New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
360 deal? What's a 360 deal that P was talking about on Tavis? any music industry gurus in here?  [Edited 4/30/09 17:13pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Probably Profits 4 work provided, coming full circle back to the artists...in a fair manner.  "The Lion Sleeps Tonight... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tame said: Probably Profits 4 work provided, coming full circle back to the artists...in a fair manner.
no cuz he said that anyone that signs a 360 deal is C R A Z Y   [Edited 4/30/09 17:14pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Found this on the web (among others):
Since 2001 record sales have staggered in decline at an estimated 25%. Record labels invest a large amount of money into acts, and for the past few years it has not being paying off. What once was a deal of artists agreeing to hand over about 85% of album shares, but pocketing profit from tours, merchandising and publishing has been morphed into what is called the “360-Deal” or the “Multi-Rights Deal”. What this means is that not only do record labels get about 70-85% of album sales, they will also receive a cut of tour sales, merchandising, and publishing. The 360 Deal allows labels to capitalize on artists as a brand and push more paths of revenue, thus giving the label more incentive to push the success of an act and market them in every way possible( this is due to the growing "mogul" trend amongst most current artists). The label will now own the act in everything they do and pocket a rough estimate of 30-50% of net earnings. Well what exactly does that mean? Here’s a break down of a typical 360-deal: Album Sales: The artist will get somewhere between 15-30% which is an estimate of $1-$3 per album sold. The larger percentage goes into the label’s pockets and covers production expenses. Publishing: Artists get about a dime for writing their own songs and music, more if the song is featured in film or television. The labels now get a cut of that. Touring: After all standard “touring” expenses are covered (travel, equipment, set costs, staff) the label will now get 10% of what’s left over Merchandising: We’re no longer just talking T-shirts here. We’re talking endorsement deals, clothing lines, fragrances, energy drinks.. whatever the artist puts it’s name on the record label takes 10% of. So what’s the verdict of the 360-deal? Is it healthy for new artists or is it screwing them over royally? At first thought one may think the artists are getting screwed in the 360. It’s not terribly difficult to gain recognition as a musician these days with the phenomenon of Internet marketing and music distribution. An act can simply upload a video on Youtube or add their songs to Myspace and create a nice-sized fanbase without the help of a label. On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tat2s said: What's a 360 deal that P was talking about on Tavis? any music industry gurus in here?
[Edited 4/30/09 17:13pm] A 360 deal is when the record company gets paid royalties from ALL of an atists' income--including CD/download sales, publishing, merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc), and touring...usually in exchange for a huge $$ advance...or at least a bigger advance than the usual standard record deal. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Se7en said: Found this on the web (among others):
Since 2001 record sales have staggered in decline at an estimated 25%. Record labels invest a large amount of money into acts, and for the past few years it has not being paying off. What once was a deal of artists agreeing to hand over about 85% of album shares, but pocketing profit from tours, merchandising and publishing has been morphed into what is called the “360-Deal” or the “Multi-Rights Deal”. What this means is that not only do record labels get about 70-85% of album sales, they will also receive a cut of tour sales, merchandising, and publishing. The 360 Deal allows labels to capitalize on artists as a brand and push more paths of revenue, thus giving the label more incentive to push the success of an act and market them in every way possible( this is due to the growing "mogul" trend amongst most current artists). The label will now own the act in everything they do and pocket a rough estimate of 30-50% of net earnings. Well what exactly does that mean? Here’s a break down of a typical 360-deal: Album Sales: The artist will get somewhere between 15-30% which is an estimate of $1-$3 per album sold. The larger percentage goes into the label’s pockets and covers production expenses. Publishing: Artists get about a dime for writing their own songs and music, more if the song is featured in film or television. The labels now get a cut of that. Touring: After all standard “touring” expenses are covered (travel, equipment, set costs, staff) the label will now get 10% of what’s left over Merchandising: We’re no longer just talking T-shirts here. We’re talking endorsement deals, clothing lines, fragrances, energy drinks.. whatever the artist puts it’s name on the record label takes 10% of. So what’s the verdict of the 360-deal? Is it healthy for new artists or is it screwing them over royally? At first thought one may think the artists are getting screwed in the 360. It’s not terribly difficult to gain recognition as a musician these days with the phenomenon of Internet marketing and music distribution. An act can simply upload a video on Youtube or add their songs to Myspace and create a nice-sized fanbase without the help of a label. On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied      I love Paramore  [Edited 4/30/09 17:23pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Se7en said: Found this on the web (among others):
Since 2001 record sales have staggered in decline at an estimated 25%. Record labels invest a large amount of money into acts, and for the past few years it has not being paying off. What once was a deal of artists agreeing to hand over about 85% of album shares, but pocketing profit from tours, merchandising and publishing has been morphed into what is called the “360-Deal” or the “Multi-Rights Deal”. What this means is that not only do record labels get about 70-85% of album sales, they will also receive a cut of tour sales, merchandising, and publishing. The 360 Deal allows labels to capitalize on artists as a brand and push more paths of revenue, thus giving the label more incentive to push the success of an act and market them in every way possible( this is due to the growing "mogul" trend amongst most current artists). The label will now own the act in everything they do and pocket a rough estimate of 30-50% of net earnings. Well what exactly does that mean? Here’s a break down of a typical 360-deal: Album Sales: The artist will get somewhere between 15-30% which is an estimate of $1-$3 per album sold. The larger percentage goes into the label’s pockets and covers production expenses. Publishing: Artists get about a dime for writing their own songs and music, more if the song is featured in film or television. The labels now get a cut of that. Touring: After all standard “touring” expenses are covered (travel, equipment, set costs, staff) the label will now get 10% of what’s left over Merchandising: We’re no longer just talking T-shirts here. We’re talking endorsement deals, clothing lines, fragrances, energy drinks.. whatever the artist puts it’s name on the record label takes 10% of. So what’s the verdict of the 360-deal? Is it healthy for new artists or is it screwing them over royally? At first thought one may think the artists are getting screwed in the 360. It’s not terribly difficult to gain recognition as a musician these days with the phenomenon of Internet marketing and music distribution. An act can simply upload a video on Youtube or add their songs to Myspace and create a nice-sized fanbase without the help of a label. On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied Its big because labels make a ton of the brands, and the artists get the exposure and their is very little investment on the labels part. Take PCD they are still technically all signed one album at a time, each member has a different contract, but its always a one type deal, there is no 5 album 20 million dollar deal, which is why you arent going to get anymore REM's or U2's again. The same thing goes for all the AI winners and losers, its a one shot deal, sell or go, catch on or hit the streets and get another deal. But in the end the "exposure" given is what these artists are WAKING UP and taking advantage of, someone Like, say Katharine McPhee, had an album that sold 400,000 and she got dropped, they went as far as they could with her...so everyones assumption is shes done, no money etc...not true, shes got a 3 movie deal, signed on with David Foster and Andrea Boccelli and has endorsements up the ass, all of this came about because of this deal. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Signing a 360 deal is just what it sounds like. Your right back where you started off. Broke. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DerekH said: tat2s said: What's a 360 deal that P was talking about on Tavis? any music industry gurus in here?
[Edited 4/30/09 17:13pm] A 360 deal is when the record company gets paid royalties from ALL of an atists' income--including CD/download sales, publishing, merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc), and touring...usually in exchange for a huge $$ advance...or at least a bigger advance than the usual standard record deal. yep and most records companies will pass on an artist who will not sign one | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Se7en said: On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Bullshit. Labels don't push them harder; they get a cut of royalties they could never get before so they are actually inclined to do less instead of more. The money is coming in anyhow. And the artists lose, because even if the label does promote them more, they will receive less, because the label takes more. Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied
Well, there you are naming a few who aren't exactly role models to be followed, let alone that their huge advance contracts can be compared to what an average artist or band is offered. -- [Edited 5/1/09 7:36am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Se7en said: Found this on the web (among others):
Since 2001 record sales have staggered in decline at an estimated 25%. Record labels invest a large amount of money into acts, and for the past few years it has not being paying off. What once was a deal of artists agreeing to hand over about 85% of album shares, but pocketing profit from tours, merchandising and publishing has been morphed into what is called the “360-Deal” or the “Multi-Rights Deal”. What this means is that not only do record labels get about 70-85% of album sales, they will also receive a cut of tour sales, merchandising, and publishing. The 360 Deal allows labels to capitalize on artists as a brand and push more paths of revenue, thus giving the label more incentive to push the success of an act and market them in every way possible( this is due to the growing "mogul" trend amongst most current artists). The label will now own the act in everything they do and pocket a rough estimate of 30-50% of net earnings.Well what exactly does that mean? Here’s a break down of a typical 360-deal: Album Sales: The artist will get somewhere between 15-30% which is an estimate of $1-$3 per album sold. The larger percentage goes into the label’s pockets and covers production expenses. Publishing: Artists get about a dime for writing their own songs and music, more if the song is featured in film or television. The labels now get a cut of that. Touring: After all standard “touring” expenses are covered (travel, equipment, set costs, staff) the label will now get 10% of what’s left over Merchandising: We’re no longer just talking T-shirts here. We’re talking endorsement deals, clothing lines, fragrances, energy drinks.. whatever the artist puts it’s name on the record label takes 10% of. So what’s the verdict of the 360-deal? Is it healthy for new artists or is it screwing them over royally? At first thought one may think the artists are getting screwed in the 360. It’s not terribly difficult to gain recognition as a musician these days with the phenomenon of Internet marketing and music distribution. An act can simply upload a video on Youtube or add their songs to Myspace and create a nice-sized fanbase without the help of a label. On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied So in other words, according to the 360-deal, translation: "Plantation" deal aka "Slave" aka "Pimp Me",the record label will "own" you. Yes, that is crazy. You do all the work, yet they make more money off of you by basically "branding" you as a "product" WT?? that's like signing up for a movie called "Back on the plantation". Can you imagine getting as little as a dime for your music and close to nothing for your hard work while the label/record company basically get most of the profits? [Edited 5/3/09 9:38am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
The root of some of this is the fact that labels get 0 for radio airplay. NO ONE can make money by just selling music anymore so labels are forced to look for other avenue to try to make some money. If the advance is big enough and the artist established, these deals make sense but dont make sense for a new artist since that new artist has no idea what they will be worth in future. Lables are smart to demand it but it just wont work in the long term.
Eventually the labels will fold or be bought by Clean Channel/MTV/Disney/Apple/Live Nation since these are the people who actuall make money off of music. Contrary to popular belief, labels are not these big powerful companies. They are now on life support and dont have much time left. As the front line entities that funds the creation of new music and discovers new artists, they have little possibilty anymore to do this profitably so that function of funding, support, marketing will need to be done by someone else. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
emesem said: . If the advance is big enough and the artist established, these deals make sense but dont make sense for a new artist since that new artist has no idea what they will be worth in future. Lables are smart to demand it but it just wont work in the long term.
Agree with this part of your post. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Tremolina said: Se7en said: On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Bullshit. Labels don't push them harder; they get a cut of royalties they could never get before so they are actually inclined to do less instead of more. The money is coming in anyhow. And the artists lose, because even if the label does promote them more, they will receive less, because the label takes more. Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied
Well, there you are naming a few who aren't exactly role models to be followed, let alone that their huge advance contracts can be compared to what an average artist or band is offered. -- I didn't write this, I found it online while researching the subject. I agree with both of your comments - it's a bad deal all-around. Typically, record labels have made more off the albums, but the artist makes their fortune while touring. With a 360 deal, even that would change in favor of the labels ... |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Still crazy if you ask me. Even after it's been shown that it's not a good deal. But then someone who is desperate to get in would take it, work the contract and hopefully get the heck out. "I don't make the rules. I just play" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Se7en said: Tremolina said: Well, there you are naming a few who aren't exactly role models to be followed, let alone that their huge advance contracts can be compared to what an average artist or band is offered. -- I didn't write this, I found it online while researching the subject. I agree with both of your comments - it's a bad deal all-around. Typically, record labels have made more off the albums, but the artist makes their fortune while touring. With a 360 deal, even that would change in favor of the labels ... ----- Well I guess we can agree that Prince was right about 360 deal.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
A performer like Beyonce (just an example) is on CoverGirl commercials and also acts in movies . . . I wonder if, under a 360 deal, the record company gets half of this? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Se7en said: A performer like Beyonce (just an example) is on CoverGirl commercials and also acts in movies . . . I wonder if, under a 360 deal, the record company gets half of this?
no they do not, if the record companies strategic marketing department/licensing got her or her song in the commercial there is a strong possibility they are getting a large cut but if beyonces film/tv rep got her the job or who ever the record company doesnt get half, same for film, if her film/tv agent got her the job then the record company doesnt get a cut [Edited 5/3/09 8:48am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Se7en said: A performer like Beyonce (just an example) is on CoverGirl commercials and also acts in movies . . . I wonder if, under a 360 deal, the record company gets half of this?
Its not half!....its usually few percentage points. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
emesem said: Se7en said: A performer like Beyonce (just an example) is on CoverGirl commercials and also acts in movies . . . I wonder if, under a 360 deal, the record company gets half of this?
Its not half!....its usually few percentage points. I went back and re-read my original post. In a 360 deal, the record label gets 10% of any endorsement deal. So Beyonce's record label would get 10% of her CoverGirl earnings, but looks like they'd get none of the movie acting earnings. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Its big because labels make a ton of the brands, and the artists get the exposure and their is very little investment on the labels part. Take PCD they are still technically all signed one album at a time, each member has a different contract, but its always a one type deal, there is no 5 album 20 million dollar deal, . wrong again. Madonna's 360 deal is for several albums/tours. I think 7 tours and 6 albums, if I remember right. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
there is certainly some gap between Prince preaching the evils of a 360 deal and someone like Madonna signing one.
Prince presumably grosses more money, but he also has more expenses since he basically has the expenses of being a record company. Some those expenses he won't spend his money on, yet doesn't appreciate the impact it had on his career that Warner Bros did spend the money. One clear place - Madonna still has hits, Prince doesn't. Few would argue Madonna is more talented. Prince certainly makes a ton of money touring, but only when he tours on the hits he got while with WB. He also only looks at one side of the record lable issue. Much like a venture capitalist, they make the up front investment on unproven talent and take chances on their future success. Prince wasn't complaining when WB took a chance on him and gave him the artistic freedom to produce his own music from day 1. We wasn't complaining when they were investing on the promotion to make him a superstar. And while with WB he may have complained from time to time that he wasn't free to release music on his own schedule, but the whole "slave" thing didn't happen until the symbol album didn't sell enough copies to cover his $10 million advance. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alandail said: there is certainly some gap between Prince preaching the evils of a 360 deal and someone like Madonna signing one.
Prince presumably grosses more money, but he also has more expenses since he basically has the expenses of being a record company. Some those expenses he won't spend his money on, yet doesn't appreciate the impact it had on his career that Warner Bros did spend the money. One clear place - Madonna still has hits, Prince doesn't. Few would argue Madonna is more talented. Prince certainly makes a ton of money touring, but only when he tours on the hits he got while with WB. He also only looks at one side of the record lable issue. Much like a venture capitalist, they make the up front investment on unproven talent and take chances on their future success. Prince wasn't complaining when WB took a chance on him and gave him the artistic freedom to produce his own music from day 1. We wasn't complaining when they were investing on the promotion to make him a superstar. And while with WB he may have complained from time to time that he wasn't free to release music on his own schedule, but the whole "slave" thing didn't happen until the symbol album didn't sell enough copies to cover his $10 million advance. preach it...  [Edited 5/5/09 18:16pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alandail said: there is certainly some gap between Prince preaching the evils of a 360 deal and someone like Madonna signing one.
Prince presumably grosses more money, but he also has more expenses since he basically has the expenses of being a record company. Some those expenses he won't spend his money on, yet doesn't appreciate the impact it had on his career that Warner Bros did spend the money. One clear place - Madonna still has hits, Prince doesn't. Few would argue Madonna is more talented. Prince certainly makes a ton of money touring, but only when he tours on the hits he got while with WB. He also only looks at one side of the record lable issue. Much like a venture capitalist, they make the up front investment on unproven talent and take chances on their future success. Prince wasn't complaining when WB took a chance on him and gave him the artistic freedom to produce his own music from day 1. We wasn't complaining when they were investing on the promotion to make him a superstar. And while with WB he may have complained from time to time that he wasn't free to release music on his own schedule, but the whole "slave" thing didn't happen until the symbol album didn't sell enough copies to cover his $10 million advance. I think Prince's beef with WB and record companies is that the contract is geared more in favour of the party marketing and not even close in terms of percentage to the person who makes the art. And I kind of agree with him, it's not exactly a fair exchange. The record company might have the up front costs, but even the most successful acts aren't ever going to get close to a 50-50 split, even after they re-coup. You could also argue that Prince was destined for super-stardom just like Stevie Wonder or David Bowie. They have an innate talent. He may not have been so vocal about it when he was younger, but that could be down to naivety or being bowled over himself by his fame, it could also be because of suppression by the record company. The fact is what he says now and has been saying for years has helped aspiring and existing artists gain more (financially or otherwise) from their art. The music industry is far more obsessed with monetising every facet of an artist, that the music has very little relevance. And this can be seen and heard in any chart or radio station of any style or genre. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
unkleg said: I think Prince's beef with WB and record companies is that the contract is geared more in favour of the party marketing and not even close in terms of percentage to the person who makes the art. And I kind of agree with him, it's not exactly a fair exchange.The record company might have the up front costs, but even the most successful acts aren't ever going to get close to a 50-50 split, even after they re-coup.
Uhm, when the company fronts you millions of dollars in advances and takes the loss when sales tank, it's unrealistic and outright being greedy if you also want to own the copyrights AND get 50% of the profits. Prince wants it all and let others pay for it, but nobody can get it all, not even he. The fact is what he says now and has been saying for years has helped aspiring and existing artists gain more (financially or otherwise) from their art.
Fact? Offer some proof that artists are getting better contracts these days. I bet you can offer none. The music industry is far more obsessed with monetising every facet of an artist, that the music has very little relevance. And this can be seen and heard in any chart or radio station of any style or genre.
As well as in Prince's music. In fact, since he got "free" he released more commercialised throwaway music than ever before. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think this sounds opportunistic as Hell. It's clearly a sign of the recording industry being so addicted to greed and eating itself up, that the less there is, the more they feel compelled to take. An analogy I would use is to liken it to the way I feel when at the end of a paycheck, and there's not much food in the house. For whatever reason, not having enough food in the house makes me hungrier than I would be if I had a full fridge.
Se7en said: Found this on the web (among others):
Since 2001 record sales have staggered in decline at an estimated 25%. Record labels invest a large amount of money into acts, and for the past few years it has not being paying off. What once was a deal of artists agreeing to hand over about 85% of album shares, but pocketing profit from tours, merchandising and publishing has been morphed into what is called the “360-Deal” or the “Multi-Rights Deal”. What this means is that not only do record labels get about 70-85% of album sales, they will also receive a cut of tour sales, merchandising, and publishing. The 360 Deal allows labels to capitalize on artists as a brand and push more paths of revenue, thus giving the label more incentive to push the success of an act and market them in every way possible( this is due to the growing "mogul" trend amongst most current artists). The label will now own the act in everything they do and pocket a rough estimate of 30-50% of net earnings. Well what exactly does that mean? Here’s a break down of a typical 360-deal: Album Sales: The artist will get somewhere between 15-30% which is an estimate of $1-$3 per album sold. The larger percentage goes into the label’s pockets and covers production expenses. Publishing: Artists get about a dime for writing their own songs and music, more if the song is featured in film or television. The labels now get a cut of that. Touring: After all standard “touring” expenses are covered (travel, equipment, set costs, staff) the label will now get 10% of what’s left over Merchandising: We’re no longer just talking T-shirts here. We’re talking endorsement deals, clothing lines, fragrances, energy drinks.. whatever the artist puts it’s name on the record label takes 10% of. So what’s the verdict of the 360-deal? Is it healthy for new artists or is it screwing them over royally? At first thought one may think the artists are getting screwed in the 360. It’s not terribly difficult to gain recognition as a musician these days with the phenomenon of Internet marketing and music distribution. An act can simply upload a video on Youtube or add their songs to Myspace and create a nice-sized fanbase without the help of a label. On second thought, digging in deeper to the specifics of 360-deal the advantages are kind of handsome. The label now has more incentive to work harder for an act because they are now a major investment. In the 360 acts are groomed more carefully in hopes to promise longevity and success in their careers, music and otherwise. They are marketed in more ways than ever, and marketed harder; in order to push sales and generate profit. To cover the inevitable lack of initial finance acts will also receive a larger advance and up to 30% of album royalties (double the standard percentage). Whichever side you decide to take 360 is spreading throughout the music industry like wild fire. Robbie Williams as a 360 contract, as does Madonna, the Pussycat Dolls, Cartel and Paramore. Labels are even on the lookout over Internet blogs in search for the “Next Big Band Brand” scouring through emo, indie, pop-punk and jam acts. The reason being that these types of bands collect large fan bases quickly and do well on tours and in merchandising, which means more cha-ching for the labels. So be on the lookout if you’re e-promoting your band you just may be 360-ied | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |