A 360 deal in short is a deal where basically a record company gets a piece of all aspects having to with the artist. This usually includes, movie deals, merchandise, endorsements, sponsorships, touring, publishing, and of course record sales. There's an ongoing debate whether or not the 360 deal is fair to artist and each side has some valid points. Most importantly the 360 deal could ultimately destroy the Major Record industry as it is known today as many artist are now doing a 180 when it comes to major deals. This could or could not effect your goals as an artist, it truly depends on what you want to gain or lose, as it goes.
I understand that after a major record company pours in large amounts of money into an artist that in return produces an album with minimum sales, they would want to recoup their money back. Especially if the artist wasn't famous before the record company it makes sense that they receive some of the pie. Because the artist was nothing until the majors right?
Technically the way I look at it, majors shouldn't be rewarded for something that's technically half their fault. I mean if they're in control of promotions and making sure the artist sells, then why aren't they selling?
For example the new Redman and Method Man album "Blackout 2" is an amazing album. Many people have been waiting for a reunion since the release of "Blackout" in 1999. The first "Blackout" album received so much hype it went platinum in January of 2000, just four months after being released in September of 1999. The "Blackout 2" album sold 148,000 copies by September of 2009 after being released in May of 2009. Four months later and not even a quarter million sold compared to the duos first album. So who's really at fault here?
Record companies already take a large sum out of records sales, so artist have to find other avenues to make money to cover advances and other fees that accompany their careers and lifestyles. That's when you get endorsements,commercials,touring and the likes. I would say on behalf of the artist that finding multiple streams of income is a financial duty and a smart business move; so is it right that now the major labels want to cash in on your smart moves because they failed? It doesn't sound like a fair deal to me and it also sounds like a short term way to deal with declining record sales instead of the corporation looking to find the long term solution. Instead of revamping the music industry they panicked and asked for a bailout.
Today many artist are looking for other avenues to become successful music stars and needless to say they are succeeding. With the likes of Youtube and social networks artist can promote and build their own fan base, drop an album , and recoup all of the income without the need for major backing. Could it be that artist are becoming more aware of their capabilities and are in a sense less greedy then their major counterparts? When you're face with opposition or something you don't like you find other ways to make this business work for you. It's something the major labels should have done instead of crying that something went wrong so the artist has to fix it.
But if you can't get off the ground yourself then of course I would tell you to seek the backing of the industries beasts. For those of you that still want the title of being signed I would recommend that you get a GOOD lawyer to negotiate their ass off when it comes to your contract and try to lower the effect the 360 has on your career and for how long. If you want to be worldwide there's really no better way than to be apart of a large corporation. The major labels have established themselves as giants across the board with the income to prove it and their name on your back can get you more business then you've dreamed and cover all your most of your cost. Or it won't.
Like I said before it's a back and forth thing here. It can be good for you or it won't, usually for a new artist it isn't. Depends on your goals and what you hope to accomplish. After that it depends on a really good team of brilliant minds to ensure you don't get screwed.
Ya better believe it.
I understand that after a major record company pours in large amounts of money into an artist that in return produces an album with minimum sales, they would want to recoup their money back. Especially if the artist wasn't famous before the record company it makes sense that they receive some of the pie. Because the artist was nothing until the majors right?
Technically the way I look at it, majors shouldn't be rewarded for something that's technically half their fault. I mean if they're in control of promotions and making sure the artist sells, then why aren't they selling?
For example the new Redman and Method Man album "Blackout 2" is an amazing album. Many people have been waiting for a reunion since the release of "Blackout" in 1999. The first "Blackout" album received so much hype it went platinum in January of 2000, just four months after being released in September of 1999. The "Blackout 2" album sold 148,000 copies by September of 2009 after being released in May of 2009. Four months later and not even a quarter million sold compared to the duos first album. So who's really at fault here?
Record companies already take a large sum out of records sales, so artist have to find other avenues to make money to cover advances and other fees that accompany their careers and lifestyles. That's when you get endorsements,commercials,touring and the likes. I would say on behalf of the artist that finding multiple streams of income is a financial duty and a smart business move; so is it right that now the major labels want to cash in on your smart moves because they failed? It doesn't sound like a fair deal to me and it also sounds like a short term way to deal with declining record sales instead of the corporation looking to find the long term solution. Instead of revamping the music industry they panicked and asked for a bailout.
Today many artist are looking for other avenues to become successful music stars and needless to say they are succeeding. With the likes of Youtube and social networks artist can promote and build their own fan base, drop an album , and recoup all of the income without the need for major backing. Could it be that artist are becoming more aware of their capabilities and are in a sense less greedy then their major counterparts? When you're face with opposition or something you don't like you find other ways to make this business work for you. It's something the major labels should have done instead of crying that something went wrong so the artist has to fix it.
But if you can't get off the ground yourself then of course I would tell you to seek the backing of the industries beasts. For those of you that still want the title of being signed I would recommend that you get a GOOD lawyer to negotiate their ass off when it comes to your contract and try to lower the effect the 360 has on your career and for how long. If you want to be worldwide there's really no better way than to be apart of a large corporation. The major labels have established themselves as giants across the board with the income to prove it and their name on your back can get you more business then you've dreamed and cover all your most of your cost. Or it won't.
Like I said before it's a back and forth thing here. It can be good for you or it won't, usually for a new artist it isn't. Depends on your goals and what you hope to accomplish. After that it depends on a really good team of brilliant minds to ensure you don't get screwed.
Ya better believe it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment
I really do care what you think!