William Hong:

>Why is it that BIS seems to be a company that is doing well in today's
>classical market, given that it seems to be operating under a different
>market system compared to the conglomerated labels?

Perhaps that's exactly why?  The classical market is much slower than
the pop market, were artists are "out" after one summer.  Classical discs
sell well even after a decade or two.  The major labels' policy to delete
them before they make it to the stores obviously hinders these late sale
somewhat.:) Keeping the recordings available for ages apparently makes
up for the low sales per annum.

>Their prices are certainly not at the lower end like a Naxos

Robert von Bahr claims that good things must have a price, first because
of their cost and second because otherwise we'd appreciate them less.
(Strongly simplified, but IMO to the point.)

>survive just the same even while commanding a higher price vs.  the
>big-name labels.

Here they're actually cheaper.  Any full-price BIS CD retails fur EUR
18, whereas Universal now reached EUR 20.

>Obviously, the quality of the "product" itself has a big role, but the
>majors can have decent product;

"Can" is the point, I guess. With labels such as BIS (or hyperion,
Chandos, harmonia mundi, Ondine etc.) you can be 99% sure that any
disc you pick up is excellent in all regards.  With the majors, chances
are much lower that you'll get a gem.  And then there's the choice of
repertory.  Perhaps it really isn't so smart to release yet another
Beethoven cycle.  While the Holmboe symphonies sure aren't a bestseller,
they probably make their money for BIS.  I'm less sure about the financial
succes of the Rattle, Barenboim or Abbado Beethoven.

>Perhaps we need to re-define what constitutes a "major" classical label,
>and dump Time-Warner, Sony et al.  into the bin of Fly-by-Nights?

If things don't change drastically, that'll happen.  But perhaps, perhaps
the "major labels" will remember their roots and go back to them -
recording good music.

Jan