# It even happens to Coldplay



## JohnG (Aug 19, 2014)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/nfl-to-c ... ding_now_4

NFL to Coldplay: Pay to Play the Super Bowl

Reads in part:

"The NFL has narrowed down the list of potential performers for the 2015 Super Bowl to three candidates: Rihanna, Katy Perry, and Coldplay, these people said. While notifying the artists' camps of their candidacy, league representatives also asked at least some of the acts if they would be willing to contribute a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour income to the league, or if they would make some other type of financial contribution, in exchange for the halftime gig."

This business is really something.


----------



## gbar (Aug 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> http://online.wsj.com/articles/nfl-to-coldplay-pay-to-play-the-super-bowl-1408465018?mod=trending_now_4
> 
> NFL to Coldplay: Pay to Play the Super Bowl
> 
> ...



If you did that in the political arena, you might wind up indicted by a grand jury 

Or prosecuted under the FCPA if you work for a company that does a deal like that with officials in another country .


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2014)

Disgusting.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 19, 2014)

Sounds like the half-time show is just another SB Ad. Sad. 

It doesn't surprise me. Back in the 90's I had a small label. One of our artists was a finger style guitarist from Germany. We paid Barnes & Noble, or Borders, I forget which, to play his music in the store, and to place his CD's near the register. 

Ditto for my smooth jazz stuff at Best Buy. Those headphone listening stations were not a courtesy provided by the store. We paid X amount of dollars per store in markets where we were getting a lot of airplay.


----------



## Di (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm sorry but what aspect of the overall promotion of their image - ever since i can remember - would have made you conclude that they care about exposure less than Rihanna does?


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 20, 2014)

Why so outraged? Any artist who performs during the Super Bowl half time show stands to gain from the exposure. I'm surprised it took someone this long to recogize that the artist potentially gains more from the performance than does the NFL. They can always so "no thank you" and move on.

How's this any different than the landscaper who does a house in a particular neighborhood for free to gain the exposure? Or any other business entrepreneur who takes on a free job from time to time to get their name out there? It's an investment.


----------



## JPignatoMusic (Aug 20, 2014)

I love FL Studio

FL never gets enough props but some has some notable composers using it: Mick Gordon,Jimmy Hinson,Andrew"Zircon"Aversa


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 20, 2014)

Yes, pay to play describes the situation well. As if the NFL isn't already making enough on the whole event.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> How's this any different than the landscaper who does a house in a particular neighborhood for free to gain the exposure? Or any other business entrepreneur who takes on a free job from time to time to get their name out there? It's an investment.


"Pay to play" has been a scourge amongst bands and solo acts for a long time. Slimeball / scumbag promoters will contact you and give you the chance for 'exposure' by playing at 'well-known venue X'. The only catch is you have to pay them a fee to do it. It's a well-known scam to bands and solo performers and we generally try to avoid these jerks at all costs. Only the new bands or the truly naive get sucked into these shows.

So, to hear of a top-tier band doing this is kinda painful.

A couple of thoughts...

1) People value what they pay for. If Coldplay are not getting paid for their performance, the NFL does not consider it to be a thing of value.

2) "Exposure" is overrated. Even at the Super Bowl.

I think the problem is that many artists suffer from self-doubt and insecurity about their art. I certainly do. So, the temptation is to give in and accept this facade of "wow... someone really wants me... they respect my art... they want me to play here". But, in truth they don't really value you (or your art) unless they are willing to pay you. It's that simple, really.

Until artists refuse to work for free, this will continue to worsen, I fear. It's a sad state of affairs. :(


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 20, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:
> 
> 
> > How's this any different than the la
> ...




Super Bowl = 115 million viewers. Apparently, there may be a direct benefit to that kind of exposure. 
http://mashable.com/2014/02/03/bruno-ma ... time-show/

Suppose that half-time show resulted in 1 million iTunes sales, and/ or increased concert ticket sales?


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Aug 20, 2014)

...the part I thought was OTT cheeky was that THEN the NFL expects to profit share in touring revenues from the artist AFTER the game. 

Sorry - not share, as sharing involves risk. The NFL is asking for a "contribution." A tax scheme angle, no doubt. Is the NFL on the corner with an eyepatch and a tin cup? "Alms for the poor..."

The sheer hubris in assuming that the perceived "boost" that these already established, major-name acts will receive after appearing on the NFL's halftime show will be that much greater, despite the fact that ticket sales to said tours would already have been purchased long before the "big game" is telling. 

Also, how many younger fans of some of these artists even show interest/take the time to watch an American football game?

Strange days.....

-B


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 20, 2014)

As to the NFL making enough already..."making enough" is not part of the capitalism vernacular. They've come around to viewing this highly desirable, high exposure gig as an opportunity to increase their revenue, and they're seeking to take advantage of that. No performer has a gun to their head to accept it.

In other industries, folks work for free all the time, for many different reasons, many of which are viewed as circumstances that have potential for return on investment at a later date. I just find it interesting and a little amusing that musicians are the only group I ever see that gets so agitated about the prospect of "working" without an immediate paycheck...even when it's someone else!

If Coldplay feels they don't need the exposure, they can say no thank you, and someone else will be happy to pay to play. Or, the NFL could just run another 12 minutes worth of commercials, and many people, like myself, will be less likely to use that time for a piss break.


----------



## gbar (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> In other industries, folks work for free all the time, for many different reasons, many of which are viewed as circumstances that have potential for return on investment at a later date. I just find it interesting and a little amusing that musicians are the only group I ever see that gets so agitated about the prospect of "working" without an immediate paycheck...even when it's someone else!
> .



I really don't think it's common in other industries to "work for free" unless you consider things like drafting proposals "workng for free".

It's rampant among bottom feeders, though, to expect others to work for free.

Now, companies may distribute some products for free or as a free ad-on to products and services for strategic reasons, but... among other things... laws prevent them from not paying their employees.


----------



## gbar (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> In other industries, folks work for free all the time, for many different reasons, many of which are viewed as circumstances that have potential for return on investment at a later date. I just find it interesting and a little amusing that musicians are the only group I ever see that gets so agitated about the prospect of "working" without an immediate paycheck...even when it's someone else!
> .



I really don't think it's common in other industries to "work for free" unless you consider things like drafting proposals while being paid a salary but without payment from a customer "workng for free".

It's rampant among bottom feeders, though, to expect others to work for free.

Now, companies may distribute some products for free or as a free ad-on to products and services for strategic reasons, but... among other things... laws prevent them from not paying their employees.

I could be wrong. Maybe unpaid interns are on the rise, but looking around, I think most folks expect to be paid, and the NFL was already not doing that. Expecting them to pay, meh. I hope they get stuck with even lower tiered acts. Maybe Rick Springfield can do his NFL comeback tour.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Aug 20, 2014)

Coldplay (seriously, could their name be any more appropriate?) and the NFL/American Football; two corporations that deserve each other. 

Equating this 'band' to regular bands/musicians (non-millionaires, people who lug and setup their own instruments, etc.) is silly and kind of insulting. They are as far removed from your average musician/band as the president or Bill Gates.


----------



## TGV (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> In other industries, folks work for free all the time, for many different reasons, many of which are viewed as circumstances that have potential for return on investment at a later date.


Cognitive dissonance reduction at its finest.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 20, 2014)

TGV @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:
> 
> 
> > In other industries, folks work for free all the time, for many different reasons, many of which are viewed as circumstances that have potential for return on investment at a later date.
> ...



No need to be insulting just because you disagree with me.

Example: A company CEO agrees to sit on the board of some other entity, or othewise give of his or her time without direct compensation. Because he or she knows that this good will can be good for their company.

Example: John Doe wants to start his own landscaping business. He does a lawn for free in four different neighborhoods to get his name out there.

Example: _______ agrees to pay for the opportunity to play the NFL halftime show, realizing it could be good exposure and lead to future sales/gigs/etc.

In my mind, these are all comparable, and none involve "employees" being taken advantage of. Where is the outcry of musicians for the first two examples?


----------



## rgames (Aug 20, 2014)

The SuperBowl is one giant advertisement, even for the musicians. All other advertisers pay hefty sums to have their ads associated with the event, so why shouldn't the musicians?

If Budweiser pays a lot of money to get its product shown to the SuperBowl audience then so should Coldplay.

Equating the SuperBowl to a gig at a local bar is inappropriate - the value of the exposure on the local level is miniscule. The SuperBowl, though? Heck yeah I'd pay to play that show if I were in a pop-genre band. The trick, of course, is that you already have to be big to get invited. And, of course, there is a limit to the value of the exposure. But therein lies one of the basic dilemmas of running any business, music or otherwise: how do you relate cost to value?

Of course, the SuperBowl viewers are much more valuable to Budweiser than Coldplay, so it makes sense that Budweiser would pay a lot more and Coldplay would pay a lot less, possibly even nothing (as has usually been the case in past SuperBowls). But expecting them to get paid to advertise their product in such a venue is a stretch.

rgames


----------



## kdm (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Example: A company CEO agrees to sit on the board of some other entity, or othewise give of his or her time without direct compensation. Because he or she knows that this good will can be good for their company.
> 
> Example: John Doe wants to start his own landscaping business. He does a lawn for free in four different neighborhoods to get his name out there.
> 
> ...



Musicians aren't in the positions of the first two examples. 

1 - I wouldn't sit on another company's board just for exposure if I'm already in a position to walk into their board room and negotiate whatever deal I'm interested in. It would be cheaper to take them to dinner, or Vegas for a weekend. 

2 - I have a friend with a very successful landscaping business. He never worked for free. Not one day. He couldn't pay his mortgage and feed his family working for "exposure", and neither can I. He's always been paid for his work. His exposure has always been the quality of his work when he got paid for it. 

The NFL is just taking advantage of the popularity of the Superbowl, but like anything, if your ego exceeds the size of your product, eventually people will stop buying into it. e.g. Superbowl halftime shows are already a waste of time for many of us. No one I know watches the half time show for the show - the commercials are (or were) more entertaining than lip-synced scripted "music". Even that has continually declining value. 

Anytime this happens at any level in any industry, it sets a precedent that begins to seep into other areas. That is exactly what is happening all across the entertainment and media industry. The NFL is a prime example that this free labor scam has reached the highest levels. Film and game scoring won't be far behind. 

See http://happyplace.someecards.com/showtime/a-graphic-designer-wrote-a-fantastic-response-when-showtime-asked-him-to-work-for-free/ (this article) graphic designer's response to a Showtime "contest" looking for free design worj for a major boxing match - the pay? "Exposure" and a free trip to the fight. What a bargain. The guy's response is worth more than the boxing match will net. 

(sarcasm ahead....) 

Just imagine the local car dealership and funeral home scoring gigs we could land by scoring a Mel Bay film or the next Call of Duty for free!! Oh, with, that's right, they all use RF libraries for "music". Well, at least it would be a great Facebook post that is sure to garner a lot of comments for an hour or two. 

I'm sure everyone here gets the catch-22 that when the top level goes for free, there isn't any exposure left to earn from taking such a gig unless you are continually looking downhill. 

Maybe it's time we started saying the same thing when a company calls us up and wants to sell us their product or service. 

"Hey XYZ Company, I'll run your service/show/film in my home and you'll be exposed to a lot of neighborhood kids, my family and friends! It will be great exposure for you!! And if all goes really, really well for me as a result of getting your product for free, I'll send you a discount coupon for a ticket to my next concert! 

Oh, and NFL, if you want me to watch your games and Superbowl, we will need to work out my "In Home Programming Exposure Fee".


----------



## Rob Elliott (Aug 20, 2014)

Not that it matters but this house will NOW *not* tune in to the Superbowl broadcast. Sad.


----------



## rgames (Aug 20, 2014)

kdm @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Hey XYZ Company, I'll run your service/show/film in my home and you'll be exposed to a lot of neighborhood kids, my family and friends! It will be great exposure for you!!


If you can get 100 million people in your house then I bet XYZ Company will even pay you for the opportunity.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 20, 2014)

Why not charge the football players to play?


----------



## mscottweber (Aug 20, 2014)

There's a difference between "playing for *free*" and "*paying* to play". Sure, there are (arguably) some benefits to providing your services for free in certain scenarios, but I have yet to hear a good case for actually shelling out your own pocket money for the opportunity to do your job.

I get that Budweiser, etc. are paying a lot of money to have their ads played, but the point of advertising is to generate more patrons of whatever service you provide. For musicians, writing and performing music IS the service they provide. If Coldplay wants to hang a banner advertising their new album along the stage as Rhianna performs at the Superbowl, then yes, they should pay for that. But does the NFL ask the players of the competing teams to pay?


----------



## SterlingArcher (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Why so outraged? Any artist who performs during the Super Bowl half time show stands to gain from the exposure. I'm surprised it took someone this long to recogize that the artist potentially gains more from the performance than does the NFL. They can always so "no thank you" and move on.
> 
> How's this any different than the landscaper who does a house in a particular neighborhood for free to gain the exposure? Or any other business entrepreneur who takes on a free job from time to time to get their name out there? It's an investment.



This might be showing my age a bit but this reminds of Queen back during Live Aid and THAT performance. In that concert in '85 you had some of the best bands in the world at that time and Queen who at that time were looked down as more of a has-been band as well as being quite controversial because of the concerts in South Africa during apartheid came in did a 20 minute set and changed the world for good in front of an audience of two billion.

While nothing may come ever close to that again. I don't understand why any band worth their salt would not play an event like the Superbowl. It's not always just about football or the money, sometimes it's a opportunity to send a message as well. Look at U2 at the 2002 Superbowl with 'Streets Have No Name'

http://youtu.be/gq08ouOwiqQ


----------



## JohnG (Aug 20, 2014)

Brobdingnagian @ 20th August 2014 said:


> ...the part I thought was OTT cheeky was that THEN the NFL expects to profit share in touring revenues from the artist AFTER the game.



Exactly. Beyond belief.

I don't know if some here have been brainwashed by Ayn Rand or "the market is always right" mantra, but this is terrible news for musicians. All of us. 

News like this is everywhere I look. Lack of competition in distribution of our work. BMI and ASCAP risk being left high and dry by the major labels. Record sales almost vanished except for online downloads, and instead of albums it's often just one song. Those in turn are being threatened by online plays like Spotify. Online play royalties are minuscule, in part because those channels at the moment are not making money. Not infrequently, composer contracts for TV, games and movies specifically prohibit use of union musicians.

The list goes on and on. A way of making a living risks becoming a hobby for all but a few. 

The music part of the film and TV industry used to support thousands of people who made a living as players, engineers, assistants, studio owners. The shift to electronically-produced TV and even film music has really wrecked the livelihoods of a lot of people, and offers -- what? -- for the young musician? How can you tell your kid to practice her cello to get really good at it, when the number of jobs seems to dwindle every year? Orchestras on the ropes.

Meanwhile, on this forum, I read people apologizing for and extenuating piracy of music software -- when rampant piracy has practically erased the living for lots of musicians and diminished it substantially for others.

You can still make a living when you can stand to work non-stop, but what about retirement?

If Coldplay is being asked this, I don't know what to think.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Aug 20, 2014)

It is a shame. I have enjoyed watching the Superbowl, but I guess I will longer be able to watch in good conscious.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 20, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> The SuperBowl is one giant advertisement, even for the musicians. All other advertisers pay hefty sums to have their ads associated with the event, so why shouldn't the musicians?
> 
> rgames


I like to think that if Dave Grohl were offered this gig, he would tell the NFL where they could stick it.

Because... rock 'n' roll.

So many of these bands have lost their edge because they sold out and are now on someone else's payroll. If Hendrix got sucked into this gig, I bet he would light some shit on fire and burn the stage. The Who might wreck some of their gear. Billy Joel would stop one of his songs (again) and say 'valuable advertising time being wasted'.

I'm sure Coldplay will just suck it up, pay the fee and give us all a very predictable and submissive performance. I'm already bored.


----------



## PMortise (Aug 20, 2014)

If Coldplay (or other already successful acts) just said "no" to this kind of thing and pass on doing the halftime show, do you really think it'll slow their careers down any? No. If they weren't already big the NFL wouldn't have called on them in the first place. Secondly, what if all the really popular acts decided to take the same route? Halftime would begin to be the "turn the channel" moment and advertisers would know it. Hence, it would devalue that portion of the show's revenue for the NFL. THEN there could possibly be a change in attitude.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 20, 2014)

I can understand that some find it mind boggling that what is essentially one of the highest profile gigs of the year, not only is not a paying gig, but is now potentially one for which you have to pay for the privilege.

But let's be perfectly honest here. That 12 minutes is not work. How many of the recent performances have been nothing more than lip sync'd, pantomimed efforts to pre-recorded music? How many instruments have clearly not been plugged in? Many have admitted it, others have denied it in unconvincing fashion.

Face it. This is not a performance. It's not work. It's a commercial. Within minutes of leaving the stage with their never-even-plugged-in guitars, the twitter hits, the Facebook hits, the google hits, the iTunes downloads are off the charts. Someone will be willing to pay for that. 

What the market will bear. Economics 101. If you've decided to make music a business, you have to live with the fact that it's a business and it plays by the same rules as all other business. You can't mix art and business and keep the business out of it.


----------



## rgames (Aug 20, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Why not charge the football players to play?


They, as part of the NFL, are paid to create the audience. Then the NFL gets paid to monetize that audience.

If I spent decades building an audience of 100 million people and you wanted in on it, I'd sure as hell charge you for that access.

Think of it from the musicians' perspective: let's say you're a country act and you put up a YouTube video that goes viral. The country music crowd is an important demographic for the NFL so odds are the broadcasters will be willing to pay to lay ads on top of that video. Again, someone creates an audience and then monetizes it by granting access (for a fee) to others who want that access.

Whether it's the NFL selling the audience to the musician or the musician selling the audience to the NFL, it's the same thing: selling access to your audience.

That access has value for both and both are willing to pay for it.

Coldpay's decision, if based on economic value, will be based on the total returns from the gig, not just any up-front payment or cost. That's where I find most musicians have difficulty: getting past the emotional response to really think about the logical choice. That leads to stupid decisions in both regards, by the way: the decision to embrace pay-to-play is often a stupid one just as the decision to avoid pay-to-play can be a stupid one.

Pay-to-play can be bad. It can also be very, very, very good. Don't lock yourself into a box without thinking about it.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 20, 2014)

Screw that, Richard. And screw what Tone Deaf is saying too. Hard and where it hurts.

The emotional response is exactly the correct one. And Tone Deaf, this is a sick perversion of Economics 101. Might makes right. Blech.

John is exactly right to say it's out of an Ayn Rand novel.

The idea that they'll make money from the exposure applies to everything everyone ever did. So what. This isn't a commercial, it's entertainment. Coldplay spent a long time honing their craft, and they deserve to be paid for their performance. 

What a horrible precedent.

And how much money are these greedy bastards going to make selling commercials during the halftime show? Without the show they wouldn't be able to do that.

It's truly awful that musicians of all people would be posting such offensive crap. Ptooey.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 20, 2014)

I see PMortise made the same point.

Well, this still pisses me off.


----------



## SterlingArcher (Aug 20, 2014)

But paid in what? Cash up front which brings a quick fix or exposure to your music which could mean more revenue and a larger fan base but at a longer date. Sometimes the quickest solution is not necessarily the best.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 20, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Screw that, Richard. And screw what Tone Deaf is saying too. Hard and where it hurts.
> 
> The emotional response is exactly the correct one. And Tone Deaf, this is a sick perversion of Economics 101. Might makes right. Blech.
> 
> ...



You're entitled to your opinion and your venom toward me simply because you disagree. Gotta love the internet. I'm convinced that more people tune in to the Super Bowl for the commercials than for the half time lip sync show. They could easily eliminate it all together and simply sell 12 minutes more ad time.

And I cry no tears for Coldplay. By the time an act reaches the stature of being considered for this gig their "work" is no longer defined in terms of a single 12 minute performance . Just because they've spent years honing their craft of ripping off U2 doesn't change the fact that the NFL has the leverage here. This gig has outgrown being a paying gig and has become more valuable to them as another commercial.

How many people watching last year had no earthly idea who Bruno Mars was prior to the Super Bowl? What do you think he would say was more valuable? The 12 minutes of work or the sales that followed?


----------



## gbar (Aug 20, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> What do you think he would say was more valuable? The 12 minutes of work or the sales that followed?




Kind of irrelevant if the NFL is looking for that slice of the pie too. I don't think anybody complained that people donated their time, their money to pay for anything the NFL wasn't picking up and so on.

But... when they want to piggyback off your future work without doing anything (they are asking for a cut of the proceeds from future tour dates), well... greed can be obnoxious when you aren't even willing to do any of the work.

I'd pass on the moochers, myself. Not that I am actually in the position to turn them down, but I would if I could.

Let them see how many people stay tuned in to see the 'A Flock of Seaguls" reunion performance (fresh from a Fairground near you) and see how many ads that sells.


----------



## rgames (Aug 20, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> Coldplay spent a long time honing their craft, and they deserve to be paid for their performance.


They are getting paid - they're using the exposure to drive more sales of CD's, merch, etc.

It's ironic that I've seen you guys express APPROVAL of back-end in the form of performance royalties and now you're expressing DISAPPROVAL of back end in the form of CD and merch sales.

Come on guys, it's the same thing! You can't be for one and against the other.

You can get paid now or paid later. Both systems can work - it's up to you to decide which is better for you. That's the "business" part of the music business.

rgames


----------



## Peter Costa (Aug 20, 2014)

The fact that the NFL is taking from tour profits sounds exactly what major record labels are doing at the moment to artists/groups in order to find some way to replace the huge gap of money they used to make on album sales.

It's called a 360 deal where record labels are entitled also to a percentage of what you make on the road. This really is the only place where a semi-successful group can make any sort of money. Even artists who have gone platinum are barely making anything of record sales and relying mainly on income from the road. Sure you don't have to sign up, so you just get out of line and there are hundreds of others who are willing to step up.

Even though I agree that what the NFL is doing is "ethical" in the terms of American capitalism. I think that this is once again one more step towards the expansion of giant corporations control over everything and the shutting out of independent and smaller artists. Yes, Coldplay is huge compared to the smaller guys, but this model could trickle down to other businesses. In the future production studios may say that they "exposed" you as a composer and offer some terms in the contract saying that they are entitled to a percentage of your future income as a composer. I know there would be plenty to sign the dotted line. 

So in the end, do I agree with what they are doing.. no. Is it in lines with ethical business practices? Ehhhhhh I guess? I think we're starting to get into the grey area of capitalism.

Of course, this is probably a semi-biased POV that had to do with past bad experiences in the music industry...


----------



## gbar (Aug 20, 2014)

Peter Costa @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> The fact that the NFL is taking from tour profits sounds exactly what major record labels are doing at the moment to artists/groups in order to find some way to replace the huge gap of money they used to make on album sales.
> 
> It's called a 360 deal where record labels are entitled also to a percentage of what you make on the road. This really is the only place where a semi-successful group can make any sort of money. Even artists who have gone platinum are barely making anything of record sales and relying mainly on income from the road. Sure you don't have to sign up, so you just get out of line and there are hundreds of others who are willing to step up.
> 
> ...



So far, all three acts "invited" by the tax-exempt monopoly that is the NFL have told them to go pound sand, so I kind of think the sentiment is working out as expected.

Maybe they can book Ted Nugent now that even Southern Casinos aren't booking him anymore. People might tune in to hear him rant about the black players. That should be great for ad sales.


----------



## kdm (Aug 20, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> It's ironic that I've seen you guys express APPROVAL of back-end in the form of performance royalties and now you're expressing DISAPPROVAL of back end in the form of CD and merch sales.
> 
> Come on guys, it's the same thing! You can't be for one and against the other.
> 
> ...



No it isn't the same thing Streaming is killing back end as a potential income source, and with declining upfront fees, there won't be any income to be made in music or the creative arts in the next 5 years. It isn't an "either/or" scenario when neither was consider a non-negotiable income source. 

The music/media industry should never have been built on this now or later concept. Even musicians consider that a business model because most never learned otherwise, but it isn't. 

You can't negotiate for reasonable pay when the client can negotiate your two payment options against each other, and neither option has enough of a standard or precedent to give you the moral/ethical argument. 

Getting paid later is for stock traders and venture capitalists, neither of whom needs next year's returns to pay for this year's bills unless they really suck at that business.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 20, 2014)

> You're entitled to your opinion and your venom toward me simply because you disagree



It's not venom toward you. As far as I know I've never met you.

It's venom toward your point of view. I find it offensive and immoral.

This isn't a chin-stroking intellectual argument, it's a matter of everyone's livelihood.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 20, 2014)

And the issue isn't Coldplay, who should be set for life, it's the ripple effect it has.

I agree with kdm.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 21, 2014)

Deane wrote an interesting article on this exact topic. I think it is a good perspective... 

http://www.deaneogden.com/blog/the-music-business-of-2014/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+deaneogden+%28deaneogden.com%29


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 21, 2014)

I think what I find most interesting about this discussion is the distinction that is so easily made between outside sources and what we do to ourselves.

We're ready to lock arms in our outcry against the evil NFL that seeks to pick the pockets of musicians. But don't musicians cannibalize one another on a regular basis? How hard would we have to look to find musicians who have lost paychecks as a result of...wait for it...virtual instruments? How many of us are using virtual instruments in finished works, when in recent history, we would have employed actual musicians? And how many of our compositions are razor close to plagiarizing someone else's work in the name of "following the temp" because it's cheaper for the client to pay us to copy something than to pay for the use of the original? How many bands out there are blatantly copping someone else's style to make a buck?

No, we don't want the NFL to take a piece of our shrinking pie, but if and when it suits our own wallet, we have no problem cannibalizing one another for a bigger piece ourselves.

The music business has been "dying" for as long as I've been alive, and still it hasn't died yet. Surviviors figure out how to adapt with the times, adapt with the technology, and reinvent new ways to make a living. And for those who don't...there are out of work plumbers, teachers, accountants, etc. Why should musicians be immune to changing economic factors?

Don't get me wrong. I absoultely understand the concern about what's happening with the NFL half-time show. But I can also understand why it's come to that and am completely not surprised by it.


----------



## PMortise (Aug 21, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 20 said:


> I see PMortise made the same point.
> 
> Well, this still pisses me off.



Then I failed to make my point. My point is that big acts _should_ pass on these kinds of offers. If they do (and only less popular acts were doing the halftime show) then it would adversly affect viewing, and ultimately advertising dollars. The money would start talking and big acts would have to be offered fair deals to keep that part of the show lucrative for advertising dollars. Simply put, I agree with http://www.forbes.com/sites/willburns/2014/08/20/why-pay-to-play-will-ruin-the-super-bowl-halftime-show/url (Will Burns) in spite of how badly I mangled the message.  

It's not about it being 12 minutes worth of "work". It's about the market value of the product being given to the audience. That temporary spike in iTune sales and social media buzz is nothing compared to the long lasting effects of devaluing your product.

If you had a Coldplay tribute band actually singing and playing live just as good as the real thing - it still ain't the real thing and people vote on that with their dollars all the time. Do they really care if Britney Spears or Beyonce lip syncs? Obviously not. From auto-tuned singers to movie SFX to magicians telling you how the trick is done, I just don't think audiences really care about that anymore. They just want the **SHOW** no matter how fake they know it is. It may not be real, but it IS a commodity, and it should paid for.


----------



## PMortise (Aug 21, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Thu Aug 21 said:


> ...No, we don't want the NFL to take a piece of our shrinking pie, but if and when it suits our own wallet, we have no problem cannibalizing one another for a bigger piece ourselves.


The NFL's pie isn't shrinking - au contraire, mon frère.


----------



## gbar (Aug 21, 2014)

PMortise @ Thu Aug 21 said:


> Then I failed to make my point. My point is that big acts should pass on these kinds of offers. If they do (and only less popular acts were doing the halftime show) then it would adversly affect viewing, and ultimately advertising dollars. The money would start talking and big acts would have to be offered fair deals to keep that part of the show lucrative for advertising dollars.



Very well put. I will quote you on my blog and social media in return for 10% of your gross income over the next 4 months


----------



## PMortise (Aug 21, 2014)

Good luck with that.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Aug 21, 2014)

PMortise @ Thu Aug 21 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Thu Aug 21 said:
> 
> 
> > ...No, we don't want the NFL to take a piece of our shrinking pie, but if and when it suits our own wallet, we have no problem cannibalizing one another for a bigger piece ourselves.
> ...



You may want to reread that mi amigo...the shrinking pie was in reference to musicians, not the NFL.

And I still believe that if every musician on the planet said no thank you to paying to play the half time show, the NFL would not open up their wallet as you seem to believe. I believe that they, and the network would simply shrug their shoulders and say, "fine, we'll just sell 12 more commercial spots...cha ching!" 

I don't believe there are that many people tuning in to the Super Bowl soleley for the half time show. And if they are, they're either a) hoping for a wardrobe malfunction, or b) enjoy making fun of the crappy performances. People watch for the game and the commercials. The drop in ratings by eliminating the half time performance woudl be a minor blip, and would more than be made up for by selling more commercial time. The NFL's latest move is their recognition of that as well.


----------



## PMortise (Aug 21, 2014)

….meaning that while the musicians pie is shrinking, the NFL's isn't - underlining the lop-sidedness of the situation.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 21, 2014)

> My point is that big acts should pass on these kinds of offers



My bad. Sorry!


----------



## gbar (Aug 21, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Thu Aug 21 said:


> I don't believe there are that many people tuning in to the Super Bowl soleley for the half time show. .




Then your fight is with the Nielsen ratings folks and their methodology because every half-time show since they started booking contemporary acts has seen a huge spike in viewership according to the people who claim to measure that stuff, and that translates into more $$$ for advertising around and within that slot.

The half-time show featuring Bruno Mars--not my cup of tea, but a talented guy--is the current record holder with 125 million people tuned in for that show. Madonna has the silver in that competition.


----------



## PMortise (Aug 21, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Thu Aug 21 said:


> ...And I still believe that if every musician on the planet said no thank you to paying to play the half time show, the NFL would not open up their wallet as you seem to believe. I believe that they, and the network would simply shrug their shoulders and say, "fine, we'll just sell 12 more commercial spots...cha ching!"...


I'm fine with that. I'm not against the NFL making money - just that they pay fairly for the music that helps make the show what it is.

When you think of it - what does the general public talk about long after the game is over? The music stuff. The ads - and most of the game itself washes away very quickly. Whether it was the halftime show, or the national anthem. The music segments bring in substantial ancillary dollars.


----------

