Keeping the Gate: A Case Study of Gatekeeping in the Electronic Dance Music Scene

(1)

Keeping the Gate: A Case Study of Gatekeeping in the

Electronic Dance Music Scene

Student:

Henk-Christian de Haan

Student number:

1419889

University:

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Faculty:

Faculty of Economics and Business

Specialization:

Strategy and Innovation

Course:

Master Thesis

First Supervisor:

D. Maccow

Second Supervisor: P.M de Faria

(2)

Table of Content Table of Content ... 1 1. Introduction ... 2 1.1 Introduction... 2 1.2 Problem analysis... 4 2. Theoretical Framework... 5 2.1 Gatekeeping in general ... 5

2.2 Gatekeeping in the cultural industries and the music industry... 6

2.3 A resource based view of the firm ... 8

2.4 A knowledge based view of the firm ... 9

2.5 The dynamic capabilities approach... 10

2.6 Transaction cost economics ... 11

2.7 Strength of ties theory... 12

2.8 Industrial organization ... 14 2.9 Research model... 15 3. Research design ... 16 3.1 Theory... 18 3.2 Case selection ... 18 3.3 Research protocol ... 19 3.4 Data analysis... 20 3.5 Data presentation ... 21 3.6 Summary... 21 4. Results ... 21

4.1 The electronic dance music scene... 22

4.1.1 History ... 22

4.1.2 Important actors ... 22

4.1.3 Size of the scene... 23

4.2 Producers ... 24

Case 1: Joni Ljungqvist... 24

Case 2: Nick Ayllen... 26

Case 3: Jeff Kolber ... 27

Case 4: Leander Rispens... 29

Case 5: Rohit Iyer ... 30

4.3 Record Labels ... 32

Case 6: Paulo Munoz ... 32

Case 7: Will Brookes ... 33

Case 8: James Wood... 35

5. Discussion ... 37

5.1 Resources, knowledge and dynamic capabilities ... 37

5.2 Transaction costs economics... 40

5.3 Strength of ties... 41

5.4 Industrial organization ... 42

6. Conclusions ... 43

6.1 Conclusions... 43

6.2 Answering the research question ... 44

6.3 Recommendations... 44

6.4 Shortcomings and further research ... 46

7. Evaluation... 47

7.1 Choices made... 47

7.2 Quality criteria ... 48

References ... 49

Appendix A: Interview questions individual artists... 58

(3)

1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction

To say that every artist makes an above average living from his or her recordings is not exactly truthful. Estimates have it that ten to fifteen percent of the artists barely manage to break even; the percentage of artists that turn a profit is even lower (Phillips, 2001; Peitz & Waelbroeck, 2005). A plethora of factors can be mentioned to explain these low percentages. First of all, the music industry is a mass-media market, which means there is a huge supply in available content. The result is a constant battle between individual artists to garner attention from the consumer (Peitz & Waelbroeck, 2005); a battle that is lost by most. A second factor is the advancement of technology and the digitalization of today’s marketplace, which led to easier and cheaper, but possibly illegal ways to consume music. (Peitz & Waelbroeck, 2005; Kretschmer, Klimis & Wallis, 2001). Leyshon (2001) notes that the music industry and technology have always been intertwined. The first, and most important change that comes to mind is the diffusion of the internet (Costa, Teles & Vasconcelos, 2005; Peitz & Waelbroeck, 2005; Kretschmer, Klimis & Wallis, 2001), but the invention of new copy technologies (Leyshon, 2001), production software (Leyshon, 2001), and new music capturing formats (Janson & Mansell, 1998; Leyshon, 2001; Kretschmer, Klimis & Wallis, 2001) also have an impact on the music industry. The rise of technology is an important factor in its own, but also supports the first factor as it facilitates a growth in available content, which in turn makes it even more difficult for an individual artist to distinguish him or herself.

Finally, the position of the record labels as a crucial gatekeeper in the music industry results in a position of power of the record labels vis-à-vis the artists. Gatekeepers decide which artists get selected for inclusion in the production process, denying most of the aspiring artists in the process. Gatekeeping occurs at the input boundaries of the various stages in the production process (Foster, 2002), and besides the record labels, other gatekeepers, such as disc jockeys, music stores, web-logs and forum, can be distinguished.

(4)

the research at hand is to present a description of gatekeeping within the music industry and provide an understanding as to why record labels in the music industry are able to keep their position of gatekeeper. The electronic dance music scene is used as a case study to reach this objective.

The first gatekeeper in the music industry is the record label. The record labels decide which artists are selected and which ones are rejected. For the individual artist, this first gate is the most important one in order to succeed in the music industry. An overview of the different gates is given in section 2.1, where the gatekeeping literature is presented. One of the questions raised here is why the record labels are so important. Most of the revenues gained from selling a record disappear into the pockets of the record labels. Another issue is the fact that the artists should be able to release their recordings on their own, but are somehow still relying on the record labels. This last issue deserves some more attention, and will be looked at in a while.

A possible reason why artists keep letting record labels reap benefits from their productions is a financial one. Not every artist is ‘in it for the money’. The art for art’s sake principle comes to mind (Caves, 2000). This principle proposes that sometimes the creator cares more about the intrinsic value that he or she gets from the creative process and the eventual creation than the public value it gets. Art for art’s sake is a beautiful thing, but not many artists would pass on any form of financial gain. The best argument to support the previous claim is probably the $16.67 billion1 global music industry (IFPI, 2010).

In the so-called pre-digitalized era, the record labels were a necessary middle man in order for artists to release their recordings (Kretschmer, 2005; Zwaan & Ter Bogt, 2008). As the centerpiece of the music industry, it is understandable that the record labels reaped most benefits from the production chain (Dolfsma, 2005). Changes in technology however, profoundly destabilized the industry, creating opportunities for smaller actors, such as the artists (Peterson & Anand, 2004). The most important one is that it gives the artist the opportunity to release their recordings online, bypassing the traditional distribution routes, and the record labels, (Hargittai, 2004; Palencar, 2009; Power & Hallencreutz, 2005), a process that is called disintermediation (Janson & Mansell, 1998). The obvious advantage of this situation is that most of the rents are collected by the artist, and do not flow to the record labels.

(5)

1.2 Problem analysis

Anecdotal evidence, for example noticing that every record that is sold on-line is released by a record label, has it that record labels are somehow able to maintain a pivotal position in the music industry. It is suggested that record labels are a ‘necessary evil’ for artists to release their recordings, because of the high fixed cost and up-front investments needed to create a recording (Gopal, Bhattacharjee & Sanders, 2006). This argument is easily refuted as the industry is moving from a hardware-dominated industry, toward a software-dominating industry, where recordings are produced digitally and can be released online, which greatly reduces costs (Doloswala, 2006). Perhaps the answer lies in the ‘Nobody Knows’ principle of cultural industries (Caves, 2000). The nobody knows principle states that the consumer’s reactions to a cultural product is never known beforehand, and are not easily understood afterward (Caves, 2000), resulting in a product which value is extremely hard to determine (Mol & Wijnberg, 2007). The more difficult it is to value a product, the more important and valuable knowledge and expertise of the relevant sector becomes (Hirsch, 1972; Wijnberg & Gemser, 2000; Caves, 2000). This increases the value of the services and products provided by the organizations who select products to be included in the production system of the given industry (Mol & Wijnberg, 2007). The music industry fits the mold of the previously sketched situation; a highly abstract product which value is hard to determine, resulting in a powerful position of the selector; the record label. Unfortunately for the record labels, the internet provides valuable information at an increasingly rapid pace. The knowledge and expertise of the labels vis-à-vis the artist diminishes. Therefore, the value of the services provided by the labels decreases. Take for example the sound engineering element of producing a record. Historically, sound engineering was a highly technical expertise, performed by trained technicians who were employed by the record labels (Gao et al., 2009). With the complexity and capabilities of modern innovative software packages, the art of engineering is no longer mastered only by trained engineers, but is easily accessible for every artist (Doloswala, 2006), rendering the traditional sound engineers potentially useless. As knowledge becomes available to everyone, the internet is described to be a democratizing factor (Zwaan & Ter Bogt, 2009).

(6)

and rise of social networking sites such as MySpace, and YouTube substantially decrease the use of payola. According to Chad Hurley, CEO and Co-founder of YouTube, the site reaches over one billion of views each and every day (Official YouTube Blog, 2009). This makes the site an extremely valuable source for free promotion.

All in all, the survival of the record labels is hard to explain when the previous lines of reasoning are used. Perhaps the answer lies in a different corner. This brings us back to the previously mentioned pivotal position of the gatekeeper. Gatekeepers decide which artists get selected for inclusion in the production process, and therefore hold a powerful position in the production chain. In the music industry, the record label is known to be the gatekeeper. This probably explains why the record labels haven’t gone extinct in the current era of digitalization.

The concept of gatekeeping isn’t exactly clear cut, so the next section will clear up what is meant when we talk about gatekeeping.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Gatekeeping in general

(7)

others; selection, addition, channeling, manipulation, localization, and disregard. Most of these gatekeeping bases speak for itself. Selection for example means that the gatekeeper makes a choice or chooses from alternatives (Nahon, 2008). Table 1 is adapted from Barzilai-Nahon (2008), and presents an overview of the different gatekeeping bases.

TABLE 1. Gatekeeping Bases.

Gatekeeping Bases Definition

Selection Making a choice or choosing from alternatives Addition Uniting information

Channeling Directing information into or through a channel Manipulation Changing information

Localization Process of modifying information to fit target audience’s need Disregard Paying no attention to information, treating it as unworthy of notice

2.2 Gatekeeping in the cultural industries and the music industry

Due to the abstract nature of the products of a cultural industry, the music industry being one of these cultural industries, it is extremely difficult to judge the quality of a product. Therefore, consumers rely on critics, who play an important role as gatekeeper (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005).

Before an artist releases a recording, several gates have to be passed (Christianen, 1995; Seifert & Hadida, 2006). Christianen (1995) defines three different gates. First, an artist must get recorded, second, the recording must get airtime from media channels, and third, the consumer must decide to buy the recording or not. Gatekeepers are active at all three gates (Dolfsma, 2005). Incorporating the previously mentioned gatekeeping bases into the equation leads to a graphical representation of gatekeeping in the music industry that can be found on the next page.

(8)

Figure 1. Gatekeeping, gates and gatekeeping bases in the music industry

It is assumed that a wide variety of actors can take on a gatekeeping role. Artist & Repertoire managers from record labels, media editors, programmers, disk jockeys and shop assistants are among the cultural gatekeepers (Zwaan & Ter Bogt, 2008; Costa, Teles & Vasconcelos, 2005; Seifert & Hadida, 2006; Lopes, 1992). Gatekeepers also serve a purpose in the diffusion of innovation (Hirsch, 1972). The music industry is characterized as a hetero-cultural industry, meaning that its audience is heterogeneous (Tschmuck, 2009). Innovations in genre, style, or any other factor of a recording, are judged by gatekeepers, and only the most suitable ones are passed on to the next stage in the production chain (Tschmuck, 2009; Peterson, 2005).

For the research at hand, gatekeeping is defined as: ‘the process of controlling a gate, where a decision is made whether or not an artist is allowed access to the next stage in the production chain.

(9)

applicable to the gatekeeping concept. To start things off, the resource based view of the firm is discussed.

2.3 A resource based view of the firm

(10)

with gatekeepers. Some of these resources can be copied by the original artists. Some cannot. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to copy the reputation, information and ties of record labels. These resources are valuable, rare, non-substitutable, but more importantly, imperfectly imitable, due to the history dependency, casual ambiguity and social complexity of the resources.

Proposition 1:

Compared to the artist, record labels own resources that are heterogeneous and immobile. These resources are also valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and not easily substituted.

2.4 A knowledge based view of the firm

The knowledge based view of the firm is a branch of the previously discussed resource based view of the firm (Grant, 1996). The knowledge based view of the firm is not chosen haphazardly. As knowledge becomes increasingly important in today’s society and in the modern marketplace (Adler, 2001), this topic can’t be ignored.

As the name suggests, in the knowledge based view it is the knowledge resource of a firm that takes center stage (Grant, 1996). The obvious first question is: what is knowledge? Dosi (1998) states that ‘a firm’s knowledge base is the information inputs, know-how, and capabilities that organizational members draw on’. Grant (1996) withholds himself from giving an answer to this question. In his eyes, ‘this question has intrigued some of the world’s greatest thinkers from Plato to Popper, without the emergence of a clear consensus.’ He does say that knowledge is ‘everything that is known’ and that there are ‘many types of knowledge to the firm’ (Grant, 1996). Two of these types are firm-specific knowledge and general knowledge (Wang, He, Mahoney, 2009). Knowledge can be either explicit or tacit (Grant, 1996). Tacit knowledge means trouble. As Kogut & Zander (1992) put it: ’that knowledge can be tacit has broad implications for understanding the difficulty of imitating and diffusing individual skills, a problem lying at the heart of the competitive analysis of firms.’ The reason why firms exist is that they act as institutions in which specialized knowledge from various fields can be integrated and coordinated (Demsetz, 1991), resulting in a total knowledge base being higher than the sum of all individual parts. This superior knowledge base then is used to produce quality products and/or services (Grant, 1996). Firms also learn from past employees, storing knowledge and getting smarter over time (March, 1991). In short, firms know more and learn faster than individuals and are therefore better suited to produce products with better quality and lower costs.

(11)

accumulated knowledge from specialized employees is probably essential to the success of individual artists, who don’t have the same knowledge base as a record label. So even though record labels may not support the artist in the actual production and engineering of a song, they probably provide other supporting activities, such as marketing, that the artist can’t, or won’t take care of individually.

Proposition 2a:

The accumulated knowledge of a record label exceeds the knowledge of an individual artist. This enables the record label to keep its position as gatekeeper.

Proposition 2b:

The knowledge of a record label is largely tacit, and is therefore not easily attained by the individual artist.

2.5 The dynamic capabilities approach

(12)

evolution of dynamic capabilities and underlie path dependence’ (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). A definition of dynamic capabilities is given by Teece Pisano, and Shuen (1997):’ The firm's processes that use resources -specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain and release resources- to match and even create market change. Dynamic capabilities thus are the organizational and strategic routines by which firms achieve new resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve, and die.’

A way of relating dynamic capabilities to the music industry is to suggest that the record labels must have certain dynamic capabilities that allow them to react and adapt to a changing environment due to digitalization, and therefore stay in business. The combination of several specialized sources of knowledge is often cited (Dougherty, 1992; Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000) as a dynamic capability, one which might also be present in the organization of the record labels. The history of successfully developing routines to make valuable service and products (Hansen, 1999; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997) is another example of a dynamic capability which probably allows record labels to remain their importance in the industry.

Proposition 3:

Record labels have organizational and strategic routines by which they achieve new resource configurations to respond to rapid market changes.

2.6 Transaction cost economics

Transaction cost economics is concerned with the boundary choice of organizations (Poppo & Zenger, 1998). It is an increasingly popular and dominant perspective to analyze decisions made by organizations with respect to how economic activity is organized (Madhok, 1996).

(13)

specific knowledge leads to a shared language, knowledge, and routines that enhance effectiveness and efficiency (Grant, 1996). Using the words of Madhok (1996) ‘under the assumptions of opportunism and bounded rationality, the hierarchical form results in shirking costs. Shirking costs are the management costs of organizing exchange within the firm. They include both the costs incurred to prevent shirking as well as losses from shirking that could not be prevented due to bounded rationality.’ Adler (2001) suggests an intermediate form, namely the community form. The community form lies in between the market form and hierarchy form. In reality, pure market transactions are rare, and in most cases transactions take place between long standing business partners (Adler, 2001). Trust is the coordinating mechanism of the community form (Adler, 2001). Although it isn’t really made clear in the article, it is likely that the advantage of the community form is a decrease of Madhok’s (1996) so called shirking and cheating costs.

It is rather difficult to link transaction costs economics to analyze the relation between artists and record labels in the music industry. It is hard to picture an individual artist as an organization, but still, part of the decision of the artist is whether or not to use record labels in order to garner attention from the intended audience; should the artist produce in-house, or out-source, using the market? This is also where the trust component mentioned by Adler (2001) comes in. If artists trust a certain record label, it will most likely turn to that label for assistance in the release of a song or album. A related aspect is reputation. Well-reputed firms usually have a competitive advantage which makes them an interesting partner to cooperate with (Fombrun & Stanley, 1990).

Proposition 4:

Record labels are reputable organizations, and the artist trusts the record label enough to use the market form for the release of their recordings.

2.7 Strength of ties theory

The strength of ties theory has its roots in sociology and is primarily concerned with the strength of relations between two or more actors in a social network (Rindfleisch & Moorman, 2001). The music industry, being a web of interconnected actors, is a perfect setting to focus on using a strength of tie approach.

(14)

(1984), tried to be a bit more specific and defined that a strong tie has a higher level of closeness, reciprocity, and embeddedness than weak ties. Where strong ties used to be the most common kind, the division of labor, which resulted in increased specialization and interdependence, meant a strong surge for the existence of weak ties (Granovetter, 1983). The characteristics of both type of ties result in a difference in the way what kind of information and how much is shared between actors. Strong ties increase the likelihood that sensitive information will be shared between actors, whereas weaker ties promote the sharing of a wider range of less sensitive information (Frenzen & Nakamoto 1993; Hansen, 1999). Traditionally, strength of ties was used to examine links between individuals, but recently this perspective is also applied to analyze inter-organizational linkages (Izzo, 1999).

The music industry shows characteristics that makes it a very appropriate industry to be investigated using a strength of ties approach. As any other production of culture system, the music industry is a very complex apparatus of actors that starts with the original artist and ends with the end consumer i.e. the listener of music (Venkatesh & Meamber, 2006). As discussed in the first section of this paper, for some reason the record labels are still an important actor in the music industry, despite the fact that it gets easier and easier to bypass this station in order for an artist to get his/her music to its intended market segment. As also previously mentioned, this must mean that the record labels have something going for them. Using strength of ties, one might be right to say that record labels have various valuable, strong ties that an individual artist may not have. Record labels have a history of being closely involved with other gatekeepers in the music industry. Close relations with DJ’s and distribution channels for example, has led to strong ties. For individual artist in the ‘pre-internet era’ it was not a priority to have strong ties with DJ’s and distribution channels, because the record label was the most important actor in order to garner attention from the target audience. The result is that ties between artist and the other gatekeepers besides the record labels were probably weak at best. The record labels likely have an advantage over the artists because the strength of their ties with gatekeepers in the latter stages of the production process (for an overview of the different gates and gatekeepers see section 2.2 and figure 1). The just described phenomenon shows some similarities with the history dependency, casual ambiguity, and social complexity factors discussed earlier in section 2.3.

Proposition 5:

(15)

2.8 Industrial organization

A lot can be said about industrial organization. Numerous academics have devoted time and resources to broaden the perspective. Most of the previously discussed fields fall under the encompassing umbrella of industrial organization thinking. The emphasis of industrial organization thinking is gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage, a topic that is also deeply rooted in the resource based view, the knowledge based view, and is also touched upon in the theory of dynamic capabilities. The major difference with these perspectives is the fact that industrial organization views competitive advantage from an external view, whereas the first three perspectives use an internal focus (Seifert & Hadida, 2006). Transaction costs economics also, be it implicitly, cover competitive advantage.

Originally, industrial organization was concerned with the maintenance of intra-industry competition (Barney, 1986). This has not changed since the development of the perspective in the late 1930’s by Mason (1939) and the mid 1950’s to late 1960’s by Bain (1956, 1968). The perspective produced multiple models aimed at helping firms gain a competitive edge over its competitors (Reed & DeFillippi, 1990). The point of departure of the industrial organization perspective is that the determinant of a firm’s returns is the structure of the industry in which the firm competes (Barney, 1986). Several attributes of the industrial structure have been discussed, including barriers to entry, the number and relative size of firms, the degree of product differentiation and the overall elasticity of demand for the industry (Porter, 1980; Bain, 1956). Entry, and barriers to entry, is one of the most important attributes to determine the structure of an industry (Blees, Kemp, Maas & Mosselman, 2003). Entry can be viewed from different vantage points, the two most important ones being a) the incumbent firm, and b) the entering firm (Blees, Kemp, Maas & Mosselman, 2003). For incumbent firms, it is important that they maintain their profits and therefore raise existing entry barriers or create new barriers to entry. For entering firms, the opposite is true; in order to enter a profitable market sector, barriers of entry have to be lowered (Blees, Kemp, Maas & Mosselman, 2003).

(16)

Proposition 6:

Certain entry barriers prevent the artist from occupying the position of gatekeeper; a position that is currently occupied by the record labels.

Purely speculative, in order to effectively carry out the gatekeeping function of selection, addition, channeling, manipulation, localization, and disregard, the record labels, must have adequate resources, knowledge, dynamic capabilities, and strength of ties. For artists, it is important to lower the existing barriers of entry, so that the gatekeeping function is up for grabs. Perhaps a new hybrid form between market and hierarchy is needed for the artist in order to be able to function as a gatekeeper. A form in which for example, the artist starts his or her own record label.

2.9 Research model

The objective of the research at hand is to present an insight of gatekeeping within the music industry and provide a discussion as to how it is possible that record labels are able to maintain their position. The existing gatekeeping literature could not provide a conclusive answer, so possible additions to this body of literature are needed. Figure 2, found on the next page, shows the possible additions that, based on this research, can be made to accomplish the research objective.

(17)

Knowledge

Entry Barriers

Artist 1st Gatekeeper 2nd Gatekeeper

Boundary Choice Strength of Ties

Resources Dynamic Capabilities

Figure 2. Gatekeeping Function

The first step is to chart the resources, knowledge, and dynamic capabilities of the first gatekeeper and the artist. These findings are then compared with each other to detect a possible lack or overlap between the artist and the record label, based on these three perspectives. The next step is to determine the strength of the ties the record label has with the next line of gatekeepers, and compare this tie-strength with the tie between the artist and the second line of gatekeepers. This provides valuable insights into the interconnectedness within the music industry and should paint a clearer picture of why the record labels still hold their position of dominance. A third step is to determine why the industry is organized the way it is, using a transaction cost economics approach. The result should be an answer to the question why the music industry is currently using a market-oriented form of transactions. The fourth and final step is to investigate the existence of entry barriers that keep the artists away from the gatekeeping function.

3. Research design

In the first section, a problematic issue has been introduced. One of the first questions raised is how record labels have been able to keep their central and essential position in the music industry, despite all the changes that have faced the music industry, the most notable being the further digitalization of the market. A literature review led the researcher to believe that the powerful position of gatekeepers within the industry is key to the survival of the record labels, as the record labels are the first gatekeeper within the production chain.

(18)

Still, the existing gatekeeping literature was unable to deliver a satisfactory answer; the central question to this research was born and can be stated as follows:

How is it possible that record labels are able to maintain the powerful position of gatekeeper?

In an effort to answer the central question, possible additions to the existing gatekeeping literature were identified and discussed. This theoretical exercise led to the posing of seven propositions, which direct the attention to the themes that should be examined during the study (Yin, 1994).

To answer the central question, a particular research strategy has to be chosen (Yin, 1994). Three conditions are to be taken into account when the choice which research strategy to use is made (Yin, 1994). The three conditions are 1) the type of research questions, 2) the extent of control the researcher has over the actual behavioural events, and 3) the degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events. As for the research at hand, the central question posed is explanatory of nature. Meredith (1998) and Yin (1994) suggest a case study research as the appropriate strategy to tackle a ‘how-‘question. The second and third condition also warrant the use of a case study research, as the researcher is focussing on contemporary events, and has no control over the actual behavioural events.

Case study research can be defined as:’ a study that typically uses multiple methods and tools for data collection from a number of entities by a direct observer in a single, natural setting that considers temporal and contextual aspects of the contemporary phenomenon under study, but without experimental controls or manipulations’ (Meredith 1998). When the previously mentioned single, natural setting is used, one speaks of a single-case, whereas when more cases are used, the term multiple-case is used (Yin, 1994). Because of the close linkage between reality and theory, case studies likely result in theory that is empirically valid (Eisenhardt, 1989).

(19)

3.1 Theory

Whether the objective is to test or to develop theory, a common way to start a case study is to begin with the development of theory, (Yin, 1994). The developing of a theoretical framework is essential as it leads to propositions, which in turn will lead the researcher to concentrate on a smaller set of factors when data is gathered (Yin, 1994). Without theoretical framework, the researcher might get lost in the woods as the whole reality most likely is too complex to understand. As a guideline, Yin (1994) suggests that theory related to the subject of the study should be examined and reviewed. This includes individual theories, group theories, organizational theories, and societal theories. The research at hand has incorporated theories from the group and the organizational category, as these obviously have the most in common with the educational background of the researcher.

The developed theory also acts as a benchmark to compare the empirical results with (Yin, 1994). This process is called analytic generalization, used in qualitative research, and stands in stark contrast with statistical generalization, generalization that is used for quantitative research (Yin, 1994).

Inductive reasoning is used to generalize conclusions from the various cases. More specific; results from the electronic dance music scene are generalized to the encompassing music industry in an effort to present the current situation of gatekeeping within the music industry.

3.2 Case selection

In an effort to maximize external validity, a multiple-case design is chosen (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2005; Yin, 1994). An important issue when using a multiple-case design is case selection. Cases must be carefully selected based on replication logic. Replication logic means that each case either predicts similar results (literal replication), or contrasting results, but for predictable reasons (theoretical replication) (Yin, 1994). For the research at hand, literal replication is used. The cases are selected within one subset of the music industry, namely the electronic dance music scene. The electronic dance music scene exhibits similarities with the music industry in general; artists try to get their productions signed by record labels. Record labels take care of the distribution side and get the productions to the retail outlets. At these retail sites, be it digital download portals or a more classic ‘bricks and mortar’ shop, the consumer has the chance and choice to purchase and consume the productions of the artists who started the process.

(20)

individual artists is that the artist must have had a record released at a record label. A second criterion is more of pragmatic nature; the individual artists are selected out of the social network of the researcher. As it was more difficult to get in touch with record labels, no further criteria were set for the representatives of record labels, besides the obvious prerequisite that the record labels for which they work, or which they own, must be active within the electronic dance music scene.

The amount of cases to be selected is a matter of researcher’s choice; as with statistical confidence levels, there is no clear-cut amount of cases that must be studied (Yin, 1994). To keep the time dedicated to data gathering within the boundaries of the master thesis, the choice was made to select eight cases.

3.3 Research protocol

When conducting a multiple-case design, it is essential to develop a research protocol. Using a research protocol is one of the best tactics deployed to increase the reliability of the research (Yin, 1994). A research protocol maximizes the probability that the next case is studied exactly the same as the previous case, which besides reliability, also positively influences the validity of the case study. Validity can be tested on three dimensions (Yin, 1994):

- Construct validity; establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied

- Internal validity; establishing a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions

- External validity; establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized A research protocol should at least cover the following two themes (Yin, 1994); the field procedures and the case study questions.

(21)

The set of research questions is the heart of the research protocol (Yin, 1994). Two sets of questions were developed. One set of questions was intended for the artist, and the second set was aimed at the representatives for the record labels. Both sets of questions can be found in the appendix section of this paper. The set of questions also served as a checklist for the researcher to make sure that all the topics of interest were covered. The choice was made to conduct semi-structured interviews, with the developed set of research questions used for guidance. To extract as much information from the respondents, the interviews had an open character, with the most important themes getting the most attention. This conforms to what Patton (1990) calls a ‘general interview guide approach’.

The process of creating the set of interview questions took the researcher through various steps. The following steps, based on Emans (2002), are taken to ensure a set of interview questions that helps the researcher to answer the research question.

1. Determine the objective of the interview 2. Determine the theoretical variables 3. Develop a way to note the answers 4. Create a logic order in the set of questions 5. Finish the set of interview questions

When the interviews were conducted, the ‘internal method’ (Emans 2002) was used to decide which questions were helpful in answering the research question.

3.4 Data analysis

According to Yin (1994), the analysis of gathered data is one of the most difficult aspects of doing case studies. Unfortunately, it is also one of the least developed issues. Two general strategies can be distinguished. The first is to rely on theoretical propositions that led to the case study. Using Yin’s (1994) words: ’The propositions would have shaped the data collection plan and therefore would have given priorities to the relevant analytic strategies’. A second strategy is to develop a case description. This report adheres to the first strategy; therefore, an explanation of the development of a case description is discarded.

(22)

Besides the use of a pattern-matching logic, data triangulation is used to address construct validity. Data triangulation is to study the same cases with different approaches (Yin, 1994). For this research, desk research and interviews are used as the two sources of evidence.

3.5 Data presentation

The results that are presented in the next chapter of this report start with a depiction of the electronic dance music scene. This is the first set of data that is used in the data triangulation. The following data is presented: An introduction to the scene; the size of the EDM scene; the incumbent actors; the supply chain of the scene. Afterwards, the data that is gathered from the individual interviews, our second source of evidence, are presented in an order similar to the theoretical framework; starting with the resource based view, knowledge based view and the dynamic capabilities approach, followed by transaction costs economics. Third, and fourth, respectively the strength of ties theory and the industrial organization approach are presented.

3.6 Summary

To summarize the research design, four measures of the quality of a research need to be taken into account; construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.

The construct validity of the case study is strengthened by the use of multiple sources of evidence in the data collection phase. During the data analysis phase, pattern-matching logic is used to positively influence the internal validity of the research. External validity is improved by using literal replication logic. The research protocol is developed to increase the reliability of the research at hand.

4. Results

The purpose of this part is to present the results gathered from desk research and the conducted interviews. No interpretation is given to these results; conclusions and discussions are dealt with in a later stage.

The first sections deal with the electronic dance music scene and presents what this scene looks like in terms of size, actors, production chain and other notable themes. When a picture of the electronic dance music scene is provided, the focus shifts to the individual cases.

(23)

A total of eight sections, corresponding with the total amount of cases, will present the results of the individual cases, starting with the artists and ending with the representatives of the record labels. Each section starts with an introduction of the person interviewed, and ends with four paragraphs dealing with the themes that are introduced in the theoretical framework, grouping the resource based view, the knowledge based view, and the dynamic capabilities into one category.

4.1 The electronic dance music scene

4.1.1 History

As a subset of the entire music scene, the electronic dance music scene (further referred to as the EDM scene) came into existence in the 1970’s. EDM has its roots in Europe were the French producer Jean-Michel Jarre and the German group Kraftwerk pioneered this type of music. It distinguishes itself from other music genres such as rock & roll, hip-hop and R&B by relying primarily on computerized hardware and software to create sounds which arranged together by a composer, artist or producer results in music.

In the 1980’s, the music was popularized through large events called raves. These raves were usually organized, but unlicensed parties that took all night in an outdoor venue (Kavanaugh & Anderson, 2008). To ensure law enforcement in the late 1990’s the parties exhibit a shift from outdoor venues to controlled, indoor clubs. This was not the only reason for this shift to occur; the nightclub owners saw the potential of the genre and wanted to secure a piece of the profits (Bennet, 2001). Nowadays, electronic dance music events take place both outdoor and indoor.

The most important actors in the electronic dance music are the producers, the record labels, the retail outlets, the disc jockeys and the consumer. These actors are presented in the following section.

4.1.2 Important actors

(24)

label. When the record labels attain the rights of a recording, it is their responsibility to market the production and take care of the distribution of the track to the various retailers. Historically, this process was started with the pressing of vinyl records or CD’s before the record could be shipped to record stores, but with the current digitalization, most records and albums are sold in an online environment in the form of an MP3, a digital music capturing format, file. Now that the production of the original artist is available for purchase, the consumer has the opportunity to buy the product. Although disc jockeys sometimes get their music directly from the source, it is common that the disc jockeys purchase their music from digital download shops which allows them to play the record in their live-sets at festivals, night clubs or any other occasion. When a disc jockey plays the music of a producer, the music gets exposed to an often large crowd. This crowd can then turn into costumers as well when they decide they want to buy the production of an artist. The previous flow of goods also depicts the chain of supply within the EDM scene, when Handfield and Nichols’ (1998) definition of a supply chain is used. This definition states that a ‘supply chain encompasses all activities associated with the flow and transformation of goods from the first till the last stage.’ Just discussed is one of the four design decisions to be made when designing a supply chain; the choice of which actors are in the supply chain (Graham & Hardaker, 2003).

4.1.3 Size of the scene

It has proven rather difficult to find precise numbers on the size of the market for electronic dance music. Even to find estimates on size, revenues, market shares and other sorts of information proved difficult. A lot of this probably has to do with internet piracy and the illegal downloads of electronic dance music. The 2010 report from IFPI suggests that 29.8 million inhabitants from Europe’s top five music markets frequently use file-sharing services, and that other forms of piracy are growing. It isn’t hard to picture the impact this has on a digitally embedded scene as the electronic dance music scene.

(25)

contract with Beatport. Obviously, it is not forbidden to generate more than $300 USD per quarter, so one can assume that sales figures exclusively from Beatport are a minimum of $ 2.400.000 USD per quarter, resulting in a yearly $ 9.600.000 USD. With the usual sales price of $1.99 USD (Beatport.com, 2010), at least 4.824.120 records are sold yearly on Beatport. Adding the 10 to 20 percent sales from other (online) retail outlets, a total sales figure of roughly 5.400.000 to 6.000.000 can be found. As it remains to be seen that every record label consistently sells 80 to 90 percent of their record via Beatport and that there will obviously be labels that generate more than the necessary minimum of $ 300 USD, the previous figures are most likely not accurate and will probably represent only the absolute minimum and a small percentage of actual how many electronic dance music records are actually sold.

4.2 Producers

Case 1: Joni Ljungqvist

Joni Ljungqvist is a twenty-two year old producer of electronic dance music. Born and raised in Gislaved, Sweden, but now residing in Kalmar, Sweden, Joni started writing/creating music when he was around fourteen years old. His talent didn’t go by unnoticed, as his productions were picked up by Tiesto’s Blackhole Recordings, and Ferry Corsten’s Flashover Recordings. His first production was signed to a label when he was seventeen years old.

Resources, knowledge, and dynamic capabilities

Record labels have capabilities that individual artists don’t have. These capabilities are not necessarily related to resources, as these are pretty easily accessible by anyone. The resources deemed critical for the success of the record labels are therefore imitable, and definitely not homogeneous/heterogeneous. The knowledge of the record labels has an important role in defining its success. Particularly the knowledge to develop artists, marketing know-how, and gig management are seen as important knowledge for the record labels. This knowledge, although largely tacit, can be gathered by individual producers, but it is highly doubtful that any individual will ‘ever be so good at it as if they have people doing it for them who know it in and out, and also are willing to do it for the better of the artist (or producer).’ The process of attaining the knowledge needed is too time consuming for an individual to handle, and is also largely based on the experience of more than one.

(26)

format nowadays. One can therefore say that the record labels have sufficiently adapted to the digitalized marketplace.

Transaction costs economics

This particular case has had mixed ‘working relationships’ with his record labels. Not every record label supports the producer in working on his career. This translates to a varying degree of trust that the interviewee has in the record labels. One exemplifying problem is that most producers are treated by one release at a time. This means that labels only tend to take an interest in the producer once he is proven to be successful. This obviously isn’t in the best interest of the producer who needs support to further his or her career.

The relationship between the producer and the artist can be loaded with bureaucracy. Especially for beginning producers, contracts are ‘extremely hard to follow unless you can get the help of someone who knows their contracts.’ This increases the opportunity for cheating costs to emerge. The interviewee also states that the more experienced you become dealing with contract negotiations, the less trouble you most likely will run into.

Strength of ties

The strength of ties is an important area of discussion. It turns out that the record labels have strong ties with the disc jockeys. As strong ties means the sharing of sensitive information, as discussed in the theoretical framework, this improves the chances for record labels to be successful. Interestingly, the same goes for the producers, who also have strong ties with the disc jockeys. This improves the value of the producers, and also their worth for the record labels. One might suggest that this is a reason and an opportunity for producers to bypass record labels.

Industrial organization

(27)

Another barrier is that the inhabiting record labels rely on a, probably wrongful, sense of the producers that record labels are the one and only way to release music. This mentality clouds their vision, and makes them inattentive to the opportunities currently existing in the EDM scene. There is a sense that there are currently more than enough record labels that release mediocre productions, but that there is still a need for record labels that consistently release, although quality is subjective, quality music.

Case 2: Nick Ayllen

Nick Ayllen, from the United States of America, is a twenty-four year old producer, who has two productions signed to Stoneflow Records. His musical career started three years ago, and the first track he produced with the purpose to be picked up by a record label was signed by the previously mentioned Stoneflow records.

‘As far as resources go, setting up a record label isn’t much of a hassle anymore, especially now that most of the business is done online in a virtual environment.’ The previous quote from the interview tells us that the resources necessary to the success of a record label are accessible and obtainable by everyone who wants to.

The knowledge aspect is a different story. According to the interviewee ´the knowledge factors plays an important role´. The background knowledge of how the industry operates is based on experience and is therefore tacit and not easily transferred to an individual. As an example, the interviewee says that he lacks ‘the knowledge it takes to handle a release from legalizing to promo till the track reaches the final consumer.’

The record labels have been able to adapt to the current digital situation. This wasn’t so much a matter of choice, but a necessity as the ´music industry as a whole made a polar shift towards the digital world.’

(28)

The record labels have a reputation to hold high, which makes them trustworthy in the eyes of the producers. This is congruent with the fourth proposition stated in the theoretical framework

The tie that record labels have with the next line of gatekeepers, the disc jockeys, is very strong according to the interviewee. In fact, the interviewee goes as far as to suggest that the survival of the record labels depends on them having a strong connection with the disk jockeys that play their music.

It is remarkable that the producer in this case has also built strong ties with some of the disc jockeys that play his music. It should be noted that these friendships are not used for personal benefits, but it does counter-indicates that the record labels have a powerful position because they, in contrast to the artists, have strong ties with the next line of gatekeeper, the disc jockey.

The most important barriers that keep producers from entering the ‘record label’ business are a lack of time and the knowledge it takes to be successful.

It is the opinion of the interviewee that there is always room for more record labels as it means there must be a certain demand. He is unsure though if there is still something left of the profit-pie.

Case 3: Jeff Kolber

Jeff Kolber is an electronic dance music producer from Billings, Montana, in the United States of America. Kolber, now twenty-six years old, started producing two and a half years ago, and got his first production signed to a record label 18 months later. Two labels currently have tracks signed from J. Michael Kolber, his producer alias, namely IQ Sounds and JOOF Recordings.

Resources, knowledge and dynamic capabilities

(29)

knowledge within the record labels, and this also goes for the resources of knowing how to market and distribute, is history depended, which leads to a possible competitive advantage. The interviewee argues that the record labels have adapted to the digitalization, but have not been able to reap the benefits of it. The fact that record labels switched to the digital format of releasing music is one side of the medal. The other side is that they have not been able to make it a very lucrative business yet.

Record labels are organizations that can be trusted and enjoy a good reputation in the eye of the interviewee. This probably leads to repeated business between producers and record labels, as stated in the fourth proposition.

As contract negotiations are straightforward, there is almost no room for cheating costs to appear. This is probably one of the reasons why the market form of organizing transactions is still the dominant form.

The interviewee believes that record labels have strong ties with the disc jockeys that play their music. It is interesting to note that the producers also have strong ties with the disc jockeys. This doesn’t validate the argument that record labels have a position of power over the producers, because they are the only ones having a strong tie with the next line of gatekeepers; the disc jockeys.

One of the barriers mentioned by the interviewee that prevents individual producers to bypass the record labels is that being signed by a record label means reaching out to a bigger audience. Brand names and reputation are cited to be two other barriers created by the record labels. It is difficult to build up a brand name from scratch and become a reputable organization in a short time.

(30)

Case 4: Leander Rispens

Leander Rispens, most commonly known under his ‘Aerium’ alias, is a twenty-five year old producer born in Leeuwarden, but currently residing in The Hague, the Netherlands. The last seven years of his life have been devoted to producing electronic dance music. It took the record labels around four years to pick up his music, but once things got going, a steady stream of record labels became interested in signing his music. Bonzai Recordings, Solaris Recordings (pending release), Unearthed Recordings, Moonrising Records, Blue Soho (pending release), Futurestate Records, Aurora Digital, Blu Plant Recordings, and Real Music Recordings are among the labels that Leander Rispens has dealt with.

Various resources are said to be essential to the success of today’s record labels. Basic stuff such as legal responsibilities, dealing with distribution, and how to successfully approach promotional activities, are all deemed important. Labels also have to stand out and try to be unique. The ability to stand out and garner attention amongst the masses can also be seen as a resource that leads to competitive advantage. Unfortunately for the record labels, the interviewee expresses the opinion that all of the resources and knowledge mentioned above can be obtained by anyone who wants to, thanks to the evolution of the internet. The interviewee however, also believes that ‘releases being brought out via labels have a better chance of succeeding than non-labeled tracks. ‘

So, although the resources and knowledge critical to the success of the record labels are not heterogeneous, not rare, and imitable by individual artists, the record labels still manage to survive.

The resources may not be a direct cause for competitive advantage, but the record labels have been able to adjust and reconfigure their resources and knowledge to a predominantly digital marketplace. The interviewee can’t think of any label that does not release music in a digital format, which must mean that the labels have adapted.

(31)

The interviewee believes that the record labels within the EDM scene have strong ties with the disc jockeys that play the music they release. Strong ties suggest the sharing of valuable information. This could mean that the disc jockeys can get their hands on promo’s (tracks that are not yet released), and all the other latest releases from the within the scene.

The interviewee indicates that ties between the producer and disc jockeys do exist, but that these ties are usually weak. As indicated in the theoretical framework, the strong tie between the record label and the disc jockey might prevent the individual producer to release his/her records without a record label.

Ties between the record label and the producer also exist. These ties vary in strength. When the tie is weak, it usually involves only one release. When the tie is strong, it leads to repeated business between both parties.

Time would be the biggest barrier that keeps producers from releasing their own records. Taking care of the administrational and distribution activities needed to be successful, would take too much time to handle.

According to the interviewee, there are already more than enough record labels. This has led to the EDM scene becoming a bit saturated. The fact that the need for record labels is satisfied is another entry barrier.

Case 5: Rohit Iyer

Rohit Iyer, a twenty-three year old producer from Mumbai, India, is better known by his artist name: Lost Soul. Rohit Iyer started producing almost three years ago, and it was about a year ago that his first track was signed to a record label. The Germany-based label Shah Music picked up his production. Bonzai Records is also set to use Iyer’s production for an upcoming album release.

(32)

The record labels have adapted to the digitalization of the market place. This becomes apparent by the mere fact that they are still active as powerful players within the industry. This must mean that the record labels have been able to adjust their resources to the digital form of competition.

It depends on the particular situation if contract negotiations are lengthy and difficult. The interviewee had to deal with a record label from Germany. Although the record label was quick to reply to any messages sent by the producer, it did take a while to get the contract signed thanks to the time difference. The interviewee has also heard other occasions where record labels did not act as they were supposed to. It goes to say that not every record labels has a good reputation and can be trusted. The previous is an argument for not using the current market form of transaction. Although other forms of transactions might be an option, the interviewee still believes that it is best to let record labels handle the releasing of productions. To quote: ‘better let it [the handling of promotion, distribution etc.] be their headache.’

According to the interviewee, most record labels have strong ties with the disc jockeys that play their music. The tie goes both ways, as record labels need disc jockeys to promote their products, and disc jockeys need the record labels to get the latest music that is available. This exemplifies the sharing of information as explained in the theoretical framework.

Ties between producers and disc jockeys do also exist, but it is said that these are not as strong as the tie between the label and the disc jockey. Especially between the producers and the more well-known disc jockeys, the tie is very weak if it even exists at all.

(33)

4.3 Record Labels

Case 6: Paulo Munoz

Paulo A. Munoz, thirty-two years old, was co-founder of Real Legacy Recordings. The native Columbian, now residing in California, United States of America, is also working as A&R at Factual Records Ltd, and working part-time for Straight Up! Music, 4Play Trax and Big Alliance Records. Between thirty and forty producers were signed to Real Legacy Recordings. A much smaller group, intentionally, is signed at Factual Records.

In the eyes of the interviewee, the defining factor of success is that they have more money to spend on important resources and knowledge such as marketing, distribution and networking. Besides money, there is also an experience component, especially concerning the creation of a network which is gathered through time. Establishing a network is achievable by an individual willing to devote time to it. Distribution and marketing on the other hand is unobtainable by individual artists, although not distribution and marketing worth the while.´ The resources and knowledge needed to successfully release recordings are valuable, imperfectly imitable, and not easily substituted. They are also immobile as they are not easily transferred to other actors. The record labels have been able to adapt and readjust their resources, both tangible (resources) and intangible (knowledge), to the digitalization of the industry. This adaptation in reality was forced upon them, and ‘it was either take advantage of the situation, or sink in bankruptcy.’

(34)

It is remarkable that, according to this source, the record labels don’t seem to have strong ties with the next line of gatekeepers; the disc jockeys. This stands in contrast with the proposition stated in the theoretical framework. Strong ties between the record labels and the individual producers do exist though. The record labels where the interviewee has been active, or is active tried to make the contact with each other feel like the artist was dealing with family. This is an interesting subject, as it might mean that it is because of the strong tie between the labels and the producers, the record labels are able to keep their position within the industry. A second interesting theme is the tie between the record label and the distributor. This tie is considered strong, and helps the labels dealing with retailers more efficiently and effectively, which leads to positively enhanced success of the labels. The same result was found when record labels had strong ties with the disc jockeys that play their music.

Money is seen as an important barrier that prevents producers to release their own recordings. Without money it is hard to get the access to the distribution channels needed to be successful. Individual producers also have time restraining their possibility of releasing their own records. Building a network is a time consuming task, which probably leads to the producer not being able to make any music; the reason why one might actually consider to release his/her own recordings. The bigger record labels rely on their reputation to keep them in business. This does not apply to some of the smaller and newer labels, as they still have to prove themselves.

Case 7: Will Brookes

Will Brookes is a twenty-five year old producer from Bristol, United Kingdom. His records are released under the Will B guise, and are released on several labels, including Monster Tunes, Levare Recordings, Perceptive Recordings, Well Mixed, and Offshore Music. His production career spans seven years up until now, and it took him around eighteen months to get his first track signed. Not only is Will Brookes a successful producer of electronic dance music, he has also experienced what it is working for a record label. Between June 2005 and January 2007, Brookes worked at Monster Tunes, dealing with circa thirty-five artists.

Resource based view, knowledge based view, and dynamic capabilities

(35)

owned by the record labels are not rare, imitable and substitutable. This was different five years ago, when the label’s essential resources included a press officer, label manager, manufacturing contacts, distributors, disc jockey contacts, a graphic designer, an accountant, an Artist & Repertoire manager, etc. The interviewee believes that nowadays, a laptop, a list of e-mail addresses, and a contract with a distributor should suffice to start a record label. Resources are not seen as a reason why record labels are a powerful player within the industry. The same goes for dynamic capabilities. According to this particular case, the existing record labels haven’t sufficiently adapted their resources to the changing and volatile market. Other factors, however keep the labels in place. One of these factors is considered the tacit knowledge of the record labels. It is not so much that the record labels ‘act as institutions in which specialized knowledge from various fields can be integrated and coordinated, resulting in a total knowledge base being higher than the sum of all individual parts’, as suggested in the theoretical framework, but more about the stored tacit knowledge (network), distribution, and marketing services that can’t be taken care of realistically by an individual producer.

Transaction cost economics

The reputation of the existing record labels differs. Some are more trustworthy than others. The interviewee states that it is usually a matter of how experienced you are dealing with labels that will keep you out of trouble, or on the other hand gets you in trouble. Contract negotiations are not necessarily lengthy and difficult, so the chance of cheating costs is held to a minimum. The interviewee believes that there are no viable options to release records besides using a record label, supporting the view that a market transaction is the one and only way to economic activity

(36)

The amount of record labels has surpassed the necessary level. This obviously is a factor that deters one to start his or her own label. The needed knowledge and resources aren’t as much the problem as is the lack of financial gain. The interviewee exemplifies his point in the following passage ‘Even self releasing you need to sell 10-15 download units to earn the same for 1 vinyl. There's a lower market for downloads, so there's no point in trying.

For example, a release selling 1000 vinyl would make an artist around £1,500. A release selling 1000 downloads on iTunes makes you around £125.‘

The record labels already having an established name is also picked up during the interview as an existing entry barrier.

Case 8: James Wood

James Wood is a twenty-two year old producer from Leicester, United Kingdom. In the EDM scene he is better known as Wandii, Karanda (a collaboration with Andi Curd) and LightFlow (a collaboration with Ken Spector). Up to date approximately thirteen original tracks of his, and a few remixes here and there, are signed to various labels. Most of the labels fall under the encompassing umbrella of Armin van Buuren’s Armada labels, such as Markus Schulz's Coldharbour, and Andy Moor's AVA. James Wood began composing when he was around seven or eight years old, but has been a producer for ten years now. It took James five years to get his first track released; a year before that he got his first remix work.

James Wood not only is a seasoned veteran when it comes to producing as he also has been involved with co-running, along with Andi Curd, a record label called Moonrising Records. Moonrising Records had about twenty signed artists, before it went out of business; managing the record label took too much time, and put huge pressure on both their producing careers.

Resource based view, knowledge based view, and dynamic capabilities

Resources are no longer the problem for an artist to release his/her records. The one thing mentioned that might be considered a valuable resource is a contract with a distributor. This, according to the interviewee, is essential because it would be ‘too time consuming, laborious, and inefficient’ for an individual to handle the distribution process.