Kid Cudi Goes After Universal Again, Wonders Why His Millions Of Video Views Aren't Translating Into Radio Airplay

from the umg-is-still-there-to-take-a-cut-of-whatever's-earned-WITHOUT-its-help dept

Hip hop artist Kid Cudi is at it again, tearing into Universal Music for its lack of support. Last February, Cudi decided to branch out stylistically with his album "WZRD," citing Pink Floyd, Nirvana and the Pixies as inspiration. The label's response was to ship only 55,000 physical copies and continue pushing Cudi towards completion of another album in the vein of his first two.

Cudi took to Twitter to express his displeasure and became his own promotional team. The result? "WZRD" debuted at #3 on the Billboard 200 chart -- all without label support. Now, something else has caught Cudi's attention and (re)raised his ire at his label. Apparently, he's racking up millions of views at Vevo -- but his latest singles (which are the "return to form" Universal seemed to be seeking) are getting no radio push from Universal, unlike other artists with similar view totals.
"King Wizard 3.4 million views on Vevo, Just What I Am has 4.3 million and my shit is not on regular rotation on radio. Hmmm," Cudi Tweeted from his account, @ducidni.

"Trinidad James got 4.1 million views on his hit (rightfully so), and I hear that jam EVERYWHERE. Wheres my fuckin spins???" the rapper born Scott Mescudi added.
It must be noted that Cudi has racked up three million views in a little less than a month. His previous track, "Just What I Am," has 4.5 million views in two months, all without label support or radio airplay. Here's Cudi's Twitter rant in full:


Interestingly, Kid Cudi's official site (which is owned by Universal Music) includes his Twitter feed and it appears that UMG has decided to edit out any disparaging tweets. His "Im talking numbers..." tweet now floats freely in a context-free void, following his last, pre-rant tweet of "Dentist :("


UMG's not actually putting words in Cudi's mouth, but it's certainly taking quite a few out of it. Fortunately for Cudi, UMG doesn't control his actual Twitter account, but after the events of the last several months, I'm willing to bet it wishes it did.

If Cudi can push this volume with little to no support, it's probably a good indication that he could strike out on his own and move on from UMG. Of course, nothing in the major label world is quite that easy, what with contractual obligations and the fact that the third party that controls his creations would be more than willing to hang onto his catalog in perpetuity, even if it feels it's not worth supporting.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 7:27am

    Another Traitor Artist who stupidly used MAFIAA

    The whole moral of the story is:
    1.If you are an Artist do not sign with the MAFIAA
    2.If you sign with the MAFIAA they will take you to the cleaners
    3.I have no sympathy for any fools who do sign with them
    4.Being Indie not only enables you to retain your dignity but you also Control your own destiny
    5.Buy and Support Local and Indie Art ! Fuck the MAFIAA !

    Another Sold-Out Artist Complains about the Big Bad Record Label yet still the Artists go to them and sign away their Rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Lowestofthekeys (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 7:41am

      Re: Another Traitor Artist who stupidly used MAFIAA

      Man, this post needs to be issued in a newsletter to David Lowery, and just so we can watch him make another blog whining about the loss o fhis "easy money" streams.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 7:51am

    "UMG's not actually putting words in Cudi's mouth, but it's certainly taking quite a few out of it. "

    Figures. Labels only know how to take. They don't know how to give.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 8:02am

    So they don't push his recordings, and get their cut from any public performances as the copyright holders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 8:05am

    *shrugs*

    Well, Kid Cudi, here was your first (and last) mistake: You signed a deal with a label.

    Oh well, it's none of my concern.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josef Anvil (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 8:27am

      Re: *shrugs*

      LOL Even though he did sign a deal with a label, I'm still hoping to hear the trolls chime in with the "moral" argument about artists and their right to be compensated.

      So how does the moral argument for artists rights work when they are being screwed by their label?

      I thought those were inalienable human rights, which can obviously be sold. Isn't that slavery? It sure does get convoluted.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        The Real Michael, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 9:17am

        Re: Re: *shrugs*

        It's called 'indentured servitude' for a reason.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 10:22am

          Re: Re: Re: *shrugs*

          Who knew slavery was legal if you signed a form?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            The Real Michael, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 6:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: *shrugs*

            Look at what how our corporations exploit other countries for slave labor/sweatshops. Like they care about people's rights.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re: *shrugs*

        The trolls seem to be on vacation, yet.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 6:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: *shrugs*

          Whoever's doing the "stories of the week", please please please include this story. It's something that even the trolls have failed to come and argue against; that's gotta be significant.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 8:31am

    He's talking numbers and stats about his dentist? How many cavities does this guy have?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Have you been following the dispute between Def Leppard and Universal Records?

    http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/elliott-universal-records-would-be-nothing-without-leppa rd/

    A perfect illustration of what is wrong with copyright when a band has no control over how THEIR OWN WORK is distributed, when a band has to re-record their hits just to sell them digitally. It's great to see a well known and established artist like Joe Elliot speak out about record label tyranny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 9:51am

    When the MAFIAA starts spewing the usual bullshit about how the artists needs them and copyright supports artists we should have these cases ready to give them a huge slap in the face..

    And they want us to respect those laws when they don't respect the artist themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 2:34pm

    Kid WHO-di?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mudlock (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 3:21pm

    Filtered Tweets

    I'm the first to assume malice on the part of a label, but looking at those tweets... maybe they're just filtering out the ones that contain "explicit content"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 3:32pm

    Bio'tch !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Just some dude, Jan 11th, 2013 @ 6:20am

    Hmm..

    I want this guy to succeed because even though I do not listen to rap (not even a little bit) I have found that I really like his music. It's so much better than the poor excuses for music that so many rappers put out, but that's what the people apparently want so that's what the record label pushes.

    It's almost like he's not complaining about money, he's complaining that he wants his music to be heard because he knows people DO like it, he has the numbers. He knows he's not a fallacy because the proof is there. I can respect that, if that's the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jose_X, Jan 27th, 2013 @ 8:47am

    Why make 80% and 90% when can make just 90%?

    In other words, maybe they want this artist to negotiate down much lower royalties (or something like that) before they push his sales that would otherwise take from sales of another artist of similar marketability that is working for a lower royalty.

    You want to maximize profits by putting as much as possible behind the higher margin business rather than diluting the investment with lower margin stuff.

    Eg, if the label believes the total market for music of any of artists A1, A2, or A3 is $20 million with an overhead of $1 million for each A that is fully promoted (but much less overhead for artists hardly promoted), and if A1 yields 90% to the label while A2 and A3 yield "only" 80%, then the label maximizes profits by promoting only A1.

    They'd get 90% of ($20 million - $1 million) = $17.1M. But if they instead promote all 3 equally, they would have to split the 20M market (reduced by $3 million overhead) where perhaps 1/3 is at 90% but the other 2/3 are at "only" 80%. (90%/3+80%/3+80%/3) of (20M - 3M) = $14.17M.

    $17.1M > $14.17M.

    You get the most bang for buck by putting all your money behind the highest margin business instead of splitting some of the money across some lower margin businesses. They cover risk by trying to own the contract (and copyright) of the backups but keeping them hungry and pushing each other to create better stuff for less.

    If the benchwarmers get significantly better (to grow the market or move into other markets) or decide to cut a deal that yields sufficiently extra to the label, then that artist might move to the number 1 slot.

    Own the talent and keep them competing aggressively (hungry) against each other, always striving to use each against the other to improve the label's contract terms and ideally have the artists work for peanuts for perpetuity (P4P). Meanwhile, try to keep direct competition (to the label) down by attacking the Internet and otherwise trying to create a high bar to entry.

    This is normal business 101 (or 102), and follows directly from supply/demand, always trying to be on the side of the table that has few competitors and across from the side that has as many competitors on that side as possible striving for your business.

    [BTW, reject the above business approach and any that does not consider other humans to be basically your brothers and sisters, whom you almost surely would not treat this way.]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This