Sooo....tell me why a 360 deal is bad, again?

Pumpthrust

New member
A 360 deal only sounds like a bad deal to someone with low ambitions and 0 work ethic. I'm no expert, but from all the videos, literature, and information I have gathered, it actually sounds like a decent deal. If you are a marketable artist, have a sizeable following, and work ethic, the shit kinda works in your favor-the label helps set up income streams for which they will get a cut, and if your shit works, you not only make some bread, but you can negotiate for a larger cut. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Last edited:
It sounds so bad in context of the old system. As u know, previously most the revenue to generated outside of album sales were yours if you paid off the "loan" (I mean deal) they gave you when you signed. Merchandise use to be for the artist, as well as shows (if the label wasn't sponsoring them).

But like any financial agreement it depends on the percentages. It like a loan with 2% interest versus one with 15-20% interest. Most people can handle the 2%, but that 20%( predatory) is going to put u in a hole. It all depends on the terms.
Does anyone have an example of a 360 contract so we can dissect the terms.
 
Because most people only look at the 360 from the standpoint of "i'm the artist, i made the music, so I should get the majority of the money".


To be honest, when I first learned of the 360 deal, my first thought was "Why hasn't it been like this from DAY ONE of the music industry?"



If I'm a record label...and I'm taking an artist off the streets...and investing MILLIONS of dollars into developing this artist, songwriters, musicians, producers, engineers, studio time, wardrobe, makeup, hair, funding tours, marketing, advertising, PR, media appearances....

if I'm doing EVERYTHING to make sure this person is a SUPERSTAR...


Then you better damn well believe i'm entitled to a piece of every revenue stream that artist gets...


I want a piece of their record sales...because I made that possible.
I want a piece of their radio play...because I made that possible.
I want a piece of their touring...because I made that possible.
I want a piece of their merch...because I made that possible.
I want a piece of their movies...because I made that possible.
I want a piece of their book deal...because I made that possible.

Because if it weren't for me, developing you into a marketable artist, and pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into you, and assuming ALL THE RISK (financially and otherwise) in building your career, you'd be sitting in your bedroom, wishing you didn't have to go to work.



That's how it works in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.


The artists is basically in a 360 deal with their manager...the manager gets a piece of everything the artist makes. But nobody complains about that. The label is doing infinitely more than the manager.



Look at Shark Tank. "I'll give you 5 Million for 60% of your company. I'll arrange for manufacturing, put licensing deals in place, get you on QVC, and get you shelf space in every big box store nationwide".


THAT'S A 360 DEAL!!!!




Now...with all that said....the PROBLEM with the 360 is that labels today want to enjoy 360 degrees of revenue sharing, without doing 360 degrees of WORK!

The record labels only implemented the 360 deal when the money stopped flowing in the early 2000's. So most labels want more money, for the SAME amount of work.


THAT'S BULLSHIT.



If a label is TRULY helping to build those additional revenue streams, and truly making the investment in the artists career, then there's nothing wrong with a 360 deal.


But if the artist already has an established brand, and the label wants to come in at share in revenue streams that it didn't invest in building in the first place, that's bullshit.
 
^^Troup you sound like a blood thirsty capitalist.
You make good point about the labels not doing the work, though

However, the 360 deal is a slave model. They are basically saying we are owed cut of every revenue stream you get access to beyond making music.
No other industry works like that.

If I'm a successful wall street broker, I can write a book, do promotional speeches, etc. My firm does not get a cut.
If I'm a ballplayer (pick any sport) the team that I play does not get a cut of my shoe or marketing deal.
If I'm a teacher school system does not get a cut of book I wrote on being a good teacher.
The only thing close to 360s is some jobs have moonlighting laws (they don't get a cut they just restrict you from working a second job).
 
Last edited:
^^Troup you sound like a blood thirsty capitalist.
You make good point about the labels not doing the work, though

However, the 360 deal is a slave model. They are basically saying we are owed cut of every revenue stream you get access to beyond making music.
No other industry works like that.

If I'm a successful wall street broker, I can write a book, do promotional speeches, etc. My firm does not get a cut.
If I'm a ballplayer (pick any sport) the team that I play does not get a cut of my shoe or marketing deal.
If I'm a teacher school system does not get a cut of book I wrote on being a good teacher.
The only thing close to 360s is some jobs have moonlighting laws (they don't get a cut they just restrict you from working a second job).


And you sound like a Free Love Hippie.


If a VC invests in your business, they get a cut of everything your business does. Every product line, every, everything.


That's what we're talking about. A label is the VC, and they are investing in a business (the artist).



Artists need to stop their f'ing crying, and realize how this business works, and stop thinking that they are successful because their music is just so f'ing perfect, and nobody else had anything to do with it.
 
And you sound like a Free Love Hippie.


If a VC invests in your business, they get a cut of everything your business does. Every product line, every, everything.


That's what we're talking about. A label is the VC, and they are investing in a business (the artist).



Artists need to stop their f'ing crying, and realize how this business works, and stop thinking that they are successful because their music is just so f'ing perfect, and nobody else had anything to do with it.
Free hippie love, u a funny dude

You said:
"That's how it works in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY."

Venture capitalism is not every other industry, and they don't get everything.
They get a cut of your joint business venture as articulated in whatever contract u sign.
Unless it has something to do with confidential details or joint property, you are free to engage in other capitalist activities.
What labels are doing is saying we control your brand (which is defined in a broad sense).
They don't even role like this in Hollywood.

What totalitarian world do u live in?
 
A 360 deal only sounds like a bad deal to someone with low ambitions and 0 work ethic. I'm no expert, but from all the videos, literature, and information I have gathered, it actually sounds like a decent deal. If you are a marketable artist, have a sizeable following, and work ethic, the shit kinda works in your favor-the label helps set up income streams for which they will get a cut, and if your shit works, you not only make some bread, but you can negotiate for a larger cut. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
I would sign a 360 deal and get to work. Everybody else would be complaining about how bad the deal is and laughing at me. I would be called a sellout and a slave for signing the deal. I would be doing a lot of work while others sat back and collected money from my labor.

Years later, I would still be working and generating revenue and others would still be unsigned complaining. Be a slave and make money or be free and be broke. Choices......
 
I belive it has good and bad sides, but I do think that the perception of the 360 has been twisted, by whom?..........

BY RAPPERS

They made people belive that you HAVE to be shining gold, ride big cars, having parties mansions and wear new outfit for every our in a day. When they finnaly sign a deal and make more money than average Joe, they are still unsatisfied because they think that they should be billionares.

LMAO, People in videos throwing money in the air, what they don't tell you is either that money is false, or they owe it all back to the label by 6 months.

 
Last edited:
I belive it has good and bad sides, but I do think that the perception of the 360 has been twisted, by whom?..........

BY RAPPERS

They made people belive that you HAVE to be shining gold, ride big cars, having parties mansions and wear new outfit for every our in a day. When they finnaly sign a deal and make more money than average Joe, they are still unsatisfied because they think that they should be billionares.

LMAO, People in videos throwing money in the air, what they don't tell you is either that money is false, or they owe it all back to the label by 6 months.



You're referencing artists with no business sense. I'm referencing the artist/CEO's who made millions pre 360 deals(Diddy, Jay Z, Dr. Dre, Fifty Cent, Master P) Those guy thought like ENTREPRENEURS not employees . I understand times have changed. Some of us follow the Macklemore independent business model others may follow the Bobby Shmurda sign with a major business model. It's more a reflection of your business mindset. There are two types of people;you're either a proletariat/worker or you aim to control the means of production. No one gives you ownership, you have to initiate that yourself and that takes strategic planning.
[h=1]Macklemore Explains Why Not Being On A Label Helped Him Succeed[/h][h=3]from the looking-for-a-come-up dept[/h]Unless you've been totally under a pop-culture/music rock for the past few months, you've probably heard of Macklemore and his hit song (and video) Thrift Shop. Now at well over 200 million views, the song itself has been at the top of the charts and has sold over 4 million copies. In case you somehow have missed it, or in case you just want to watch it again, here's the video: The song itself was released last year, and built up a lot of buzz throughout the fall, but completely exploded at the beginning of this year. While I became aware of the song a while back, I didn't realize until recently that Macklemore is actually yet another story of a totally independent artist who found success not by signing with a label and having them throw a ton of money into promoting him, but by carving his own independent path (and using YouTube to connect with fans). In many ways, his story reminds me of Alex Day's.

A few weeks ago, Macklemore sat down with Chris Hardwick on the Nerdist podcast and it's great. Beyond some interesting discussions about sudden fame (and then doing laundry in the communal laundry room of your apartment building days after appearing on SNL), he does talk a little about being a successful musician without a label. Chris asks him about the no label part and mentions what a great story it is:
Chris: To see you and Ryan Lewis come out of Seattle just making stuff you like making, with no label, and oh you're at the top of the charts, and all these people are talking about the song... that's just a great story.

Macklemore: Yeah, I appreciate it. It is a very cool story. It's what you always hope for in terms of picking the independent path. It's cool to see that that's been a focal point. It's not just "Thrift Shop"; it's this kind of do-it-yourself attitude behind the music we've made -- that is also within the midst of this thrift shop song. That these two dudes chose to go independently, to turn down the labels. That the music industry is changing. That it's evolving. And to be at any sort of place where we're at the forefront of that, at the moment, is exciting.

Chris: It's so inspiring to so many young people who maybe -- and I think people are more and more used to the fact that they can just make stuff in their bedrooms and it can turn out to be huge. But every time it happens, it's that much more inspiring to a younger generation of people who go... 'there's no excuse any more to not go out and make stuff that you want.'

Macklemore: Absolutely. And that's what we watched people that came before us that have done it independently, whether it's Sub Pop, or whether it's... Mac Miller did it independently. And he had every major label hollering at him with huge seven figure offers and turned it down and still went number one on Billboard. There's examples of it that came before us, that had us say 'I think that it can work -- I'm not sure that it can work." But, at the end of the day, what's most important, and creative control is number one for Ryan and I. It's a no brainer.

Chris I'm sure you've been approached a million times at this point, but you still don't want the infrastructure of a label?

Macklemore: Yeah, there's no reason to do it. With the power of the internet and with the real personal relationship that you can have via social media with your fans... I mean everyone talks about MTV and the music industry, and how MTV doesn't play videos any more -- YouTube has obviously completely replaced that. It doesn't matter that MTV doesn't play videos. It matters that we have YouTube and that has been our greatest resource in terms of connecting, having our identity, creating a brand, showing the world who we are via YouTube. That has been our label. Labels will go in and spend a million dollar or hundreds of thousands of dollars and try to "brand" these artists and they have no idea how to do it. There's no authenticity. They're trying to follow a formula that's dead. And Ryan and I, out of anything, that we're good at making music, but we're great at branding. We're great at figuring out what our target audience is. How we're going to reach them and how we're going to do that in a way that's real and true to who we are as people. Because that's where the substance is. That's where the people actually feel the real connection.

And labels don't have that.

So you sign up for a label. There's not some magic button they're now going to push and it means that people are going to like who you are. Or that they're identify with your vision or your songs. It actually comes from sitting down, staring at a piece of paper for months or years on end, trying to figure out who you are as a person, and hoping that it comes through in the end. But a label's not going to do that for you.
Uh huh. Once again, it makes you wonder what people are thinking when they claim that YouTube is putting artists out of work.

The whole episode is worth listening to as Macklemore has a great perspective on all of this, and it's interesting to hear him discuss the oddity of his sudden increase in fame and how he's dealing with it, without letting it go to his head. But considering how often we've had similar discussions about artists who choose to go independent, I thought some would enjoy that particular snippet especially.
 
Last edited:
The 360 deal is pretty much a standard in most recording contracts so the importance lays in the specific details with percentages and LENGTH OF TIME obviously being some of the most important negotiation points. For now most non-recording splits are in the 10-40% range favoring the artists but I predict the percentage will continue to rise (with the continuing loss of album/single sales being the scapegoat) until 80/20 splits in the LABEL's favor will be the norm in the future. And that will be as Troup pointed out on top of the artist's manager who typically takes 10-20% gross so you can easily be looking at on average about 40% of gross revenue taking off the top before the artist gets their eat (don't forget the taxes).
 
The 360 deal is pretty much a standard in most recording contracts so the importance lays in the specific details with percentages and LENGTH OF TIME obviously being some of the most important negotiation points. For now most non-recording splits are in the 10-40% range favoring the artists but I predict the percentage will continue to rise (with the continuing loss of album/single sales being the scapegoat) until 80/20 splits in the LABEL's favor will be the norm in the future. And that will be as Troup pointed out on top of the artist's manager who typically takes 10-20% gross so you can easily be looking at on average about 40% of gross revenue taking off the top before the artist gets their eat (don't forget the taxes).


A lot more artists are gonna need day jobs.
 
Troup and others have stated some very interesting points. I do NOT respect 360 deals in any way. Like Troup said, if the label invest (loan) you their money to give you fame (a brand, ie. - make you a "household name") then they should be entitled to "your success" outside of music. If it wasn't for the music (their money), you wouldn't get the girl, the house, the car, the music videos, professional production, mixing, mastering, movie roles, clothing line, etc. Your name (mostly an alias) is a brand. Their brand. They own the title of the brand (your made up name). Any and everything associated with the brand name is theirs in a way.

Today (like Troup also said), record labels are not doing the work/putting the financial backing into the "artists." They are releasing mixtapes and making a name for themselves even before The Machine offers them pennies for their thoughts.

The problem is that "artists" know nothing about Contract Law. You mean to tell me that in the Information Age you can't Google what a 360 deal consists of? No one to advise you? You have never heard about artists selling millions and going broke? If someone signs a 360 deal in 2015 and want out in 2016, do not pity the fool.

Benji, Macklemore's "independent" success and the "success" of other "independent artists" is an illusion. The following article will give you an idea of what is really going on. In them, you will learn that Macklemore's "radio success" has something to do with ADA which is Warner Music Group. You can't get any more major than Warner. ADA (Warner) did Macklemore's marketing to get him on the radio. "Thrift Shop" (not a good song in my opinion) does not get on major pop radio and #1 on Billboard without "Major Help." Without "Major Distribution", Macklemore is not Macklemore.

Macklemore's Indie Rise Is A Simple White Lie - RapRehab

Here's a contract offer from Universal Music

Here's a Contract offer from Universal Music - RapRehab
 
A lot of words have already been written in this thread. But here it is in a nutshell. A 360 deal is GREAT if you happen to sign with an artist-centric and well-connected label (think Motown under Barry Gordy; btw-- good luck with that).
It is a TERRIBLE model if you sign with anyone else (i.e., any of what's left of the major labels, who unfortunately have the $$ and the juice to make something Barry Gordyesque happen, but won't do that, and instead expect the artist to generate income streams, that they can then access a piece of).

It's really no more complicated or simple than that.

GJ
 
Troup and others have stated some very interesting points. I do NOT respect 360 deals in any way. Like Troup said, if the label invest (loan) you their money to give you fame (a brand, ie. - make you a "household name") then they should be entitled to "your success" outside of music. If it wasn't for the music (their money), you wouldn't get the girl, the house, the car, the music videos, professional production, mixing, mastering, movie roles, clothing line, etc. Your name (mostly an alias) is a brand. Their brand. They own the title of the brand (your made up name). Any and everything associated with the brand name is theirs in a way.

Today (like Troup also said), record labels are not doing the work/putting the financial backing into the "artists." They are releasing mixtapes and making a name for themselves even before The Machine offers them pennies for their thoughts.

The problem is that "artists" know nothing about Contract Law. You mean to tell me that in the Information Age you can't Google what a 360 deal consists of? No one to advise you? You have never heard about artists selling millions and going broke? If someone signs a 360 deal in 2015 and want out in 2016, do not pity the fool.

Benji, Macklemore's "independent" success and the "success" of other "independent artists" is an illusion. The following article will give you an idea of what is really going on. In them, you will learn that Macklemore's "radio success" has something to do with ADA which is Warner Music Group. You can't get any more major than Warner. ADA (Warner) did Macklemore's marketing to get him on the radio. "Thrift Shop" (not a good song in my opinion) does not get on major pop radio and #1 on Billboard without "Major Help." Without "Major Distribution", Macklemore is not Macklemore.

Macklemore's Indie Rise Is A Simple White Lie - RapRehab

Here's a contract offer from Universal Music

Here's a Contract offer from Universal Music - RapRehab


Wow, that's a very informative article: A few things I found extremely interesting:


"The truth is and will always be majors will always put money into the hands of radio programmers. The unique difference is the case of Macklemore is “Thrift Shop” went Pop not Urban. Payola, continues to be the music industries little secret. Without it Indie artists have no chance to rise up the charts to prominence. History is living proof and Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop” is no exception."


"Being white in Hip Hop makes it easier than being black in Hip Hop, these days. There’s a reason why ADA, Alternative Distribution Alliance signed them up. A talented white Hip Hop artist is hard to find these days. Eminem, Mac Miller, Yelawolf and Machine Gun Kelly, are in a rare class of a watered down genre of commercially mainstream artists. White people love Hip Hop and are the bulk of the purchasers in the digital download era. Macklemore, is a sonically pure to the art form and a familiar face to white people who love Hip Hop."

"So let’s put that Indie myth to rest for Macklemore. You can’t attain success like Macklemore, unless you’re part of the big machine. Radio’s gatekeepers would never allow it. To go Pop and be No. 1 on the Billboard Top 100, money has to change hands. It’s a great record, but do you wonder why less than 5 percent of Urban/Black radio is playing it. The machine says no."


Kevin Liles always talks about how when they partnered with Jay Z how Jay Z bought a bag full of money(the payola) to their meeting. So even if an independent artist has a great business sense, they are almost still forced into signing that 360. It goes against my business principles. I'm sure glad I'm not a rapper. I'd be chasing that Tech Nine strategy being stubborn. I don't agree with their logic that entitles them to a percentage of artists other revenue streams. How are they responsible for 50 Cent having the vision to partner with Vitamin Water or Diddy's acumen in setting up Sean John Clothing.The same with Jay Z and Dame with Rocawear. Michael Jackson was able to see the monetary value in purchasing the Beatles Catalog with his own money way before large Corporations. Leave it to these labels, they'll find a way to be entitled to that too. That's equivalent to my employer having a percentage of my income oustide of work. Does Lebron have to share his endorsement money with the NBA?
 
Last edited:
How are they responsible for 50 Cent having the vision to partner with Vitamin Water or Diddy's acumen in setting up Sean John Clothing.The same with Jay Z and Dame with Rocawear. Michael Jackson was able to see the monetary value in purchasing the Beatles Catalog with his own money way before large Corporations. Leave it to these labels, they'll find a way to be entitled to that too. That's equivalent to my employer having a percentage of my income oustide of work. Does Lebron have to share his endorsement money with the NBA?



Ummm...a 360 deal doesn't mean that the label is entitled to percentages of every single dollar the artist makes.


The label wouldn't be entitled to investments an artist made (like Vitamin Water or the Beatles Catalog). Just things as a direct result of the brand that the label owns (which is the artist and their name/likeness).


It's all spelled out in the contract.
 
Ummm...a 360 deal doesn't mean that the label is entitled to percentages of every single dollar the artist makes.


The label wouldn't be entitled to investments an artist made (like Vitamin Water or the Beatles Catalog). Just things as a direct result of the brand that the label owns (which is the artist and their name/likeness).


It's all spelled out in the contract.

How about them beats by Dre headphones deal with Apple? Dre may be exempt but I would think that the labels would think they are entitled to a percentage if another artist signed such a deal since they can claim the Brand is what is selling the headphones. Dame is always interesting even if you disagree with him.


Redman has the ultimate machine by him and he's even interested in being independent:

 
Last edited:
The 360 deal with eliminate Black independent wealth and try and make young minds think they need the machine behind them. I'm all for distribution deals with majors though. The first record I ever heard;Rappers delight was an indie run by a Black female.
 
Quite as its kept Jean Grae has been dropping EPs via band camp these past couple of years

But, like most indie acts, its a struggle to get out there.
As I said b4, its about the artists and the ceiling they want. You can make a decent living going indie with a solid fan base, but u wont become a millionaire. It will take years to build up the type of infrastructure someone like tech9 has.
A lot of jazz cats are indie nowadays, but they aren't living the flashy life (one of the top cats, Roy Hargrove, even mentioned that he doesn't even get 1st class tickets when people fly him in).
I honestly can't call it, but I think I could live life without the shine and work on building up my own promo network.
People say they can do it, but don't forget your team also has to get their cut. If u don't blow, like most artists, how much money do you really have.

@Legal: is Lecrae really indie?
This last album had him getting radio access and interviews with the Breakfast Club. Sounds like he had some connections/assistance
 
Back
Top