It's a semi long article but there is not a lot of data or research to back any of it up. The article is mostly guesses or borderline conspiracy theories over barcodes. Looking up each of these...
It's a semi long article but there is not a lot of data or research to back any of it up. The article is mostly guesses or borderline conspiracy theories over barcodes.
to order records by Black musicians that his Black customers actually want, like Betty Wright, Shalamar, or Graham Central Station, they're all on back-order But if he wants a Beatles or Pink Floyd album, Jones said, he has access to as many copies as he needs.
Looking up each of these artists on spotify and looking at their monthly listeners. Its not perfect but its not a bad view on whats popular.
Betty Wright: 500k
Shalamar: 800k
Graham Central Station: 100k
Beatles: 23M
Pink Floyd: 14M
It does not surprise me one bit that albums by artists which are 2 orders of magnitude bigger have albums that are easier to order. There is no conspiracy here. When you make up a batch of Beatles albums, its guaranteed to sell while those other artists will take a while, end up with a lot of stock left over. I'm guessing the labels wait for enough back orders to justify a new production.
So the store owners are not selling the most popular records, they are selling to a smaller market inside the vinyl market which is already pretty small.
I don't think pointing out evidence of systemic biases implies "conspiracy." It's not constructive when people say "Hey, I have a problem" to reply with "Suck it up, you're not important enough."...
I don't think pointing out evidence of systemic biases implies "conspiracy." It's not constructive when people say "Hey, I have a problem" to reply with "Suck it up, you're not important enough." Like the explanation you're providing, about the production runs not being big enough to be worth it, is still a story about market consolidation and escalating costs to production/distribution making it difficult to serve niche markets. That's still a problem for people that it would be constructive to solve rather than to dismiss.
But I'm not convinced it's entirely a market demand problem. It's likely they just chose their examples poorly. I hunt for records in my local flea market all the time and, despite me living in a Black neighborhood where almost all the estate sales are from Black families and there being a huge, vibrant, and thriving music scene almost everything I find is still like Cat Stevens and James Taylor. This is the birthplace of GoGo music and Henry Rollins' hometown, but I can't find GoGo Music or Black Flag anywhere. The people pressing the records just don't know about the Black market or even the punk market for vinyl they're not going to think to press it. It does tend to be dominated by a nostalgic aficionados for a certain style of music and I think that leads them to underserve other markets, but that doesn't mean there's no demand for it.
This "there just aren't enough of them to be worth serving" argument has been thrown around for women and minorities in comics and gaming for years and, once they started hiring creators and releasing titles aimed at those groups it was generally found to be a false conclusion drawn from a false premise. If the records are backordered that implies they have orders and they're not able to fulfill them with inventory. I would think the record store owners themselves would have an understanding of what their clientele wants and, if they're having trouble actually stocking their shelves with the product that, to me, points to a market failure and is consistent with the hypothesis that there are some baked-in biases in what's being supplied.
Yikes, that's kind of harsh. I can see why you have that perspective, but I dont think we're looking at a "fuck you, you dont matter" style problem as much as it is a "this isn't profitable...
It's not constructive when people say "Hey, I have a problem" to reply with "Suck it up, you're not important enough." Like the explanation you're providing, about the production runs not being big enough to be worth it, is still a story about market consolidation and escalating costs to production/distribution making it difficult to serve niche markets. That's still a problem for people that it would be constructive to solve rather than to dismiss.
Yikes, that's kind of harsh. I can see why you have that perspective, but I dont think we're looking at a "fuck you, you dont matter" style problem as much as it is a "this isn't profitable enough" problem. It's frustrating, and I assume the problems of systemic racism make it even harder for these business owners, but the number one issue here is the market. You're right that it's an excuse that has been used to justify discrimination in other industries, but given the state of the record industry I dont know if that's what's going on here.
I think it might be helpful to look at vinyl record sales by year because this article is a bit misleading about that. Yes, vinyl sales are up and they have surpassed CDs, but those sales represent a tiny fraction of a market that has been in decline for 20 years. We are talking about small businesses that target a niche market within a niche market.
This reminds me of the documentary Seduced and Abandoned which is about raising money for a film (and it features a who's who of deplorable #metoo all-stars). These out-of-touch producers won't go near a film unless it makes a certain amount of money, even it it has a talented cast and a small but devoted market. That mindset exists everywhere, from Community season six to the electric car. The baked-in bias is a preference for making a lot of money rather than some money. Imagine watching an episode of Shark Tank/Dragons Den (I know, I'm all over the place. Whatever, I'm an idiot) where someone comes on saying they have a great business opportunity and all they need are investors to help the supply chain get moving on a few thousand Betty Wright albums. Their biggest competitors in this market are Amazon, Apple, and Spotify, and the customer base is mostly made up of Black hipsters with enough disposable income to build a record collection. Who's buying in?
I think this is conflating pressing new vinyl, which is basically a commodity business, with the content production side of things which works much more like placing bets at a craps table. In the...
This reminds me of the documentary Seduced and Abandoned which is about raising money for a film (and it features a who's who of deplorable #metoo all-stars). These out-of-touch producers won't go near a film unless it makes a certain amount of money, even it it has a talented cast and a small but devoted market. That mindset exists everywhere, from Community season six to the electric car. The baked-in bias is a preference for making a lot of money rather than some money. Imagine watching an episode of Shark Tank/Dragons Den (I know, I'm all over the place. Whatever, I'm an idiot) where someone comes on saying they have a great business opportunity and all they need are investors to help the supply chain get moving on a few thousand Betty Wright albums. Their biggest competitors in this market are Amazon, Apple, and Spotify, and the customer base is mostly made up of Black hipsters with enough disposable income to build a record collection. Who's buying in?
I think this is conflating pressing new vinyl, which is basically a commodity business, with the content production side of things which works much more like placing bets at a craps table. In the case of vinyl most of what people are interested in in old stuff that has already been scouted, produced, and found its fan base. The addressable market is pretty well known. The thing that gets in the way is what to prioritize your production runs for and IP/licensing bullshit. That's a completely different kind of business.
Of course markets are not perfectly rational and higher ups may be missing something because they don't know about it, but those Spotify listener stats aren't decided by managers. They are...
Of course markets are not perfectly rational and higher ups may be missing something because they don't know about it, but those Spotify listener stats aren't decided by managers. They are representations of how many people actually listen to that music and while those examples might be not the best, I doubt they are far off. I'm sure if you wanted to buy a record from Micheal Jackson or Stevie Wonder you would have no problems finding them. Those artists both have listeners in the millions.
Just because something has back orders, does not mean its worth it to run a production. If you see you have 20 expressions of interest per year for an album but to be profitable you have to run a batch of at least 1000, those numbers don't add up to make it worth doing. Especially when the second hand person to person market satisfies the demand for the albums. If there was a significant market being unserved, and they had the stats to prove it. They could go to a rights owner/manufacture and prove there is money to be made and it may be possible for them to fund the production themselves. But that would be taking a huge risk on something which seems unproven. No one wants to be left with stacks of unsold product.
Of course its not great when someones business is struggling but the world changes and businesses come and go. You either start selling what the market is buying or go out of business. Like one of the owners said in the article, the they have a second store which sells pop music and does so well it is able to fund both stores. So its not some kind of problem against the owners, its a problem with the content they are trying to sell not selling well enough or being too obscure for the market.
This is an idea I see tossed around that is simply not true (see the whole thread for context). Spotify curates what is played in its suggested playlists, and that curation has a direct effect on...
but those Spotify listener stats aren't decided by managers.
This is an idea I see tossed around that is simply not true (see the whole thread for context). Spotify curates what is played in its suggested playlists, and that curation has a direct effect on the number of streams each artist gets. It's like saying that radio popularity of songs isn't decided by music executives -- zero basis in historical reality of the music industry. This phenomenon of using the tastes of white people as a surrogate for 'the market' and then as a justification for not platforming Black folks is something that the industry has done pretty much constantly since it came into existence. Who pioneered Rock & Roll? Blues? Country? It sure as shit wasn't Elvis.
that would be taking a huge risk on something which seems unproven.
Why are Black artists unproven and white artists are not?
You either start selling what the market is buying or go out of business
Why is it that 'the market' doesn't value music by Black artists as much as white artists?
its a problem with the content they are trying to sell not selling well enough or being too obscure for the market.
If 'the market' is primarily forcing Black-owned record stores to go out of business, do you think that reflects a problem in 'the market' that we should address?
I checked out that list of Black owned record stores linked in the article and god that was depressingly short. i was expecting at least one in Michigan!
I checked out that list of Black owned record stores linked in the article and god that was depressingly short. i was expecting at least one in Michigan!
It's a semi long article but there is not a lot of data or research to back any of it up. The article is mostly guesses or borderline conspiracy theories over barcodes.
Looking up each of these artists on spotify and looking at their monthly listeners. Its not perfect but its not a bad view on whats popular.
Betty Wright: 500k
Shalamar: 800k
Graham Central Station: 100k
Beatles: 23M
Pink Floyd: 14M
It does not surprise me one bit that albums by artists which are 2 orders of magnitude bigger have albums that are easier to order. There is no conspiracy here. When you make up a batch of Beatles albums, its guaranteed to sell while those other artists will take a while, end up with a lot of stock left over. I'm guessing the labels wait for enough back orders to justify a new production.
So the store owners are not selling the most popular records, they are selling to a smaller market inside the vinyl market which is already pretty small.
I don't think pointing out evidence of systemic biases implies "conspiracy." It's not constructive when people say "Hey, I have a problem" to reply with "Suck it up, you're not important enough." Like the explanation you're providing, about the production runs not being big enough to be worth it, is still a story about market consolidation and escalating costs to production/distribution making it difficult to serve niche markets. That's still a problem for people that it would be constructive to solve rather than to dismiss.
But I'm not convinced it's entirely a market demand problem. It's likely they just chose their examples poorly. I hunt for records in my local flea market all the time and, despite me living in a Black neighborhood where almost all the estate sales are from Black families and there being a huge, vibrant, and thriving music scene almost everything I find is still like Cat Stevens and James Taylor. This is the birthplace of GoGo music and Henry Rollins' hometown, but I can't find GoGo Music or Black Flag anywhere. The people pressing the records just don't know about the Black market or even the punk market for vinyl they're not going to think to press it. It does tend to be dominated by a nostalgic aficionados for a certain style of music and I think that leads them to underserve other markets, but that doesn't mean there's no demand for it.
This "there just aren't enough of them to be worth serving" argument has been thrown around for women and minorities in comics and gaming for years and, once they started hiring creators and releasing titles aimed at those groups it was generally found to be a false conclusion drawn from a false premise. If the records are backordered that implies they have orders and they're not able to fulfill them with inventory. I would think the record store owners themselves would have an understanding of what their clientele wants and, if they're having trouble actually stocking their shelves with the product that, to me, points to a market failure and is consistent with the hypothesis that there are some baked-in biases in what's being supplied.
Yikes, that's kind of harsh. I can see why you have that perspective, but I dont think we're looking at a "fuck you, you dont matter" style problem as much as it is a "this isn't profitable enough" problem. It's frustrating, and I assume the problems of systemic racism make it even harder for these business owners, but the number one issue here is the market. You're right that it's an excuse that has been used to justify discrimination in other industries, but given the state of the record industry I dont know if that's what's going on here.
I think it might be helpful to look at vinyl record sales by year because this article is a bit misleading about that. Yes, vinyl sales are up and they have surpassed CDs, but those sales represent a tiny fraction of a market that has been in decline for 20 years. We are talking about small businesses that target a niche market within a niche market.
This reminds me of the documentary Seduced and Abandoned which is about raising money for a film (and it features a who's who of deplorable #metoo all-stars). These out-of-touch producers won't go near a film unless it makes a certain amount of money, even it it has a talented cast and a small but devoted market. That mindset exists everywhere, from Community season six to the electric car. The baked-in bias is a preference for making a lot of money rather than some money. Imagine watching an episode of Shark Tank/Dragons Den (I know, I'm all over the place. Whatever, I'm an idiot) where someone comes on saying they have a great business opportunity and all they need are investors to help the supply chain get moving on a few thousand Betty Wright albums. Their biggest competitors in this market are Amazon, Apple, and Spotify, and the customer base is mostly made up of Black hipsters with enough disposable income to build a record collection. Who's buying in?
I think this is conflating pressing new vinyl, which is basically a commodity business, with the content production side of things which works much more like placing bets at a craps table. In the case of vinyl most of what people are interested in in old stuff that has already been scouted, produced, and found its fan base. The addressable market is pretty well known. The thing that gets in the way is what to prioritize your production runs for and IP/licensing bullshit. That's a completely different kind of business.
Of course markets are not perfectly rational and higher ups may be missing something because they don't know about it, but those Spotify listener stats aren't decided by managers. They are representations of how many people actually listen to that music and while those examples might be not the best, I doubt they are far off. I'm sure if you wanted to buy a record from Micheal Jackson or Stevie Wonder you would have no problems finding them. Those artists both have listeners in the millions.
Just because something has back orders, does not mean its worth it to run a production. If you see you have 20 expressions of interest per year for an album but to be profitable you have to run a batch of at least 1000, those numbers don't add up to make it worth doing. Especially when the second hand person to person market satisfies the demand for the albums. If there was a significant market being unserved, and they had the stats to prove it. They could go to a rights owner/manufacture and prove there is money to be made and it may be possible for them to fund the production themselves. But that would be taking a huge risk on something which seems unproven. No one wants to be left with stacks of unsold product.
Of course its not great when someones business is struggling but the world changes and businesses come and go. You either start selling what the market is buying or go out of business. Like one of the owners said in the article, the they have a second store which sells pop music and does so well it is able to fund both stores. So its not some kind of problem against the owners, its a problem with the content they are trying to sell not selling well enough or being too obscure for the market.
This is an idea I see tossed around that is simply not true (see the whole thread for context). Spotify curates what is played in its suggested playlists, and that curation has a direct effect on the number of streams each artist gets. It's like saying that radio popularity of songs isn't decided by music executives -- zero basis in historical reality of the music industry. This phenomenon of using the tastes of white people as a surrogate for 'the market' and then as a justification for not platforming Black folks is something that the industry has done pretty much constantly since it came into existence. Who pioneered Rock & Roll? Blues? Country? It sure as shit wasn't Elvis.
Why are Black artists unproven and white artists are not?
Why is it that 'the market' doesn't value music by Black artists as much as white artists?
If 'the market' is primarily forcing Black-owned record stores to go out of business, do you think that reflects a problem in 'the market' that we should address?
I checked out that list of Black owned record stores linked in the article and god that was depressingly short. i was expecting at least one in Michigan!