If the majors don't see a market for large bulks of their acts' back catalogues, how come labels like Cherry Red, Demon, Repertoire, Ace, Sundazed or Castle are able to make money from them?

I think the header says it all really. Anyone else knows how this works?

Cherry Red, that is...

they know the market better? more willing to press smaller amounts of something?

Both of these things, likely.

lower corporate payroll

more focused marketing spend

no struggling new artists to have to prop up with yr better-selling back catalogue

how much money do you imagine these labels make?

one has to assume a certain level of breaking even is going on here

don't forget Collector's Choice! or Wounded Bird! although I guess maybe these are somehow associated with a major in some way (then again, isn't Sundazed at this point? else how does dude get access to all those masters?) but oy vey, the crap that Wounded Bird actually reissues on CD!!

Wounded Bird has no editorial conviction. If they can get their hands on the masters of something, no matter what, they'll reissue it (often shoddily).

I am thankful they put the Urban Verbs albums out on cd, tho.

wounded bird basically seems to release what nobody else wants to release, which 75% of the time means stuff that's pretty un-worthwhile.

but how in the world are they able to keep doing it?

I think Wounded Bird is operating on the same labor-of-love/do-it-till-the-money-runs-out principle that governed, say, Atavistic's Unheard Music Series of a few years back. Awesome free jazz reissues and vault-scrapings that at some point just kinda...stopped.

Cherry Red seems to be that classic indie thing of being as much about turnover as profit, judging by the quantity the put out ...

I don't think it's a labour of love at all. My guess is they know more or less to the nearest 10 how much they might expect to sell of something, and anything that looks like it will go into profit gets released - you release 200 albums a year that all make £100 profit each, you've at least got £20,000 profit. But for the majors it's simply not worth the effort.

As for how do they license ... I've met some musicians who've been furious to discover their back catalogue reissued by indie reissue labels without their giving permission or receiving any money. And I've met others who've sold the rights to back catalogues that no one else was showing any interest in for a couple of hundred quid, on the basis that it was a couple of hundred quid more than anyone else was ever going to offer.

Judging from the sheer amount of copies we sell in our stores, I would say that reissues and metal are two of the few genres with a reliable buying public.

These labels appeal people who basically still want their music on a (possibly good looking) physical support (i.e. Repertoire is reissuing all its remastered catalogue in digipack or vinyl replica cd's - liner notes are still crap though).

Esoteric is currently raiding the old Emi, Universal etc archives and just started a sub-label called Reactive specialized in krautrock (they re-released stuff from Deuter, Brainticket, Eela Craig). I guess Mark Powell has good connections.

as others have suggested, if not quite said, i figure it's a farm league system. deep pocket rights holders allow the production, on someone else's dime, of small runs of boutique/collectible items, and this acts as a kind of bellwether. the low-overhead, fly-by-night reissue companies that cooperate are satisfied with tiny profit margins that would never justify major label action. if a large enough audience takes the bait, then the initial (limited) print run sells out quickly, creating merchandisable blog buzz. if not, then not, and no harm done. but if the buzz IS sufficiently intense, then the rights holder follows up with high-profile, bonus packed "official" reissue to milk the enticed demand. it's a good system for all concerned. demand at every level is served, artists get a payday where interest justifies it, and no one has to take risks that aren't commensurate with the potential rewards.

See, the other day, in Fopp, at full price, there was a "Chris Norman" box set. One of those CD size boxes, 5Cds in it, a booklet I presume.

I couldn't imagine there being more than 10 people who would want that. And even then, I don't know those people.

wounded bird basically seems to release what nobody else wants to release, which 75% of the time means stuff that's pretty un-worthwhile.

Yet enough people buy those albums to make it break-even, or they would have to quit.

Some wise input there, plus I guess just the fact that these people concentrate on catalogue means they save time and personell for seeking out new talent, taking a chance of signing somebody that maybe nobody wants, using a lot of money to break those acts etc. I realize that costs a lot. Reissues are by acts that in most cases do have a name, surely the kids may not be familiar with them, but the 30 + audience that they are largely selling to do know them, so they are "safer" in that way. But still, if money can be made from these reissues, I still don't understand why the majors say no to the money they get from reissuing them themselves.

(i.e. Repertoire is reissuing all its remastered catalogue in digipack or vinyl replica cd's - liner notes are still crap though).

Repertoire tend to be crap at liner notes, but I have to say that Cherry Red are doing a great job with the liner notes on a lot of reissues. They really put their hearts into this, and the idea of using audiences in Facebook groups etc. to suggest stuff for possible re-release is also a very good one.

don't forget Collector's Choice! or Wounded Bird!

And BGO for that matter. Dunno if there is a limit on how long a topic may be on ILX, but I suppose it'd be a bit too long if I'd included them all. :)

those labels don't make very much money. big labels need to make lots of money.

Wounded Bird has no editorial conviction. If they can get their hands on the masters of something, no matter what, they'll reissue it (often shoddily).

I think it was Wounded Bird that Andy Zax was talking about some of us at EMP earlier this year in how they pretty much master off a DAT someone makes for them at a vault. He was pretty revolted.

One thing about Wounded Bird, Collector's Choice, and (amongst others) Collectables that hasn't been mentioned is that alot of their stuff is made/manufactured by other labels (usually the original rights holder, or a firm like Rhino). They just package and market the release, which they usually half ass.

yeah, collectors choice has some great reissues, but the packaging/overall experience is not so great. sometimes the album artwork looks like it came from someone's color printer circa 1996.

isn't Sundazed at this point? else how does dude get access to all those masters?

Remember that Bob Irwin's day job is heading up Sony Legacy, and he's also done advisory work on other label's 60s reissues too. So, Contacts + Willingness to Release Otherwise Commercially Unavailable Material (unreleased sides, mono mixes) + Proven Vinyl Track Record=Sundazed.

yeah, collectors choice has some great reissues, but the packaging/overall experience is not so great. sometimes the album artwork looks like it came from someone's color printer circa 1996.

Yeah, they even mentioned in the catalog when they reissued Chris Kenner's Land of A Thousand Dances that they had to go buy a vinyl copy online so they could scan the artwork for the CD.

In terms of design, Collector's Choice issues look roughly like Arcade/Castle reissues used to look in the 80s. For instance, those earliest Kinks CD issues by Castle looked horrible. Castle have improved considerably though.

Because major label executives are clueless.

This is no different than asking "If the major labels don't want to sign an artist that they only expect to sell 10,000 copies, why does Drag City consider that a hit?"

They're entirely different business models based on entirely different scales, and I don't just mean that in some easy "Major labels are greedy" kind of way.

Yeah, what Hurting said. I can tell you from personal experience that the underground vinyl game can be lucrative if you can get your sales above a certain threshold. If you overhead is the product itself, a spare bedroom, a computer, and your personal time, you can make a decent amount of money selling vinyl(and you used to be able to make a stupid amount of money selling cd's). The key to making money in the independent music business is to slash your expenses to the bone, keep a close eye on the market, and do as much as you can yourself.

The problem with the major label system is that it can't cut costs and be as agile as the independent music business. It is a great system if you are doing Def Leppard and Pearl Jam units, it is not so great when you are moving 10k. Corporations need high sales volume and high profit items, and they can do that business model a million times better that an independent business can.

I can sell 650 records out of my bedroom and it's a nice little payday. I can't make Nirvana an internationally known act with product and media coverage available across the entire western world.

those earliest Kinks CD issues by Castle looked horrible

That 10CD Kinks "european LP editions" was nice tho.

its true that currently cherry red (and their various sub-labels) are going reissue mad.
in the last few weeks alone i have picked up :
tina mason (david axelrod production), four king cousins, book a trip (the psych pop sounds of capitol records), and the soon to be released solo, and very rare until now, album by claudia brucken.
all of them on CR sub-labels.
one idea is that this could be a form of outsourcing by EMI who i've heard make a lot more money licencing these days.
after all the tina mason/book a trip both have the statement 'all tracks licenced from EMI', so i have always thought that there is a chance that these were projects that were 'in motion' with sleevenotes (both reissues have excellent extensivesleevenotes)/mastering already sorted prior to the EMI shutdown, making the re-release a lot easier to sort out by CR.

About half of the issues by Cherry Pop (or at least it seems so) were originally released by PWL or Supreme Records. It seems the biggest selling Stock/Aitken/Waterman names (Rick Astley, Jason Donovan) are still being done by Edsel though. Guess they'll be the ones ending up eventually reissuing Kylie Minogues first 5 albums as well (yes, that is only a question of time when all the lesser PWL names have already been reissued)

It is, however, fairly interesting how Cherry Red's bestselling recent release is a Kim Wilde album that flopped upon its first time release:
http://www.cherryred.co.uk/crzone/top51.php