Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Don’t forget the access gateway (Apple/Google) will take a cut too.
P.s. agree re Leeds and Reading, which is why I dropped it in :-)
Thanks RestLess. Makes sense. GL
I see what you mean. Yes, in theory, a more expensive production could have a higher fee for consumers. But in the early stages, I'd argue that consumer demand is very elastic. When people haven't tried something, you don't want to scare them off with a high price (regardless of the artist/production value). I think it's in Melody's interest to keep the price to consumers low which gives them a big reason to keep their costs per show low too.
It's funny you mention Reading. I don't think it's a co-incidence that they promoted Wireless on Twitter. I think it's very likely Reading/Leeds will offer something similar to Wireless Connect this year. And then next year hopefully it'll be recorded on site (don't forget Melody has 70+ festival partners).
In many ways the Covid situation presented an open goal for Melody. With no concerts, this looked like their perfect moment. But they could have blown it. So many artists are broadcasting from their bedrooms/kitchens etc for free.
So the only way Melody can succeed is to offer something utterly unique. High production values and nothing like people see anywhere else. How can you best maximise your production values on a finite budget? Get a small number of fixed locations and present a fantastic product from there. I have so much respect for the BoD for not diving in and trying to churn out lots of sub optimal content to try to make short term gains. This company has always been about trying to compete with the big boys.
Agree with you venues sentiment, only reason I see to add additional venues in the UK is either the venue itself is offering something extra outside of Brixton to incentive MVR to setup there or MVR need additional venues to accommodate more more artists and more frequency. The UK is tiny in comparison to the US so artist can make the trip to Brixton in short notice and short time so geographically it shouldn't be a problem. I see the possibility of more venues in the US due to geographically it being massive making travel for artists and equipment more difficult, costly and time consuming.
We know New York was mentioned which would make sense covering both coasts, but that could be related to Theatre for all we know at the moment.
Thanks RestLess. Yes, I appreciate that for this particular “collaboration”( if that’s the right word), that Melody would want to keep costs to a minimum, and now that they have this Brixton Academy gig(s) tied down, they know the cameras work and it is all costed for that particular venue, however, new collaborations would be subject to negotiation, would they not? For example, if they were looking at covering Reading Festival, for example, and existing cameras were not sufficient, surely the cost or ‘reconfiguration/rebuilding’ would be passed on to the customer during negotiations.
*Diseconomies of scope are what Melody is avoiding with this approach.
Rather than economies of scale, the term that I think that is relevant here is diseconomies of scope. That is to say it is far cheaper to offer one product (one set of concerts from a single venue) than a range of products (different shows in different contexts). It's difficult to overstate the range of contexts that can exist in live music. How big is the stage? How light is it? How much will the artist move? etc etc
It's not to say that diversifying is bad - it's essential if a business wants to grow. But in these early stages where limiting costs is important, I think doing one venue and doing it well is a big advantage.
As for the quote process, I'm not sure what you mean. Melody has a 3/4 way licence with artist/label and the venue. There's no bidding process - Melody is the owner of their content. So they have an incentive to keep costs down where the can. They can pass on higher costs to the consumer but the problem is each new venue/show is a gamble and every less than perfect production is a black mark against their brand.
Good post RestLess, and I agree with the bulk if it (re economies of scale effectively) however, like almost any business tendering for work, wouldn’t they just past the cost of a bespoke (Camera) requirement on to the prospective client during the quote process?
About a year ago, I went to an event at the SAE institute where Matt Williams, the Technical Production Manager at Melody, talked through the tech that they used to produce their content. I was surprised by the fact that they didn't have a single camera that they used across all contexts. Instead, they used 3 different cameras that were each suited to different types of shows. Matt spoke about how they customised each camera but every single show required deliberation over the best tech to use and how best to customise that camera for the best production value. There's no doubt that it is an expensive process to produce content at unfamiliar venues so today's announcement is special for more than just who's involved.
Hosting a series of events at a single venue is a huge deal for Melody. The marginal cost falls dramatically. That is not to say that Melody won't at some point host shows from a range of venues but, in the short term, this is a big advantage. Theatre is even better for this reason. The challenges of filming theatre from a fixed venue are nothing like the challenges of filming live music across venues that could range from festival stages to night clubs and everything in between.
Ultimately Melody eventually wants to be able to offer concerts from every conceivable venue. In the short run, however, this 'Live in La' and 'Live at Brixton Acadamy' model is an exceptionally smart way of moving in the business forward without the kind of costs that might have incurred if they'd have carried on filming across venues.
Melody's shows at Brixton academy will become their calling card. Why spread the production budget across 100 venues when it can be concentrated in 5-10?