Renman talks about the recent trend in the recording industry for labels signing artists to deals that require the artists to share income from music publishing, merchandising, and touring. Labels say these deals are necessary to offset the decline in recording income and to justify their investment in the artists. Some would argue that its just another example of how labels have found a new way to stick it to the artists. What do you think?
Also, Renman will interview music industry veteran Marc Geiger next week. If you have any questions for ‘the Geigs’ , post them here and we’ll try to get them answered.
I’m not sure I’m really educated enough about this to make a statement about whether these ’360 deals’ are a great idea or a horrible one, but I can honestly say as you explained it, Ren, my eyebrow went way up. I’m all for the record companies staying in business, but I think this is one of those things that my knee-jerk reaction to is, “Oh, yeah, just another instance of the Labels being too greedy and trying to screw the artists”.
My biggest concern (especially were I a recording artist) would be: Do they have to pay BOTH the companies such as EMI/Signature/the concert promoters AND the Label? Where does that leave the band in terms of revenue? I am always and ever concerned with rewarding the creative process, and it seems to me the more red tape and hoops to jump through, the more discouraged those ‘great’ artists are going to be about doing anything more than sitting in their backyard jamming with their buddies.
I’ve heard of these kinds of deals before. With me being on the artist’s side of things, when I hear about 360 deals I mostly hear the typical “label trying to squeeze money” routine.
Indeed in this day and age, it would seem that this type of signing would be necessary to keep the flailing record labels in business. I mean, it would seem that the artist should obligatorily have to pay these parts, right? Labels are doing them a favor by offering bands these opportunities, so the artist should foot all or part of the bill.
So it would seem.
I don’t really know where to side on this issue, but the people to really blame would be the people who steal their music from whatever source they can. Labels wouldn’t have to do this if they weren’t being squeezed out of their money by the pirates of the digital age. So if you think this is unjust, and you download most of your music, then blame yourself my friend because it is YOU who is making it harder on new artists down the road.
That’s not to say the labels wouldn’t have done this anyway if the digital revolution hadn’t come about like it did; but certainly it wouldn’t be here now. New artist’s need to wise up about what they’re signing, when they sign it. I know that when that day comes for me and my band, I will be awfully careful about who I sign my artistic rights to.
-Rh.
If I were in a Band, and we would have to record our new job under a Label who tells us how much and why do we earn what we earn, definitely I would choose another label to work with. Even if we would earn a lot of money and travel around the world, the label isn’t the master mind of our music, if you know what I mean. I know this sounds very obvious.
I think these deals are just to make and raise money because of the decline of the record-selling income. (We all know why that is; you are reading on the reason).
It would be perfect if the artists could change the terms of a contract with the label (big labels) they are working with if they realize that they are not getting what they deserve. But! We are in the real world, that’s not going to happen.
At the end, this kind of deals are a necessary evil, because is the way that labels and artists can live, exist, and grow (if you want to be a well-know/world-known artist of course).
For those artists that just enjoy what they do in their hometown, they just keep the indie ones.
I won’t make a statement saying if this is the best or worst way, because is the only way. Unless you really love music and have enough money to record your albums and share it with the world for free.
I hope you understand my point.
Cheers Rennie!
Francisco Stiglich
http://www.incubuschile.com
I think these 360 deals can go either way. To say “great idea” or “bad idea” is probably not going to sound right either way.
Overall, these 360 deals make the labels look like “money grubbin hoes” as renman put it ealier. The labels are changing their contracts to make sure they get more money. But it is true, they have to make up for recording costs by giving the artists the shaft. It is sad to think that this is the labels’ way of evolving to this digital revolution that has taken place. My only concern with their “need” for recording money is this: cant anyone with a mic and protools record? I guess I don’t understand why they need to shaft artists if it costs next to nothing to record?
These 30 deals only seem like a decent idea to me if you are a “radio” band that wants to get signed. I’m talking about those short term artists that become a fad for a little while and then fizzle out in the long run. It seems to me that the only way these bands can make it mainstream is to sign these deals and tour as much as they can until ticket sales stop. When looking at these deals from this artists’ perspective, it is not such a bad deal.
But overall, I hope these deals don’t stick around too long…
Interesting comments here folks. I think that for the new artists just starting out today you may have to get used to the idea that in order for some label or some entity to foot the bill for the recording and PROMOTION of your career the old style record deal just won’t cut it. Its true that the process and cost of recording a record is different today. With all the tools (protools) at the disposal of artists today, you can do more in your home studio than what George Martin and the Beatles could do 40 years ago. And the truth of the matter is that great songs are not the creation of technology but rather the product of the creative mind. But once you have a great song it still costs lots of money to make sure that it is heard. And that is really the issue today. While indy labels may in fact be as good or better than the majors at identifying new talent its takes money to take it to the next level. Most indy labels just don’t have the dough to make it happen. The band I talked about in my vid post, the Duke Spirit, was signed by a savvy indy label. My client, Incubus invited them to tour with the band in Europe. But, when Incubus had to cancel the tour because of Mike’s surgery it meant that the Duke Spirit also lost the tour and the income it was counting on and it damn near bankrupted the band because their label could not cover the shortfall. Opportunity quickly turned into disaster because there was no money. Fortunately, they’ve now got a new lease on life thru their new deal with a label that has money and an experienced team on their side. I’ll be interested to see if they wind up having some success how they feel about their new deal. If the folks at Shangri La truly treat them as partners and not employees it could be a happy ending. Only time will tell.
How amusing… if what you’re talking about is as simple as “labels signing artists to deals that require the artists to share income from music publishing, merchandising, and touring” then surely this is another example of the lack of imagination constantly lurking within the major label communities.
Was it not through their own ignorance & arrogance that they let the digital age affect them so badly? And now here they come again, allegedly, with yet another splendid display of stupidity and I welcome it. But then I welcome any form of change from the current banality of the music industry in all of it’s forms.
I’d love to hear Geiger’s thoughts on this subject. Marc has always been way ahead of anyone I have ever talked with on the subject of digital consumerism and has always had enormous respect for artists, who are, less we forget, at the core of the industry.
My thinking is that any artist with a decent manager & some savvy of their own wouldn’t go anywhere near this kind of deal, thus removing any opportunity for the labels to work with such artists. Again, arrogance & ignorance rear their predictable heads.
I personally hope labels keep coming up with such self serving ideas, it’ll only add to their decline & make way for far more creative thinkers.
I’m not an artist looking to start a career in music, but if I ever did I would not want to get involved with a 360 deal.
I don’t see a reason to start a career in music for money. You’re damned if you don’t roll in the cash and you’re damned if you do roll in the cash and don’t get to keep it.
The music industry is getting further and further from being an industry and closer to being a source of supplemental income for musicians who actually have talent and a hobby for the rest of us. Perhaps that’s the way it should be.
You know, at first, I thought, “here we go again.” But this might actually be a good the music industry. But as we have already discussed, if artists can make music on their own and distribute it on their own, that’s cool with me and that’s probably better for all of us. These bands are the ones that are going to do it anyways.
If this is how it’s going to be when people have to sign themselves into these kinds of contracts, it’s more than likely going to make the labels large amounts of money off “artists” such as Beyonce, Fergie and the like. Which is cool anyways, I think those bitches make too much money off their crap anyways.
The lables making money off this huge cash artists like the ones I mentioned, might enable lables to once again, actually sign GOOD, LEGITIMATE bands, if you know what I’m saying…
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s going to matter either way. It might save the industry temporarily, but it will still fail in the end due to the low cost of recording and distributing your own music.
It seems like 360 deals would only make sense for established bands who are looking for the most efficient way to centralize their income and decision making.
It seems that as it gets tougher and tougher for new bands to break and develop a long term career, there would become more of a need to maximize each source of income by trusting separate entities who specialize in each specific craft (i.e. touring, music publishing, etc.) and have the resources and proven track record to truly boost a band’s/artist’s career in each specific area.
With the current financial status of the major record labels as well as their decreasing number of staff members, it seems that the labels are in no condition to try and take on any additional aspects of the music business other than trying to be as functional as possible as a record label…
I think the advent of the 360 deal is the record companies response to their disastrous mismanagement of the digital download era due to their failure to anticipate it and know their own market.
In any other industry, if a company had failed so dismally to promote and look after a product in the way the record companies have botched the music business, could you imagine people wanting to put further trust in them by giving away more rights of their business to a failed entity?
If the 360 deal is to be considered, the question must be asked, what value is added in consideration for an artists rights? Can Major Label ‘X’ really enhance my touring, publishing, and merchandise? Are they experts in these areas?
For years the labels have had unfair contracts with artists. Whilst labels have launched many careers, once the artist has recouped costs, paid back all the expenses, the artist would continue to make only a fraction of the income and own no rights even though they had effectively repaid their advances, marketing costs etc. There has always been an awareness that Recording Agreements are considered the most unfair commercial agreements in the world.
As someone once told me, it’s like going to a bank (label) for a loan (the recording advance) to build a house (the album) and then at the end of the agreement when you’ve paid back the entire loan, the bank still owns your house! Remarkable isn’t it.
It is amazing now then, that because the labels have been so complacent as to deal with the changes in the industry, they are now seeking to get in on other parts of an artists income simply because they have mismanaged their own businesses.
I think Jay-Z said it best:
In the December 14 2007 edition of Billboard, Jay-Z gave his take on 360: “I believe that 360 becomes a bad deal unless you’re doing artist development. Being an artist, I’m an artist-friendly executive as well. You can’t take someone’s rights, profess to be an expert in that field and then not do anything for it. If you’re sharing and partnering with an artist, you better build an artist. Or the record company is going to lose out.
“You could make a 360 deal with an artist and maybe you don’t have that artist two years from now. We can’t — as record executives — expect to take someone’s rights and not add value. If we’re adding value, it’s a partnership. If we’re not, then we’re just trying to find another way to make up for the money being lost on the Internet. And that’s not cool.”