>On Apr 16, 2011, at 5:04 AM, "DanKj" <ediso...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>After all, the phonograph was TAE's favorite invention & "baby", so it's >>understandable that it turned out to be a not-profitable hobby. The >>production of Diamond Discs still looks laborious and complicated, so that's >>also no surprise if they didn't turn a profit. (What did the jobbers pay for >>$1 discs, and what did the dealers pay the jobbers?) I suspect that the >>Blue Amberol line might've been shown to be less profitable than they >>thought, if they'd properly divided the costs of recording the original Disc >>masters between Disc and Cylinder issues. >> >> I think it all goes to show that Edison, who certainly had at least as many >> faults as the rest of us, still wasn't the "greedy b*stard" that some >> uninformed hero-killers insist. He could've been many times more wealthy, >> as Henry Ford noted, but was content to make enough cash to feed his >> invention habit, take care of his family and have some left over. >From what I researched in the ENHS files, TAE, while perhaps not an entirely >"greedy b*stard", was an abusive employer who took advantage of his heroic >image for psychological manipulation; many reports indicate complex morale >situations throughout the Phonograph Division for years, and the New York >Recording Dept. personnel frequently voiced frustration at being unable to >build repertoire and artist lists effectively. (Having Frank Dyer as his >corporate leader in the teens probably didn't help matters -- patent >attorneys, historically, aren't great "people" persons.) I wrote on another >list about his abrupt dismissal of musical director Eugene Jaudas, the U-S >Phonograph Co. was founded by disgruntled Edison technical and musical >personnel (Edison went ahead and used his industrial spy Joseph McCoy to >infiltrate the company and eventually bribed the company's chief engineer to >testify against them in a suit), and I strongly suspect Victor Herbert's >breakoff from Edison, fr om available evidence, was pretty savage. These are only three cases of many I researched. The Arthur Walsh memos cited come from a period where I think many Edison employees were just throwing up their hands but still not wanting to completely alienate TAE. Walter Miller could manage to the end because he appears to have been a somewhat introverted man who just wanted to get on with his job and do it the best way he could. Also, according to George Frow the DDs _were_ profitable in the 1918-23 period; like every other record company, however, they lost sales with the rise of broadcasting (which hurt them more severely than others because of their products' specialized nature and non-interchangeability), and the mess TAE made in rejecting electrical recording until it was too late (despite his sons' and even Walter Miller's barely concealed frustrations over two years of memos and innumerable experiments) killed the company. Hubris, abuse, and resentful old age -- a grea t inventor, but a rotten manager at the end, in my opinion. Just like Ford, incidentally. PC ________________________________________ From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of b...@taney.com [b...@taney.com] Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:38 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Cc: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Edison Profitability I think you are correct that probably blue amberol records were profitable until 1927 because it cost so little to make them - the masters were already made for the discs so no recording costs, the distribution network was already in place for the discs and all the equipment was long depreciated. Bill -- Bill Taney Sent From My iPad On Apr 16, 2011, at 5:04 AM, "DanKj" <ediso...@verizon.net> wrote: > After all, the phonograph was TAE's favorite invention & "baby", so it's > understandable that it turned out to be a not-profitable hobby. The > production of Diamond Discs still looks laborious and complicated, so that's > also no surprise if they didn't turn a profit. (What did the jobbers pay for > $1 discs, and what did the dealers pay the jobbers?) I suspect that the > Blue Amberol line might've been shown to be less profitable than they > thought, if they'd properly divided the costs of recording the original Disc > masters between Disc and Cylinder issues. > > I think it all goes to show that Edison, who certainly had at least as many > faults as the rest of us, still wasn't the "greedy b*stard" that some > uninformed hero-killers insist. He could've been many times more wealthy, as > Henry Ford noted, but was content to make enough cash to feed his invention > habit, take care of his family and have some left over. > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> Arthur Walsh comments near the end that Disc Records were "always a >> looser" as far as he could tell in terms of money and then provides data >> from accounting showing that indeed from 1925- they lost around the tune >> of 1.7MM. Is that really true - even when sales were brisk in 1918-22 that >> Diamond Discs lost Edison money? Or is that not the whole picture.. >> >> Also interesting was a comment that Blue Amberol Cylinders had lost money >> since 1927 and the implication is that while small in sales it was >> profitable to make Blue Amberol records up until very close to the end of >> the Phonograph division. > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
