Not sure I understand, 360 was a leverage play publishers came up with when they weren’t making their money back quickly enough the traditional way. So the answer wasn't to renegotiate with streaming services, it became further monetizing the brief shelf life of an artist
The artist complaint remains the same, the publisher did nothing to create the ancillary revenue streams and those same streams are already in a leverage play with the promoters and venues, they are essentially boxing artists out of their own pockets
If I’m wrong, please correct me. I’d like to understand where the money is going
Great points. So you did have instances where labels helped create ancillary revenue streams: internal ads agencies, merch store management, tour support; etc. of course, there were and are varying levels of ancillary stream involvement/creation: (e.g, from Jay Z’s ~100m - ~200m “360 deal” with Live Nation to the production company that signed an artist to a 360 and upstreamed them to a major with no major investment). That’s 1.
2. While there aren’t a lot of public details, my sense here is that the labels will participate in the “superfan” offerings whether through DSPs or their own platforms (or else there isn’t much incentive); this participation would be in ancillary revenue streams. So whether the DSPs outlink fans to a label operated platform/merch store or increase their subscription rates for “superfan” offering and of which the label takes a higher %, it’s still ancillary revenue stream participation, will flow down to artists and artists should be aware and negotiate accordingly.
Soundcloud also just announced an offering that will provide SoundCloud - managed merch stores to select distribution clients.
The way I see it, the only real difference is the third party participations of these DSPs; but it’s still ancillary rev participation; and is still negotiable (or navigable) if you have enough leverage and/or savvy (e.g., Taylor Swift’s deal with UMG which exempted her from UMG’s pull of their catalog from TikTok).
Ah ok, so the deals cover a larger upfront investment in creating an ecosystem around artists in order to help them monetize “super fans”. Thats a lot more equitable considering very few artists will become sustainably big
Yea, but it’s also deal specific. Ideally, that’s how it would work - and what I was alluding to here. If artists know that labels are not satisfied with streaming revenue and are looking to monetize super fans or ancillary streams then artists should understand they need to build out these streams; then any deal that’s presented to them can be analyzed through the lense of whether it makes financial sense. I’m going to get more granular in following articles, it just takes a lot.
Not sure I understand, 360 was a leverage play publishers came up with when they weren’t making their money back quickly enough the traditional way. So the answer wasn't to renegotiate with streaming services, it became further monetizing the brief shelf life of an artist
The artist complaint remains the same, the publisher did nothing to create the ancillary revenue streams and those same streams are already in a leverage play with the promoters and venues, they are essentially boxing artists out of their own pockets
If I’m wrong, please correct me. I’d like to understand where the money is going
Great points. So you did have instances where labels helped create ancillary revenue streams: internal ads agencies, merch store management, tour support; etc. of course, there were and are varying levels of ancillary stream involvement/creation: (e.g, from Jay Z’s ~100m - ~200m “360 deal” with Live Nation to the production company that signed an artist to a 360 and upstreamed them to a major with no major investment). That’s 1.
2. While there aren’t a lot of public details, my sense here is that the labels will participate in the “superfan” offerings whether through DSPs or their own platforms (or else there isn’t much incentive); this participation would be in ancillary revenue streams. So whether the DSPs outlink fans to a label operated platform/merch store or increase their subscription rates for “superfan” offering and of which the label takes a higher %, it’s still ancillary revenue stream participation, will flow down to artists and artists should be aware and negotiate accordingly.
Soundcloud also just announced an offering that will provide SoundCloud - managed merch stores to select distribution clients.
The way I see it, the only real difference is the third party participations of these DSPs; but it’s still ancillary rev participation; and is still negotiable (or navigable) if you have enough leverage and/or savvy (e.g., Taylor Swift’s deal with UMG which exempted her from UMG’s pull of their catalog from TikTok).
Ah ok, so the deals cover a larger upfront investment in creating an ecosystem around artists in order to help them monetize “super fans”. Thats a lot more equitable considering very few artists will become sustainably big
Yea, but it’s also deal specific. Ideally, that’s how it would work - and what I was alluding to here. If artists know that labels are not satisfied with streaming revenue and are looking to monetize super fans or ancillary streams then artists should understand they need to build out these streams; then any deal that’s presented to them can be analyzed through the lense of whether it makes financial sense. I’m going to get more granular in following articles, it just takes a lot.
Thanks!
welcome back, king
Thank you, boss