RSS
Twitter
That's One Way To Make Money In Music
from the jingles dept
A little-known band from Scotland has given up on selling its music to consumers after making 500,000 pounds from one of its songs being used in TV ads and movies. The band, Looper, says they've made enough from the song to support themselves for the past four years, and can now just give their music away to fans rather than worry about selling it. So while labels try to make money by distributing rootkits, some bands are pursuing alternate business models.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Broken link
The link that says 'after making 500,000 pounds from one of its songs being used in TV ads and movies.' in this article appears to be broken, it's pointing to a BBC page about WC 2006
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Broken link
Thanks for pointing that out -- it's fixed now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Corrected URL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4460212.stm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Except...
that not every band can have their tune be the tm tune of a huge company, right..?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Wave of the Future
In this day and age the Internet gives us a lot of power. For bands and artists the Internet gives them the power to break away from the record companies and do their own thing, thus publishing their own music the way they want to. There are plenty of unsigned bands making millions on their own via sites like MP3.com and their own websites.
Its the wave of the future, a future that's scaring the hell out of the RIAA and that's why they're so desperate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Wave of the Future
"There are plenty of unsigned bands making millions on their own via sites like MP3.com and their own websites."
I think that this would needto be backed up as I doubt any band is making millions without working with a major record producer. It really boils down to advertising, an unsigned band would have a hard time getting their music heard by most of the public and on major radio stations. Without radio play, people don't buy the albums. Plus, the majority of music sales is still in compact disc form rather than digital.
iTunes probably has a large enough userbase that a band could get by without having to be signed by a label, but millions of dollars is out of the picture (heck, most signed bands don't mke millions of dollars).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Wave of the Future
From what I understood, hardly any artist made money from the sale of CDs. I thought the lions share went to the RIAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Wave of the Future
This is true. The artist themselves only get around 5 to 10 cents (if they are lucky) of the $15 per CD that is sold. Much of their income is made via concerts, t-shirts, etc
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Wave of the Future
This is dependent on their individual contract with their label, etc.
It is most common that a record label will retain the lion's share of mechanical royalties (paid per copy sold) and publishing income (paid via PRO's ala BMI, ASCAP). Merchandising income (tshirts, mugs, promotional consumables) typically goes to the artist, although with artist-management conglomerates popping up, they are taking the bulk of this pie, referring to it as "brand management."
I guess my overall point is that it's really not safe to assume anymore what an artist may be getting in return from their relationship with a label.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Looper - all nerds should love them.
They've got a song that heavily uses modem noises. Worth hearing at least.
Also, realistically, with the popularity of Belle and Sebastian, Looper's success is really just icing on the cake for Stuart David.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
i hate money, too!!
idiots
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You didn't smack Carlo...
In a previous thread, I'd politely requested Carlo be smacked by TD staff. Apparently, it's still a wish, because....
...Carlo seems to have implied that giving away (not selling) songs is an alternate business model.
He *could* have said "as an aspect of their business model", and maybe expounded on what in particular makes this band's me-too approach noteworthy, or how it fits into their overall business plan. But he couldn't, because....
.....they really don't have a plan. A windfall of licensing income is not a business model - it's a lottery.
From the article: "Our main ideal is giving the songs away free to people. Because we can make money from the films and adverts that takes care of having to make money from it," Stuart added."
Free to people, but not to media. Right.
And what will you write of them in three years when the money's run out and they *gasp* need to *SELL* music again? Will you be so glowing when they actually ask for remuneration from you?!?
Lastly, stating "some labels try to make money by distributing rootkits..." Oh, please. Again, intellectually lazy and dishonest. Nobody was trying to "make money" with a rootkit - such a ridiculous assertion and flawed reasoning...it's not even a good joke.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You didn't smack Carlo...
In a previous thread, I'd politely requested Carlo be smacked by TD staff. Apparently, it's still a wish, because....
...Carlo seems to have implied that giving away (not selling) songs is an alternate business model.
He *could* have said "as an aspect of their business model", and maybe expounded on what in particular makes this band's me-too approach noteworthy, or how it fits into their overall business plan. But he couldn't, because....
.....they really don't have a plan. A windfall of licensing income is not a business model - it's a lottery.
From the article: "Our main ideal is giving the songs away free to people. Because we can make money from the films and adverts that takes care of having to make money from it," Stuart added."
Free to people, but not to media. Right.
And what will you write of them in three years when the money's run out and they *gasp* need to *SELL* music again? Will you be so glowing when they actually ask for remuneration from you?!?
Lastly, stating "some labels try to make money by distributing rootkits..." Oh, please. Again, intellectually lazy and dishonest. Nobody was trying to "make money" with a rootkit - such a ridiculous assertion and flawed reasoning...it's not even a good joke.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You didn't smack Carlo...
Jeremiah,
I think you might have a reading comprehension problem here in a misguided dislike for Carlo. Carlo doesn't imply no business model at all. It's pretty clear that he's saying one potential business model is a sponsorship style business model where bands sell songs for movies and other things, and give away music for consumers to listen to. That seems pretty obvious. So obvious that I'm wondering what point you think you're making.
Yes, this band may have gotten lucky, but it's certainly a business model that others can choose to pursue. And, when you complain that a "windfall" isn't a business model, ask any top rockstar about THEIR business model. It's the same thing. They got lucky. That's HOW THE MUSIC BUSINESS WORKS currently.
As for the final line, I think your humor recognition skills also need serious rejiggering. It was a sarcastic comment, which is obvious to everyone but you apparently. And, even your complaint about it was bogus. if Sony didn't think the rootkit would help them make money they wouldn't have done it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment