Warner Music Lock All Artists To 360 Deals (now taking a cut of tour/t-shirt/endorsement $$$)

Strangeglue ^ | 11th November 2008 | Aidan Williamson

[KarlInOhio]

It was only about a year ago I read about record company executives justifying their low per record payment and high costs charged back to the band by saying "well, they make up for it with their touring income". So much for that.

Lately I've been listening to a lot more music by small bands that sell through places like CD Baby or their own record labels.

[Borges]

It’s the same with Film Studios being run by people with no regard for film history. I admire the way the BBC runs their dramatic wing. The people in charge have backgrounds in Literature and Drama not Business Admin.

[longtermmemmory]

does this mean with 360 the artist will be GUARANTEED an income?

does this mean with 360 the record label assumes some of the costs?

[wideawake]

You don't ned a degree in business when the ratepayer is subsidizing your projects!

But they do an excellent job indeed.

[weegee]

Now, Livenation will take a cut of merch when you play one of their venues (and they’ll take a cut of ticket sales under the guise of “handling fees”).

[weegee]

“The name likely comes from the fact that no matter where a band turns in degrees, there’s someone there with a hand out demanding money.”

The label won’t assume any of the cost. All costs are written down against “future earnings”. The labels will get an artist in debt quickly and it will take the better part of a decade to get out of debt (makes you work harder for your label who owns your catalog).

The labels aren’t making so much these days, so they want a stake of the “celebrity” pie. They are also now starting to sell “session photos” and other promotional images that were in the vaults. The art market is willing to pay $1,200-3,500 a photo. And the artist may not see a dime (the label and maybe, if he’s lucky, the photographer will split it).

[SirFishalot]

The music industry is so filthy. I've said it before and I'll say it again: why is the music business controlled and staffed by individuals who nothing about either music or business? Part of the filthiness is due to the stupidity of the musicians, however. A roofer would laugh at the terms of the typical contract that a musician will willingly sign. Pretty much every contract requires the artist to pay for all of the overhead out of their own pocket with the music company putting nothing at risk. And the geniuses who run this system of contracts still lose money.

I worked in the live end of the biz for over 20 years and you are right on. Most of the acts out there will sign anything. I've seen contracts, which if enforced to the letter, would require the artists to fork over a % of ANY money they received while under contract ie. Christmas money, inheritance, tax refund, even a mail in rebate.

There are also entertainment lawyers out there who will recommend signing a bad deal, telling the client that once and if they do break big, the attorney can always come back and rework the contract, billed hourly of course.

[SirFishalot]

Shouldn’t be long before they are knocking on the Whitehouse door for some bailout love. LOL

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

and they wonder why people are illegally downloading music . . .

[weegee]

Hollywood DID get a bailout. Multimillion dollar films. There was at least one FR thread about it.