Why are 360 deals looked down upon?
- Thread starter JMD_Music
- Start date
T
The Light
Guest
The 360 deal is a slave deal. There was a time that the artist made their money from being on the road, shows, ads, endorsements, movies, clothes, etc. With the 360 deal, the label gets a percentage of all of this.
Well if the label is the one booking shows, getting them endorsements, etc, why shouldn't they take a percentage?
Why wouldn't the label expect a % of this revenue? Most of the time the artist isn't doing anything.
bandcoach
Zukatoku - Mod Scientist
I would hazard a guess that a 360-deal is inordinately slanted in the favour of the label - i.e. the percentages paid are much higher than if the artist was using a booking agency and a manager and a label as separate entities - to pay an all percentage for each of these disparate services is a little silly.
If you want to pursue using a 360-deal at least investigate the standard fees/percentages for each sector that you would try to apply a 360-deal to and specify them as the fee for service in each arena...
If you want to pursue using a 360-deal at least investigate the standard fees/percentages for each sector that you would try to apply a 360-deal to and specify them as the fee for service in each arena...
I figured that some labels would try and scam the artist. I want to control booking for my artist when I start my label. I figured I'd only take 10%, which I think is very fair.
Well, if it sounds fair to you roll with it.
rhythmgj
Character in Spades...
Yes, I don't think there is a lot of guarantee that the 360-oriented label will actually be booking gigs, pursuing endorsement deals, etc., etc. They just want a piece of that income, and they want to be able to "cross-collateralize" it as they always have (applying money owed on one record towards debt on a subsequent record).
GJ
GJ
Every label is different. I would never try and take a piece of something that I had no involvement in.
rhythmgj
Character in Spades...
The general question regarding the general practice of 360 deals was asked, and answered... I hope you are sucessful in your campaign to buck the system and entrenched anti-artist bias (I'm serious and sincere here). But in general, that is the way it is. Some labels are different, but to be honest, most major labels are not. Which is why there are so few of them now; they have all been consolidated.
GJ
GJ
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
People always feel cheated without looking at the opportunity to make money.
360 deals have pros and cons. One of the pros is when you're a nobody who would've been on a promo tour before making nothing because the label was trying to get your name out, you're now being coupled with other artists on the same label so you're getting a chunk of show revenue. Before when other companies were booking events they'd set up a tour with all the big names. You'd get a Wayne, T.I., Kanye, Jay tour, now you get an Atlantic Records tour.
Alot of labels have now looked beyond touring for promotion and entered the realm or touring for money. that means you'll get more on the road work directly thru your label, less time off, ect.
It also means the label is looking out for you while looking out for itself. They get you that endorsement or small role in the movie so they can get paid off it.
The problem is, people say "If I did my own show or set up my own endorsement deal, I woulda saw more money" without realizing if you did it yourself you probably wouldn't have negotiated yourself as good a deal as the label did for them, and you probably wouldn't have enven got the gig. The label's power more than likely did that for you.
And you can still side hustle a hole in the wall club and pocket every penny in your free time.
I opposed these type deal years ago, but look at the artists of today. Attention spans are close to nothing for artists these days. You're more than likely just gonna be a flash in the pan, that 360 deal will keep you working when your month of being hot is over.
Kanye or Rihanna with a 360 deal doesn't make much sense. Ca$h Out with one, absolutely does. Even Waka having one wouldn't be all bad at this point. The label would throw him on someone hot's new record so he can continue doing shows and making them money.
Who knows, maybe the most relevant artists out(ex. Nicki or One Direction, ect)are pushed as hard as they are because the labels are benefiting from them being under one of those types of deals.
360 deals have pros and cons. One of the pros is when you're a nobody who would've been on a promo tour before making nothing because the label was trying to get your name out, you're now being coupled with other artists on the same label so you're getting a chunk of show revenue. Before when other companies were booking events they'd set up a tour with all the big names. You'd get a Wayne, T.I., Kanye, Jay tour, now you get an Atlantic Records tour.
Alot of labels have now looked beyond touring for promotion and entered the realm or touring for money. that means you'll get more on the road work directly thru your label, less time off, ect.
It also means the label is looking out for you while looking out for itself. They get you that endorsement or small role in the movie so they can get paid off it.
The problem is, people say "If I did my own show or set up my own endorsement deal, I woulda saw more money" without realizing if you did it yourself you probably wouldn't have negotiated yourself as good a deal as the label did for them, and you probably wouldn't have enven got the gig. The label's power more than likely did that for you.
And you can still side hustle a hole in the wall club and pocket every penny in your free time.
I opposed these type deal years ago, but look at the artists of today. Attention spans are close to nothing for artists these days. You're more than likely just gonna be a flash in the pan, that 360 deal will keep you working when your month of being hot is over.
Kanye or Rihanna with a 360 deal doesn't make much sense. Ca$h Out with one, absolutely does. Even Waka having one wouldn't be all bad at this point. The label would throw him on someone hot's new record so he can continue doing shows and making them money.
Who knows, maybe the most relevant artists out(ex. Nicki or One Direction, ect)are pushed as hard as they are because the labels are benefiting from them being under one of those types of deals.
Last edited:
rhythmgj
Character in Spades...
Good points P'd Up Deranged, BUT, I'd need to see all of that in the fine print, including a commitment to how many gigs per year, tour support, various opportunities planned, etc., etc. before signing something like that. I'm not convinced that the big labels are/will do anything more than the same old-same old. Of course it would make sense if they were really going to pursue the work, not just collect commision checks, but I'd have to see some proof that that is how business would be done across the board, with new artists and not just established ones. They don't have a very good track record. An Atlantic tour? That's the way it used to be, and the way it should be done, in my opinion. But they all gave that up when they started to focus on taking advantage of artists without spending minute or dime-one on development.
If a label was really going to go to bat for their artist in that way, it would be awesome. But their MO has been to take credit and take $$, not necessarily to seek-out the best opportunities for their artists. And we all know what a "conflict of interest" is. I think there is some merit to having a manager, agent, label, publicist, promoter, accountant, and lawyer as separate entities without as much possibility for collusion. While there certainly could be positives of having everything go through one team, it would have to be an awesome, commited team, and I don't know if that exists anymore. It probably hasn't since Motown.
GJ
If a label was really going to go to bat for their artist in that way, it would be awesome. But their MO has been to take credit and take $$, not necessarily to seek-out the best opportunities for their artists. And we all know what a "conflict of interest" is. I think there is some merit to having a manager, agent, label, publicist, promoter, accountant, and lawyer as separate entities without as much possibility for collusion. While there certainly could be positives of having everything go through one team, it would have to be an awesome, commited team, and I don't know if that exists anymore. It probably hasn't since Motown.
GJ
Legal Dollaz
New member
The major labels not only mandating 360 deals but as everyday goes by are demanding a greater percentage from new acts (and they wont stop until the splits mirror traditional artist royalty percentages) shows that they are becoming less record company and more management/entertainment entities. And with that I say in 2012 its more important to have the right business team around you than sign a major deal especially when they can hold back any budget allocation, force you the artist to go out and make yourself hot (often with money coming out of YOUR pockets) and then sit back and take a chunk of your non-recording paper without putting nearly zero resources/dollars towards it.
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Sidenote, no 2 deals are the same. I'm not saying ALL 360 deals are as rewarding as the ones I'm describing. As Legal Dollaz has mentioned, they more often than not capitalize off your hard work. But you gotta ask yourself...is this label gonna take me further than I'm gonna take myself.
I'd rather get 6% of 5 Million doing nothing but performing and recording than to have to handle my own team, management, ect. and make 100% of the $200,000 I bring in myself.
Now if you can do 2 mill on your own, f**k the middle man.
Just an example, not precise numbers.
I'd rather get 6% of 5 Million doing nothing but performing and recording than to have to handle my own team, management, ect. and make 100% of the $200,000 I bring in myself.
Now if you can do 2 mill on your own, f**k the middle man.
Just an example, not precise numbers.
But do you think it's fair to make a contract that basically stated that anything the label negotiated for you (shows, endorsements, etc), they get a piece of the pie. But if they had no hand in it, they don't get anything.
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
If they did it for you, do they not deserve compensation for their contributions? Isn't that why managers get 10-20%?
Years ago, I was totally against these situations. The way things were going, it seemed like you were gonna end up better off independent, but after seeing how everything has trickled down, I've changed my stance. Instead of the indie artist emerging and overthrowing the big bad suits, they've managed to go further into holes and under rocks. It's the sad truth.
Years ago, I was totally against these situations. The way things were going, it seemed like you were gonna end up better off independent, but after seeing how everything has trickled down, I've changed my stance. Instead of the indie artist emerging and overthrowing the big bad suits, they've managed to go further into holes and under rocks. It's the sad truth.
Yes but that is why I would want the label to act as management for the artist as well.
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Every business interaction involves capitalizing off someone's hard work and rewarding them less that what you have to gain. That's the fundamentals of business.
I'll put it like this. It is more beneficial for you to do all the work, make a million dollars yourself and owe everyone else NOTHING. That's been the rule since music was first commercially released. Why did everyone not go indie then? Oh, that's right, it's always took more work and knowhow than waiting for the next guy to do it for you.
The next guy doing it for you has always come at a price. Nowadays, the price is steepened because the person doing all the work stands to make less. It was once a gamble where they put in a million and get back 1.4 if you do really bad. Now it's work on top of work to gain a few thousand in sales if a record does nothing. But they can get so much by pimping you out in every other field, that record that didn't sale but is all over the radio can make that label the back end worth investing in you.
If you don't like that, absolutely go indie. But my point was indie guys don't even get a good promo package anymore. It's not worth it for them when they can sell 600 copies and make billboard's top 40.
This is the perfect time for someone to strike hard with a solid plan. Times like these set the stages for greats who come up with ways to change the game and immortalize themselves. If you don't fit that description...
Your choice is, go major, sell $40k, put an album worth of vids on vevo and make cash off the ads thru your label, get cameos in a few movies, get songs on video games, get a halfway decent product endorsement, MAKE YOUR LABEL $8 Million got home with $300,000(after they explain everything you owe them) and call it a life or do it again...
Or put in the work, do it all yourself and go home with the $8 Million. It can be done, but it's gonna take work, some real cash, and a team. If memory serves me correctly Mac Miller's doing that as we speak. But for all we know(and I know nothing, just hypothetics)the guy running his indie label could be taxing no different than a label because he's funding everything just like a label world.
Again, don't overread my numbers I'm just blurting out randomness to make a point. Don't think that if you sold $40k you made the label $8 mill and are owed $300k if you din't get it, lol.
I'll put it like this. It is more beneficial for you to do all the work, make a million dollars yourself and owe everyone else NOTHING. That's been the rule since music was first commercially released. Why did everyone not go indie then? Oh, that's right, it's always took more work and knowhow than waiting for the next guy to do it for you.
The next guy doing it for you has always come at a price. Nowadays, the price is steepened because the person doing all the work stands to make less. It was once a gamble where they put in a million and get back 1.4 if you do really bad. Now it's work on top of work to gain a few thousand in sales if a record does nothing. But they can get so much by pimping you out in every other field, that record that didn't sale but is all over the radio can make that label the back end worth investing in you.
If you don't like that, absolutely go indie. But my point was indie guys don't even get a good promo package anymore. It's not worth it for them when they can sell 600 copies and make billboard's top 40.
This is the perfect time for someone to strike hard with a solid plan. Times like these set the stages for greats who come up with ways to change the game and immortalize themselves. If you don't fit that description...
Your choice is, go major, sell $40k, put an album worth of vids on vevo and make cash off the ads thru your label, get cameos in a few movies, get songs on video games, get a halfway decent product endorsement, MAKE YOUR LABEL $8 Million got home with $300,000(after they explain everything you owe them) and call it a life or do it again...
Or put in the work, do it all yourself and go home with the $8 Million. It can be done, but it's gonna take work, some real cash, and a team. If memory serves me correctly Mac Miller's doing that as we speak. But for all we know(and I know nothing, just hypothetics)the guy running his indie label could be taxing no different than a label because he's funding everything just like a label world.
Again, don't overread my numbers I'm just blurting out randomness to make a point. Don't think that if you sold $40k you made the label $8 mill and are owed $300k if you din't get it, lol.
Last edited:
What would be a solid plan you can think of?