Band Merchandise Question

[One Eyed Cat]

Obviously, I would agree with Amelia on this. If bands are seriously being expected to tour based on potential merch sales, we are going to see less and less bands touring. It's a struggle to set up a deal that is feasible for all parties involved these days. Basically, the smart thing for bands is to receive certain guarantees. If they're truly unknown, you'd be looking at a door deal (split gate with venue and/or promoter). I don't see how you do that nationally without taking a hit.

So my question: Who is making the merchandise argument and why? Is it just fans or is this seriously an offer that some bands are being offered or accepting without other guarantees? Merch is usually licensed out. Even then, you will invariably have opportunists who are operating with no money going to the band.

It doesn't work as a business model.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

Originally the merch argument seemed to come from all the people that wanted to justify their digital music theft. The theory was that hard goods and ticket sales could equal $$$ but in their minds, music (and information) should be free. Although it is possible that there may have been more nefarious, and less grass roots, sources behind that stance. These days, people seem more comfortable buying tracks and albums digitally, so I think that original stance carries less weight

The real problem with making it all on merch, in my mind anyway, is that it encourages a certain kind of contrived gimmick based band structure and that sort of thing usually doesn't take off as well as certain marketers would like. There have been a few successful examples, but I'm not sure I'd like it if every band I liked was pressured to sell action figures and Guitar-hero license rights in order to put some food on the table, when they already actually sell a large number of you know... albums.

[One Eyed Cat]

Originally the merch argument seemed to come from all the people that wanted to justify their digital music theft. The theory was that hard goods and ticket sales could equal $$$ but in their minds, music (and information) should be free. Although it is possible that there may have been more nefarious, and less grass roots, sources behind that stance. These days, people seem more comfortable buying tracks and albums digitally, so I think that original stance carries less weight

The real problem with making it all on merch, in my mind anyway, is that it encourages a certain kind of contrived gimmick based band structure and that sort of thing usually doesn't take off as well as certain marketers would like. There have been a few successful examples, but I'm not sure I'd like it if every band I liked was pressured to sell action figures and Guitar-hero license rights in order to put some food on the table, when they already actually sell a large number of you know... albums.

ahh k. Thanks. That would really hurt a lot of bands unable/unwilling to caricature themselves. One thing I did notice: Wednesday 13 came through here with some sort of Hot Topic deal. I don't know if this was related to this business model.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

Yeah, I've seen Wednesday 13 play and they are a lot of fun, but yeah, not everybody is going to have the same merch potential as they do.

[One Eyed Cat]

Yeah, I've seen Wednesday 13 play and they are a lot of fun, but yeah, not everybody is going to have the same merch potential as they do.

Yeah, he's one of the exceptions to the rule I think. Good merch potential + he self-released Skeletons (no "people" to negotiate matters). Definitely not a good business model for most. Was a great show as usual.

[Mindgames]

The tour-based merchandise-revenue model is a non-starter, and always will be. Even for a headline act, on many nights it can cost more to drive the truck of gear across the country, pay a bunch of Comic Book Guy types to operate the stall, and cover production costs than you make in profits. These days people buy their shirts online so they can arrive wearing them.

A ticket sales argument, however, does work and is working. Many of the well-known-but-b-grade acts are giving albums away for free, online or in a deal with a newspaper, and the argument used in meetings is that we're pushing up tickets on the tour to compensate (last year you paid $15 on the door, and bought your own album. This year it's $20 on the door and a free album. It costs us 10 cents to make the album, so if 1 in 1000 comes to a concert, we're sorted...)

The exception to the merchandising rule is endorsement. Selling shirts and posters to a 5000-head crowd is nothing more than pacifying them so they don't try and steal the furniture. J-lo Glow is one of the best selling fragrances on the planet, and has absolutely nothing to do with her next album, or where she's due to go on stage. The same with the various rappers, and alt/emo bands like Good Charlotte - the future is having your own fashion line, perfume, low-fat grilling machine and selection of cloned midgets.

The endorsement is only as good as the credibility of the artist, so yes, you COULD try to retire and live off the other stuff - but the people making the other stuff only want to use your name because you're making records. The better your records are, the bigger your cut of the perfume sales - so it's in the artists' interests to keep working hard.

[Morning Glory]

These days people buy their shirts online so they can arrive wearing them.

really? around here it's always been a party-foul to wear the shirt of the band whose concert you are at. everyone will make fun of you if you do that.

[Mindgames]

really? around here it's always been a party-foul to wear the shirt of the band whose concert you are at. everyone will make fun of you if you do that.

which is partly the point - if it's cool to turn up in a shirt emblazoned with an obscure Guatemalan emo-punk death metal collective's cymbal supplier on it, you won't find that at a concert. Even the old "exclusive" live tour shirts are available through the discounted retail chains these days, so queuing for half an hour to buy something everyone else has is less appealing than it used to be. Folks want to look like they fit the crowd, but also look unique.


(and talking of fashion.. the 'next big thing' in Europe for the fall 08/09 season is supposedly Goth. I've heard it said it's a reflection of the depression in society etc etc but we all know it's just hot for the writing on your black t-shirt to be in an even blacker black.)

[Raza]

The first problem with this argument is that you take the status quo, a result of mechanics criticised as undesirable by those you're arguing against (intellectual property), and demand that it be sustained by methods to be provided by us. If intellectual property is injust, as I hold it to be, then so are achievements built on it - and keeping those in place should not be a requirement for alternative systems as they are proposed.

But you're correct; I can tell you that bands wouldn't be able to tour from selling merch if IP were taken out of the equation; primarily because merchandise (like music) could be printed by anyone.


I would say that in a no-IP capitalistic economical model, touring bands would have to get by from ticket sales. Which seems appropriate, as the ability to deliver live shows to an audience that wants to see them is the only thing a tour offers over other methods of distributing ones music; in capitalism, the desirability of a service is presumed to be quantified by the money people are ready to pay for it, so that adds up as well as anything does. If people don't want to see live shows badly enough to pay for the band to come deliver them, the band is apparently not popular enough to 'tour'. If they want to do it for their own reasons they can travel out of their own pockets like everybody else.

[One Eyed Cat]

The first problem with this argument is that you take the status quo, a result of mechanics criticised as undesirable by those you're arguing against (intellectual property), and demand that it be sustained by methods to be provided by us. If intellectual property is injust, as I hold it to be, then so are achievements built on it - and keeping those in place should not be a requirement for alternative systems as they are proposed.

But you're correct; I can tell you that bands wouldn't be able to tour from selling merch if IP were taken out of the equation; primarily because merchandise (like music) could be printed by anyone.


I would say that in a no-IP capitalistic economical model, touring bands would have to get by from ticket sales. Which seems appropriate, as the ability to deliver live shows to an audience that wants to see them is the only thing a tour offers over other methods of distributing ones music; in capitalism, the desirability of a service is presumed to be quantified by the money people are ready to pay for it, so that adds up as well as anything does. If people don't want to see live shows badly enough to pay for the band to come deliver them, the band is apparently not popular enough to 'tour'. If they want to do it for their own reasons they can travel out of their own pockets like everybody else.

The equation seems to come out the same with or without IP law I s'pose. Kind of an interesting development in its own right.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

really? around here it's always been a party-foul to wear the shirt of the band whose concert you are at. everyone will make fun of you if you do that.

Younger kids do that these days. Saw quite a few at Wednesday 13. Was odd. It didn't affect the show quality though. I had to watch the pit for 12-13 year olds so they wouldn't get hurt. Obviously, it won't happen at most p-rock shows. I can honestly say p-rock is by far the strongest in terms of good shows + community in 2008. Kind of a rebound due to p-rock methods working in any economy.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

The tour-based merchandise-revenue model is a non-starter, and always will be. Even for a headline act, on many nights it can cost more to drive the truck of gear across the country, pay a bunch of Comic Book Guy types to operate the stall, and cover production costs than you make in profits. These days people buy their shirts online so they can arrive wearing them.

A ticket sales argument, however, does work and is working. Many of the well-known-but-b-grade acts are giving albums away for free, online or in a deal with a newspaper, and the argument used in meetings is that we're pushing up tickets on the tour to compensate (last year you paid $15 on the door, and bought your own album. This year it's $20 on the door and a free album. It costs us 10 cents to make the album, so if 1 in 1000 comes to a concert, we're sorted...)

The exception to the merchandising rule is endorsement. Selling shirts and posters to a 5000-head crowd is nothing more than pacifying them so they don't try and steal the furniture. J-lo Glow is one of the best selling fragrances on the planet, and has absolutely nothing to do with her next album, or where she's due to go on stage. The same with the various rappers, and alt/emo bands like Good Charlotte - the future is having your own fashion line, perfume, low-fat grilling machine and selection of cloned midgets.

The endorsement is only as good as the credibility of the artist, so yes, you COULD try to retire and live off the other stuff - but the people making the other stuff only want to use your name because you're making records. The better your records are, the bigger your cut of the perfume sales - so it's in the artists' interests to keep working hard.

Was wondering about endorsement deals as well. How does that work exactly? I was reading Kommunity FK's site. They have an endorsement from lip service now (note: they are mutual friends with the LP founder and this is not to disparage KFK or lip service for a specific deal)

OEC

[Mindgames]

Endorsements work pretty much like book and record deals - if the artist's lawyers are at all switched on then they'll work a royalty from counter sales with a suitably-large advance. The bigger you are, the higher your percentage - but even the headline deals are on smaller numbers than you'd expect. Also-rans are lucky to see 1%, and if a 2-bit act turns up without their lawyers, or said lawyers are asleep, then they can end up signing off on a single payment.

As with sport, any endorsement includes prescriptions on the artist's need to maintain their image and status - deals die if the artist stops making music, or gets busted for jerking off to videos of airboat racing. If the brand has gotten their slice by then, both sides just walk - but more often than not the artist will be hit for the lost sales estimate (and that can run into millions). The trick, of course, is to get yourself a reputation as a drug-fuelled pervert before you start signing things...

[One Eyed Cat]

Endorsements work pretty much like book and record deals - if the artist's lawyers are at all switched on then they'll work a royalty from counter sales with a suitably-large advance. The bigger you are, the higher your percentage - but even the headline deals are on smaller numbers than you'd expect. Also-rans are lucky to see 1%, and if a 2-bit act turns up without their lawyers, or said lawyers are asleep, then they can end up signing off on a single payment.

As with sport, any endorsement includes prescriptions on the artist's need to maintain their image and status - deals die if the artist stops making music, or gets busted for jerking off to videos of airboat racing. If the brand has gotten their slice by then, both sides just walk - but more often than not the artist will be hit for the lost sales estimate (and that can run into millions). The trick, of course, is to get yourself a reputation as a drug-fuelled pervert before you start signing things...

Ah k. Signing for a point? ugh. Feel sorry for those folks. Thanks for the info.

OEC