August 12th: Island Def Jam cuts more than 30 in a Friday layoff round. Rumors of cuts at Universal Music Group UK soon surface.
August 16th: Sony Music Entertainment lets more than 20 go.
August 19th: Warner Music Group slots 'turnaround specialist' Stephen Cooper as CEO.
...and that's just in the last few days! But why do labels insist on these smaller, drib-drab layoffs, especially given the major motivational problems and persistent fear that results? Why not trigger a more substantial reduction and get it over with, instead of breeding paranoia and insecurity?
Well, you're reading one of the reasons why. According to major label sources willing to discuss the matter, perceptionplays a huge role in these decisions. Labels are embattled, and the last thing a major needs is top-trending story detailing a huge layoff. It just invites another pile-on.
But of course, things have a way of leaking, and a lot of label employees find out about layoffs through the media instead of their own bosses or internal rumor mills (the same is often true for restructurings and even promotions). And, it seems like these 'smaller' layoffs are getting bigger and bigger, making them harder to fly under-the-radar. So, is this perception game really working anymore?
There are plenty of other reasons for the small-time layoff, including employment laws and liabilities surrounding larger cuts. Fair enough, though this whole approach still wreaks of an industry unable to wrap its head around a smaller, leaner future. Instead, reports of million-plus, single-song recording budgets and multi-milion-dollar release budgets persist, despite depressed income streams. In that light, are drib-drab layoffs part of a refusal to accept reality, in the hopes that the boomtimes are ready to return? Just wondering.
August 16th: Sony Music Entertainment lets more than 20 go.
August 19th: Warner Music Group slots 'turnaround specialist' Stephen Cooper as CEO.
...and that's just in the last few days! But why do labels insist on these smaller, drib-drab layoffs, especially given the major motivational problems and persistent fear that results? Why not trigger a more substantial reduction and get it over with, instead of breeding paranoia and insecurity?
Well, you're reading one of the reasons why. According to major label sources willing to discuss the matter, perceptionplays a huge role in these decisions. Labels are embattled, and the last thing a major needs is top-trending story detailing a huge layoff. It just invites another pile-on.
But of course, things have a way of leaking, and a lot of label employees find out about layoffs through the media instead of their own bosses or internal rumor mills (the same is often true for restructurings and even promotions). And, it seems like these 'smaller' layoffs are getting bigger and bigger, making them harder to fly under-the-radar. So, is this perception game really working anymore?
There are plenty of other reasons for the small-time layoff, including employment laws and liabilities surrounding larger cuts. Fair enough, though this whole approach still wreaks of an industry unable to wrap its head around a smaller, leaner future. Instead, reports of million-plus, single-song recording budgets and multi-milion-dollar release budgets persist, despite depressed income streams. In that light, are drib-drab layoffs part of a refusal to accept reality, in the hopes that the boomtimes are ready to return? Just wondering.
