Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

If multirigging was legal, would it change your business?
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29726		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  toqer [ Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:  If multirigging was legal, would it change your business?
Not that it ever would happen, from a financial standpoint no manu has a financial incentive to allow it. This post is purely for the hypothetical "What if"

So let's say tomorrow, congress declares, "Karaoke Jocks can have a 1:many copies of their original CDG's or legal downloads!" How would this change how you do business?

What if we flipped that model a bit to a "pay per play" subscription model? Currently tricerasoft has a program where you can pay $0.10 to play a song from a library of 20,000 songs.
Author:  earthling12357 [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
There's a whole lot more to multi-rigging than music inventory.
I doubt that would make any difference in the business plans of most people.
These days music is one of the smallest costs and least considerations of doing business on any scale.
Author:  DannyG2006 [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
I'd still Sue for unfair advantage over single ops. With no controls what would stop said muli-rigger from monopolizing the area leaving no chance for the single op to get gigs other than pricing themselves so low that they make no profits. In my area I'd get laughed out the door if I even mentioned pay for play.
Author:  The Lone Ranger [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
I'd still Sue for unfair advantage over single ops. With no controls what would stop said muli-rigger from monopolizing the area leaving no chance for the single op to get gigs other than pricing themselves so low that they make no profits. In my area I'd get laughed out the door if I even mentioned pay for play.


8) You would sue Danny? What would you pay a lawyer with? I thought you were having a tough time getting work in the first place. It seems the solution to every problem concerning the karaoke service business involves taking some kind of legal action. Is that what the industry has evolved to? You would sue multi-riggers like Chris and Rumbolt for monopolizing their local areas? I"m sure they would love to hear that. Since you only play for 50.00 an hour I'm sure that due to scale the big companies could under cut you.

If everyone is suing everyone else, hosts even sue their singers and patrons I don't see much of a future for the industry. The only one's that would be making any real money would be lawyers like Jim. Of course he said that he is only making his overhead costs representing SC, so maybe that's the answer Danny, get Jim to work for you pro bono. It's the multiriggers that are hoping the manus will cull out the small independent operators such as yourself Danny. Leaving the field open to them to exploit. Under perfect conditions if the small fry are gone and they continue to expand they could monopolize the local market and then raise prices.
Author:  rickgood [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
Let's rephrase the question. If the two entities currently suing kjs were to stop, would the explosion in multi-rigging affect your business? Can an honest kj survive in a world without the threat of lawsuits or will it become a wild west atmosphere? If everyone has the identical content, who wins the battle for venues?
Author:  Cueball [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
I'd still Sue for unfair advantage over single ops. With no controls what would stop said muli-rigger from monopolizing the area leaving no chance for the single op to get gigs other than pricing themselves so low that they make no profits.
And how much different would that be if that Multi-Rigger were operating with a 1:1 library for each and every rig in his system? Would you still sue for the same unfair advantage (because that Multi-Rigger invested more in his system than you did)?
Author:  rickgood [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
Danny,

You'd have to HAVE a show before you could sue somebody for taking it. Why not start there?
Author:  MrBoo [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
rickgood wrote:
Let's rephrase the question. If the two entities currently suing kjs were to stop, would the explosion in multi-rigging affect your business? Can an honest kj survive in a world without the threat of lawsuits or will it become a wild west atmosphere? If everyone has the identical content, who wins the battle for venues?


First, I do not think "suits" are keeping hardly anyone from multi rigging if they really want to. So the concept of honest KJs surviving without the "threat" of suits, in my mind, is real today. Next, I would have never run more than one system even if it were OK to do it with the same library. I make way too much money in my day job for a karaoke business of any size to be financially feasible. It was always a hobby and would have never ever gone any further than being a hobby. As a hobby, one venue was more than enough to deal with.
Author:  Cueball [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
toqer wrote:
What if we flipped that model a bit to a "pay per play" subscription model? Currently tricerasoft has a program where you can pay $0.10 to play a song from a library of 20,000 songs.
And what would that "Pay to Play" be? $1 per song? $2 per song? $5 per song? For a 4 hour show, that could come to either $48, $96, or $240 (all computed at 12 songs per hour). Let's see now... you might get people coming into a venue that are willing to pay $1 for every song they get up to sing. $2 is becoming a bit iffy. At $5 per song, you might as well FUGGEDABOUDIT!!!

So what you are saying here (with the "Pay to Sing" proposal), the KJ would be doing a 4 hour show for about $50. Will they be getting free beer and food from the Venue too? After all, that already exists out there without the "Pay to Sing" policy.

In general, I don't believe the "Pay to Sing" type of shows would last unless they are in major tourist areas, where charging to sing is the norm (like it is in Hawaii). Unless your show is located on the Boardwalk by Coney Island, or as one of the attractions in Six Flags Amusement Parks, a large amount of people are not willing to pay to sing, ESPECIALLY when they know it's free everywhere else. I know I'm not.
Author:  DannyG2006 [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
If they can prove they are 1:1 then I would drop the suit just like SC does.
Author:  Kuelman1 [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
Right now it would not change my business at all. Between my day job some weddings and a few DJ gigs here and there. I don't see myself expanding my Karaoke show.
Author:  chrisavis [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
It would absolutely change my model.

If I could buy one set of music, and legally use it on any number of systems, then that is exactly what I would do. I would sell off my excess and keep a master set.

I am still not a fan of any subscription model where music I use on Monday may not be there on Tuesday though. If a subscription service comes along where the music they have available is ALWAYS available, I will revisit.

earthling12357 wrote:
There's a whole lot more to multi-rigging than music inventory.
I doubt that would make any difference in the business plans of most people.
These days music is one of the smallest costs and least considerations of doing business on any scale.


I disagree. While it is possible to just buy on the fly an build a library from scratch, logistically, on a multi-rig scale, it is very, very cumbersome to implement. For multi-rigging operations, it is pretty much required to have a solid core and then supplement with downloads. That means buying a base library for several thousand dollars up front. The costs can be mitigated with timely purchases, but that does not account for a sudden opportunity that arises.

Music is still my single largest expense for building a new rig.
Author:  The Lone Ranger [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
If they can prove they are 1:1 then I would drop the suit just like SC does.


8) I still don't see where you would have the means to carry out an expensive legal process suit. The only reason SC is able to continue is Jim is absorbing the cost of his $400.00 an hour standard fee. No offense but where would you come up with that type of money?
Author:  earthling12357 [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
chrisavis wrote:
Music is still my single largest expense for building a new rig.


I would have expected your time to be your single biggest expense followed up by duplication of equipment.

If I were to add additional rigs, I would use data from my current rig to calculate the actual music required thereby minimizing the purchase of music never requested. The 2000 or so songs actually used over the past year could be reduced to the most popular 400 essentials that would be on my watch list for disc purchases and the rest I would set up to purchase on the fly as needed.
Author:  Lonman [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
I'd still Sue for unfair advantage over single ops. With no controls what would stop said muli-rigger from monopolizing the area leaving no chance for the single op to get gigs other than pricing themselves so low that they make no profits. In my area I'd get laughed out the door if I even mentioned pay for play.
Where would be the unfair advantage? You would have the exact same opportunity to make multiple sets as anyone else in this hypothetical situation. An unfair advantage would be is if you had absolutely no access to the same type of deal, if it was legal, then you would have the same advantage - whether you used it or not would be up to you.
If it were an option, damn straight I'd jump on it - music cost (wanting to keep it on par to my existing selection) is the primary reason that is keeping me from starting another system. If that cost wasn't a factor, I'd already have one or more going and to know that it would be exactly the same selection at any show I worked, no one would be like 'why don't you have that song here'.

Pay to play would have to be low enough (either per song or flat fee) to not break any profit line by too much.
Author:  DannyG2006 [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
I don't have the income flow they have to aquire the equipment for the multi rigs needed to compete with the multi riggers.now. So how can I get fair pay when the only way I can compete is to lower my standard rate to a rate where I can't even afford to maintain the equipment I have now.
Author:  Lonman [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
I don't have the income flow they have to aquire the equipment for the multi rigs needed to compete with the multi riggers.now. So how can I get fair pay when the only way I can compete is to lower my standard rate to a rate where I can't even afford to maintain the equipment I have now.
It still wouldn't be basis for an unfair advantage suit. If someone has multiple systems currently and actually paid for each system AND music, you still call that unfair advantage - no that is just business? Just because you cannot afford to pay for extra equipment and someone else can - is not an unfair advantage - sorry! Unfair advantage would be if they are stealing all their equipment & using it, but not if they can afford to buy it. That is like a mom & pop shop vs a Walmart. Mom & Pop cannot afford to expand, while the other can. That's the cost of doing business - as long as it's acquired in a legal fashion and not stolen, your unfair advantage goes right out the window!
Author:  rickgood [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
I don't have the income flow they have to aquire the equipment for the multi rigs needed to compete with the multi riggers.now. So how can I get fair pay when the only way I can compete is to lower my standard rate to a rate where I can't even afford to maintain the equipment I have now.


I think somebody has been reading the press releases from the White House.... So if I've made or saved $10,000 and decide to invest in my business you'd sue me because you don't have $10,000? WTH?
Author:  chrisavis [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
earthling12357 wrote:
chrisavis wrote:
Music is still my single largest expense for building a new rig.


I would have expected your time to be your single biggest expense followed up by duplication of equipment.

If I were to add additional rigs, I would use data from my current rig to calculate the actual music required thereby minimizing the purchase of music never requested. The 2000 or so songs actually used over the past year could be reduced to the most popular 400 essentials that would be on my watch list for disc purchases and the rest I would set up to purchase on the fly as needed.


Unfortunately, the Karma Software has no easy way of determining the top songs. I have asked for the feature repeatedly. But that is a separate issue.

Since I use Sound Choice and Pioneer as my go to brands, acquiring the individual discs or even starting with a GEM is costly. I don't intend to change this for awhile yet. I also take some pride on having the music available RIGHT NOW. I don't like asking people to wait a week or two for a disc to arrive. That is just a part of my service offering and it allows me to command a nice premium from my venues (in other words - I provide a premium service at a premium cost). New music is entirely supplied by download vendors at this time.

I can build my standardized hardware rig for about $5000. About $1000 less for smaller venues. About $1000 more if I do a lighting setup. The initial startup music costs me roughly the same unless I find a particularly spectacular deal.
Author:  Cueball [ Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: If multirigging was legal, would it change your business
DannyG2006 wrote:
I don't have the income flow they have to aquire the equipment for the multi rigs needed to compete with the multi riggers.now.
If you don't have the income flow to generate enough money to purchase equipment so that you could compete on a multi-rigging level, then that's not their problem. That's not an unfair advantage just because the multi-rigger is out there in your place. Try getting a bank loan.

I can see it now... I sue you because you are a multi-rigger with a 1:x ratio (x = number of rigs). I file suit in Court and explain to the Judge:
Me: Your Honor, I am suing this Multi-Rigger because he has an unfair advantage over me being a Single Op host.
Judge: And what is this unfair advantage.
Me: He has the money to buy more equipment so that he can run more shows than me, while I can barely afford to maintain the upkeep of my single set of equipment.
Judge: Just because you can not afford to buy new equipment does not mean that this multi-rigger has an unfair advantage over you. It's just as likely that some other Single Op host could just be starting out in the business, and was able to afford to buy his own equipment and compete against you as well. He was able to convince the Venue that he was the right man for the job. What you need to do, is take out a Business Loan to buy more equipment if you want to compete. Case dismissed.


As a footnote, it doesn't matter how many systems you have, even a Multi-Rigger can only have 1 show at any given Venue for a specific day and time (he can't have 2 shows at Murph's Bar and Grill on Tuesday night at 10 PM). So, what that boils down to, is how well he sold himself to the Venue in their consideration to hire him. Since he can only use 1 system at this venue, his having multiple systems has NOTHING to do with the fact that he got hired over you.

Now if you want to go crying to the Courts that you already host a show on Tuesday nights, but this guy has 5 shows on Tuesday nights (at 5 different venues), and this multi-rigger has an unfair advantage over you because you would like to host 2 or 3 more shows on Tuesday nights, but you can't because you can't afford to buy the extra equipment... that's still not good enough to make a legal case against the other KJ. Your personal finances as versus your competitor's is a moot point.


Disclaimer: These opinions of mine are all based of Toqer's initial OP.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/