There you have it:
Quote:
|
As is the position of the artists on the stage. I’d be much more impressed if they all ankled their deals, got rid of the major labels and went it alone. That’s why they’re not making much money on Spotify, not because of the free tier, but because their deals suck. But these same deals apply on Tidal! They’ve got to license the music from their bosses! It’s utterly laughable, like nursery school kids plotting against the teacher, or a kindergartner running away from home. Grow up!
|
Why Katy stays away from it.
Being dropped by major labels gave her the opportunity to learn about how the labels operate, how artists get ****ed by them and the chance to negotiate better contract terms. Those getting fame young, were tricked in full naivety into rip off deals.
Quote:
Katy Perry Shows How The Problem With The Major Labels Is Economics, Not Piracy
from the there's-a-lot-of-inefficiency dept
A few weeks back, the folks at Planet Money tried to break down the economics of Katy Perry's massively successful album with its five hit singles. Specifically, they wanted to figure out how much money her label made from such a big success. What comes out is a step-by-step description of the massive inefficiencies of the major label recording system. There are things like paying producers $100,000 per song they produce on the album. Then there's all the payola... er "special promotions" to get the songs played on radio so much. In the end, Planet Money calculates that Perry's label, EMI, probably made somewhere around $8 million in profit from Perry's music sales in the US. That's not topline revenue, but bottomline profit. That's not bad per se, but for an album with five hit singles and which was clearly one of the most successful albums in 2011, you begin to see why the labels are struggling.
But, of course, Perry, herself isn't struggling. As the full podcast by Planet Money notes, Perry has been able to avoid getting sucked into a "360" deal where the label gets to take some of all the revenue she earns. They just get the record sales. Perry, in the meantime, is estimated to have made $44 million in 2011 -- a large chunk of that coming from her tour, which alone grossed over $50 million.
What you begin to realize as you see more and more stories like this is, once again, the "problem" has nothing to do with the "music industry" failing... or even that musicians aren't able to make money any more. It's all about the bad economics of the record labels. They set themselves up to fail this way, focusing solely on that one slice of the pie, and not moving very quickly to adapt when the market shifts. Instead, they seem to have kept up the inefficiencies associated with making such a "hit" album, without figuring out a way to profit from the results. Of course, for artists like Perry, things are great. She's able to make a ton of money, most of which doesn't first have to filter through the label...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-piracy.shtml
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...s-perfect-game
|
The label made estimated 8 million profit from the entire TD era from iTunes coins, while Katy's yearly income was estimated 44 million. No 360 deal and CDT was Katy booking the arenas without a tour promoter. By keep her tours, merchandise and everything else outside label control, she has the large cuts from the bigger pies.
Quote:
Q: Does it bother you that you're coming up in the music business at a time when revenues are disappearing?
Perry: For the music industry to avoid becoming a crumbling Babylon, the major labels have to figure out how to coexist with the Net. (File sharing) is inevitable . You just have to find new ways to sell music. The other day I saw some kids wearing bracelets with USB drives hanging from them. Inside was their digital music. You pull the (cap off the USB) and plug it into your computer, and you get the music and some artwork. I thought to myself I could make the coolest bracelets that could be in the shape of a heart and you break it apart to get the music. It could be another accessory you wear.
Q: There used to be a time when artists looked down their noses at commercialism. They considered it selling out. You don't seem to cater to that kind of thinking.
Perry: It's never going to be like it was in '98. If you use your brain and think about yourself as an artist and a full package, there are so many other ways to create revenue, especially for me as a girl. I have a song out called "I Kissed a Girl" (which features a line about cherry-flavored ChapStick). If I want I could create a Katy Perry cherry ChapStick line...but I'm never going to hawk something that I don't believe in. http://www.cnet.com/news/interview-k...-tech-ingenue/
|
Back in 2008 she accepted the existence of file sharing and believed that especially a girl can sell a lot of other things to the fans.
Quote:
|
Now if Tidal had a free tier… But it doesn’t. It can’t afford to lose that much money. It’s not about the long haul. No one in music has been about the long haul since the turn of the century. First you get traction, then you monetize/charge. Can you say Instagram, can you say Snapchat? But suddenly, just because Jay Z is a famous musician he expects all of his fans to pony up ten bucks a month? Raw insanity.
|
Katy's business model has a free tier
(Watch YouTube videos for free. Especially when her music/story inspires poor, held back, unprivileged,... people. Once she helped you out of poverty, you have the choice of thanking her with big spending.) and is freemium like. She won't complain if you got her music from illegal downloading, because you are using her brand and might be enticed to buy the tickets, merchandise,... her companies are offering.
For 30 dollar she let you get a taste of the CDT show and you have the free choice of spending more at the merchandise stalls. Once you get addicted to her, she can charge 100 (US) to 150 (Australia) USD average ticket price.
She revealed recently that if you successfully sneaked into her shows, she won't eject you because she used to sneak into concerts/festivals too. She isn't money hungry, but it doesn't mean that she can't make money with multi-era-plans.
She believes that dedication is shown by making time for her, reserving an evening months ahead to be with her under 1 roof. The girls picked their outfits months ahead, buying a song on iTunes doesn't require that much effort.
EARTHQUAKE !!! 
I mean I like how Taylor Swift made a statement by removing her music from there, but it was different. She is a songwriter etc. and her album was selling like condoms, whereas this Tidal thing is something insanely different.
