Dawn Robinson (of EnVogue) left cause they were making $0.02 per album & more

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

So, Dawn is basically just playing the victimized poor little rich girl angle then (more or less)?

No, she's playing on the fact guys who have never dealt with anything industry will be shocked that there's only 4-10% usually set aside for the main performers on a CD. There's only like 12.2x 8% in 100%, so how do you think everyone else woulda got paid if En Vogue got more?

This isn't news, I'm surprised EVERYONE on a site like this doesn't know this as much as we all tend to focus on business.

Keep in mind, I'm the guy who just signs contracts after skimming them and get a surprise when a check comes in the mail because I live by the rule that if I wasn't paid the day it was done, don't count it, lol. Still basic music industry 101. Also keep in mind 360 deals are worse cause now you're only getting a percentage of EVERYTHING, before all that show money and endorsement crap was yours.

So she got a better deal than these dudes in 2013 talkin bout how they 'gettin it".

 

[DaBomb]

yeah fact is as good as those En Vogue songs were, that group was interchangeable. All those songs could have ended up with TLC, Ghostown DJs, Xscape, or (insert 90s group here). The real money makers were the writers and producers. If you really wanna make money in this industry you have to write your own shit. Thats why Rappers often turn moguls and not R&B singers. They make more independent then a singer can.

The only singers getting real money off royalties are artists like Mariah Carey or Beyonce mostly because they've built themselves into brands onto themselves. Before Rhianna signed to Roc Nation she was on track to have the same sob story. She was flat broke until I think Umbrella.


And did you ever hear about the time The Dream bet Chris Brown that The Dream could make a hit out of the song "Bed By J.Holliday". Chris Brown wanted to take it out from under J, thinking it would be a waste. But The Dream new it would be a hit regardless of the face of the song.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

^^^Still not quite true, writers and producers are getting the same type of percentages to split up, so say I'm one of 12 writers on an album and I only wrote 1 song. I'm not even seeing 2 cents more than likely UNLESS I WAS A HUGE NAME.

Everyone is interchangeable. Rihanna doesn't have to go back and check the same producers and writers, if she negotiates a bigger cut, they're downsizing in those departments because Rihanna is now the most important part of the equation. She does not need Dream, Calvin Harris, Neyo, ect. She just needs 16 tracks, lol. SHE'S RIHANNA!

You gotta keep in mind, by the time they pay out producers, writers, and performers(say they have 8 cents to distribute to each group)they're already 24% in the hole with no promo/ad, pressing of CDs, studio/living expenses, ect. yet covered. Again, 8 points for the performer(s) is GOOD. Throw 10 points to the producers(say you got 16 tracks between 12 producers what's each of their cut?) The performer in most cases are getting the best cut unless it's a deal where you got 1 writer or producer doing the entire album.

This is why you hope your song is picked up as a single. So you don't have to share with everyone else involved with an album.

 

[stokeI]

You do realize those actors in movies with those huge salaries are getting the same types of cuts, right? That "actor guy" made $2M to star in that movie that did $500M, lol. That B-Ball player who made $3M last year made the Miami heat/NBA $12M off just his merchandising and his team made $800M in profits while the NBA made Billions!!! Same(if not less of a) percentage, just bigger numbers being played with.

man, you'd be surprised

6. Miami Heat | Forbes.com: The Most Valuable NBA Teams | Comcast.net

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

^^^Yeah, those weren't 'real numbers" for B-Ball, that is not my area of expertise. Lol. But yeah, that actually was surprising. Hope that mess up in NBA numbers doesn't deter my point.

Trust me, those music numbers are indeed dead on.

 

[bandcoach]

The only thing that I would add is that the points you get per album (or single) are based on

nett profit

not

gross profit

​

neither of which is even close to selling price - the selling price is what the retailer gets before deducting their costs which include:
cost of the disc/recording,
transport costs for physical goods.

Their profit is the difference between cogs (cost of goods sold as identified above) and the selling price.

Gross profit for the label is the difference between printing/publishing costs and wholesale price to the retailer.

From this gross profit all other costs including points for the various participants in the album - performers, writers, producers, etc - once points and costs have been paid, anything left is used to bolster the coffers of the label so that they can continue to record new artists/old artists and pay their day-to-day running costs.

In other words pennies in the dollar is about all you can hope for as a participant in any one of the categories - maximising your participation gets you more points but will not see you move above 1/5 of nett profit no matter how hard you swing it.

Artist management costs are paid by the artist after they receive their points (i.e. a manager cannot participate in the income stream of the album unless they have negotiated an astonishing deal with the label).

 

[SFTRAXX]

This is why you hope your song is picked up as a single. So you don't have to share with everyone else involved with an album.

I didn't know that singles were dealt with like that.
So what happens if the single ends up on the album. Does the single initially get dealt with separately and then split when the album is released?

 

[bandcoach]

should be two deals: one for the single and one for the album placement and you better make sure that it is adhered to (get a lawyer son, get a real god one and get an accountant who has some experience in forensic accounting (examining other peoples books to find anomalies))

 

[Bloody Glove]

This isn't news, I'm surprised EVERYONE on a site like this doesn't know this as much as we all tend to focus on business.

Most of the people on this site are looking for "internet marketing" overnight cash success. They could care less about the actual econometrics involved with selling and actual LP and the hellafied marketing systems behind it. This is why I laugh my ass off when I see ads like"$25 for a lease and $100 for an exclusive"....REALLY...WTF!?!

Cat's trying to replicate the dope game online and throw in a lil' John Chow web 2.0 mumbo jumbo.

The dominate, overarching industry is that of pennies...lets not forget..Yiddish-Ashkenazim Jewish banker's control this industry..EVERY cent counts!


This applies to ALL "artist"

Cat's need to read:

Most of your REAL millionaires, everyone else is illiquid or credit!

Fortunately, most of us are producers/writer's/publisher's...chip's should be alright signed or unsigned.



Cent's, percent, a piece becomes POINTS, learn the lingo!

"I need 18 points on my next joint, this high anointed king, to make a deal, I be the one to appoint"-RZA

 

[ego killer]

van halen got like 7 cents per album at first and they did everything, played all the instruments, wrote all the songs. just goes to show don't sign a contract without a lawyer.

 

[SFTRAXX]

This is why I laugh my ass off when I see ads like"$25 for a lease and $100 for an exclusive"....REALLY...WTF!?!

Cat's trying to replicate the dope game online and throw in a lil' John Chow web 2.0 mumbo jumbo.

Your angle may stem from the fact that you've played (or are playing) the "major placement" game and have been successful at it- I don't know - and if you have - good for you - On the flip side tho its no secret that the indie market online is huge. And as someone who takes part in "the art of beat leasing" and is tapping into that market Ima say don't knock it til you've tried it. I've made more through online beat leases than most of the indie musicians I know who "gig". #JusSayin

I'm like - Why play someone elses game if you don't have to? Nowadays, if you're on your sh*t, you can make your own game. +1 for the internet

 

[j.troup]

Let me explain the record business to you, for those that don't understand.


It's the record labels job to make the artist FAMOUS. It's the artists job to make themselves RICH.


Record Sales go to the record label. Because they funded the entire project. They assumed all the risk. They invested all the money. So by all right, they SHOULD get the lions share of the money...

Artists are supposed to make their money off of SHOWS. ENDORSEMENTS. MOVIE ROLES. TV APPEARANCES. MERCH.




There's not one single artist out there on a major label that EVER got rich off of RECORD SALES ALONE.

 

[SFTRAXX]

Let me explain the record business to you, for those that don't understand.


It's the record labels job to make the artist FAMOUS. It's the artists job to make themselves RICH.


Record Sales go to the record label. Because they funded the entire project. They assumed all the risk. They invested all the money. So by all right, they SHOULD get the lions share of the money...

Artists are supposed to make their money off of SHOWS. ENDORSEMENTS. MOVIE ROLES. TV APPEARANCES. MERCH.




There's not one single artist out there on a major label that EVER got rich off of RECORD SALES ALONE.

I think the reason people might have these misconceptions is because everyone tends to glorify the record sales vs. the merch / show /endorsement sales.

 

[The Questionaire]

Let me explain the record business to you, for those that don't understand.


It's the record labels job to make the artist FAMOUS. It's the artists job to make themselves RICH.


Record Sales go to the record label. Because they funded the entire project. They assumed all the risk. They invested all the money. So by all right, they SHOULD get the lions share of the money...

Artists are supposed to make their money off of SHOWS. ENDORSEMENTS. MOVIE ROLES. TV APPEARANCES. MERCH.




There's not one single artist out there on a major label that EVER got rich off of RECORD SALES ALONE.

@ J. Troup, I was hoping you would chime in. Not that I don't respect the opinions of all the others but I keep a special lookout for your posts. Anyways. Your post was a GREAT read. It help me further understand something I sorta figured: the label gives you the PLATFORM to make money in other areas. As you said, in endorsements, shows, movies, etc. Also like the last line about how no artist has ever gotten rich off record sales alone. U da man on this music biz stuff homie!

 

[KelevraOne]

@ J. Troup, I was hoping you would chime in. Not that I don't respect the opinions of all the others but I keep a special lookout for your posts. Anyways. Your post was a GREAT read. It help me further understand something I sorta figured: the label gives you the PLATFORM to make money in other areas. As you said, in endorsements, shows, movies, etc. Also like the last line about how no artist has ever gotten rich off record sales alone. U da man on this music biz stuff homie!

Dude I was saying the same stuff yesterday.

 

[bandcoach]

Let me explain the record business to you, for those that don't understand.

It's the record labels job to make the artist FAMOUS. It's the artists job to make themselves RICH.

Record Sales go to the record label. Because they funded the entire project. They assumed all the risk. They invested all the money. So by all right, they SHOULD get the lions share of the money...

Artists are supposed to make their money off of SHOWS. ENDORSEMENTS. MOVIE ROLES. TV APPEARANCES. MERCH.

There's not one single artist out there on a major label that EVER got rich off of RECORD SALES ALONE.

All of which points to why a 360 deal is not in the interest of the artist as they are giving away points on their hard work at shows, merchandising, etc.

Unless of course the label is going to bankroll the ventures to begin with - at which point a sliding scale of compensation and eventual buyout should be negotiated to ensure that at some point in the future the artist owns the right to use their name and their image in future endeavours unrelated to the current label (look at what happened to Prince and Warner Brothers, Monty Python's "Contractual Obligation" album and many more besides)