Recording Deals In The Digital Age

cascadefx writes "There is a really interesting panel wrap-up over at the National Association of Recording Industry Professionals's website. The Incredible Shrinking Profit Margin panel discussion looks like it included some interesting discussion into the deals that are made with performers now that the rules have changed. These notes offer interesting (perhaps hopeful) business predictions about Britney Spears' career as well as answering the (new)-age-old question about just how much an artist makes off of an iTunes download. Check it out."

Comments

Because

[mcc]

If you sell through the system, talent is optional.

If you sell outside the system, though, you have to succeed on your own merits.

Re:Because

[fermion]

Lets be fair. There are thousands of highly talented people out there. In the group that I run in, which is admittedly an artistic bunch, there are potential boy bands, folk trios, rock combos, rappers, 2D and 3D visual artists, performance artists, actors, writes, etc. All plenty talented to meet any local requirements, and possibly national requirements. Some are and have received limited success on their own merits.

But to be a national act or international act, which is what the labels want, there has to be more. The act has to compete with the cheaper local stuff. The act has to have a basis to make the large newspaper and magazines. The act has to have a hook that can be spun and promoted and manipulated. The act has to want to be that famous so that it will make the artistic compromises.

It is true that the compromises for a pop artist, to those of us that evaluate on artistic merit, are particularly gruesome. But I think all successful artists make these compromises. I often wonder if the music in a classical symphony enjoys playing the overture for Swan Lake for the millionth time in the exact same way. It probably does not matter as long as the rent gets paid.

Ultimately pop music sells, so they must be doing something right. When classical was pop the reviews predicted the end of the art form. IIRC, the composers were called uncreative and barbarians. Spears has some cool stuff. She was nowhere near as creative as Madonna, and hopefully she spells the end of that particular formula, but if we are open we see that it is not as awful as we once thought.

There's A Hope?

[ackthpt]

"Britney Spears as a pop artist is over."

It isn't Britney Spears I fear, but what comes after her. Seems to me that each iteration of manufactured talent is more sickening than the last. (One reason I don't watch American Idol, which seeks out the next 'talent' that fits the cookie cutter.)

But consider that much of Spears' success was the performance. Sing, dance, strut about the stage, before spending the next few decades going from one failed relationship and addiction to the next until appearing on Good Morning America and announcing she's cleaned up, totally focused on life and ready for a comeback (no, not as a signer, but the next president.) Music downloads don't leave much room for performance, unless you plan to watchs someone frolic about on that miniscule screen on your cellphone. Admittedly, some acts have never had a top-ten song or little chart success anyway, but have enormous cult-like followings (i.e. Jimmy Buffet, are you a parrot head? ;-) and without enough curiousity or word-of-mouth, will people attend shows?

Re:Question is

[Amiga Lover]

> Why sell through the system at all anymore?

Because you don't have a huge marketing machine behind you.

Alright, that's only relevant to those artists who NEED a huge marketing machine behind them. There are plenty, PLENTY of good solid music producing people who can succeed on their own merits, given good enough distribution.

Changing industry

[Sefert]

The music industry is changing, along with the movie industry. Distribution channels are changing, and as such the method of getting your margin is going to change too. The RIAA's job of seeming to try and protect what is soon to be an outdated distribution scheme is pointless for the long term, and irritating for the short. A slimmer profit margin is no big deal, when you consider that it's not a few hundred companies trying to support their insfrastructure, but rather a half dozen online firms supporting theirs. Let's not forget that online distributors will never get caught with extra inventory. It's hard to run out of warehouse space. They have to worry less about shipments. In short, thinner margins that are consistent fit the business model. It's nothing to whine about, though of course the RIAA always has to find some large stick to shove in the wrong place.

Re:Question is

[lavar78]

Alright, that's only relevant to those artists who NEED a huge marketing machine behind them. There are plenty, PLENTY of good solid music producing people who can succeed on their own merits, given good enough distribution.

But the problem is getting good enough distribution without the huge marketing machine.

On Spears and the record labels.

[Kenja]

If everyone shares the general opinion that people like Ms Sears and the rest of the crap spewed by the record labels isn't worth paying for, then who is doing the buying? I hate to break it to you, but there just isn't that much baby sitting money going around for the CDs to be purchased by pre-teens. Spears, Backstreet Boys etc SELL! Thats why they exist. Whats more, saying that the music is crap so they shouldn't get mad when I download it is basackwards. If its crap, there should be zero piracy. Why would you want to download it? If music is worth the download, its worth the 15$ for the CD. Everyone proclaiming the music to be bad seems to just be trying to come up with a reason to justify their disregard for the work of others.

That having been said, I think the music is crap. But you wont catch me downloading it. For music I like, the cost of the CD is nothing VS the amount of enjoyment I get from it.

On Britney Spears

[Qbertino]

Do please believe me: the last thing I am is a Britney Spears fan. I couldn't even remember a tune from her.

But to get things straight: She's been professionally singing and performing in Musicals on Broadway since about the age of 10. _professionally_, _singing_, _performing_, _age of 10_. Get it?
The age when us kind was gaming on atari or SNES and was at least 3 years away from even doing our first lines of basic. She's a performer and an entertainer, and, believe it or not, she's damn good at it. With the support of an uber-patient mother and father she's worked herself up from that girl next door to somebody who's got a licence to print money. 'Tell you what: Go eat your hearts out.

Bottom Line: I'd suggest the slashdot crowd quit babbling on stuff they can't summon the slightest shade of competence on (popular stage performance and entertainment) and go back to comparing sendmail and postfix. After all, that's what we're actually good at.
Thank you.

Re:How about the Prince Model

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem is, that the Prince name itself has a huge value when it comes to (self)promotion, including fan base, existing connections and just in "brand recognition". I would say, it could worth easily a 7 figure. This is exactly the very similar marketing power the big labels use to promote their favourites. Not to mention, that Prince made enough money previously to self finance his next project.

Now, how does a no name garage band, with no capital compares to this?