Music Marketing

Don Passman is an entertainment lawyer who has represented some musical titans, including R.E.M.,Tom Waits, Tina Turner, Quincy Jones, Green Day, Bonnie Raitt and many more. He’s also an author who has written one of the most thorough and practical guides to understanding the music industry. All You Need To Know About The Music Business is now in its 7th edition, and I had the good fortune of connecting with Don to discuss his thoughts on 360 deals, direct to fan options, file sharing, and the current state of the music business.

Congratulations on your revised and updated book! What do you see as being the most significant changes in the record business since the book first came out twenty years ago?

Well, there’s no more vinyl…[laughs]. In the record biz the changes have been profound. The record companies have gone from being incredibly powerful players to still powerful, but not nearly as much as they were. The biggest change is of course piracy, which devastated record company revenue. The record business has gone through such a hard period because it is difficult to compete with free. The record companies have been blamed for being asleep at the switch. They could have probably done more than they really did–although there wasn’t much anybody could do even with a rear view in the mirror.

Speaking of revenue, the 360 deals are certainly a way for labels to engage in other revenue streams, but are 360 deals a good option for artists? Is that something that an artist should be interested in if they are going to be signing to a label?

Whether they are interested in it or not, if they’re going to sign with a major or even an independent, they will have to make one of these deals as none of these companies will sign them without it. The labels are essentially trying to position themselves as branding companies, and are saying that they are not just a record company; i.e. we’re people that are investing in your career, we’re going to help you build your brand, and when you get benefits from that brand we should share in them.

This seems like a contradiction to me. The majors have downsized over the past few years, they have fewer resources, yet they are promising more with the 360 deals. Can they deliver?

No. In fact, they quit making promises a while ago. They started out by saying they would give you more attention, that they would give you a better record deal if you gave them 360 rights. They wanted the 360 rights to hedge their bet. That’s all gone. Now it’s just a record deal that looks pretty much like a stand-alone.

Are you saying that if you provide a label with the rights to merchandising, touring, or publishing there is no guarantee they will provide any marketing support to help increase these sources of revenue?

Correct. There are two kinds of 360 rights, active and passive. Some of the labels are actually taking the merchandising rights to manufacture and exploit, some the publishing rights, and others are just taking a part of income–meaning that you make your own deals for a piece of the pie. In the situations where they have a merchandising company, they are of course going to give you those services. They’ll do the manufacturing, the distribution, and the marketing. If they have a passive interest, however, they’re not really going to do anything.

That sounds like a pretty tough deal for artists. In the past, the only possible option was to work with a major label to get worldwide distribution, marketing support, tour support and more. Do you think that now is a good time for artists to be working with independent labels, which might be less constrained by the concept of multiple rights deals?

Well, the independent labels have gotten just as aggressive as the majors in terms of 360 rights. So you don’t actually get much comfort by going to an indie label. You may make a better deal, but they are still going to want the 360 rights as well.

Do you think it would make sense for a developing artist to switch their focus away from labels and instead try to market and sell themselves with the help of partners like an indie PR firm, a low-cost online distributor, or another artist service-based company?

It depends on what kind of artist you are. Nobody that is mainstream and wants to sell a multi-million release has done it yet without a label behind. That may change. But that is where we are today, Nov. 2nd. If you are an indie artist that has a niche market and a cult following, and you are content to stay there, then you can do just fine without a label. You can sell directly to your fans, you will know who they are, and you will have control of your marketing database. Anywhere in between, the answer is a little bit trickier. You’re better off economically on a per unit basis doing it yourself, because you can make so much more if you keep the 360 rights. But the question is: Will you sell enough going through a label to make up the difference? This is of course unknowable. It is easy to sign up on MySpace, use Tunecore, or have someone distribute your music digitally (or even do physical distribution). The problem is everyone can do that too. There’s no barrier to entry, and there are four million bands in MySpace. How do you break through the noise? That is essentially what record companies help you do.

France is adopting the so-called ‘three-strikes’ law, where Internet users could face a suspension of their services for sharing files. Britain might go the same way. Do you think that this is an effective way to fight file sharing?

It is certainly better than what we have right now. Presently, there is no consequence to infringers, really—there have been consequences for a few people here and there, but for the most part file sharing is rampant. So, I’m in favor of anything that makes piracy more difficult. But I also think it has to be coupled with something that people actually want, which we haven’t done a good job of providing yet. And by the way, that is not completely the industry’s fault. A lot of it is technological. There are limits to what [the record companies] can deliver today.

Do you think that technology will develop to the point where piracy might stop being an issue? I am thinking of the new Spotify model, where the idea is for premium users to pay a subscription to effectively have “anytime, anywhere” music with the inclusion of a smartphone app. It seems to me that offering a legal and more convenient option for fans to get music might be a better route than cutting off their Internet service.

Yes, if we offer something people really want. In that case, I think we can ‘conscript’ the pirates. There will always be piracy. Every business, from grocery stores to anybody else has some kind of theft. But it is minimal. In music, it is rampant. If we come up with something that is easy to use and readily accessible and cross-platform, I think we’ll have something that people will really want and should be able to monetize. It could be very good for new bands, because people who would never buy at a record store may now be willing to pay for music.

As traditional CD sales drop, are new income sources—such as video streaming services and the like—showing promise as alternatives to recorded music sales?

Well, none of that means much now. The revenues from videos are relatively modest when spread out, at least on an ad-supported model, because videos haven’t worked very well. It is hard to tie advertisers to a specific video and the advertisers are not willing to pay much for it anyway. This may change, but at the moment such revenue has not amounted to much. The same applies to cell phones. In the future, more things will be possible, but as yet there are relatively few options.

After years of contention, rights holders and commercial webcasters have agreed on pricing terms for online music streams; the prices will stay in place until at least 2014. In the updated edition of your book, you refer to the Copyright Royalty Board and this recent agreement. How does this change the playing field for consumers and artists?

It doesn’t change anything for consumers and artists. It really has to do with an alternative break in the statutory rate for webcasters, who were complaining that it was so expensive they couldn’t do it. So they came up with a private settlement, affordable to most, that makes the cost a bit less. So I think it would help consumers in the sense that there would hopefully be more services available that would cheaper. But otherwise, it’s not a direct impact.

In the new edition of your book, you also talk about P&D and ‘upstream’ deals. Could you discuss some of the options independent labels have if they chose to join forces with major distributors and labels?

A P&D deal works fine except that it is very risky and you are taking the risk of the manufacturing and the returns coming back. It can be expensive, but when it works you make far more per record. The upstream deals are deals that kick-in after a certain critical mass [of sales] is reached. Then, you no longer have a P&D deal, but a profit sharing deal. You are not taking any financial risk, and the major label takes over the cost of marketing, promotion, and so forth. Again, you make less, but presumably they take it to another level. Some of these deals have worked pretty well, but a lot of them haven’t, so it is not clear where the advantage lies. You may be better off or not. Just keep the P&D deal, and if it really works then your label will have more leverage to go out and make a better arrangement with the distributor.

At what point should an independent label think about a P&D deal? What should they have going before they even consider a P&D?

Product… [laughs]. You can make a P&D deal at any time. You just need to know that you are taking a pretty big risk with it. Maybe that’s all you can get, because nobody will give you any money, so they’ll only press and distribute the records. But that’s probably the deal you will end up having to make to get things going at the beginning, when you have no kind of track record or buzz.

I’m not sure if it is because I had a bumper sticker on my car in the 90s that read “I am funkier than you,” but 5 of my friends have sent me the video below. I would imagine it is unlikely that the fellow who created this mashup received permission from the copyright holders, but the “Mother of all Funk Chords” is a fantastic example of creating something entirely new and extraordinary from divergent original sources. From a marketing standpoint, this piece is great for the remixer, Kutiman, and because Kutiman lists the source material on his site, the original creators of the music could benefit as well.

Tough to get much out of this entertaining interview. Learn more about Lessig’s thoughts on copyright and the free licenses and other legal tools that his Creative Commons entity provides to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, here.

This past Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property met to discuss the proposed Performance Rights Act. Like many things related to the record business, it’s a contentious issue. Depending on where you stand, the Performance Rights Act is either: A) long overdue, the artists have been getting screwed for years, or B) another instance of the RIAA (the trade organization that represents the major labels) scrambling to pull in income from anywhere they can, and in this case they are biting the hand that has fed them for years.

There’s a ton of information (and mis-information) out there, and it’s confusing. Here’s a condensed version of what’s going on, as I see it.

Background
Broadcasters in the U.S. have traditionally only paid royalties on the public performance of a composition to the appropriate performance rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). This money is then paid to the writers of the compositions. Unlike most other western nations, broadcasters in the U.S. have never compensated the artists themselves for any public performances. The same holds true for bars, restaurants, and retail stores. For the past 80 years, the record industry and the broadcasters have lived in harmony. The record industry worked the broadcasters, songs were played on the radio, records were sold, and everyone made money.

Players
On the side of radio is the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), represented by spokesperson Dennis Wharton. Mr. Wharton is trying to build momentum for his cause by referring to the group he represents as “America’s hometown broadcasters,” which is not the first phrase that comes to mind when I think of Clear Channel, a massive radio conglomerate and NAB member. Two members of congress, Reps. Gene Green and Mike Conaway (both from Texas, the corporate headquarters of Clear Channel) have also introduced an anti-royalties bill called the Local Radio Freedom Act, which has been gaining support in Congress.

Those in favor of the royalty include the MusicFIRST Coalition, who was represented last week by Frank Sinatra’s daughter and recording artist, Nancy Sinatra. Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, also supports the bill, as does the RIAA (who incidentally back MusicFIRST). Sound Exchange, who has close ties to the RIAA, apparently will be responsible for collecting these new royalties, similar to their current role in collecting digital performance royalties.

Details
As submitted by Rep. Howard Berman of CA, the Performance Rights Act will:
(1) grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters;
(2) establish a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million and for non-commercial, public broadcast stations;
(3) grant an exemption from royalty payments for broadcasts of religious services and for incidental uses of musical sound recordings; and
(4) grant terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings a per program license option.
(5) provides that nothing in this Act shall adversely affect the public performance rights or royalties payable to songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

Arguments
The artist’s (and the RIAA’s) point of view is simple: the old ways of doing things no longer work in the new music economy. The artists have made significant money for the songwriters (and broadcasters) of radio hits, but have received nothing from the airplay of their music. A performance right in sound recordings has been imposed on digital services since 1995, including the controversial royalty on Internet radio. It is unfair that U.S. terrestrial radio gets a free ride when all the other radio platforms, as well as international broadcasters, are required to pay the artists for public performances.

The NAB contends that terrestrial radio has always been a partner for the artists, responsible for millions of dollars in record sales. Commonwealth Broadcasting President/CEO Steve Newberry, speaking on behalf of the NAB on Wednesday, thinks that “…local radio provides to the recording industry what no other music platform can: Pure music promotion. Radio is free, radio is pervasive, and no one is harming record label sales by stealing music from over-the-air radio.” He went on to mention that if the bill passes “…the value of this extraordinary promotion, and all of the financial benefits that come from it, will be harmed. Ultimately, less music will be played, less exposure will be provided for artists — particularly new artists — and music sales will suffer.” The NAB also believes that the blame for dropping revenues in music is misdirected, and that the real problem for artists is restrictive recording contracts.

My Opinion
The NAB and the RIAA (the jury is still out for me on Sound Exchange, who have a heavy RIAA affiliation) are not organizations that have the artist’s best interest in mind. Their job is to represent the best interest of their member companies. And although the NAB is framing this as a battle between the “local broadcasters” and the RIAA (taking advantage of the RIAA’s terrible PR problem), this issue affects artists at every stage of their career, signed and independent. Although income is falling, the broadcasters are still making money (radio revenues came in at about $20 billion in 2007, according to ICBS Broadcast Holdings President/COO Charles Warfield, who testified on behalf of the NAB) based on the content these artists produce, and to say the artists should not be compensated for this is the embodiment of the old-school record business.

For me, the real question is if terrestrial commercial radio is still effective at selling music. Fewer and fewer people are tuning in to the large commercial stations that make up a large part of the membership of the NAB, and the play lists at commercial radio are so tight that the number of artists that commercial radio “breaks,” in terms of converting radio play to mechanical royalty sales, is miniscule. While I think non-commercial radio (in particular college radio and NPR) and some commercial Triple A stations are good promotional options for independent artists (radio play helps to get folks to shows where they can buy merch, it provides some legitimacy for a press campaign, and also could work to help a licensing pitch, for example), I’m not convinced that radio works to move records anymore at such a significant rate that it pays for itself. Promoting to radio is expensive, even to non-com radio (see my earlier post on this), and of course there is no guarantee you’ll get spins anyway.

Lastly, terrestrial radio is no longer in the position to say that the promotion they wield is far superior to these other non-terrestrial radio outlets that do pay a performance royalty, in particular for developing artists. I think there needs to be parity between all forms of radio: satellite, online, and terrestrial. I’m confident that non-terrestrial radio will continue to gain market share over the coming years, and I think it’s likely that terrestrial radio will continue to lose listeners, too.

My only major concern with the Performance Rights Act (other than reservations about Sound Exchange and possible collection issues) is the effect it might have on the small non-commercial terrestrial stations that work to promote local artists. The bill does stipulate that these smaller stations will pay a smaller annual flat fee of $5,000, but profit margins are so razor-thin at non-commercial radio, that even this could cause a problem.

Would love to hear your thoughts!

You might be familiar with Lawrence Lessig as a long-time advocate for copyright reform and information freedom, and as the founder and architect of Creative Commons, a non-profit organization dedicated to grassroots copyright reform through the means of providing free tools to all content creators to mark their creative work with the freedoms they want their work to carry.

Lessig gave a speech in March for www.Ted.com (the site is amazing, I recommend you check it out), where he talks about the history of the battles over the control of creativity, and the balance that he feels is needed between extremists on both sides of the copyright law fence. This is essential viewing. Check it out here: