There are thousands of publishers globally who are not labels. Indeed, the members of my band are signed to a ‘standalone’ publisher.
Not the one I am signed to.
No, I’ve made it clear throughout this thread that labels no longer hold the power of distribution, since artists can easily buy their own distribution.
If your album is not selling it’s the record label’s fault - because they are responsible for the album’s promotion.
1 Like
Thousands of publishers who are not labels is not equal to saying there are thousands of labels that don’t publish.
A label is automatically in the publishing business as far as I’m concerned. Every label financial statement I’ve read shows tremendous income from publishing and licensing. Far in excess of what they make off mechanical sales.
Oh for sure, labels want to get in on the act, they’d be stupid not to at least try, but that is down to the artist, not the label. Many artists sign to a publisher well before any label shows an interest, so that they can claim performance rights from venues. In those cases, obviously they cannot allow the label to publish if they are already signed to an external publisher.
[quote=“Jonathan, post:24, topic:1135”]
Thousands of publishers who are not labels is not equal to saying there are thousands of labels that don’t publish.
[/quote]Equally, saying that record companies publish is not the same as saying that all recording contracts automatically include publishing. They don’t. I am living testament to that, and as I said, there are thousands of publishers globally who aren’t record companies. What do you think they are doing?
Labels may show more profit from publishing than they do from recording, but that can only mean that they sign more publishing deals than they do recording deals. It certainly doesn’t mean that all artists who sign recording deals also sign up with their label’s publishing house.
There is significantly less money in publishing an album than there is in album sales, in fact mechchanical royalties are a pittance compared to the royalties from sales. Other areas of publishing income are media broadcasts and venue performance royalties, but I can’t see revenue generated from these exceeding revenue from actual sales of the product. Well, in fact I know they don’t. The biggest asset of an album is the master recording - that’s what brings in the big bucks.
I think the reason that you see the publishing houses of big labels showing big revenues is because there are a few select songs in the world that are massive money spinners - like ‘Happy Birthday’ for example - and the publishing rights for most of them are owned by labels, simply because they have bought the rights. The profit and loss accounts you are studying won’t show the initial payment made by the label to buy the rights in the first place, and this is often $millions. It’s often a punt by the label, because they don’t actually know what the song is going to earn, so it could be a loss-making exercise. Again, check out happy birthday - it didn’t work out so well for Warners did it?
Licensing is not publishing. It’s resale of the master recording rights.
Edit:
OK forget that. You are just as likely to say it’s copyright licensing. Maybe you should check up exactly what type of licensing the revenue refers to. If it’s a record label then licensing usually refers to permission granted to use the master recording rights. That’s how record labels make their money.
I see a lot of truth in this. I don’t know so much how the record business works today, but it certainly was true in the “old days”, and probably more so today in terms of the high rollers.
Back in the day, the A/R guys would sign anyone who showed promise, but they were betting that 1 in 100 would make it big with a hit song (or more) and the rest would fail. That’s pretty much how it turned out. It was a numbers game. That, and lots of available capital and cocaine drove the recording industry. Today it’s probably different, but still, anything is taking a risk. And all this talk about “revenue streams” and “portfolio assessments” is mental exercises in futility for the most part. I guess it’s investors trying to cover their ass with somebody they are making promises to. You are dealing with commodities much more volatile than Wall Street investments, so don’t pretend (Jonathan) that you can really predict where the course of events will go. It’s mostly boardroom BS if you ask me.
Now, some of these people have gotten pretty smart in that they gamble on those talents that have built up social media presence, and have established some track record. But, now they are even more relying on media savvy (which is much enhanced through historical learning) and the goal of these artists to be major successes at any cost to their reputation. For example, Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Rihanna (probably Nikki Minaj as well). These people are huge successes by any terms, and “bankable” for just about anything they put out. Some of it, most of it, or all of it … is crap. It’s appealing to the base element, and lowest sensibilities of any artist. They know it will sell and make money, because it sold and made money before. There’s not much mystery to this financial game, there’s risk, but these people now understand how to manipulate the market. For medium to low range acts, they are probably on their own as most of this other discussion addresses. And I thought that’s where most of us are focusing.
[quote=“Stan_Halen, post:27, topic:1135”]
There’s not much mystery to this financial game, there’s risk, but these people now understand how to manipulate the market.
[/quote]In all honesty, there isn’t even much risk when many of the artists are supplying the recordings themselves. The only risk really is how much profit you will make, not whether you will make a profit or not. I always get the feeling that labels are sat laughing at us artists for being idiots. The artist writes the tunes, and does all the hard work (and money) to record them, then signs away all the rights to someone else who makes all the money out of it while the artist invariably sees nothing.
1 Like
[quote=“AJ113, post:28, topic:1135, full:true”]
True, in these days where artists can record themselves, or go to a project studio that will record them fairly cheap, the record company is no longer out the hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a record. Of course, that was all charged back to the artist in the record “deal”, and as we now know thousands of artists went into bankruptcy after these contract deals. You’re right, the record label no longer has large outlays of cash, but probably wants the World from the artist.
Personally, I thought the record company deal was mostly dead, though for big name acts it is certainly still in full force.
Virtually every CD you buy is sold by a label. The record deal is most certainly alive and well, and still making shedloads of cash for the labels while leaving the arists without a bean (generally). The big name acts are the ones who don’t need the deal, because they have the money to finance the operation themselves.
I kind of thought that too, but it seems most labels are beholden to the majors. At least as of 2012. Things are changing so fast these days it makes it hard to be certain what is happening.
Can’t see the relevance in that comment Stan. Regardless of who actually owns the label, the point is that recording deals are still prevalent.
There is no question that SONY is a publisher. Just check out the entries at BMI or ASCAP. Same applies to Universal and BMG.
The record labels who used to simply make records realised that this was not enough, that what they needed was an ongoing income stream. That comes, as a licenser holding rights to master recordings AND from puiblisher copyright.
I have to register all my recordings with PPL (in UK) to ensure I make money from any of my masters, and with PRS (in UK) to ensure I earn from people publishing .
Basically, the lines have become blurred.
There is NO DOUBT that there are standalone publishers out there, and standalone record labels who don’t publish.
But to say folks like Sony are not publishers is wrong. After all, it bought the rights to the Beatles catalogue, and that’s the PUBLISHING rights not the master recordings. (Actually it may be both, but it is surely the publishing right).
[quote=“Coquet-Shack, post:33, topic:1135”]
But to say folks like Sony are not publishers is wrong.
[/quote]Nobody’s saying that record companies don’t publish. It’s one thing we’re all agreed on.
Point taken … I think.
Aternatively you could take my point from this…
or this…
Or from the fact that at no point have I stated that labels don’t publish.
Well the first of those is inaccurate. It is entirely down to a label to say this deal is contingent on you having all your songs published by us. Otherwise no deal. So NOT a good example.
And it is entirely down to the artist to sign or not to sign. The artist can equally state that their signature is contingent upon there being no publishing, otherwise no deal. And as I said earlier, if the artist is already signed to a publisher, publishing by the label isn’t even in the frame.
So contrary to what you say, a perfect example, especially since it is based on first hand experience.
Ok AJ. When Sony turns up to sign you, you turn them down. ROFLMAO
When Sony turns up to sign you, and they can’t get the publishing too because you’re already signed to a publisher, they turn you (and the opportunity to make $millions) down. ROFLMAO.
As usual you’re arguing for the sake of arguing in the attention-seeking hope that everybody will look at you. If I were in your shoes I would back down now so as not to make myself look like a total twat, but I guess that’s not your style.
1 Like