I'm putting together a blueprint for a startup new "major", funded by private investment.
The backers feel, as I do, that cutting down existing corporations won't work.
Too large overheads, the wrong basic structure for today, chasing past sources of income instead of looking for new areas of profit.
So a NEW company, starting from scratch, with a small initial staff covering the crucial areas, in small offices with tiny overheads, has a far better chance of taking over as next year's "major".

Any suggestions appreciated.

I'll put up the blueprint here when completed.

The first idea I have on the subject has evolved from my use of regional PR and converting this to regional scouting and A+R, therby cutting down office costs as there will not have to be one.

The internet has created a situation in which everyone is in the same office anyway at the same time. I`m sure we`ve all made tracks with people we have not even met by now.

A Co-Op major label in fact is required, much in the same way the music agencies started to merge at the turn of the century

If we look at the way the tipsters have been working recently, it has been largely very localised, with myself, the Kernow people, Designer magazine, Scottish guys and our Birmingham contingent finding the best of what they have access to.
I realise that is only the UK I have mentioned, but that is all four corners covered of it already.
The London "office" is quite capable of doing the USA.

I honestly believe it is still essential for an act to take it`s own areas first, it`s cost effective and sales effective.

Case in point, Air Traffic should chart this week ( details please, Small)and the clever use of a hometown gig the day before the release should nail this for them.

With so much music available on the net, I believe that the local radio stations are more essential than they have ever been as the buying public will want to have a smaller and more personal approach as time goes on.

By the use of regional branches of a new label, the head of each office is responsible for his/her area and his/her acts.

To build a new Rome, the villages need new housing estates.

JK I think the blueprint for the next major must be prepared to accept that the new music industry runs very different to the old music business and to concentrate on the hit driven formula is wrong for the future.

Not to say that hits are not great but the occurence of hits are going to be much less. Runaway hits are going to be rarer than ever and individual sales are going to continue to fall as the long tail model takes hold.

You may not agree with this JK but it is much more about the artist and a collection of their songs (hits and others).

The focus is on the artist and their development, so the new major must be a service oriented company. They do not need to own catalogue nor invest in artists. What this company needs to do is to build on the new model which has been established by the likes of Tunecore and Dittomusic. Anything else is going back to the dinosaur age and won't work.

All departments are independent services which savvy artists and their management can utilise for a fee of course. Give them the opportunity to grow into stars with a ONE STOP solution that is totally democratic rather than prescriptive because the experience of the last 10 years has proven that there are few who can prescribe what the public wants.

Build on Youtube and Myspace, let fans recommend and pass on new music. Idol style voting can select new tracks to be playlisted. Get the public involved that's what they want not to be dictated by so called experts.

Oh and finally a subscription based service is essential.

I`m with you on that KZ.

There will not be another Sgt Pepper, there will be general repetoire.

People will mix and match their favourite artists` music like the sweet counter in Woolworths.

However, there is still the same keyword that comes time and time again in debates like this.

Developement.

We need long term hits and we simply are not finding them.

Every single hit track should be a song that could be a hit in any generation.I believe this is the longevity and product which should be looked at, lets face it,this old product model is still funding what`s left of a failing industry.

Just.

I think we cant ignore the "Live" aspect for modern bands - acts.

Most of those bands succeeding seem to have a very solid live show.

The days when bands/groups could just "release" a hit and not back it up with a superb show are over. Fans want more of a connection with what they buy and that is why Pop Idol works for a few weeks and then dries up.

The real successes will be on the road at least once or twice a year to encourage fans to be part of their "gang" !

I love the use of the word "gang" BR.

A "gang" means a following for life, and not a product slipping down the wall like a greasy fried egg after it has been thrown at it.

I just heard Coldplay, Chris will never lose his following for his entire life.

The ONLY way forward is to pick up the acts that can consistantly change with dignity.

I like my novelty/parody, hits like any next person and enjoy them, but we need the talent in the A+R to find the survivors, which can make them at will under pseudos.

Get rid of the accountants and bring in the talent.
(ok we may need the accountants along the way, but thats another story..)

Integration of live performance and the Internet is essential. Audio streaming is very well established. Live video streaming is workable but still problematic however it is maturing and is certainly far superiour to what was available a year ago. In the near future video streaming will be a working reality.

Collaboration and the Internet works - for example; Wikipedia, Open Source Software and, more specific to the topic, the FAB Chart where several opinions are collated by one person and put online.

Using the Internet facilitates regional bases that connect to a greater whole to allow the best of the local output to be aggregated on a national basis.

To licence content there are models already available from the Creative Commons which have varying degrees of restriction.

Income may be derived from live events, merchandise available at the event and online, online advertising (A mix of regional and national rates) and of course the good old download.

Costs can be offset but using other providers like YouTube to deliver free content.

One thing the new model has to accept is free content. Fortunately production costs are so low it is feasible to do this. Again collaboration works, if somebody wants to do a video to go with a song and they're giving it away (Flogging Molly and The Wailing wall video) the new model should spend little time concerning themselves with this.

Smaller, faster, cheaper! If the old model is a dinosaur the new one is a mammal.

There is great potential for a New Model... I can do that, gis a job

Developing the acts in a low cost but highly effective studio is my angle. That way, the recordings can be cut and mastered one after another without huge recording budgets. Get the artists up to a really happening standard with the hits and then promo the living daylights out of it via every means possible.

How many albums get cut by the majors only to be dropped? And at what cost? Ouch!

The aforementioned ideas by the other posters are great and build upon many of the very interesting debates and arguments on this board over recent years.
Some very cool stuff indeed guys.