Managing Talent: FT insight

This morning, there is an interesting opinion piece in the FT, penned by John Gapper. He offers insight into talent management in the music business. But I think that talent is talent whether in music or the software industry. Spotting, hiring, appreciating, nurturing and rewarding that talent is a big part of what management is about, imnsho. As a counterpoint the article also describes the abuses that "talent unchecked" brought about... (I can remember a few "expenses" that.... well never mind). Talent management within responsible limits is more easily done in the software industry than the music industry, less drugs floating around.

From the FT.

The late 20th century was a very good time to run a studio or a label in a media company. Apart from having a lot of freedom and being paid a lot of money, executives and producers could hang out with artists and feel creative themselves.

Things are now tougher for studio executives and A&R (artists and repertoire) people at music labels. The digital revolution and the end of the DVD boom and the CD era means that there is less money to throw around. They are being thrown out of their jobs instead.

Time Warner is folding New Line, the studio that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy, into its Warner Brothers arm and Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, New Line’s co-heads, are leaving, along with many of their 600 staff. Guy Hands, whose Terra Firma private equity group now owns EMI Group, caused a ruckus last week by castigating EMI’s 260 A&R people for laziness and profligacy.

Mr Hands told the SuperReturn private equity conference in Munich: “The power and the decision has sat with the A&R man, who is someone who gets up late in the day, listens to lots of music, goes to clubs, spends his time with artists and has a knack of knowing what would sell. They were committing money with no sign-off, no nothing.”

Such sacrilege has led to complaints that the “suits” who run media conglomerates – in the case of Time Warner, Jeffrey Bewkes, its new chief executive – do not understand how to handle creativity. Curbing the autonomy of talent-spotters will lead to these companies losing creative energy, the critics say.

The critics include a bevy of stars who like to have their egos stroked by people who understand their craving for praise and support as well as multi-million dollar contracts. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, the EMI band that sold its latest album online for as much as its fans would pay, described Mr Hands and EMI as “confused bulls in a china shop”.

Through the haze of self-indulgence and self-regard, fans of the traditional ways of A&R and film-making are correct about two things.

First, creativity flourishes in small groups rather than big organisations. There are sound reasons why media companies maintain labels, studios and, in the case of book publishers, imprints. It is why GlaxoSmithKline, for example, groups its drug discovery work in specialist centres rather than making its scientists work in big, amorphous laboratories.

Second, talent spotters and producers have skills that someone who works in finance does not possess. Mr Hands and EMI’s suits would probably be lousy A&R people. They would not be able to spot promising but inexperienced bands, get them to sign and guide them through the maze.

But neither fact justifies the high costs and low productivity of studios and labels that have become what Hollywood calls “mini-majors”. Nor does it prove that A&R people should earn enough (in the case of a few) to live in Beverly Hills mansions.

Although A&R people and producers insist that their profession is about creativity rather than cash, they still demand control of the purse-strings. They want to run their own shows inside conglomerates rather than being held to account.

Labels and studios have built up their own infrastructures although it would be cheaper to share with others. They also enjoy an incentive to spend money freely because they prosper when their projects do well, while losses are absorbed by the parent company.

A&R people at EMI were given an incentive to waste money by an accounting system that wrote off their multi-million dollar advances to new signings as capital investments and were awarded bonuses on the number of CDs the bands they signed shipped rather than actually sold. It is hardly any wonder that only 3 per cent of EMI’s artists are estimated to turn a profit for the company.

New Line, which was founded by Mr Shaye in his Greenwich Village apartment in 1967, expanded into a separate studio inside Time Warner, with its own head office and marketing and distribution operations separate from those of Warner Brothers, the main studio.

The next shoe to drop is likely to be DreamWorks, the studio founded by Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen and Steven Spielberg, which is not large enough to survive independently. It chafes under the control of Paramount and may bolt to Universal.

Talent-spotting and production will always be hit and miss affairs, like early-stage drug discovery. But the optical disc boom encouraged costs to inflate and financial disciplines to erode in a way that was silly in the first place and is unsustainable now. Media companies have no choice but to address this reality.

The solution is not that suits take over A&R or film production. But it does make sense for them to impose rational financial targets on those who spend the money and to reclaim control over operations such as marketing and distribution.

Other media businesses split power and financial responsibility between their creative executives and account managers more sensibly.

Advertising maintains a balance between the two sides in a way that (despite tensions) compromises neither creative inspiration nor financial oversight. Book publishing operates through imprints – which, like the music industry, hand out advances with a low hit rate – yet it rewards imprint editors modestly.

That is the future for the music and film businesses too. The age when A&R people and film executives could insist on both creative and financial freedom, and big bonuses on top of that, is waning. Creativity will have to be its own reward.


Comments

Greg Wallace said…
Jack Welch of GE fame and his wife Suzy recorded a video on BusinessWeek.com on managing creatives that hits on some of these points as well.
here's the link: http://feedroom.businessweek.com/index.jsp?fr_story=d7f27903e0b6473d3795ed32e00175def19e1aa5
adt43wt342 said…
Very cool, thanks for the link. Given that you study this field, what do you think of the premise that innovation happens in small independent teams. How can you do that in large corps? Do you feel compensation levels in america, outside of startups are aligned with the value created by these teams?
Greg Wallace said…
you bet - thanks for this blog - great stuff.

So, I wouldn't call myself an expert by any stretch, but I've read a few interesting peices recently - links below. My opionion is yes, definately innovation and creativity can flourish in large organizations, but you have to watch out for traps that a lot of companies fall into.

Google is a good example of a big company that innovates like crazy. They've been experiementing with prediction markets (as have lots of other places) and in so doing, they discovered (and freely shared - COOL!) some interesting stuff about how information flows. Turns out, team proximity is really important.

Here's some links on this: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/flow-of-information-at-googleplex.html

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/prediction-markets-at-google-a-guest-post/

And the other one that I thought was really cool was the article called Innovative Minds Do Not Think Alike, which basically argues that if an organization is too full of a bunch of experts in one area, it gets stale. So, you need to bring in people with fresh perspectives in order to challenge and ask why, etc. I think that this is one of the great things about open source and why strong communities drive more innovation - b'cuz there's a built in mechanism to make sure you continuously get infused with new thinking

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30know.html?ex=1356843600&en=5d04acf0f946a3a9&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
Juha Lindfors said…
The article mentions GlaxoSmithKline, I was watching an interview over the weekend on CNBC with Jean-Pierre Garnier, the CEO, and he touches on the topics of how they reorganized their R&D to increase productivity.

Also, not specific to pharma. Worth a watch:

The Leaders: Jean-Pierre Garnier
Anonymous said…
85cc免費影城85cc免費影片免費 a 片台灣論壇免費影片線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞a片免費看免費A片A片-sex52085cc免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片免費a片卡通sex888影片分享區520sex貼片區aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費色咪咪影片網成人a影片論壇免費影片下載aaaaaa片俱樂部sex520免費影片sex888免費看影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片gogo2sexaaa片免費看短片免費 a 片aaa片免費看短片免費線上avdvd成人圖片區18成人avoooaaa的滿18歲卡通影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sexdiy影城plus論壇dudu sex免費影片85cc成人影城臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看彩虹頻道免費影片洪爺影城浪漫月光論壇bbs x693 com sex888 sex383線上娛樂場85cc免費影片sex888 freebbs hksogo 成人論壇sex999日本美女寫真集日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞微風成人av論壇aaaa 片俱樂部免費影片下載a亞洲免費影片線上直播卡通美女a片免費試看免費成人視訊視訊情色遊戲援交av080影片sexdiy影城sex520免費影片sex888movie影城情色小說 杜蕾斯成人一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片本土辣妹34c影片直播吉澤明步sex888免費看影片論壇a 免費影片觀賞aa的滿18歲影片av080免費試看sex888 freebbs hk免費aa片試看免費影片觀賞av博物館aaa免費看影片亞洲禁果影城免費a片aaaaa片俱樂部影片5278論壇金瓶影片交流區383movie成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播免費a片線上觀看,sex520貼片ut13077視訊聊天avdvd無碼情色電影日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞台南援交友留言hi5 tv免費影片1314視訊成人論壇成人免費視訊 完美女人hilive tv 免費電影34c蒼井空影片下載avdvdsex383線上娛樂場aio交友愛情館sex383線上娛樂場JP成人網免費視訊聊天室微風成人

Popular posts from this blog

Thug vs Thug: Porsche 1, Hedge Funds: 0

Madrid Blog--We get sued

Houston, We have a central-bank-run!