Slashdot Mirror


How Labels And Artists Divvy Up Your Dollar Online

Subliminal Fusion writes "Business 2.0 has an article that breaks down where that $1 goes when you buy a song from iTunes or other online music services. Key figures: the site takes .40, the labels take .30 and the artists get a measly 12 cents for each download."

9 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't that a step up? by Niahak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the artists get a measly 12 cents for each download. From all the articles there have been about the artists under the RIAA, 12% is a hell of a lot better than the cut they get normally. Sure, it's measly, but it's probably a step up. Here's to hoping it'll increase.

  2. Measly 12%? by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is 12% really that measly? I agree it's low (unless the artist is a britney spears/in sync clone, in which case it's too high), but what percent does an artist get from CD's? What percent is standard for authors? My mom is an author, and gets about 25 cents from a 5.99 paperback... Seems like online music is giving artists a bigger cut compared to more traditional methods.

    --
    It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    1. Re:Measly 12%? by geekee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is NOT insightful. REM, for instance, started out on a smaller label (IRS, I believe) and then moved to Warner brothers after they got a couple of hit songs. This is standard practice. Why do you think indie labels are giving artists better deals? An unknown artist is a huge risk. An artist with a hit under his belt looking for more exposure from a major label is a lower risk, so the major label gives this artist a better deal. Knowing this, it is clear that major labels do NOT sqash independent music, they thrive off it, looking for the next big star.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  3. Top Artists Balking At A La Carte Downloads by mechaZardoz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    billboard article

    Despite the major labels' success in clearing hundreds of thousands of tracks for purchase online through services like Apple's iTunes Music Store, some top artists continue to resist authorizing the dismantling of their albums for Internet consumption as a la carte singles. Some acts are requiring that their music be sold exclusively in album bundles. For example, Linkin Park recently pulled its music as a singles offering from digital services. Sources say the band has expressed concerns about undercutting album sales. Other acts with similar stipulations about their work include Radiohead, Madonna, Jewel and Green Day, sources say.

    Now, from an artistic standpoint I can see where they are coming from, there are certainly albums that must be experienced as a whole, or at least in the order that they were laid down. Still, I have to wonder whether they're not just shooting themselves in the foot; if the concern is over money lost to piracy, wouldn't 12 cents in the hand be worth it to an artist rather than 0? Eventually, they'll make the money back on volume; it seems they're too obsessed with immediate returns.

  4. Re:I'd be pissed by happyhangone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IF the album goes gold, and they got to pay for the promotion and music videos... and those videos doesn't come cheap...

    Courtney Love wrote about it (ok... is a b&$@#! but that is not the issue here...)

    Courtney Love does the math

    The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."

    By Courtney Love

    June 14, 2000 | Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

    I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

    I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:

    This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.

    What happens to that million dollars?

    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.

    Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the ra

  5. This is *several* times better... by leviramsey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...than current arrangements.

    What does an artist get from an album? 50 cents, tops. That's for approximately one hour of content which wholesales for about $10.00 and retails for anything from $10 to $18.

    Here, the artist gets paid $0.12 for approximately 4 minutes of content which wholesales for $0.60 and retails for $1.00.

    If an artist sells an hour of content online, he gets $1.80, which is 3.6 times what he gets from the CD. Looking at it from wholesale to wholesale, if content with a total wholesale value of $10.00 is sold, the artist gets $2.00, which is 4 times what he was getting previously. If you go for $18.00 at retail, the artist is now getting $2.16. This is about 4 times better than what the artists were getting before.

  6. Re:Artists are getting exactly what they deserve. by tuba_dude · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't think that's the issue. iTunes is paying better than most other deals, and so I don't think anyone is complaining about that. I think that the reason artists choose the indie "I hope I can make it without any help" route or the big5(?) "Hey, they'll help me get started. I hope I sell enough copes to keep up with their quota" is because they either don't know about alternative choices, are afriad of flying completely solo (so to speak), or they get pressured into contracts by smooth-talking salesmen. Sorry for the run on, but does it make sense?

    Stupid analogy time: A smooth-talking salesman could probably talk me into buying whatever kind of car he wants me to buy, because I don't know enough about the technology and the industry. The recording industry is an enigmatic industry to outsiders, and if an artist doesn't have previous expereince or friends on the inside, he must improvise everything. Only the smart, lucky or connected artists can come out on top.

    --
    "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
  7. Re:You're fogetting... by McAddress · · Score: 5, Interesting
    But the two percent of the market they are targeting is the cream of the crop of consumers.
    1.I know this sounds like flaimbait, but Mac users will buy anything Steve Jobs tells them is good. (I admit it, I really want to get a 17 inch powerbook) 2.They are used to paying full price for things having to do with technology, because Apple products and peripherals don't go on sale. 3.They have proven that they like the product, with the iPod being as successful as it was. (Even before the windows versions)

    That is why the iTunes music store was such an unprecidented success. It was not just sheer luck.

  8. Lousy deals and the death of the album. by MsGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • the site takes .40,
    • the labels take .30 and
    • the labels take another 12 cents from the artist's share to recoup "production advances" and "independent promotion"

    This is completely and totally true. $0.12 is actually PROGRESS when compared to the status quo. Here's a better breakdown of the whole situation, courtesy record producer Steve Albini:
    http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

    As far as the whiners about "the death of the album" go, two things wrong with their premises:

    1. Up until the 1970s that's the way radio and records went. Top 40 Radio created a singles-oriented business, with the album as gravy. Even with great albums like Sgt. Pepper the Beatles made sure there was at least one good single on there if not a few. It was only with the popularity of Album Oriented Radio in the 1970s that things changed. The last gasp of the single 45rpm record as a mass consumer good was in the early 1980s.
    2. The primacy of the album has been basically stood on its head in the first decade of the 21st century. The average CD has you back in the '60s again, with albums that have one or two good songs and an ocean of filler. Some of the people complaining on that list are guilty of this crime against the music consumer.
    All that Steve Jobs is doing is levelling the playing field for the consumer. You have never been prevented from downloading a whole album on iTunes...in fact, you get an economic incentive to do so with the $9.99 bargain "album" rate. If a band makes a super-bitchen album, and people hear that the album is great as a whole, they will download the whole album rather than download the songs piecemeal without the advantage of the bulk rate.

    The fact of the matter is that the "album" died years ago. Deal with it.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.