Co-Operative Meeting (1 Viewer)

[snakybus]

I agree with reverand egg

we would need to assess what the benefits of this would be, and figure out what the path is from a to b

I'll be there too with my sleeves rolled up.

 

[Knacker]

Okay....
There's a lot of labels who are doing the same thing, and it makes sense for them to collaborate. There is a business model (a co-operative) that is there for labels to take up on if they wish. They don't have to either.... maybe they want to have something more loosely connected.
I definitely agree that there's no point in having one co-operative. But it makes sense for say, Frontend, Compactrisc, Goppa and other similar labels to work together. I'm only using these as an example, but they release relative similiar stuff and if they embarked on collaborative projects together then they would reap a lot of benefits.
A co-operative is a business model that works along these lines, and perhaps a few labels want to get together and set one up. I'm saying that this is a possibility and that independent labels and bands should give it due consideration.
Like I'm not suggesting that Alpha Relish and Treasure Island get into bed with eachother. But I'm suggesting that Alpha Relish should work with other similar labels. There could be three or four co-ops coming from this.

And yeah... it'll have to be during the day.

 

[egg_]

Originally posted by AlphaRelish
if there are concrete benefits to be gained from all this ... then it will take one individual, if not a couple, to work on it almost full-time.

Division of labour might be another way ...
What exactly is involved in running a label? For me (and I only put out Stoat stuff) there's pressing (and preparation for pressing - artwork and the like), publicity, putting on launch gigs, dealing with distribution and web stuff - probably other shit for labels who put out other people's stuff.
Would it be more efficient if we split up the work of ALL the labels into chunks, and had different people take responsibility for different chunks ... e.g. Joss deals with Cargo for EVERYONE, Hag puts on ALL the launch gigs, someone else makes press releases for ALL the releases and makes sure the print media gets em, someone else deals with radio, someone else does poster runs etc etc

Some chunks involve more work than others, so a person could take on one large chunk or a number of small chunks. We could change them around once in a while in the interests of balance ... we could judge each chunk in terms of the amount of time it takes up each week, everybody could take an equal share

Would this actually do us any good? On the publicity front, and as far as relationships with venues are concerned, I think it would - there'd be a constant THiNGS (or whatever) band presence in people's minds. Would it be less burdensome than the current arrangement where everyone does everything themselves (with some exceptions provided by THiNGS as it stands)? I don't know. If it's more burdensome we simply won't be able to do it cos we're all already overloaded ... but it's definitely worth thinking about and is at least as do-able as paying monthly subscriptions and the like

How this fits in with Billy's co-operative idea I don't know ...

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

what services would the IFMC provide to us if we formed a co-op?

 

[old]

Originally posted by Knacker

There's a lot of labels who are doing the same thing, and it makes sense for them to collaborate... and if they embarked on collaborative projects together then they would reap a lot of benefits.

So what about project-based collaboration rather than the whole co-operative thing.

 

[mazzyianne]

Knacker,
That thing of saying you'll start something and then step back and not be involved rarely works,
just sayin is all

 

[MDR]

I can see the general benefit of what you're suggesting Billy. Personnally, I think it would only work if labels were already co-operating on lots of things and decided to formalise it in to a collective with all the paperwork that might involve. Setting up first and then trying to get everyone active might seriously slow it down; possibly to a degree where it never really got off the ground.

But then what do I know*?

* = that's rhetorical thumpsters.