RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
from the going-behind-the-veil dept
We recently had a fun post about Hollywood accounting, about how the movie industry makes sure even big hit movies "lose money" on paper. So how about the recording industry? Well, they're pretty famous for doing something quite similar. Reader Jay pointed out in the comments an article from The Root that goes through who gets paid what for music sales, and the basic answer is not the musician. That report suggests that for every $1,000 sold, the average musician gets $23.40. Here's the chart that the article shows, though you should read the whole article for all of the details:
Source: TheRoot.com
Of course, it's actually even more ridiculous than this report makes it out to be. Going back ten years ago, Courtney Love famously laid out the details of recording economics, where the label can make $11 million... and the actual artists make absolutely nothing. It starts off with a band getting a massive $1 million advance, and then you follow the money:
What happens to that million dollars?And that explains why huge megastars like Lyle Lovett have pointed out that he sold 4.6 million records and never made a dime from album sales. It's why the band 30 Seconds to Mars went platinum and sold 2 million records and never made a dime from album sales. You hear these stories quite often.
They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million.
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
And note that those are bands that are hugely, massively popular. How about those that just do okay? Remember last year, when Tim Quirk of the band Too Much Joy revealed how Warner Music made a ton of money of of the band's albums, but simply refuses to accurately account for royalties owed, because the band is considered unrecoupable. Sometimes the numbers even go in reverse. If you don't understand RIAA accounting, you might think that if a band hasn't "recouped" its advance, it means that the record labels lost money. Not so in many cases. Quirk explained the neat accounting trick in a footnote to his post about his own royalty statement:
A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn't mean Warner "lost" nearly $400,000 on the band. That's how much they spent on us, and we don't see any royalty checks until it's paid back, but it doesn't get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band's share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let's say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.So, back to our original example of the average musician only earning $23.40 for every $1,000 sold. That money has to go back towards "recouping" the advance, even though the label is still straight up cashing 63% of every sale, which does not go towards making up the advance. The math here gets ridiculous pretty quickly when you start to think about it. These record label deals are basically out and out scams. In a traditional loan, you invest the money and pay back out of your proceeds. But a record label deal is nothing like that at all. They make you a "loan" and then take the first 63% of any dollar you make, get to automatically increase the size of the "loan" by simply adding in all sorts of crazy expenses (did the exec bring in pizza at the recording session? that gets added on), and then tries to get the loan repaid out of what meager pittance they've left for you.
I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I'm simply explaining why I'm not embarrassed that I "owe" Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn't make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn't lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase "just don't earn enough" for the word "lose."
Oh, and after all of that, the record label still owns the copyrights. That's one of the most lopsided business deals ever.
So think of that the next time the RIAA or some major record label exec (or politician) suggests that protecting the record labels is somehow in the musicians' best interests. And then, take a look at the models that some musicians have adopted by going around the major label system. They may not gross as much without the major record label marketing push behind them, but they're netting a whole lot more, and as any business person will tell you (except if that business person is a major label A&R guy trying to sign you to a deal), the net amount is all that matters.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accounting, musicians, record labels
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not Making Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Making Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Making Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this...
Additionally, we've been looking into how the majors are quietly taking over independent distribution channels. Has anyone else seen posts on this topic? This is going to be a very big problem. For you history buffs see Latin American and the railroad industry.
Cheers,
Chris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this...
Or any other of the expenses that come due at home while
you're off chasing your musical dreams. That's robbery and if the numbers are near accurate,the labels are crooks.
Kinda makes you re-think your dreams doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STUDIO SHAME! Even Harry Potter Pic Loses Money Because Of Warner Bros' Phony Baloney Net Profit Accounting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, we wrote about that last week:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And pirates are easy enough to deal with. While the major labels keep trying to push garbage like DRM, I stick to a far more piracy-proof method - free downloads. It's hard to steal music when it's already free, and with a fairly relaxed bit of Creative Commons licensing.
Netting nothing is far better than netting major debt. I prefer dealing with pirates over major labels any day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't feel sorry for the bands...
Great post by the way, really makes me feel like pirating is really only stealing from thieves which probably isn't even a crime is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
I'm not saying this isn't lame, but rather, I'm pointing out that many people assume that tools available level the playing field and the fact is they don't. Distribution is only one small part of the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
They have intentionally driven down the reward for small groups playing pubs and coffee houses as much as they can, to the point where, if you have a group of three musicians, you're rarely making more than $100, for a three hour gig with one hour of setup and (say) an hour's drive each way. Plus you have to pay for gas, etc.
Music isn't worth anything anymore to anyone except the RIAA. If/when they get brought down, I don't think it'll really come back, either. So many pubs are just as happy to have a jukebox, a DJ, and maybe the occasional karaoke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are we really at the point where we expect a 15 year-old Britney Spears to outsmart the RIAA's lawyers when it comes to the contract?
Is that really what you expect? A kid to turn down their dream of being a music star because of accounting techniques? They are still learning algebra.
The issue isn't even who is to blame, it's that the record companies don't pay the artist any more than pirates do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember that Love's article/speech was 10 years ago (June 14, 2000) when major labels could afford to spend tons of money on everything because *NSync was selling a million cds a week. Even now, look how much Top 40 artists pay for hot producers (Dr. Luke, Max Martin, Timbaland, et al). The label execs demand hits and those producers are hitmakers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a business agreement, not a gift
A $500,000 budget to record, for a newly popular band, might not be all that unreasonable. What about said band being in it for the long-haul and deciding it's best to invest that money up-front to put together their own studio and hire their own professional recording engineer to operate it? What about a band that's trying to do "cutting edge" things and wants to produce a music CD with the "Plus" (computer-readable data) content on it? That gets into paying for professional photography to display on it and possibly even things like paying a computer game developer to write a mini-game with the band and album as the theme.
A lot of the new musicians out there are relatively young people too. They may not really have much experience in dealing with complicated legal contracts, and are prone to believing that "this is the way it's done", courtesy of MTV and their peers (who are just hyped up on the fact that their buddy's band got signed).
Sure, it's technically a business agreement, not a gift. But business agreements are expected to be reasonable. When you deposit your paycheck in your bank, you expect that the amount you put in will stay in there until you use it. If the bank had fine print in the "totally free checking" account saying they would take 65% of all deposits out for themselves -- how long do you think that policy would last? (Would you *really* just say, "Well, the people should have read the terms of the contract - so no reason to feel sorry for them!"??)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a business agreement, not a gift
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money from Album Sales
In fact, with regard to the music business in general, I would say this: lie down with dogs, awake with fleas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
courtney love is not exactly a reliable source of information, considering she often seems to have a problem knowing when she is or is not wearing enough clothes or which day it is. she has had a very nice living off of the recorded music sales money generated by her late husband, that is for sure. she doesnt seem to be exactly lacking for cash.
what i am not getting here is the question of touring. part of the label money is put up to pay for the first tour (as an advance). if these bands were doing so well, wouldnt they be selling the scarce of concert tickets and raking in a ton of money? play even 500 seats a night for 250 nights a year, at even $20 a ticket, and there is a pile of money (almost 2.5 million). are you suggesting that these bands are not actually able to sell the scarce and make any more? is there perhaps a problem with that concept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it's a completely separate question.
The issue here is that the artists - constantly paraded out by the major labels when they want to force through draconian laws to protect the *recording* - are not benefiting at all from those recordings.
Many artists do indeed make a large amount of money from touring - that's never in question - but the labels don't. Hence their lies and the constant complaints that they need to change their business models, not the law.
"how often are you going to keep re-tooting this same story over and over again?"
I'm going to guess as many times as it's reported, as many times as suffering artists need to make this point before it gets through the thick skulls of legislators and/or corporatists like yourself.
Note that this is not exactly the same story - it's a similar story, for a different source, describing different victims. So, different story despite similarities. Or do you also complain every time your other news sources describe a soldier killed in battle, an armed robbery or a rape because it's the "same story over and over agai"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA drag out the "poor starving artists" line to justify three strikes, DRM, anti fair-use, civil lawsuits, ACTA and everything else they try to push through to protect their business model. The reality is, it's only their own pockets that are in danger, and this helps to show that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many are. This article was just about the question of actual record sales. We didn't address the alternative business models, but it's great to see you've finally come around to realizing that is exactly how most musicians make their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the clarification, now quit whining about your "IP" rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
With strings attached. So many strings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Happy you got someone's attention? Good. Now work your skills, I can still feel too much teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try paying for 250 venues worth of tour gear, roadies, trucks, etc. with just $2.5M and see how much is left to divide 4 or 5 ways among the band members for their year's worth of time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any band stupid enough to buy new gear, trucks, etc. every night is seriously in need of a new business manager. What are you, so kind of record company flak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but im sure i missed out a lot of things, if someone who knows more could add them in it would be interesting. or tell me how close i am, these are just guesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Touring
Bands are paid either $ guarantees, percentages of the door income, or a combination of the 2. Depending on the venue & the band, there's hospitality ranging from a couple of free beers to hotel suites. Often the more successful touring bands use a booker for the tours- bookers take a % of each show (often 10%, sometimes more, sometimes less).
Merchandise is the "cash cow" on tour- generally bands plan on the door income to cover most unavoidable expenses (transportation, fuel, per diems, lodging) and count on the merch for everything else (meals, expenses on off-days, partying, tour profit). Merch companies front shirts & other merchandise for the tour, and are often paid back during the tour (if the band is savvy). Labels usually sell LPs & CDs to bands at a very low "band rate" that is below wholesale & is exempt from royalties- this is usually fronted to the band & paid for the same way as other merchandise.
Both of these sources of income REALLY depend on the venue, the band's popularity in that town, the tour booker, and what else is going on in the area that evening.
Expenses include: FUEL!!!! Van/Bus rental/upkeep, roadie(s), merch person, tour manager, sound person, lodging, meals, per diems, and unexpected disasters like equipment theft or vehicle accidents. The non-band personnel depends on a lot of factors too. Bands of equal popularity/draw can take completely different sized crews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sooo weak. You dont pay for it all at once.
tour gear = Band gear, most of which is already owned.
roadies = Friends willing to take a chance, and work for very little money, or food & beer.
trucks = 2 trains of thought here
1) Rent PA equipment from various locations (clearsound Inc - no affiliation)
2)Lease it, and use trucks.
Both are cheaper than you think. Especially if you tour a couple of nearby states.
"see how much is left" - Not a bad living for doing something you love. And thats before you sell your soul to the labels.
Case in point, Grape Street, TLA, etc. WNOC, 500 a night each member.
Sat & sun show 1000. 200 to your roadie, and all the beer he can drink. 4k for the weekend, for the band. 10k to cut an album. Oh yeah, I didnt include CD or t-shirt sales.
You can do very well being a local act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Needing to PAY the venues can range anywhere form $1000 - $10,000 dollars a night. So those will get subtracted from your profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You make your money on t-shirts and other crap that's sold somewhere in the venue. That's how it's always worked and why some smaller bands tour constantly.
Then tack in the stress of being on a small bus if you're lucky or a caravan of breaking down cars because you can't afford anything else.j
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heck I even bet that the studios paid her to sign a 360 to lure others to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What kind of drugs are you on? Seriously. Because you keep making ridiculous assertions and wild, unsupported scenarios that simply do not exist.
There is NO band that does 250 nights a year. And even if there were, it is certainly NOT the norm, or even very feasible. 250 live PERFORMANCES a year is insane, that doesnt even allow time to travel properly, let alone all the setup and rest. The only ones who have that kind of schedule are wrestlers, and its a major burnout situation for them at that. And even then, your wild example presupposes that any given band can even sell that many dates. ITs flatly impossible for all but a handful of major acts to even attempt to sell that many live dates, and even moreso in a down economy. You are smoking crack, and then taking Mike and everyone to task for how your insanely impossible scenario "doesnt work" and is therefore invalid. Please, get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The bands that can't generate enough attention in their market (who which a record/promotion costing millions CAN Do), can't put asses in seats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and while I agree that $500,000 is a stupid, stupid budget for a record...
It's nigh unto impossible to tour 250 dates a year once you are at that level. You can hit each major market, usually, twice a year. And if you do hit it twice, you have to take a year away from it (at least) to let demand build back up again.
That, along with the waning demand for live music ANYWAY, makes that scenario impossible.
And as for the $2.5 million? the label gets a lot of that as well as recoupable promotion costs. Factor in the transportation, driver, tour manager, sound guy, merch girl, etc - you're looking at a lot less.
Speaking of merch (Most artists/bands, if they were forced to define their profession by where the money comes from would be known as "Traveling Retail T-Shirt Store", not only do the venues take a percentage (upwards of 20% most of the time), most labels now have a hand in merch sales, too, with the invention of the "360 Deal".
Again, though... the bands sign it, which is inconceivable to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TicketBastard takes a cut of that $20 ticket off the top;
Promoter gets 50% of the gross;
Money goes for renting sound/lights/video systems & paying crew;
More money goes for transportation of people & equipment from city to city, as well as lodging for band & crew;
Some of those seats are giveaways to local radio/press, friends of the promoter;
Etc. etc.
The idea that your favorite musician is running around throwing piles of money in every direction is a fantasy, built up by the very people that this article discusses. Funny thing is, all that money IS going in every direction - which means at the end of the day, the musician is not pocketing very much, if anything at all. And once s/he comes off the road, they're essentially unemployed again.
Ah, but there's always T-Shirts, right?
I love how people insist that musicians are getting rich from A so B should not matter, and since they're getting rich from B then C shouldn't matter, and then since they're getting rich from C then they shouldn't complain about not making money from A...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More like: they've never earned any money from B, so B should not matter, and they should focus on A instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courtney Love's net worth
As a 'winner' in the game, she could easily sit back and enjoy the easy life.
Instead, she is speaking up against unfair business practices aimed at musicians, many of whom will never get to be 'winners' financially.
Her net worth does not diminish the value of her opinion.
Anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBZOlipfjkQ
People used synthetic voice, synthetic instruments, synthetic everything and it is a phenomenon in Japan it even beat great bands all the way up in the charts.
More impressive, that is fuelling a whole generation of artists that spend less than 50K to produce things and sell them and they don't expect millions in return.
I'm guessing that since the U.S. is not producing anymore artists in the background, other places that let people train and discuss what they are doing will be the new hubs of creation.
You see copyright brings great great richies in the short term and kills the market in the long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: touring
It really fucks me off when people go on about this, touring is not the money making machine that people seem to think it is.
On a vaguely related note, for a piece of major-label publicity masquerading as news, have a look at the BBC site here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10581280.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sixteen Tons by Tennessee Ernie Ford. Its all there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm...
We all know you side with the people, Mike - but you don't have to hide evidence that doesn't fit. The evidence is still plain enough without it.
If you're not going to include the profits that the band [and/or label] makes from the tour, don't include the money they get fronted for it. It still comes out looking quite bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
Wasn't hiding it at all. The question was how much do they make from record sales. I've discussed how touring is how many bands make their money lots of times.
Courtney Love mentioned the tour support in one line of her description, and I left it in to avoid chopping up her writeup. But the overall point stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm...
more importantly, the value of her live shows is absolutely dependent on that recorded music, which allows her to be in the market to start with. otherwise, she might net pennies from every ticket, and be living like a welfare case.
you miss the basic concept, that it is an integrated piece of machinery. you cannot pull out the support "over here" without the rest of it falling over "over there".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001004----000-.html
http://ww w.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#A_common_ misconception
Having to pay more for commercial like burning equipment and CD's also harms independent artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
360 marketing
A few years ago the labels decided they wanted a cut of touring money, too. Fortunately for artists the "360" contracts the labels wanted didn't really catch on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regardless of all else: band gets too little, corporations too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Don't) consider the source.
One band you never see mentioned on this topic is Tool: they not only own the copyrights to all of their music, they've never received any advances. They've done at least their last three albums on their own, labels only handling marketing. Being smart about your contract is very possible. Of course, keeping all of that money also explains why they put out albums every eight years now...
--#
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accounting for recoupment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Touring is almost always a money loser. Yes you can name 100 bands that make money that way, but the 10,000 that you don't hear about lose money that way.
2) "Publishing Royalties" get a tiny mention in Courtney Love's article, but not in the the tech-crunch article (12% of a $0.99 song not chump change). These get paid straight to the songwriters for every single song sold. It doesn't have to recoup. Who is the songwriter? In many cases it is the recording artist themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publishing royalties
The statutory royalties are $0.091 per song, per unit manufactured. So, if there are 10 songs on an album, and a million albums were pressed, publishing royalties would be $910,000.
If songwriters are also the recording artists, they will have to sign a "controlled composition" clause, which means they only get 75% of the statutory rate, or $680,250.
That is split between the songwriters and the publishing company. A typical split is 50%. So, the songwriters would get $341,250.
Assuming that all bend members are credited as songwriters, and (as per the Root article) there are five band members, that means each band member earns $68,250.
These numbers are not coming from a disgruntled rock star junkie; they're coming from ASCAP.
Now, those are the publishing royalties for a platinum-selling album. 99.9% of musicians will never achieve those numbers - we're talking Prince-level stardom here. Most records on a major label didn't make 10,000 units at the height of the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Publishing royalties
Seen in that light, the initial risk the record company takes SHOULD be tilted very much in their favor. If it works out, there are many avenues the artist/songwriter will participate in for life beyond the record.
But the point of this article on tech dirt is merely to obscure the truth, put up false assertions and make it seem ok to take what you don't have a right to, since the artist "gets screwed anyway".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Publishing royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
john and paul), who make ALL the money for as long as the songs get
radio play. one exception to this is/was the mighty deep purple - they
split the songwriting credits equally, and get paid equally. but usually the
drummer/bass player/whoever gets the smelly end of the stick - even though it's a BAND making a popular recording, ie. turning someone's
home demo into a hit. a classic example is The Band's 'chest fever' -
written and owned by robbie robertson. you know, the song with the awesome organ intro that makes it a classic. another example is matthew
fischer's hammond organ on 'a whiter shade of pale' - he had to sue for 30 years to (finally) get some royalties for his once-in-a-career performance that defines the song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No respect
But in my mind, musicians who sign up with the major labels in this day and age are no better than the labels and i have absolutely no respect for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artist need to find lables that are willing to work in reverse
The artist should write the contract and hire out promotion/recording/tour management.
They may not be much better off - but at least they will be in control.
Of course the "major" labels won't work this way. But there are thousands of "promotional" companies that would love the chance to promote a potential mega-band.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Albini
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
"Some of your friends are probably already this f****d."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Yogi
Flyleaf for instance was just a small band in Texas. Their breakout has lead to a great deal for them right now. Perhaps in the future, they will have enough to form their own indie label or form alliances with other bands that are "label" bands.
We all have to start somewhere.
In other news, wow! I'm in a story! *smiles*
Just had to say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Yogi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kind of talk shows an abysmal understanding of how the best musicians think and work.
I don't know why it is that so many people are taking this hard line with musicians. If I had a dime for every time I have read some or other variation on the theme of "you made a stupid mistake, so suffer on dipshit!" I would never have to work again.
The end result of expecting musicians to be smart business people is a musical culture that emphasizes business-like virtues.
All of the best musicians that I have known have been hopelessly naive in this regard, because their minds were directed toward developing their abilities as musicians. Hell, even Robert Fripp made stupid mistakes with his first label (Editions EG), and he is one of the most obviously intelligent musicians out there. He made these mistakes because he immersed himself in his musical training, which took many hours a day, leaving only enough time to eat, sleep, tour, and maybe do a bit of reading. And as a result he became one of the most amazingly skilled and expressive electric guitarists in the history of the instrument. Had he spent more time worrying about business matters, he would never have become such a phenomenal guitarist, though he might have made more money. There are only so many hours in the day.
I realize that major labels have never been the stewards of art that they have pretended to be. Their claims in this regard are a PR scam, plain and simple. Sadly, NO ONE seems to be interested in being such a steward.
And as these labels die, instead of a bunch of cynical executives overseeing the production of a vast amount of crappy forgettable pop music, we see a vast culture of people voluntarily creating crappy forgettable pop music. Because in the end, that is the smart business move to make.
The internet and cheap digital audio have done more for musical culture than any technology since polyphonic musical notation was developed in the fourteenth century. But the advantage of the internet for music has nothing to do with business models, whether new and smart, or old and obsolete. The advantage is that it allows musical culture to develop and grow without the need for patrons of any sort, whether they be the aristocracy or the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
500k of whoop dee doo
I'm not following the arguement here.
Oh, and $15-$20k can get you the tools, but $200k will get you the genius producer, $100k will get you the super talented sound engineer, $50k will get you the studio rental, $50k can get you the set-up crew and interns, the rest is in the margin.
Or do you think the band is only worth the price of the electric guitars and the drum sets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 500k of whoop dee doo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 500k of whoop dee doo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
200,000 dollars for a producer?
100,000 dollars for an engineer?
Why?
Say that the engineer gets 50 dollars an hour (which is a ridiculous amount of money, but never mind). At that rate, you are getting 2000 hours of time from the engineer. At the rate of 50 hours a week, that gets you 40 weeks worth of engineering for a single album.
That is wasteful by any measure.
I am not saying that this doesn't happen. I am saying that there is no good reason for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's no different than paying a lawyer $400 an hour to keep you out of prison - you get what you pay for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
paid terrific sums (100k and up for the a-team) to create their signature
sound on a project. bob clearmountain comes to mind, as does roger nichols. google them...
talent costs money; engineering and producing are an art form. these
aren't the janitors...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WELL
HOW do us welfare people do it on 5000 a year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AND
THINK WITH YOUR DAMN HEADS MUSICIANS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
record labels are only half the story - music publishing needs to be considered
firstly, we have to consider "synchronization" income: this is income from the use of music within a movie, game, advert or whatever. Increasingly this is where the money angle comes in, so you'll find bands that make lots more money from this than any album/single sales. Take for instance the theme tunes to various shows that pushed some (relatively) unknown artists. Record labels (and publishers mentioned below) actively push this stuff all the time.
Secondly, we have to consider the publishing side of the business. For those writers within the band then they make money from each sale and every radio play so they can earn substantially more than fellow band mates because of it. Even better if somebody covers your song as you'll be the only one getting paid. Ever wondered why some many artists that used to sing other people's song suddenly became co-writers overnight?
Of course none of this answers why labels pay such small cuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: record labels are only half the story - music publishing needs to be considered
It's a tollbooth. A very expensive one that has hurt the industry, because it's very unlikely that people will be able to perpetually pay the machine.
Feudalism doesn't work because people are tied to the ground. From what we see of the corporate side, the execs want us to be indebted to them because that's more money.
Once you break the tollbooth, watch out! It's why they fight so vigorously for the law. It's also why governments seem to love monopolies. But that's an entirely different rant so I'll just stop there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Independance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disgusting
This has been the same model for the last 50+ years. There's nothing new about it. It's always been disgusting, it's just the fact that the internet spreads the truth faster than the RIAA can lie about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whom you don't need. Produce your own album.
"$100k will get you the super talented sound engineer,"
Do that yourself on your own computer.
"$50k will get you the studio rental,"
That's a lot of damn money for a studio rental. You could soundproof a room in your home and make your own studio for cheaper than that, and be able to reuse it whenever you want.
"$50k can get you the set-up crew and interns"
Also not necessary.
Why does everybody think that cutting an album has to cost some absurd amount of money? It's not the '80s anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's no different than paying a lawyer $400 an hour to keep you out of prison - you get what you pay for..."
It is actually very different from paying a lawyer to keep you out of jail.
In the first place, bands don't use 200,000 dollar producers because they need them, but because their label insists on it. Name me a single independent, self-financed band that payed a producer anything like that to 'oversee' their recording. You can't, because it would be daylight madness.
In the second place, the value of the lawyer is obvious and tangible. The value of the producer is much more nebulous. They aren't there because anyone did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it made sense to pay out that kind of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indy labels vs. majors
The exceptions are usually bands from a decade or more ago who took tour advances or recording advances that never recouped.
While the tools are there for bands to d.i.y. (via IODA or other digital distributors, CD Baby, etc), indy labels can & do function as gatekeepers for the flood of bands that are releasing decent-sounding recordings nowadays.
And yeah, a lot of times when it comes to recording engineers &/or producers, you get what you pay for, especially in a lo-tech setting like a bedroom Pro-Tools set-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment #65 is mine, by the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
music royalties???
Seems the internet arrived just in time for those unwilling to let themselves be scraped raw by those honest record execs. Isn't this why Zappa wrote "Joe's Garage"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's very, very different. When a VC funds 10 startups knowing that 6 will fail, 3 will do ok and 1 will do great, they don't then keep taking 63% of every dollar earned by all 10 startups, and holding onto all of their IP, do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've never seen that happen. Can you point to an example?
they can afford to be a wrong an awful lot and still make a good living. record labels are not in the same boat.
That's simply not true. The returns on a top recording act are many times greater than the standard returns on a VC deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of those people, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head is Sir Mick Jagger or The Beatles.
The only other person that comes close is David Bowie who sold his IP right back to the recording industry... Right before the economic crisis dropped in.
So really, you have to be in the 1% to even have a chance at getting your IP back. Otherwise, be prepared for the shackles that are your recording contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now artists may never pay back their advances, but that doesn't mean labels aren't still making money. Labels' cut of the income is about five times that of artists' royalties. So, by the time an artist is one fifth of the way through paying back the advance, the labels have already started to turn a profit.
The albums that have really "failed in the market" are the ones by superstar celebrities, that labels spend millions on despite the fact that they have no talent.
If your argument is really "Oh Noes they won't be able to fund Heidi Montag's next album," then you don't have my sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another part of the discussion is the lack of breakdown on the label side: if we are going to show how much each member of the band is making, why not show exactly what the record labels are doing with their part? of that 63%, much of it is just in recouping money spent up front. it isnt like they are taking 63% for nothing, right?
mike, once again, you manage to be misleading by leaving out key issues. but hey, i wouldnt expect anything less from you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't expect anything less from you though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha, "show me a source, any source. Wait, not that one!"
For 63% of the gross income, exclusive rights to the music, and veto power over the recording process, the label pays:
- mechanical royalties (for ten songs maximum, reduced through "controlled composition," and often recouped back into the label's in-house publisher);
- some of the promotional costs (about half is recouped from the artists); and
- the manufacturing costs (less "packaging charges" of 25% of the retail price).
Whatever else the label spends money on, it has nothing to do with music. I'm thinking million-dollar salaries for executives and "donations" to Congress.
Here's another explanation from TAXI Transmitter:
How do these costs relate to a million selling album?
At common discounts, record companies receive approximately $10.00 per CD ($16.95 SLRP). Thus, projected record company gross income is ten million dollars.
Out of this the record company will spend approximately $625,000 in manufacturing costs; approximately $1,000,000 in promotion (another $1,000,000 will be charged against artist royalties); $1,780,00 in royalties to the artists (at 14% of the SLRP of $16.95, less packaging); and $600,000 in publishing royalties (at 75% of statutory). After subtracting $4,005,000 from its ten million gross income, the record company has a gross profit of $5,995,000. It will recoup its million-dollar advance to the artist and its promotional costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. You should try it some time.
No. None of the recouping comes out of the 63%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pro studio musicians do OK -- are they rich ,, no ,,,,,but they make more than 90 % of people who gig music in bars for a living. Studi guys in a union and get scale. But they do not need a strait jib , like bar band dudes do.
Copyrights & Royalties now and forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
True. Then again, studio musicians play on a work for hire basis. They don't hold any rights to the music, so they don't collect royalties, from ASCAP or anyone else. They do not make any money through Copyrights & Royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and often enough the studio pros do become contributing writers to a song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASCAP
Instead, if you don't have a hit, you're not even on ASCAP's radar. You're giving money to a group that is killing the little guy for the big artists. How do they kill the little guy? By shutting down the places they can play. So it's a scheme to effectively squeeze out the little man, pay the big man, and the main ones that win are the ones at the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is where already successful songwriters make money. It's where non-Top-40 acts get stiffed, and their venues get shut down.
I'll give you an example. Say you run a small cafe in Boston, that hosts indie singer-songwriters on the weekends. As a cafe owner, you want this to be a showcase for new talent, so you don't allow cover songs.
That cafe will still have to pay ASCAP, BMI, and SEASAC for the possibility that one of the performers might play a cover song, even though it's not allowed.
Say the cafe doesn't pay. Then there will be one less venue hosting live music. One less method for musicians who only play songs they have written to perform.
But let's say the cafe does pay. Since they have the right to play covers, they decide to book a guitarist who plays every weekend, and does nothing but covers of Robert Johnson songs. Where does the ASCAP money go?
Well, because ASCAP can't sit around all day taking notes of live sets, they "sample" the music that is played on the radio. They then pay out the artists according to radio play.
I have lived in Boston for twenty years, and I have never heard Robert Johnson played on a commercial radio station. Aerosmith, on the other hand, is quite popular around these parts.
The cafe pays for the rights to have an artist play Robert Johnson songs, but Robert Johnson gets absolutely nothing in royalties. On the other hand, Aerosmith songwriters get paid every time the cafe has a show, whether anyone plays Aerosmith songs or not.
Are you a member of ASCAP, think this is completely unfair, and want to change the rules? Tough shit. Votes are weighted by income to ASCAP. If you're not bringing in billions per year, you get no voice whatsoever.
...Now, you might have been thinking of mechanical royalties, paid to songwriters by record labels, at a statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song, per album manufactured. But this is not handled by ASCAP. It is handled exclusively by the Harry Fox Agency.
If you are both a songwriter and a performer, "controlled composition" clauses prevent you from earning more than 75% of the statutory royalties on these songs. Also, labels demand a 10-song cap per album.
For a band that writes its own songs, then with a million records manufactured, the mechanical royalties would be $682,500 at most, split between all the songwriters on that album.
In other words: that "protection" gains you one-tenth of the label's gross profits. Still, it's better than artists' royalties, which is zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those mechanical royalties are split between the actual songwriters and the publishing company. Usually the publishing company takes about 50%.
Major labels have their own in-house publishing companies, and you are required to sign with them in order to get a contract. So, 50% of those royalties will go right back to the label. The actual songwriters are left with $341,250 to distribute among themselves.
Assuming five band members, and that each band member is an equal songwriter, that means that each musicians gets $68,250. For a platinum-selling album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't follow the math
What is the band actually writing checks for? I get: recording ($500k), manager ($100k), Lawyer/business manager ($50k), videos ($500k), tour support ($200k). I don't actually know what tour support is but I assume it gets flushed during the tour. I wasn't clear whether each video cost $1 million or the pair cost $1 million, I'm assuming the former. The total is $1.3 million, they get $2 million in royalties, leaving about $175k per musician.
If the videos cost $1 million each, the picture is worse. The band is left with $200k or $50k per musician. Still not zero but close.
The label pays for videos ($500k), independent promotion ($300k), making the CDs ($500k), radio promotion ($300k), music royalties ($750k) and marketing ($2.2 million), for a total of $4.5 million. Their net profit is about $4.5 million ($11 million less $2 mil to the band, $4.5 mil for costs). Not a bad deal at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't follow the math
The band pays:
$500K (recording)
$100K (manager)
$50K (lawyer, business manager)
$1 Mil (video)
$300K (radio promotion)
$170K (taxes)
TOTAL COSTS: $2,120,000
ROAYLTIES: $2,000,000
So, in fact, the band is $120K in debt to the label, which will be carried over to their sophmore album.
Now, then. The label pays:
$120K (debt from band's recoupable costs)
$500K (manufacturing costs)
$2.2 Mil (promotion)
$750K (mechanical performance royalties, to songwriters)
TOTAL COSTS: $3,570,000
GROSS INCOME: $11,000,000
So, in fact, the label made $7,430,000.
But there are a couple of things I'm unclear about.
First: tour support. This is paid back by the band, but where does the money come from? Mechanical royalties, or tour income?
Second: I was under the impression that the artists paid for promotion as well. This would tack on that additional $2.2 million to their debt.
Third: performance royalties. I have to guess how she calculated this. Statutory rates are set by law at $0.091 per song, per copy. If the band is also the songwriters, "controlled composition" clauses limit that to 75% the statutory rate, or $0.06825 per song per record. At a million records pressed, that comes to $68,250 per song; so I guess she figured about eleven songs per record.
If band members are also songwriters, do those royalties also have to go towards paying back the royalties?
If they don't, then the band (or the songwriters in it) earned $375K to split between them, since 50% usually goes to their publishing company.
If they do, then the $120K of debt is no longer carried by the label, and the songwriters in the band earned $255K total.
However, the publishing company is often a subsidiary of the label itself; in this case, $375K of that cost would go back to the label.
...But no matter how you slice it, she erred on the side of the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't follow the math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so basically, while these numbers arent accurate it can be an example. label charges you 100 an hour for your sound tech. the sound tech, he doesnt see 100 dollar an hour wage, he sees half or less. the rest goes to the label to cover the sound techs costs above his wage, so if he makes 40 and hour they have to pay another 10 on top of it for him. meanwhile they make 50 dollars in profit for that hour. at least that what i remember from an article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Painfully True
You correctly pointed out that the label holds the copyright to the performance. When an act ends up "in arrears" on royalties, the label, in effect, repossesses the masters and can use them without further payment to the artists. I worked for a compilation label that would buy these masters from the record labels...we could then release them without any payment to the artist except songwriting royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
I'm guessing that he ever made any money off this article (old school punks who remember Maximum R'n'R will agree, I'm sure) but it irks me that he's not getting the credit...especially when he's referenced in the article quoting Tim Quirk who states that he doesn't want to write a "Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults)."
It's one thing to rail against copyright and the bullmalarkey of the RIAA. It's another thing to not give credit where attribution is due. Maybe I'm just a middle-aged ex-punk with a chip on my shoulder, but I think that crediting the person who wrote the definitive (and original) study on "where they money goes in a recording contract advance" is the right thing to do.
Thanks! Keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
there is little discussion of royalties, song writer credits, commercial licensing, public performance, and all those other sources of income, none of which would really exist without a recorded product.
we wont even go face into live performance income, even if the monies cited in both articles include getting the music airplay, exposure, and getting the band or act on tour.
so yeah, if you ignore where more than 50% of the income is coming from these days, perhaps there is a discussion. but it is misleading to the very end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
You have that backwards, chum. Without those things, the recorded product wouldn't have been sold at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
TLC's financial issues Just watch the first 2 minutes.
They sold 10 million records and received less than 1% of any of that. It's an accounting trick that left them filing for bankruptcy. I wish I could find the interview where they went into details about HOW it could happen but let's face it. This has gone on a LOOONG time. It's not just the singers that have to deal with this. It's the song writers, the ghost writers, the studio for hires and everyone else.
Rather than working together, the industry keeps others weak and fragmented. It's just funny how they want people to fight for the 20% of the money that they give out, while they clamor to hold onto the 80% that they keep for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's "In Utero".
Seems he taught Courtney Love a thing or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
I get the impression that they weren't too fond of each other: 'Steve Albini, on Courtney Love, who Yoko’d up the recording sessions: “I don’t feel like embarrassing Kurt by talking about what a psycho hose-beast his wife is especially because he knows it already."
Courtney Love, in retaliation: “The only way Steve Albini would think I was a perfect girlfriend would be if I was from the East Coast, played the cello, had big tits and small hoop earrings, wore black turtlenecks, had all matching luggage, and never said a word.â€'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
I withdraw my statement of those two ever being amiable to each other. You can see the poison dripping from their eyes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
Why would Mike give Steve Albini credit for something Courtney Love wrote, solely because the articles are on related subjects and Albini happened to write his first? There is nothing in Courtney's article that suggests that it is even inspired by Albini's article, let alone influenced by it. I gather that the two are reported to be not fond of each other, but let's not presume she ripped him off without some actual evidence beyond the fact that they can both do basic math.
'It's one thing to rail against copyright and the bullmalarkey of the RIAA. It's another thing to not give credit where attribution is due. Maybe I'm just a middle-aged ex-punk with a chip on my shoulder, but I think that crediting the person who wrote the definitive (and original) study on "where they money goes in a recording contract advance" is the right thing to do. '
If you're really intent on staging some sort of pissing contest between Love and Albini then I'd point out that out of the two of them, Love is the one with an actual lawsuit on the issue. As well, while Albini's article is indeed basically a rant, Love's goes a lot deeper and is actually somewhat positive in looking for a solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Business Model?
Anyway...
The thing that I think is abso-freakin'-lutely hilarious is that the RIAA still wants to think that they're living in a world where they can control the means of distribution. Yeah, sure...back in the day when music was distributed on plastic discs (either black ones or smaller shiny ones), the recording industry had a business model: they controlled the means of distribution by controlling the sale of these hunks of plastic. What they fail to realize now is that they never were selling hunks of plastic...they were selling the information on those hunks of plastic. As soon as another system came along that freed the information on those plastic discs (the music) from the medium they were distributed on, all their power went away.
This whole debate is a ridiculous attempt at maintaining a system that doesn't-- and can't-- exist anymore. No matter what kind of DRM gets overlaid on their product, no matter how many laws they pay off congresscritters to pass, the fact of the matter is that information wants to be free. And before anyone blows a gasket over the phrase that John Perry Barlow coined so long ago, know this: I'm not naive enough to think that "free" is "free" as in "free beer." Nor is anyone who realizes the truth. When I (or others) say "free" we mean that it's impossible to control information by technological or statutory means. Yeah, you can keep a lid on it for a while, but as so many Bittorrent sites prove, that's just a temporary fix.
"But what about the artists?" It's a lament that we hear from so many in the industry. What about the artists? It's pretty clear from the references made in this article that the artists aren't the ones who are really losing the money. Even going with the somewhat-more-than-generous graph at the beginning of the article, the "artists" are grossing barely more than half of the money. I'm not really sure about the math in those graphs, but the top one asserts that they're making only 13 cents on every dollar. Either way it's a bad deal.
But wait. If we read the comments posted by those who seem unsympathetic to the "musicians are getting screwed" model, the musicians should shut their yaps because they're really making money not on the IP they're creating and selling but on the tangible products of their music. They're making money from the shows! They're making money from the merch! Shouldn't the bands just shut the hell up and stop whining?
Therein lies the problem with the whole argument being made by the recording industry.
Maybe the bands should stop whining. Maybe they should just be happy with 13% and make their money from stuff that can't be downloaded off the Internet. But if that's the case then the RIAA should quit the BS about how copying is "stealing from the artist." OK. Maybe it is...a little bit. But who it's really "stealing" from is the record label who takes the lion's share of the moo-lah.
Problem is, I bet that not too many of us are all that sympathetic to the A&R folks. It's one thing to feel badly because Tom Waits can't put food (or booze) on his table...it's another thing to feel badly that the record company who is backing him isn't going to be able to pay for the limos, executive suites, and bonuses that their leeches...errr...executives...aren't going to get if there's no money flowing into the system. Boo-freakin-hoo, right?
Whatever. Going down that path gets us off of the main topic. The fact of the matter -- and the thing the recording industry (and the entertainment industry in general) can't get over-- is this: there's no going back.
Yup. No going back. Once information went digital and we had an Interweb to connect people together and allow worldwide distribution of that information, the business model that relied on controlling the means of distribution was dead. Stone cold dead. And it ain't coming back. Really, think of it...can anyone imagine a reasonable scenario that would turn back the clock to where there wasn't an Internet and information couldn't be copied digitally?
I didn't think so.
So what do they do? Well, for starters it'd help if they'd try to imagine a different business model that doesn't involve controlling information that can't be controlled. HERESY! Yeah. I know. But it's reality, too. So what now?
If the industry finally comes to its senses it'll realize that if they want to make money they're going to have to concentrate on selling things that can't be duplicated in the digital realm. Stuff like merchandise. Stuff like live performances. Stuff like killer packaging and added-value goodies that accompany the information-container (read "CD" or "DVD") that they're selling. It's pretty obvious when you look at ticket sales at theaters for 3D movies and cinematic "experiences" that can't be replicated at home (no....3D TV's don't count. Your home ain't an IMAX theater no matter how much you spend) or live performances or even box sets that it's possible to make money on things other than the music. Ask all those bands so many of the comments reference that are making money off their shows, off licensing, or off of sponsorships.
Perhaps the new business model that record labels need to embrace is this: they become the "filters" that point us to new talent and then promote that talent (using their music) to make money on the tangible stuff. In some ways it means that labels need to stop worrying about making money off the intellectual property of the artists that they sell and start figuring out how to promote them so that they can make money off of the other stuff. Record labels should start thinking of themselves as promoters and ad agencies...not purveyors of plastic discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Business Model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at TLC above then get back to me if you're serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
paid terrific sums (100k and up for the a-team) to create their signature
sound on a project. bob clearmountain comes to mind, as does roger nichols. google them...
talent costs money; engineering and producing are an art form. these
aren't the janitors...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Square forced into a circle hole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Studio costs....
I've heard plenty of albums recorded in smaller independent studios for no more than $20,000 (plus about $5,000 in mastering) recorded within the past five years that are comparable in production quality with anything coming out of the majors' favored people/places. The market for recording time is not what it used to be, but the big guns push you away from it.
Also keep in mind that almost all of the other "expenses" are through companies that are somehow subsidiaries of the major label, which means that built into those costs are actually bottom-line profits to the label. You're not being billed for man-hours or anything like that, and since there's no accountability for it, the label can pretty much just make up whatever numbers they want. Effectively, the majors have for decades set up this system to guarantee ridiculous profit margins. As an unknown band, though, it's very difficult to avoid, especially since there are a million non-band "bands" on the internet spamming the hell out of people and turning people off to listening to new stuff unless it's marketed to them in the right way (package tours, connections to other media, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Studio costs....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A raw deal...
However, the article only evaluates one side of the equation. Yes a single successful artist can end up with nothing, but how many successful artist are there compared to unsuccessful artists? For every $1,000,000 they front and get recouped, how many $1,000,000 are never recouped? So even though they made a tremendous profit on a single successful artist, they may have lost money overall.
The music business is one of the most competitive businesses on the planet. The level of competition pushing to be the number one musical artist is probably up there with oil companies fighting for the next oil lease. The music industry makes Wall Street look like childs play and the payout is much less (not to mention the probability of a payout).
At the end of the day, a musician just better love the music and if they get paid, it's just gravy on top. Kind of a sad reality.
My favorite quote from Hunter S. Thompson is "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They wouldn't "keep" the advance, because they spent all of it on the rehearsal space, recording studio, mastering engineer, radio promotion, etc. None of this is paid for by the label.
Sure, the band can keep whatever is left over. But labels won't give bands an advance that is much different than the recording costs. And they would know, since they control the recording costs. (For example: if you want to choose your producer, you have to give up "points," or small amounts of your royalties.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Sided?
2. What about record label overhead? Again, Courtney counts how much the band has to pay to its lawyer, agent, and manager, but omits the labels' same expenses. Major record labels employ hundreds of people, including lawyers, marketing reps, A&R reps, etc. You may not agree with the model, but the costs still exist, and should be considered in a balanced discussion.
3. Finally, what if the artist/band totally flops (as most do)? Assuming they spent $500,000 on a record, they walk away with $500k cash. The label is out millions. And the band NEVER has to pay the label back on an "unrecouped" account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Sided?
For 2: It's not like these things are public knowledge. You could ask the Harry Fox Agency about it, I suppose; they're allowed access to labels' financials.
For 3: If an artist/band spends $500K on an album, it's very likely that the label won't advance them more than $500K. The labels almost always have veto power over the recording process. Plus, they've been crunching these numbers for decades, so they know what they're doing.
And the label could not possibly be out "millions," because the label doesn't actually spend millions. They can't be out more than what they advance the artist, since that's what pays for the album.
Also, keep in mind that labels still earn a profit on an "unrecouped" band. The label is allowed to keep all their share of the sales (which is about five times the artists' share), but the artists are not allowed to keep any of their share until the advance is paid back in full. Or didn't you read the Too Much Joy post, linked in the article?
And the band does have to pay the label back on an unrecouped account. That balance is carried over to the next record on the contract, and usually is subtracted from the next record's advance.
When you buy a toaster with a credit card, you don't "walk away" with a toaster. You still have to pay back the credit card company. And if credit cards were like record labels, after you paid your bill, the card company would own your toaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One Sided?
You're missing the point. I know you hate labels, but arguments are much stronger when you use legitimate arguments. For purposes of making a valid point, you can't count artist/band taxes/overhead and skip those that the label pays, even if you don't know them precisely.
Putting aside conspiracy theories of "cooking the books", lets assume that the label makes $6.6 million on the album after taxes. That is GROSS. Then, you must finish the arithmetic -- deduce all of their costs, including overhead, mechanical royalties (publishers), manufacturing costs, etc. Using Courtney's numbers, that leaves the label with $2.2 million before paying overhead. Courtney takes another 30% or so off of the artists royalties for overhead (manger, agent, lawyer), so lets do the same for the label. After overhead, the label makes $1.5 million and the artist/band makes $180,000. Now, that's not a 50/50 split, but that number is far more accurate reflection of what the label walks away with.
Finally, as for my third point, you need to remember that an advance is paid out BEFORE the label knows if the artist will flop or hit -- the band uses that money to MAKE the album, remember? So, the label will advance the soon-to-be flop $1 million, because it's an investment (and it follows Courtney's example above). The label pays tour advances, marketing costs, mechanical fees, video fees -- which amounts to millions of dollars. If the band flops, they still have their $500k before overhead. The label would then likely cut them from their recording agreement (if they flop, this happens regularly). Therefore, at the end of the day, the label is out MILLIONS even if they sold 20,000 records (i.e., the average flop these days). The band, on the other hand, walks away with their $500k in cash and owes the label NOTHING -- an unrecouped account is internal label accounting, not a legal debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
No, $11 million is the gross. $6.6 million is what you have left over after you deduct all the label's costs for recording, manufacturing, and distributing the album.
Now, you still have to pay the same overhead all businesses do - office space, employee salaries, etc. But most of these things are not public knowledge.
Finally, as for my third point, you need to remember that an advance is paid out BEFORE the label knows if the artist will flop or hit (...) If the band flops, they still have their $500k before overhead.
That's assuming that the label gave them an advance that was $500K over the total production costs. That's unlikely to happen - since the label usually hires the recording studio, producer, marketing department, etc., even though the band is paying for it.
Therefore, at the end of the day, the label is out MILLIONS even if they sold 20,000 records (i.e., the average flop these days).
If they did spend "pop star" money on a record that sold 20,000 albums, then yes, they are. But "flops" like that are pretty rare, actually. Of course, most albums don't sell even 20,000 records, but labels rarely spend more than a couple hundred thousand on the average record if it's not designed to be a Top 20 hit.
And either way, the label owns the masters, so they can continue gaining income on those records, but the artists can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Obviously these estimates aren't perfect. But Courtney's figures are no better. And yet, many believe her lopsided accounting because it makes it easier to justify copyright infringement.
Of course, a culture of non-paying consumers only makes these disparities worse for artists. Fewer record sales means less investment, smaller advances, and fewer risks by labels. And independent artists certainly can't rely on copyrights to protect them. They have to "hope" that their fans like them enough to support them, their management, and their songwriters for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, all software, movies, books, patents, and trademarks are all up for grabs too, right? After all, they often have lopsided contracts as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Um, what? She used a 17% tax rate ($170K on $1 million). That tax rate leaves the label with $9.13 million, not $5.7 million.
Do you know of any business whatsoever that has to pay a 48% tax rate on their gross income?
many believe her lopsided accounting because it makes it easier to justify copyright infringement.
Of course it doesn't justify infringement. But any claim that the labels have ever worked on the "artists' behalf" are just as blatantly false.
As is the claim that infringement "takes money" from artists on a major label. As we can see here, artists usually don't earn anything from CD royalties.
And Love's "lopsided accounting" is pretty much square with all the other sources. Sources such as Steve Albini, Diane Rapaport, KnowTheMusicBiz.com - or even Danny Goldberg (who is solidly on the labels' side).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
As for working on the artists behalf, I ask you to prove your point: what is the average salary of a non-signed artist compared to that of a signed artist? Do you have any proof that labels don't provide benefit to artists on the whole? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Billboard 100, 200, 300 consists of all signed artists... even a $200k advance is more than more struggling artists make in a decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
I honestly have no idea what the label's taxes are; I don't know how that is figured for a business, especially a multinational conglomerate like a major label.
And they are a business, so of course they have overhead. But nobody knows exactly how much except their accountants. Does the cost of renting office space justify taking five times the artists' amount of royalties? Are the salaries so bloated that they literally can't make money if it's not a gold record?
If so - that's a problem with their business model. They should have cut out the deadwood, years and years ago.
what is the average salary of a non-signed artist compared to that of a signed artist?
Neither one earns a salary, so I don't know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Billboard 100, 200, 300 consists of all signed artists...
That's disingenuous, and I'm pretty sure you know it. The reason that the Billboard charts are all signed artists, is because ever since the 1970's, major labels were the only ones who could gain access to music channels.
During the 1990's, even larger indies (Sup Pop, Touch and Go, etc.) could not get played on the radio. The Big Six (at the time) were the only game in town, and that's the only reason artists signed with them.
So, yeah, they "helped" artists... the way that company towns "helped" residents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
The fact that you don't know labels' exact overhead or taxes is reason enough to discount it entirely? You can't compare artist revenues after taxes and overhead against the gross revenues unless you deduct taxes and overhead. Period. Especially when you are trying to prove how much a label makes off the same album. If it's not known, don't rely on a study that doesn't account for it.
I find this apropos: $10 million+ = 38% tax bracket: http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
On top of that the label employs the best accountants who undoubtedly make sure that the maximum amount possible goes on lavish expenses and non-deductables.
It seems to me that although you might have a point about the specific numbers, whichever way you cut it, it still ends up that the label earns millions from the artist but the artist makes very little (40K each band member, bearing in mind that's only on the first album, for subsequent albums they start off in debt, so don't even get that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Neither one earns a salary, so I don't know. Well let me suggest that you consider the alternatives before blasting labels for ripping off artists. From the New York Times:
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/business/04digi.html
Um, what? She used a 17% tax rate ($170K on $1 million). That tax rate leaves the label with $9.13 million, not $5.7 million.
She most certainly did not calculate a 17% tax rate on the million (or at least, she shouldn't have). First, who do you know that pays income taxes of 17% on one million dollars? (See http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#pis10) Second, why would a band pay income tax on $1 million in gross income, when $500k of it is spent on an album (a business expense)?
Does the cost of renting office space justify taking five times the artists' amount of royalties? Are the salaries so bloated that they literally can't make money if it's not a gold record?
No, the nature of investment capitalism does. Look, start-up companies don't have to sign with a venture capitalist firm ("VC"). They don't have to give away 55% of their shares and the top spots on their board of directors to a VC in exchange for millions in upfront capital, but they do. Apple did, Microsoft did, and Google did. The VCs made billions off those deals, and maintained control over the board for some time thereafter. The justification is that any of those companies could just as easily have failed, and the VC would have to bear the entire loss. It may sound trite, but the profitable ventures have to pay for all of the unsuccessful ones, all expenses, and turn a profit for the company.
If one party is going to bear the entire financial risk of making you successful, it is not inconsistent to ask for a windfall on the back end if you make money. You don't get a 50% cut of the profits when you put 0% down on the investment. That is a business model that works in venture capital, book publishing, movie production, and music production. Indeed, it is the financial backbone of our intellectual property system (see patents, trademarks, copyright). But it's not the only system, and no one forces artists to sign. It's just incredibly successful. If that model doesn't work for you, try fan funding (see above).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Okay, then let's ignore taxes or overhead.
For a million records sold: after expenses, but before taxes or overhead, here's what's earned:
Artists: $500K (left over from advance)
Labels: $6.6 Million
...to be distributed among all relevant "employees."
Well let me suggest that you consider the alternatives before blasting labels for ripping off artists.
No artist, on a label or not, has ever made a "salary." That's what I meant. Their income is entirely speculative. That's why it's so easy to rip them off.
And it's not all labels I'm concerned about. The indies can be pretty good for artists. The majors are not.
She most certainly did not calculate a 17% tax rate on the million (or at least, she shouldn't have). First, who do you know that pays income taxes of 17% on one million dollars? (See http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#pis10) Second, why would a band pay income tax on $1 million in gross income, when $500k of it is spent on an album (a business expense)?
An advance is not "gross income." It is more like a loan. When you get a loan (e.g. from a bank), you are usually taxed on the entire loan, so I assumed that's what was happening here. (I'm not an accountant by any means.)
But, you're probably right, 38% actually does sound more likely. If it's on the net, the labels would be taxed 38% on the income made after operational expenses. I'm not a shareholder, so I don't know what those are.
But if operational expenses and taxes eat up anywhere near $6.6 million per record, then your business is bloated.
If one party is going to bear the entire financial risk of making you successful, it is not inconsistent to ask for a windfall on the back end if you make money. You don't get a 50% cut of the profits when you put 0% down on the investment.
If a VC said a start-up could only keep 13% of the profits, none of the IP, and that the VC would control the entire board of directors - well, no start-up would agree to that.
Not unless the VC held a monopoly on the entire market. Which is what labels did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Okay, then let's ignore taxes or overhead
No, let's not. Let's not compare apples to oranges. Let's look at all relevant factors when making a point, including the high overhead, expenses, and taxes labels must pay. What seems painfully obvious is that there is not nearly enough data available to make the sweeping generalizations embodied in this article or in your responses. And whether you do or not, the comments on this page make clear that consumers read this and see "justification to infringe music from the 'man' who rips off artists."
Other considerations omitted from the article include the value of $2 million in marketing that may benefit an artist for the rest of his or her life; the value of tour advances (in conjunction with promotion) that reap ticket and merchandise sales, etc.
I'm not getting into IP ownership, but the same is true in the motion picture industry. You have 10+ people working on an album (producers, mixers, sound engineers, musicians, background singers) that the label funded. The Work Made for Hire Doctrine exists to avoid constant litigation over joint-ownership issues: the one who funds the entire project is the owner of the IP. If artists want it otherwise, they don't have to sign with a label. But if they want millions in promotion, they do. And, of course, they are free to leave at the expiration of their contract and go on to own all future copyrights they create, but without the labels' investment. (And hopefully, they get their joint-creators to sign the same papers the labels had them sign if they don't want to end up in court when the album blows up and royalties start coming in)
Finally, how is this any different than the motion picture industry? If a movie studio makes $1 billion on Avatar, and the actors made $100,000 each (before taxes) aren't you outraged? The studio even gets to keep the IP! Actors deserve better, don't they? Certainly the ratio of profits between the parties is even more egregious in this situation. Let's make a pie chart for that disparity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Okay, then explain to me how a record label can eat up $6.6 million per album in operational expenses and taxes. Don't include any costs associated with recording, manufacturing, or distribution, because those have already been included.
Until you can show me - in dollars and cents - why the labels should take all the money, I'm going to keep believing that they're ripping artists off.
Other considerations omitted from the article include the value of $2 million in marketing that may benefit an artist for the rest of his or her life; the value of tour advances (in conjunction with promotion) that reap ticket and merchandise sales, etc.
The artists benefit from marketing and promotion, to the degree that they benefit from what is marketed and promoted. For example: if CD's are what's marketed and promoted, and they never earn royalties from CD's, then they don't benefit from the promotion.
You have 10+ people working on an album (producers, mixers, sound engineers, musicians, background singers) that the label funded. The Work Made for Hire Doctrine exists to avoid constant litigation over joint-ownership issues: the one who funds the entire project is the owner of the IP.
The label did not "fund" any of these people. Every single penny of their paychecks was taken out of the artists' share of the royalties. The artist funded the project, yet the artist does not own the IP.
Finally, how is this any different than the motion picture industry?
Well, for one thing, movie distributors don't demand that the studios hand over their IP.
And if you're an actor or director, the movie's costs aren't taken out of your wages.
But there's also a fundamental difference between the art forms. Music albums (unlike films) aren't promoted as one-off collaborations. They're promoted as creations of the recording artist.
That's why people think music copyright is about "artists' control," or "making sure artists get paid," even though it's not. And the labels know it. They've been deliberately exploiting this confusion to broaden copyright laws.
consumers read this and see "justification to infringe music from the 'man' who rips off artists."
When the people who are the main draw are the very ones who earn the least, it seems dreadfully unfair. When labels claim piracy primarily hurts artists, they are lying. Take these two together, and it's no wonder that nobody feels guilty about infringement. Why should they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Never ignore taxes and overhead. For taxes, you should assume 50% (if you're in California or other high tax states) since even middle class Americans are very close to this bracket. And don't come up with BS spin on "write-offs", etc. Paying for a limo or fancy dinner might be lavish, but it's still an expense if it's business related. And also, don't make the common mistake of thinking that a write-off implies free money. Even when you hear terms like 100% write-off. That means you only save 50% of whatever you spent/then wrote off; once again, if you're in the highest tax bracket. Write-offs are considered, "buying quarters with dollars". The moral being, never spend money on something for business that's of no benefit because although you didn't waste all of it, you wasted some of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
Their taxes are going to be like most other businesses. If it's an LLC and you make over $379K that puts you in the 35% federal tax bracket, and if you're in California and make $47,056 to $1,000,000 that puts you in the 9.3% tax bracket (over $1,000,000 and you're at 10.3).
So....
At the highest tax brackets you will pay more than 50% of your income to the State and Federal government (35% Federal, 9.3% to 10.3% California, the rest is AMT and other BS misc taxes and "fees", etc).
A C-Corp is worse: 25%-39% Federal, 8.84% California, then the share holders are taxed a second time on distribution of income (dividends) at 15%. This is considered double taxation.
It's all set up to where the government takes more than half of what you make (not including sales taxes, property taxes, hidden taxes in gasoline, etc). In the end 75% of all income probably goes to government, a lot of people speculate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
The Money Sponge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?
No one pays taxes on gross income, it's the net. Plenty of business pay 50% fyi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you signed a deal with the devil and the complaint is...
http://blog.bjornroche.com/2010/07/i-signed-deal-with-devil-and-now-he.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it's been that way for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more freetard spin
Techdirt get paid by tech companies adverts so trots out the digital spin.
Please remember
The article doesn't mention that the main benefit the artists on major labels deal would get ( using the example quoted) is $2-$5M of marketing, which allows artist to book in larger size venues, sell concert tickets and merchandise. and publishing royalties from sale of records, and from the airplay that the label gets.
None of which is income that this article credits.
Why else is that its mainly only artists that have been sacked from major labels, or never stood a chance of getting major label deals that whine on about them.
If your lucky enough to be a beneficiary of that major marketing spend and are the sort of musician that wants major label exposure, and can handle the pressure, being on a major is a good business option for an artist.
Most artists may not want to sell them themselves out, in major type deals, but artist simply can't afford to take the risk of investing £5M dollars in themselves to make a hit record.
If you dear reader are prepared to invest, then put your money where you oh so big mouth's are.
But the fact is you wont because when it comes down to it very few people know that an artist's next record is going to be successful.
the fact is you dear reader are as fickle as music buyers come, just because an artist had one big record doesn't mean the next one is a smash, and that you will buy it? If you wont why would you expect a label not to work a deal to reflect the reality of the fickleness of the consumer?
Also artists rarely produce consistently great records.
Are you prepared to take the risk that labels do in keeping an artist going, even if their record doesnt sound as bog as te next one?
Also I don't see (m)any digital company support and market artists with $M's?
yeah sure they stick em online on a fancy site but that's it.
I don't see any digital company developing artists over long period of time, they cherry pick what's hot, and and try and suck a big % out of the artist or give away music they don't own since they get paid on a different model.
Most of you here don't want to get it, because reality will compromise your justification for not paying for recordings because you can get away with it so far.
Some of you are just building your business model on stealing music because you can.
Very few artists or labels are selling huge quantities of recording these days, especially when 80% of recording distributed are unpaid for/stolen. the majority of this income is going to ISP's for the use of Pipe or companies that using stolen music to sell advertising.
When you talk about sticking it to the RIAA, remember that google is bigger than all the RIAA companies put together, and any of your major telecom companies is larger that any individual record label - so when your sticking it to the man by stealing or sharing music without permission, you are still just ripping of musicians , just paying a different ever bigger "man".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more freetard spin
But this statement is really alarming:
Some of you are just building your business model on stealing music because you can.
Who exactly do you think you're talking to? None of us (Mike included) are running pirate sites. Most of us don't even download from pirate sites. What "business model" are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even for an indie musician doing it on his own, has many costs and rarely breaks even. You must have a really big meag hit or HITS to make money.
http://musi-source.blogpsot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Sided?
Plenty of startup's get diluted to less than 13%, by multiple fund raisings, before they become anywhere near profitable.
and as for musicians;
Go around anywhere and ask for $5m to invest in a band and see what you get?
You'll get next to zilch from any digital start up or ISP.
The reason is plain the competiton is staggering eg, 10 million acts on myspace.
Most musicians would grab anyone that offered them a 13% royalty for anywhere near a $5m investment in their career at little- no upfront risk to the musician.
The $5m profile boost mean the Musician's makes on the publishing and live shows & merch, even if they never see a dime on the records. It ain't the promoters or publishing cos that usually take that marketing risk.
Its only the uninformed, the stupid, musicians that haven't had the benefit of that sort of investment, or a few very wised up and business minded musicians who are prepared and capable of doing a huge amount of additional work, that would argue.
And don't count most of the mediocre musical nonsense that spends all their time online whoring around facebook, rather than songwriting - mediocre musicians that are better at twittering than performing.
sure it give revenue to social media moguls,and benefits a few artist that would never have got arrested otherwise, but does little for the art you all bang on about.
Major deals may become tough deals for artists if they compromise their art, or become hugely successful, but the fact is only 0.5% are successful, and ones that have careers, renegotiate.
And that success rate isn't down to labels as much as to do with relentless competition, and little loyalty from the consumer. Not that I'm suggesting Artist's or label's deserve any loyalty, all art has always been tough for producers. that's the biz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Sided
Okay, then explain to me how a record label can eat up $6.6 million per album in operational expenses and taxes.
This is not a zero-sum game. The labels don't have to break even to carry on a legitimate business. My point is simply that Courtney completely omits these necessary considerations, no matter how difficult they are to ascertain. I would assume someone with her experience, with such intimate knowledge of label costs, would have some idea of the taxes and overhead the labels must pay, and would compute them accordingly.
The artists benefit from marketing and promotion, to the degree that they benefit from what is marketed and promoted.
No, because labels market an "artist" as much as they promote an individual record (which is in everybody's interest). Even assuming the artist makes no money from an album (which through proper negotiation and re-negotiation won't happen), risk-free promotion is a fantastic way to cement celebrity status across the country -- something that won't happen touring non-stop to pay the bills. If you knew that Lady Gaga was making zero dollars off her first album, would you really argue that the millions spent by the label in promoting her name and likeness was worthless to her? Come on. Artists that "break away" from labels (Radiohead) are only able to do so after obtaining national prominence. Fans know the name, know the music, and know where to go to buy it. Are you saying that has no value outside "what is being marketed and promoted" at any given time by the label?
The label did not "fund" any of these people
Of course they did! You are only looking at one side of the equation. If the artist is unsuccessful, and album sales turn no profit, who paid all the bills? Who paid all the taxes? Who paid the advance to the artist? The label and the label alone. The artist owes NOTHING to the label. This is not a loan, it need not be repaid. The fact that 17 out of 20 bands FAIL explains why the entire recoupment system exists in the first place. It designates the risk taker as the one who gets the windfall in the short term. If the artist is successful, they can renegotiate for a higher royalty percentage, require the label to split video costs (or pay them entirely), and negotiate what expenses are recoupable. Artists do this regularly as the label's risk decreases and their profit increases.
When labels claim piracy primarily hurts artists, they are lying.
This argument never makes sense to me: the artist makes little, so I'm going to take their music for free, and ensure that the artist gets nothing. What do you do if you don't like how Wal-Mart treats its employees? Take products from the store in hopes it will drive them out of business? Is that "moral"? Do you regularly take CDs from Target or BestBuy to protest the large record companies business methods? If not, why not?
If you don't like the big labels, don't buy their music. The result is the same -- the market will drive them out of business. But it is more than a little hypocritical to condemn the labels business, only to consume the very product they distribute.
[D]istributors don't demand that the studios hand over their IP.
This is a bad analogy. Distributors for music are: iTunes, Target, BestBuy, Rhapsody, etc. They also don't demand that the labels hand over their IP. Movie studios, however, own all IP in the movies, notwithstanding the role that leading actors play in them.
When the people who are the main draw are the very ones who earn the least, it seems dreadfully unfair.
What is dreadfully unfair is the number of struggling artists playing shows in a hole in the wall every night with two other jobs. Artists are adults who sign with a label for the chance to get big. If it wasn't for the label, most would never have had an opportunity at all. They would have no opportunity to quit their jobs to focus on their art, much less record a contract and tour -- all, by the way, with no risk of loss.
So now, once the artist is famous due to the huge risk and millions in promotion spent by the label, you look at the artist's first album paycheck of $180k and say, poor, poor artist. Time to take a more circumspective look. Unfortunately, no one does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One Sided
Finally, something we both agree upon.
This is not a zero-sum game. The labels don't have to break even to carry on a legitimate business.
If they are screwing over artists because they waste money on non-music related operating expenses, then calling it a "zero-sum game" is not such a stretch.
I would assume someone with her experience, with such intimate knowledge of label costs, would have some idea of the taxes and overhead the labels must pay, and would compute them accordingly.
For the cost of goods sold, she did compute them. The overhead that is not related to the cost of goods, she probably wouldn't know. But if you know how much of their expenses go towards company jets, Rockefeller Plaza office spaces, million-dollar executive salaries, RIAA lawyers, and Washington lobbyists, then I'm all ears.
Fans know the name, know the music, and know where to go to buy it. Are you saying that has no value outside "what is being marketed and promoted" at any given time by the label?
Well, we were talking about record sales.
What you are now talking about is artists giving away their music (to labels), in exchange for promotion, so that they can make money on selling something other than the music itself. From an artist's perspective, this is not any different than releasing your album on The Pirate Bay so that you can make money touring and selling T-shirts. Except with the Pirate Bay example, the fans get music for free instead of the label, and you get to keep the masters.
Now, the promotional value gained from giving your music away to a major label, is not trivial by any means. The question is whether it's worth it. To top artists, it might be, but for everyone else, the answer is probably no. They didn't have a choice until recently, which is why many are now leaving, or not signing in the first place.
Plus, in most cases this was already true of the band to some degree, or else the label wouldn't be interested in the first place.
If the artist is unsuccessful, and album sales turn no profit, who paid all the bills? Who paid all the taxes? Who paid the advance to the artist? The label and the label alone.
In Courtney's example, the record would have to sell roughly 435,000 records to break even on all recording, promotion, and distribution costs. (This includes the costs of the videos, but in reality if they sold "only" 435,000 units, they would never make a video.) Every album sold after that is gross profit. But at this point, the band is still over a million dollars in debt to the label.
What happens when that record sells "only" 200,000 copies? Well, at this point, the label may do you the favor of dropping you. You and your bandmates could take your $45K each and run. But more likely, they'll keep you on for the other six records, but slash the budget to what they would have made money on if they'd sold 200,000 records. (The other albums would have, say, a $150K advance, no videos, no tour support, and a bare minimum of promotion.) They'd also demand more control over the music, to make it more "commercially viable."
This means that even if you started from zero, you wouldn't have any of the advance money left over after recording costs. But you won't start from zero, you'll still have to pay off that previous balance on your original advance.
This cycle will continue: the artist will go deeper and deeper into debt to the label, continue to earn absolutely nothing from either record sales or advances, lose creative control over their music, and have no option to get out of the contract. And the labels would still hold all the rights, so they'd have 35 years to recoup their losses, while the artists would be prevented from making money off of their music (e.g. through synchronization royalties from commercials or TV).
Quite obviously, this is not benefitting musicians in the least. Yet it is the story of most musicians on a major label. If it wasn't benefitting the labels, then why do they do it? Why don't they just let the artists leave?
It's because the labels are still making a gross profit off of most "flops." Maybe not very much gross profit, but more than what it takes to create and distribute the album.
If they're too bloated to turn a gross profit into an operating profit, that's their own damn fault.
This argument never makes sense to me: the artist makes little, so I'm going to take their music for free, and ensure that the artist gets nothing.
It's not that the artists make "little," it's that what they do make is not impacted by piracy. The artist would make the same amount of money either way.
Distributors for music are: iTunes, Target, BestBuy, Rhapsody, etc.
No, those are retailers. Distributors are EMI, WEA, UNI, RED, Koch, Allegro, etc. Rhapsody et. al. are more like movie theaters.
What is dreadfully unfair is the number of struggling artists playing shows in a hole in the wall every night with two other jobs.
I'm one of those struggling artists, and I can tell you right now, there's nothing unfair about it. Sure, it sucks, but it's not like the world owes us a living. It's far less unfair than major label economics. Frankly, I've yet to meet a single musician who disagrees with me about that.
If it wasn't for the label, most would never have had an opportunity at all.
That used to be true - because the major labels made it true. Now that we all can bypass them, there are more opportunities than ever before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One Sided
Whether it's music or movies or books or software, it is easy to make generalizations, argue about business models, and spout moral arguments to justify illegal behavior online. Record labels have been in business for decades, and yet people have never stolen CDs in protest of the "greedy" record labels. People take music online because it is easy and they don't get caught. That's it. Indeed, those who commit infringement are not only not helping artists, but they are also cowards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Record royalties
Most royalty deals are based upon resale prices less packing deductions (typically 10 or 15%). Courtney's pi chart assumes the label is pocketing and therefore accounting on the basis of resale price. Wrong. So let's deduct 30% fromthe gross. We then need to deduct the song publishing element of the sale price (which may or may not go in whole or in part to the artists, if he or she is also the writer). So that's another 10-12%. And MPL - a few more points.
The label nets far less than hte figures presented suggest but yes - if the act is profligate and the management poor, there will be a bucketload of recoupable expenses and a hit album will gross muchos filthy lucre for the label. BUT...this ahs to pay (often inflated) overheads (offices, staff, shareholders etc) and also subsidise the 90% of signings and releases that sink without trace. Because the process is a lottery.
There are plenty of other, more dubious, accounting practices within these companies (phony intra-company licensing deals, dodgy subsiduaries salting money into executives private accounts etc) and the current scandal - massive interest fees payable for absurd funds raised by arbitrage and private equity buyouts designed to enrich fat cats. The worst example is that all those acts signed to EMI are busting their creative guts to flog albums purely to service ridiculous loans to Citi Bank.
The Music Business long since ceased to be about music.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Record royalties
Most royalty deals are based upon resale prices less packing deductions (typically 10 or 15%). Courtney's pi chart assumes the label is pocketing and therefore accounting on the basis of resale price. Wrong. So let's deduct 30% fromthe gross. We then need to deduct the song publishing element of the sale price (which may or may not go in whole or in part to the artists, if he or she is also the writer). So that's another 10-12%. And MPL - a few more points.
The label nets far less than hte figures presented suggest but yes - if the act is profligate and the management poor, there will be a bucketload of recoupable expenses and a hit album will gross muchos filthy lucre for the label. BUT...this ahs to pay (often inflated) overheads (offices, staff, shareholders etc) and also subsidise the 90% of signings and releases that sink without trace. Because the process is a lottery.
There are plenty of other, more dubious, accounting practices within these companies (phony intra-company licensing deals, dodgy subsiduaries salting money into executives private accounts etc) and the current scandal - massive interest fees payable for absurd funds raised by arbitrage and private equity buyouts designed to enrich fat cats. The worst example is that all those acts signed to EMI are busting their creative guts to flog albums purely to service ridiculous loans to Citi Bank.
The Music Business long since ceased to be about music.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Record royalties
Most royalty deals are based upon resale prices less packing deductions (typically 10 or 15%). Courtney's pi chart assumes the label is pocketing and therefore accounting on the basis of resale price. Wrong. So let's deduct 30% from the gross. We then need to deduct the song publishing element of the sale price (which may or may not go in whole or in part to the artists, if he or she is also the writer). So that's another 10-12%. And MPL - a few more points.
The label nets far less than the figures presented suggest but yes - if the act is profligate and the management poor, there will be a bucketload of recoupable expenses and a hit album will gross muchos filthy lucre for the label. BUT...this has to pay (often inflated) overheads (offices, staff, shareholders etc) and also subsidise the 90% of signings and releases that sink without trace. Because the process is a lottery.
There are plenty of other, more dubious, accounting practices within these companies (phony intra-company licensing deals, dodgy subsiduaries salting money into executives private accounts etc) and the current scandal - massive interest fees payable for absurd funds raised by arbitrage and private equity buyouts designed to enrich fat cats. The worst example is that all those acts signed to EMI are busting their creative guts to flog albums purely to service ridiculous loans to Citi Bank.
The Music Business long since ceased to be about music.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can WE do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obviously out-of-date
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
ok... so this was accurate in 2000. Not today. I don't know any bands making even ONE video that would cost that much, let alone TWO.
then the follow-up line is brilliant:
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
wait a minute, I thought that touring was where bands could MAKE BACK all the money that is being lost through digital file-sharing? At least, that's what Masnick says. So why is this band taking $200,000 to tour on ?
anyway, lets update this for 2010 please. The numbers look quite different now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally correct about RIAA non-deals
-/ scam artists like Sonny Bono attempt to retain copyright (mostly for the RIAA) FOREVER rather than 75 years.
The sooner all recordings are sold online giving the finger to the RIAA ... the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: In Defense of the Major Label
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRUTH
First one responder tried to include publishing in the configuration from this article.
Absolutely wrong! Publishing is not part of record sales, it is completely separate! Publishing is just what it is (performance royalties from radio, television, video, movies, commercials, sheet music, etc.) which is entirely separate from record royalties! Publishing is collected from one of the several performance rights agencies (ASCAP, SESAC, BMI,etc.) and then distributed to those owners and contributors of the song itself.
PERFORMANCE RIGHTS AGENCIES WORLDWIDE - http://www.royalty-free.tv/rftv/performance_rights.htm
NMPA (National Music Publishers Association)
http://www.nmpa.org/legal/music101.asp
Second artists need to learn the business, PERIOD!
Most don't know what the 5 exclusive rights of protection in the copyright law are, what music publishing is (and that by law you don't have to give up more than 50% of it), that the distributor owes you money upfront not to be considered an advance or recoupable for mechanical royalties (royalties collected from the immediate and actual physical manufacturing of your copyrighted works at 9.1 cents X the number manufactured), etc. The Harry Fox is the largest agency for collection of mechanical royalties: http://www.harryfox.com
Numerous others as independent artists don't know that release scheduling is important because you are now competing with the majors. They don't understand that leveraging your business is highly important, and that you must register your music with BDS to track radio airplay or with Soundscan to track record sales, or join NARAS to be nominated for a Grammy, to make sure that you get in contact with a radio consultant because no matter how many dj's, music directors or program directors tell you they are in control of their station's "play list', they are not telling the truth, because the majority of stations now belong to a broadcasting company network and must go through a corporate board that gets it's suggestions from a radio consultant (wonder why all stations sound the same now?).
United States Broadcasting Companies: http://www.rbr.com/broadcasting-companies.html
BDS & Sound Scan: http://www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/global/en.html
The internet is a viable tool, and should be utilized to leverage your business so that you will be able to fully benefit from it.
The majority of artists find themselves in what is called a "non-recoupable" status in the industry today. What this means is that the artist is responsible for whatever costs are incurred by the distributor and record label. So let's say an advance of 1 million dollars is given to the artist, then 2-3 million dollars is put of for marketing, promotions, advertising, and tour support (mini tours to help support the pending release of an album and build the artist's buzz), then another 1-2 million is put into the creation of the videos, branding materials, etc., the distributor and record label would first need to recoup all costs from whatever they spent, and only then would the artist be able to earn any money from the sale of their music. The artists would need to sell a ton of albums and digital downloads in order to recoup what was spent, but thew sad thing is that most don't or ever will, because the same process goes through for each consecutive album that they are contracted for.
One more tragic scenario is that a lot of artists don't even own the masters to their music, or even the publishing, or have such a small interest in it because they didn't take the time to find out what it is. Michael Jackson through several business deals and acquisitions (ATV, Pye Records, Baby Mae Music, Acuff-Rose, Dial Records, Four Star Records, Challenge Records, Famous Music, etc), owns a large majority of the publishing or a large stake in it of some of the biggest artists today, which includes a list of who's who in the music industry: The Beatles, Lady Gaga, Willie Nelson, Charlie Pride, The Back Street Boys, Eminem, Rick Ross, Justin Timberlake, Gretchen Wilson, Hank Williams, Roy Orbison, Elvis Presley, The Everly Brothers, Jay-Z, Lil Kim, Flo Rida, India Arie, Hillary Duff, Gorillaz, Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Lopez, Patsy Cline, Beyonce, Black Eyed Peas, Tim McGraw, Jonas Brothers, etc. etc. Besides his genius as a performer, composer and writer, this displays Jackson's desire to be the best in business by asking what was needed to know for him to to succeed through Paul McCartney, Berry Gordy and others in his circle. All artists should strive to be the busineman that Jackson certainly was. http://www.sonyatv.com/
No person or entity, other than the copyright owner, can use or employ the music for gain without obtaining a license from the composer/songwriter.
Inherently, as copyright, it confers on its owner, a distinctive 'bundle' of five exclusive rights:
(a) to make copies of the songs through print or recordings
(b) to distribute them to the public for profit
(c) to the 'public performance right'; live or through a recording
(d) to create a derivative work to include elements of the original music; and
(e) to 'display' it (not very relevant in context).
Where the score and the lyric of a composition are contributions of different persons, each of them is an equal owner of such rights.
These exclusivities have led to the evolution of distinct commercial terminology used in the music industry.
They take four forms:
(1) royalties from 'print rights'
(2) mechanical royalties from the recording of composed music on CDs and tape
(3) performance royalties from the performance of the compositions/songs on stage or television through artists and bands, and
(4) synch (for synchronization) royalties from using or adapting the musical score
in the movies, television advertisements, etc. and with the advent of the internet, an additional set of royalties has come into play: the digital rights from simulcasting, webcasting, streaming, downloading, and online "on-demand service.
If more artists would first learn the business than having the burning desire to be famous first, then a lot of "one sided" contracts would not exist in the music industry. They would then have more leveraging power through them already securing the rights to their music by completely protecting it, and the rights to their "brand" by trademarking their name and image before stepping to a major label. No major distributor (EMI, WEA, SONY, UNIVERSAL) or any of the record labels they distribute (Tommy Boy, Bad Boy, Def Jam, Cash Money, Maverick, Road Runner, etc.) holds a gun to these artists heads and make them sign on the dotted line without understanding what they are signing. Then most get their family members, friends and "homies" to represent them as personal managers, and they too have no clue as to what the artist may be signing and agreeing to.
Third, the entire infrastructure of the business is broken due to the MAPS agreement made between what was then 6 major distributors to level the median price of the compact disc, but the FCC caught them in price gouging and forced them to abandon it, but by then it was too late. The internet and various technologies P2P, etc., had already infiltrated the market place, and the rising cost of music forced the hands of these new technologies and consumers began to pirate, trade and exchange files over the net, while at the same time the majors railed against the digital revolution instead of embracing it. They too had the same opportunity to get on the learning curve and be ahead of these file sharing sites but instead chose to sit back and let it blossom into what it has become today. They definitely would have not stopped all piracy, but they could have curtailed it tremendously by being more fair and competitive with the pricing of their products. This has directly affected the traditional radio industry, the physical retail market, and several sub industries formerly supported by the success of the music business as a whole.
Fourth, the RIAA is not to blame here. It is acting as a union should, to protect it's members, just like the Teamsters, the Screen Actors Guild, etc., that stand as a direct representative for it's members rights. Bottom line, you can't go into Sears and get a free appliance, you can't walk into McDonalds and get a free meal, you can't go to your dentist and get a free cleaning, or to your doctor and get free surgery, you can't go into a car dealership and drive out with a free car, so why should you be entitled to receive free music unless it is part of a promotion? Just as you would hurt the employees and the executives at the aforementioned companies and industries, so you do the same to these artists, executives and their individual families because they are depending on the sale of music to take care of their responsibilities.
Even the RIAA admits that the decrease in record sales can't be attributed wholly to P2P sites: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91984/riaa-admits-p2p-not-solely-to-blame-for-decreased-music-sales/ We are in one of the worst economic times in the history of this country over the past several years, but don't think for one second that P2P sites have not put a dent in the business, because they have.
Fifth, the big problem that the industry faces today is the sudden exodus of brand-name artists away from the traditional recording companies. The digital revolution has opened up more avenues for artists today, that already have a brand name. In the case of both Prince and Radiohead, they have made inroads on how to survive and prosper without depending on the wings of a major distributor. Their business models that were launched by them, have been a guide for all artists to follow or at least gain some insight on how to conquer the marketplace without the "eyes" of a major hovering over all facets of your music business career. Record companies have always depended on the revenue and cash flow generated from platinum-selling artists to finance new talent. If that revenue stream disappears, how can they compete with the new digital technologies that are already here and on the horizon?
You do not get into a for profit industry just to be a provider of "free services", you get into a for profit industry because it is what you chose to do with your life, as these individual artists chose to be in the business of music, and you want to make a good living at it. Bills do not pay themselves, and no matter how creative an artist may claim to be, trust that they want to earn a living at what they are doing.
Sixth, sorry but most of these digital distribution sites are collecting royalties and charging upload fees to a large majority of artists that actually never even break even in what may have cost them 'out of pocket' to launch their music business. The CEO's and founders of these online entities have gone on to become multi millionaires while most artists still struggle to make a living with their music. For instance, the artists distributed to iTunes by these online merchants, make more per download than ANY major label artist ever will and are happy for it. However its a volume game and 100 downloads will not pay the bill no matter how high the royalties are. So you still need to be known and loved by a substantial amount of people before the fact that your song is “For sale on iTunes” is going to make a difference to your Wallet. Also, the advantage of releasing in a digital platform like iTunes is the lack of prints and advertising costs, not to mention distribution. Distributors are immediately reimbursed for their costs before skimming the remaining gross for overhead and profit. Self-pressed CDs would all still have the same expenses, one way or another, however the disadvantage is the same, because as previously stated you still need to account for some form of advertising and promotion, and just doing it on Face Book, My Space, you Tube, etc.. just isn't going to cut it, especially when you are still competing against the juggernaut of the major distributors. Not saying that it isn't possible to earn a living, but it won't be a field of roses either.
The revenue per fan is clearly higher, the more direct the relationship is with the fan. The argument for an artist right now is about reaching new fans, more fans, online fans, other bands' fans that have a similar brand or music. Yet, too often the chase is on for transient fans, those that tend to be band wagon jumpers and more than likely account for the majority of P2P sharing and piracy. Instead the focus should be on building long term relationships with those who have shown interest in the music – loyal fans, not transient ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRUTH
First one responder tried to include publishing in the configuration from this article.
Absolutely wrong! Publishing is not part of record sales, it is completely separate! Publishing is just what it is (performance royalties from radio, television, video, movies, commercials, sheet music, etc.) which is entirely separate from record royalties! Publishing is collected from one of the several performance rights agencies (ASCAP, SESAC, BMI,etc.) and then distributed to those owners and contributors of the song itself.
PERFORMANCE RIGHTS AGENCIES WORLDWIDE - http://www.royalty-free.tv/rftv/performance_rights.htm
NMPA (National Music Publishers Association)
http://www.nmpa.org/legal/music101.asp
Second artists need to learn the business, PERIOD!
Most don't know what the 5 exclusive rights of protection in the copyright law are, what music publishing is (and that by law you don't have to give up more than 50% of it), that the distributor owes you money upfront not to be considered an advance or recoupable for mechanical royalties (royalties collected from the immediate and actual physical manufacturing of your copyrighted works at 9.1 cents X the number manufactured), etc. The Harry Fox is the largest agency for collection of mechanical royalties: http://www.harryfox.com
Numerous others as independent artists don't know that release scheduling is important because you are now competing with the majors. They don't understand that leveraging your business is highly important, and that you must register your music with BDS to track radio airplay or with Soundscan to track record sales, or join NARAS to be nominated for a Grammy, to make sure that you get in contact with a radio consultant because no matter how many dj's, music directors or program directors tell you they are in control of their station's "play list', they are not telling the truth, because the majority of stations now belong to a broadcasting company network and must go through a corporate board that gets it's suggestions from a radio consultant (wonder why all stations sound the same now?).
United States Broadcasting Companies: http://www.rbr.com/broadcasting-companies.html
BDS & Sound Scan: http://www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/global/en.html
The internet is a viable tool, and should be utilized to leverage your business so that you will be able to fully benefit from it.
The majority of artists find themselves in what is called a "non-recoupable" status in the industry today. What this means is that the artist is responsible for whatever costs are incurred by the distributor and record label. So let's say an advance of 1 million dollars is given to the artist, then 2-3 million dollars is put of for marketing, promotions, advertising, and tour support (mini tours to help support the pending release of an album and build the artist's buzz), then another 1-2 million is put into the creation of the videos, branding materials, etc., the distributor and record label would first need to recoup all costs from whatever they spent, and only then would the artist be able to earn any money from the sale of their music. The artists would need to sell a ton of albums and digital downloads in order to recoup what was spent, but thew sad thing is that most don't or ever will, because the same process goes through for each consecutive album that they are contracted for.
One more tragic scenario is that a lot of artists don't even own the masters to their music, or even the publishing, or have such a small interest in it because they didn't take the time to find out what it is. Michael Jackson through several business deals and acquisitions (ATV, Pye Records, Baby Mae Music, Acuff-Rose, Dial Records, Four Star Records, Challenge Records, Famous Music, etc), owns a large majority of the publishing or a large stake in it of some of the biggest artists today, which includes a list of who's who in the music industry: The Beatles, Lady Gaga, Willie Nelson, Charlie Pride, The Back Street Boys, Eminem, Rick Ross, Justin Timberlake, Gretchen Wilson, Hank Williams, Roy Orbison, Elvis Presley, The Everly Brothers, Jay-Z, Lil Kim, Flo Rida, India Arie, Hillary Duff, Gorillaz, Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Lopez, Patsy Cline, Beyonce, Black Eyed Peas, Tim McGraw, Jonas Brothers, etc. etc. Besides his genius as a performer, composer and writer, this displays Jackson's desire to be the best in business by asking what was needed to know for him to to succeed through Paul McCartney, Berry Gordy and others in his circle. All artists should strive to be the busineman that Jackson certainly was. http://www.sonyatv.com/
No person or entity, other than the copyright owner, can use or employ the music for gain without obtaining a license from the composer/songwriter.
Inherently, as copyright, it confers on its owner, a distinctive 'bundle' of five exclusive rights:
(a) to make copies of the songs through print or recordings
(b) to distribute them to the public for profit
(c) to the 'public performance right'; live or through a recording
(d) to create a derivative work to include elements of the original music; and
(e) to 'display' it (not very relevant in context).
Where the score and the lyric of a composition are contributions of different persons, each of them is an equal owner of such rights.
These exclusivities have led to the evolution of distinct commercial terminology used in the music industry.
They take four forms:
(1) royalties from 'print rights'
(2) mechanical royalties from the recording of composed music on CDs and tape
(3) performance royalties from the performance of the compositions/songs on stage or television through artists and bands, and
(4) synch (for synchronization) royalties from using or adapting the musical score
in the movies, television advertisements, etc. and with the advent of the internet, an additional set of royalties has come into play: the digital rights from simulcasting, webcasting, streaming, downloading, and online "on-demand service.
If more artists would first learn the business than having the burning desire to be famous first, then a lot of "one sided" contracts would not exist in the music industry. They would then have more leveraging power through them already securing the rights to their music by completely protecting it, and the rights to their "brand" by trademarking their name and image before stepping to a major label. No major distributor (EMI, WEA, SONY, UNIVERSAL) or any of the record labels they distribute (Tommy Boy, Bad Boy, Def Jam, Cash Money, Maverick, Road Runner, etc.) holds a gun to these artists heads and make them sign on the dotted line without understanding what they are signing. Then most get their family members, friends and "homies" to represent them as personal managers, and they too have no clue as to what the artist may be signing and agreeing to.
Third, the entire infrastructure of the business is broken due to the MAPS agreement made between what was then 6 major distributors to level the median price of the compact disc, but the FCC caught them in price gouging and forced them to abandon it, but by then it was too late. The internet and various technologies P2P, etc., had already infiltrated the market place, and the rising cost of music forced the hands of these new technologies and consumers began to pirate, trade and exchange files over the net, while at the same time the majors railed against the digital revolution instead of embracing it. They too had the same opportunity to get on the learning curve and be ahead of these file sharing sites but instead chose to sit back and let it blossom into what it has become today. They definitely would have not stopped all piracy, but they could have curtailed it tremendously by being more fair and competitive with the pricing of their products. This has directly affected the traditional radio industry, the physical retail market, and several sub industries formerly supported by the success of the music business as a whole.
Fourth, the RIAA is not to blame here. It is acting as a union should, to protect it's members, just like the Teamsters, the Screen Actors Guild, etc., that stand as a direct representative for it's members rights. Bottom line, you can't go into Sears and get a free appliance, you can't walk into McDonalds and get a free meal, you can't go to your dentist and get a free cleaning, or to your doctor and get free surgery, you can't go into a car dealership and drive out with a free car, so why should you be entitled to receive free music unless it is part of a promotion? Just as you would hurt the employees and the executives at the aforementioned companies and industries, so you do the same to these artists, executives and their individual families because they are depending on the sale of music to take care of their responsibilities.
Even the RIAA admits that the decrease in record sales can't be attributed wholly to P2P sites: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91984/riaa-admits-p2p-not-solely-to-blame-for-decreased-music-sales/ We are in one of the worst economic times in the history of this country over the past several years, but don't think for one second that P2P sites have not put a dent in the business, because they have.
Fifth, the big problem that the industry faces today is the sudden exodus of brand-name artists away from the traditional recording companies. The digital revolution has opened up more avenues for artists today, that already have a brand name. In the case of both Prince and Radiohead, they have made inroads on how to survive and prosper without depending on the wings of a major distributor. Their business models that were launched by them, have been a guide for all artists to follow or at least gain some insight on how to conquer the marketplace without the "eyes" of a major hovering over all facets of your music business career. Record companies have always depended on the revenue and cash flow generated from platinum-selling artists to finance new talent. If that revenue stream disappears, how can they compete with the new digital technologies that are already here and on the horizon?
You do not get into a for profit industry just to be a provider of "free services", you get into a for profit industry because it is what you chose to do with your life, as these individual artists chose to be in the business of music, and you want to make a good living at it. Bills do not pay themselves, and no matter how creative an artist may claim to be, trust that they want to earn a living at what they are doing.
Sixth, sorry but most of these digital distribution sites are collecting royalties and charging upload fees to a large majority of artists that actually never even break even in what may have cost them 'out of pocket' to launch their music business. The CEO's and founders of these online entities have gone on to become multi millionaires while most artists still struggle to make a living with their music. For instance, the artists distributed to iTunes by these online merchants, make more per download than ANY major label artist ever will and are happy for it. However its a volume game and 100 downloads will not pay the bill no matter how high the royalties are. So you still need to be known and loved by a substantial amount of people before the fact that your song is “For sale on iTunes” is going to make a difference to your Wallet. Also, the advantage of releasing in a digital platform like iTunes is the lack of prints and advertising costs, not to mention distribution. Distributors are immediately reimbursed for their costs before skimming the remaining gross for overhead and profit. Self-pressed CDs would all still have the same expenses, one way or another, however the disadvantage is the same, because as previously stated you still need to account for some form of advertising and promotion, and just doing it on Face Book, My Space, you Tube, etc.. just isn't going to cut it, especially when you are still competing against the juggernaut of the major distributors. Not saying that it isn't possible to earn a living, but it won't be a field of roses either.
The revenue per fan is clearly higher, the more direct the relationship is with the fan. The argument for an artist right now is about reaching new fans, more fans, online fans, other bands' fans that have a similar brand or music. Yet, too often the chase is on for transient fans, those that tend to be band wagon jumpers and more than likely account for the majority of P2P sharing and piracy. Instead the focus should be on building long term relationships with those who have shown interest in the music – loyal fans, not transient ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having worked with many touring bands, signed to major and independent deals...as well as strictly independent bands (I have since moved onto another job), this article is extremely inaccurate and misleading.
At the risk of rambling on for hours, if you are in a band and looking to get mass exposure, the internet is a fantastic tool, an unbelievable advancement for artists to have their art shared globally.
The whole slam of record companies is just growing tiresome, we get it, they make a lot of money while the artist makes little. it's just so boring nowadays.
the music industry is just that, a business...much like anything else. to anyone who say "I'll buy a band t-shirt at a show to support them" isn't exactly as they see it either. Between the cost of printing, shipping, taxes and venue fees - YES, that club that you saw your favorite band at for $40 and sold you a $5-6 bottle of beer is taking 20-25% of every single t-shirt they sell to fans(anything they sell in fact, be it CD, wrist band, hat shirt...bla bla bla). That said, the $25 concert t-shirt...likely sees a band walk away with about a $3 profit...certainly better than what they make on CD sales...but very little.
i've had this conversation with many bands and have heard many opinions and many different interpretations as to "what a record deal is." this one stuck with me and upon mentioning to many of the other bands i worked with, it makes sense...so here it is.
any band looking to get out of playing their tiny little town in the middle of nowhere, where they've worked their way up to charging $2-5 at the door...think of a record contract as a means to an end goal. In order to get out of that town and tour around the world it take the millions of dollars for marketing, making posters, getting you on bigger tours, aligning you with bigger and better bands to get you to the next level. these millions have to come from somewhere so do you forego the CD sales royalties in exchange for the millions of dollars in marketing/support?
SO...yes, in theory, you can make money without a record company...absolutely. and yes artists can sell their own music on itunes etc...but that also boils down to the "0+0=0" analogy. if no one knows who your band is...it's going to be tough being profitable.
however, with someone backing you properly, that could be next year....by playing regional shows, with no one helping you whatsoever...you're a dime a dozen.
much like any business partnership...there is a deal to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget...
Sell 50 albums, get a free T-shirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yikes there's some truth to this.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yikes there's some truth to this.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Play for Pay
I repeat: Musicians should only get paid when they play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, Mr Masnick, PLEASE stop spreading this misinformation
I work in the music industry since 1993, I also run a manegement company, AND do conercert booking. So I know the business from more than a single perspective. I am from europe, but figures and business are quite comparable. I have toured the US and work with various US companis as well.
Please trash the digram above, it has VERY little to do with the actual reality.
1.
The division of earners from Cd sales does not include physical retail, which is taking a large cut from sales, actully more than the record label is making. The same goes for digital distribution btw.
I dont see retilers or digital portals (iTunes) in this cut at all.
2.
Additionaly, record companies are paying high fees for the copyrights to copyright institution societies like GEMA (Germany), PRS(UK) or the Harry Fox Anency. That money (or to be precise: approx. 90% of it) is then forwarded to the authors and composers, who are - most of the time - the artist themselves. So the artists are having another income source from the CD sales, the so-called "Mechanical royalty".
This is missing completely, and only 1 & 2 show that Mr Masnick has ZERO CLUE about the music business. But he certaily likes to make bold statements nonetheless.
3. Artists are not only making money via CD sales itself but also movie and computer games licenses, compilations, international sublicenses, radio broadcastig, live, mrchandising sales etc. There are several streams of income for artists and most of them are highly depending on the success of their CD album and on the level of promotion that artists are getting. And the party investing into recording, promotion, marketing, licensing, syncing, etc. is usually the record company. They put in 6 digit budgets for promotion, allowing their artists to make some serious money off tconcerts and merchadising. anyboody who has ever been on tour knows that it makes a big difference for artists if they play in front of 100, 500 or 2000 people. Only very few artiss without record companies can afford to reach a touring level that allows them to make serious money.
4. Artist are having three major income sources, CD sales, live and merchandising (and some minor like syncing, etc.). But the only one really investing serious budgets in those artists careers are record companies. Concert agencies are not investing in artists careers, merchandising companies arent neither. And no, social media has tunrnt out to be an unjustified hype for 99,8% of the artists. (Bu that is another story)
5. Record cpmpanies spend not only money on artists they also have A&R experts motivate and guide artists to make better albums. This is obviously a delicate balance, as many think that A&Rs are wateding down artistic expression but - beliebe it or not - record cpompanies are actually benefitting from "good records", so they have an interest in artists making good albums, and A&R scouts finding new talents.
Nine Inch Nails has been hailed as one of the best examples in music culture to liberate from the evil Music Industry, but both of his "free albums" where crap compared to their albums released on record labels and the band simply dissolved after the last tour lost money for them. Nobody points out facts like that. It does not fit the new media hype, so lets brush it under the carpet.
5. If you people want to really judge if payments of artists are "justified" or not, you should at least try to understand, what each party is bringing into thia equation. If a 60 people large record company funds a record, works on it for four tp six months (production, promotion, marketing, distirbution, licenses, accounting, A&R, etc.) than a five piece music band can not just expect to get the largest part of the cut, because that would mean the record company would not make enough money to sustain itself. And if an artists record company goes bancrupt, it means the artists get nothing.
It makes much more sense for an artist that the record company make enough money, so that they can keep investing money into artists for three or four records, so that the artists can build up careers for themselves.
Interestingly enough, many of the commentators in the thread are making the decision to notbuy but steal record, meaning the artists get NOTHING, and nobody invests in newcomers music. And that is exactly where we are right now.
Now, on a metalevel of this discussion: Is it not interesting that the internet is supposed to be this superior information tool, and yet we have so mich false and misleading information being released? Well Mr. MAsnick, lets ask the question, if you are realy interested in ACCURATE information, or if a "black and white" situation does not serve ur blog a little better.
Sincerely,
Sh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG, Mr Masnick, PLEASE stop spreading this misinformation
So if you're not seeing any money from me, while complaining why the above chart is everyone's impression of how things work in your industry - guess what, it's not because of piracy, and your proponents are spreading and agreeing with the data you claim is misinformation.
Posting two years late doesn't matter. You could have posted your response the day the article was posted and you'd still look like the jackass you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deceiving numbers...
Everyone in the industry who is a business savvy musician knows that making a CD is not to make money, but to merely create value for your "brand". Yes, you may be the guinea pig for the label, but the label provides you the catalytic exposure to have the type of industry leverage to carry on with your art on a live performance basis and through other lucrative means. This is where "studio" artists (Kim Zolciak, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton etc.) who can't perform live worth a damn end up high and dry... and it's also why people like Beyoncé actually make money.
This is the big picture many "indie" artists miss when they are so adamant about not selling out to a major label. They sacrifice the increased value the label provides for their band over the long term for marginal short term profits.
BUT... this does make a good case for why people are staying away from labels, but it's only half the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deceiving numbers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading Fraudulent Journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who is in charge here?
Gone are the days, of the Rolling stones and the Beatles, that is folklore...
Now this is all about profit and profit always finds it's way to the top of the pyramid and who sits on top of the pyramid???
When you answer that question grasshoper, you will know how deep in shit we all are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, this is nothing new. Everyone knows that artists doesnt make their money from record sales, they make their money from concerts, air time, merchandise, etc. and they make damn good money this way. They make theirselves seem like the victims saying they dont make money from record sales, but they dont tell you that they have hundreds of millions of dollars from other avenues and they live in big mansions with houses all over the world, driving Mercedes and Porsche and all these wonderful things.
I guarantee you that artist like Lady Gaga, Madonna, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc would not be the MEGASTARS they are without those "monsterous" record labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i am nigeria super star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 videos for $1,000,000., lol
"May as well work at 7/11" - what about the $750,000. in publishing income?
etc etc etc etc etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This report is incorrect in many areas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This report is incorrect in many areas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am getting signed. I think it is worth it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bands and labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Problem With Music
http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~gdowney/courses/j201/pdf/readings/Albini%20S%202006%20-%20music%20in dustry.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo F'n Hoo
Ever been an entrepreneur, or business owner? It usually means taking out loans for startup, capital equipment costs & other business expenses, loans that must be paid back. Capital equipment necessary to do business, and make money with. There are no "freebies" there either. The goal is to do good enough business to stay in business, keep paying off loans, and keep making some profit so you can keep doing business. The music industry is no different, nor should it be. What, a band or musician should be able to just make a single album & retire?
I don't like, or buy major label music, but they have a financial interest, financial investment and risk in bands & musicians they sign. They front the money to get the band or musician going, and keep them going. Labels have ongoing expenses like any other business. And like a bank, they also have a right to expect to profit off that investment/risk. Do they not?
Anyone that doesn't like the major label method has every right to do their own thing, on their own terms. There are thousands of bands that take the d.i.y. route. There have been plenty of small to mid size labels that have gone broke. It ain't free & guaranteed money, folks. It's a business like any other. The majors are majors because they know how to keep making money, and paying expenses.
Friggin' whiners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boo F'n Hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Money (or lack thereof)
Looks like there is no reason to buy music "officially" ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Money (or lack thereof)
I understand why you'd want to torrent the big name, RIAA signed music out there - trust me, I really do. But, that's not the best way to go for most music; just the music that's been pushed through all the suits at the major record labels - and not just labels in the US.
And yes, plenty of other musicians feel the same, too. Heck, Dubioza Kolektiv even made a track about it - Free.mp3 (also known as The Pirate Bay Song).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike
An admirer of TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bannana tailpipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
This time they caught with their pants down with the Internet. Same problem slightly different tactics and again with the help of legislation.
They will eventually lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing but criminals
For decades they have been cheating, lying and falsifying data for their own gain. The Government of the USA should hang their head in shame allowing such practices.
Artist are being mislead that the RIAA is on their side. Well they are not. They exist for one reason and that is to maximize the record companies profits.
The Recording industry, the RIAA, Insurance companies and financial corporations are all is the same league, just a bunch of crooks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Album Sales
The band gets scam because this only way to get started when band first starts out,and record label companies take advantage of the situation..
wonder how much the bank gets from tours
This is sicking to read No one or company should make more then the band
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a reason so many musicians are turning to DIY methods like creating their own netlabels. Honestly, RIAA is a bit like still trying to sell $30 print magazines when all the articles are found online for free. Of course that old industry standard scam is finding its days numbered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy needs to learn math!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About this....
Now your finding other idiots and exploiting their situation through fictional example.
I have credit in a Universal Records album and I made more than that...
I was just a feature.
You're nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greatest Hits replease
I have a question about a group or artist's release of greatest hits albums. Do they get royalties from these releases or does all the earning go directly to the record company? I read somewhere that an artist was surprised to see that a record company produced and released a greatest hits LP without his knowledge.
Thanks,
Steve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dynamic One
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mejores grupos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's so annoying
They are so much greedy. I have already have big issue with dem on my blog Wybielanie w domu for just posting music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]