turned many of their potential customers against them!
>
> So...the days of "Thriller"-level sales numbers are long gone...and
> the industry no longer has the infinitely-wise A&R people who can
> pull off coups like hiring Elvis! However, they seem to be VERY
> slow to realize this!
>
> Second, libraries:
>
> Again, as you note, the folks in charge of them seem to be locked
> into a fast-fading past...quite possibly because their positions
> (and status and income) came from taking course after course in
> "Library Science"...which taught them, mainly, one thing...how
> to acquire, catalog, shelve, store, lend out, promote, what have
> you...BOOKS! Yes...printed, bound collections of paper pages...
> which, although they are interesting as artifacts, take up a LOT
> of space (unlike digital ones and zeroes...!)
>
> The last sales flyer I got in my daily paper...from a local
> computer assembler....now offers one TERABYTE of storage as
> a standard feature. I suspect this might accomodate every
> published book that has ever existed (don't ask me to do
> the furshlugginer data entry...!) or come close!
>
> I agree (being a nut on history and artifacts, as my 40,000-odd
> 78's prove) that we need to construct some sort of facility where
> every existing information-related object (books, newspapers,
> magazines, recordings, photographs, possibly even all the odds
> and ends we accumulate like notes and wothaveya...) can be
> stored under ideal preservation conditions.
>
> Having done that, our next step should be to convert all of
> this material to digital form...text files, scanned images,
> sound files, usw. This could then be stored on an array of
> computers (the above 1TB machines cost about $Cdn1,000 or
> slightly less per each)...and networks connected to this
> "ultimate data mine." Once questions of copyright and
> income are settled (if ever...?) this could be made Internet-
> accessible. Thus, EVERY fact for which a physical record still
> exists would be available to everyone with access to a computer!
> While it would logically seem that there would HAVE to be a way
> of limiting access (say, to plans for nuclear weapons, or to
> the password to your bank account...) there is still a LOT of
> information in the world that can ONLY be accessed physically
> (and, often, has been long since lost!).
>
> For example, I'm trying to trace my ancestry on my paternal side.
> I would guess that some of the data I need was in Clinton (Ill's.)
> newspapers in the mid-to-late 19th century; however, it seems the
> only way to verify that (and access the data, should it exist) is
> to physically travel there!
>
> Possibly only to hear "Oh, we got rid of all those old newspapers
> a long time ago...we needed more space for current novels..."?!?!
>
> Steven C. Barr
>
>   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager