Should The Music Industry Be A little More Thrifty?

This blog post is my take on the article “Katy Perry's Perfect Game” by Zoe Chace. This article appeared in the Janauary 2012 Podcast of Planet Money.

                                                          Catch the audio here.


       We all watch TV, support our favorite artist by buying their album, and some of us wish we were the guy sitting on the chair watching the money pile in when his artists single or album hits number one on the charts. However, the economics of the music industry isn't so much of a sweet deal. Planet Money's audio titled "Katy Perry's Great Game" shows usthe inside and out of the music industry. How they lay all in hopes to get a little more, but the question seems to be "Is it all worth it?".
Thus, the industry isn't playing well at all in its own game. What they should do is invest to protect their own investment.

        The music industry, for that few who are left, knows how to gamble, but with only three major music companies left, I guess not all of them knew what they were doing, but who can blame them. With the genesis of the internet, the industry had to take out their pail and shovel and go on an excavation. They needed to find better ways to promote and market that little square case in hopes of getting what they lost with the coming of the internet.

         The problem today seems to be that so much effort is being put in yet the gains are small in comparison. In basic economic theories, it is known that if a company makes less than its total variable cost than it should shut down in the long run. It seems to me that if a music label puts out "substantially" and gets a "I'm not sure... maybe" when asked if they made a lot of money, there is a need of financial reorganization. My remedy to this situation need of new legal advising, less extravagence, because sending a pricey painting of Katy Perry to a radio station before the music airs or hits # 1 is indeed the epitome of a hazard-loser.

          So why invest in a product where the cost is substantially higher than the profits? it's called taking what you get. In economics its called opportunity cost. In the music industry the company rather make 8 million dollars out of a 44 million dollar revenue, than make none at all. So, this has everything to do with economics and with economics it is a given that we will always find our self playing with chance. It's the job of the industry to go out and do as much venture as possible, but at the same time economize. It's their duty to project, estimate, and calculate the success of their product before it enters the market.

But there is so much to consider. Lets look at the trickle effect of such planning. If the music industry is not making more than it put out. In order to preserve they will have to cut back in several business components, such as employees, suppliers, etc. You cut back in employees you cut out your innovation source and you put more people back in the unemployed list. Which has a tremendous effect on the overall economy. This is just the beginning because if you lose your creative source, you need more austerity measures, and eventually you'll be cutting back on artist promotion.

In conclusion to truly preserve before things get critical, the industry needs to re-cut the pie. Meaning that they need to make certain that they make more than they bargained for. They should do what any music industry needs to do, but at the end of the day running a business efficiently and forecasting your own sustainability should always be accounted for

So till then the means is the end in the music industry.

The Cream of the Crop: The Pillars of Success

  

       A common question for people today has been "How can I become the best of the best?" "A genius in my field?" "The cream of the crop?". These questions pound at us everyday. At school at work, even when we're taking the bus.  A series of scientific attempts at delving into the human faculty and the so called genetic endowments of individuals claimed to be a genius, it must be genetically inherited. Does this claim disinherit the mass of the fruit of their labor? I believe so. For as the article has said "geniuses are not born, they are made". Geniuses do exist; the possibility of it being in any person is not impossible, but the probability is low. However for several reasons not including genetic inheritance. This means that the poor man who you find sleeping under the bridge every night, the kid that everyone had said since child hood was talentless, and even in you lies an 'Outlier'. However, such things do not happen without constant persistence. After reading this article, I concluded that success in general and to be dubbed "genius" one must understand the pillars of success.This will be only an interpretation of the article read.

           The first pillar into being a genius is Fortitude. The reason why fortitude is a pillar is because we have been witnesses to great people who grew up under unexpected circumstances, who weren't stamped with a high IQ, yet became a genius in every way.  Professor Ander Ericsson, a psychologist at FSU has made his opinion clear in the article. To Professor Ericsson, genius has a time and place. It grows under the most astonisshing circumstances, because it isn't a high IQ score that makes one accomplished. It is their fortitude under these unexpected circumstances. "It hapens because some critical things line up so that a person of good intelligence can put in the sustained focused effort it takes to achieve extraordinary mastery", Ericsson says, "These people don't necessarily have an especially high IQ, but they almost always have have very supportive enviroments.... with an incredible investment of effort".

        The second pillar is self-mastery. A person must allow them selves to grow and not chase after the success of others. Everyone has a secret skill that works for them and them only. Meaning when you are facing your opponent you do not attack him or her with the same attacks he used on you half a second ago. One only needs a strategy that works for them. Eventually self-mastery leads to security. For now weaknesses and stregths are understood. Self-mastery involves practice and mentoring. By developing oneself, they have a better mindset that will lead them to their objective.

      The third is the application of skills. Dobbs explains this through cognitive skills. He says that a genius must learn chunking. This is the ability to " group details and concepts into easliy remembered patterns". This does not come eaily, but it comes with a lot of practice. For example, Dobbs mentions reading where "we all exercise our clustering skills as we read", but the difference between an individual attempting to better his skills and one not, is that the latter is not aware of his inability to group or conceptualize. The one who is aware and attempts to fix becomes the master. The second skill involves clustering. Clustering is the ability to assign a set of objects into groups. A person cannot be intelligent if he does not know how to apply what he as learned; a person must learn to apply what he or she has learned to varible situations.

       The three pillars I mentioned are without a doubt necessary to succeed, but the list is not limited to them. Finding fortitude, developing a positive disposition, and building ones skill set is part of the journey in becoming a genius in your own right. A president of the United States once said "Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race". What more is need to be said than that a genius lies in everyone  but what we lack is perseverance. A number cannot dictate your future, when you change it change.