4 ms·
But when the artist demands a certain payout, and the only way the promoter can make the numbers work is to set a "face value" $X, offer 15% of inventory at $X
by Benjammer 8y ago
But when the artist demands a certain payout, and the only way the promoter can make the numbers work is to set a "face value" $X, offer 15% of inventory at $X on the open sale, and then offload everything else directly to ticker brokers at various tiers of price points at several multiples of X, you have to start to put at least _some_ of the blame on the artists for knowingly participating in a "don't ask don't tell" style industry...
- chiefalchemist 8y agoPerhaps. But then where do the bands make money? From their Spotify streaming royalties? That's not enough to buy coffee. In other words, free (or historically close to it) music comes at a price. If you calculate what is __not__ being spent on listening to music, I suspect you'll see that decline made up for via touring / ticket prices.
- kbenson 8y ago> But then where do the bands make money? From requiring a larger payout in the beginning, which started the proposed scenario.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoBut that's not the start in my scenario. It's the end. It's a symptom. It's the result of what happens upstream in the broader biz model of being a band / musician. With their revenue streams limited (read: streaming doesn't pay anything close to the way physical media did) they're all but forced to require a larger payout. If they don't get it there, then where? When? Think of it this way, every time you stream a song for free the cost of that band's live concert ticket goes up a bit.