Seeking interview advice (Classical music marketing)

[James B]

I know this is hardly a classical music focused forum (and neither is it all that familiar to me) but I thought I'd try my luck here first...

I have an interview coming up for a paid internship with a fairly large classical label.?The position includes a variety of roles depending on the applicants interests and abilities, for me this is recording/ production/ editing/ mastering, but they have asked me to give my thoughts on a marketing scenario in the interview. This isn?t really my strongest area and could do with some advice.

Essentially the label is planning on setting up a marketing agency with the aim of getting more concerts for their artists in order to facilitate increased CD sales. They intend to charge artists ?50 per month for this service. The main aspects of their plan are:

A list of concert promoters, venues, orchestras, festivals and concert clubs which the artist will access in various ways.

An artist page on the label?s website with biographies, mp3s, a calendar displaying their availability, reviews etc.

A ?virtual office? service. Basically just acting as a 3rd party between artists and promoters by handling emails and phone calls.

The option to submit articles to a monthly e-newsletter for free.

The option to be featured in a quarterly printed newsletter with a sampler CD at a cost of ?85 per half page with 3 minutes on the sampler.

Other services such as contract negotiation, invoicing etc are available at additional cost.

They also intend to offer an expenses calculator based on the artist?s location prior to the performance.

They propose that artists and ensembles are paid a negotiated percentage of the box office takings in order to remove the risk from the promoters point of view (would musicians be happy taking all of the risk like this? seems unfair to me)

They have asked me to present my thoughts at the interview, so I was thinking that I?d print a couple of booklets out that contain a breakdown of my thoughts on it. I?ve got a few observations/ criticisms but I?ve yet to really think of anything new to suggest to add to their existing plan and I really feel like that is what they?ll be looking for.

If anyone reading this has experience in this area and can offer any thoughts at all. I?d love to land this internship but being asked to interview based around the aspect I?m least comfortable with is making things difficult.

Thanks.

[chris harris]

It sounds like what they intend to offer is some kind of combination of things you can get for free on the internet, things that a manager would handle, and things that a booking agent would handle.

Managers and booking agents typically take a percentage of income that they help create for an artist. They also typically only work with artists that they feel that they can find work for. It diminishes the legitimacy of an agency's artist roster when the outside world knows that the artists are paying a monthly fee to be on the roster. And, it also could create doubt about whether or not the agency is working as hard as they can to create opportunities.

I'm always skeptical of any business that makes their money directly out of the artists' pockets, rather than from helping to generate income from fans and music consumers.

I probably wouldn't even work with a booking agency on a more traditional percentage deal if they told me up front that they were only seeking "door deal" opportunities.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

+1. it all sorta sounds like a Third Monk kind of deal to me.

[Gregg Juke]

Exactly That (see Chris' comments above)...

If the label was to deduct the monthly fee from the artists royalties or sales percentage, that would more closely resemble a traditional deal; or, more accurately, it would more closely resemble the new traditional deal, which is the 360 plan (label gets a piece of everything and acts as label, management, and booking agency). This worked great for Motown, but not really many other labels throughout history, and the jury is still out on the "new" deal scenario...

"Door" gigs? The artist can do that on their own, so that's none too attractive a feature.

Also, it sounds like you're in the UK; I'd check the laws over there. Here in the US, there are certain states where it's actually illegal for a label to take on booking duties without proper charter, insurance and bonding, etc., and it's also technically illegal for lawyers to "shop" artists and bands (even though it happens all the time). So I'm not sure about the UK or Euro Union, but the label in question might want to make sure that they have all of their i's and t's dotted and crossed.

All-in-all, it's not a bad plan, if the label can actually book paying gigs and move product, a tall order these days.

GJ

*Edited due to craypee spelink

[Gregg Juke]

Oooo, OUCH. A Third Monk reference!

GJ

[MoreSpaceEcho]

for the old-timers here...

[Gregg Juke]

(Scratches head, leans on cane, then turns and yells at kids to "Get offa my lawn!", while trying to remember what that guy was talking about).

GJ

[James B]

The more I think about it the more I think I should go in there and tell them that it's a not a good use of their resources and artists will be reluctant to get involved at that price and under those terms. I'll just hope that it's all some kind of plan to weed out the sycophants who will simply praise it.

There are some decent ideas in there I guess but not really enough to make it viable as a paid service.

I think I might just go down the Costanza route and hope they appreciate it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiwtXHPwGPE


I was also thinking that the differences between the role of a pop label and a classical label could explain why they aren't already offering these services for free. If they are releasing recordings of old classical works the artists are merely performers rather than writers and copyright holders. The age of the compositions would also mean they're copyright free, right?

So since they're only dealing with the mechanical copyright which is owned by themselves as they do their own recordings in-house that would surely alter the artist/ label relationship when it comes to royalties. In fact, does anyone receive sales royalties in that set up? If they're selling a recording of Vivaldi (or whatever) and the mechanical copyright is exclusively owned by the label then they're effectively just session musicians. Unless I've got it all wrong.

[Gregg Juke]

Double-post removed.

GJ

[Gregg Juke]

>>>>The age of the compositions would also mean they're copyright free, right?<<<<

Well, it all depends. But yes, in general, classical music (especially if it's actually classical, romantic, impressionistic, or solo legit contrafact versions of "folk" material that is 100 years old or more) will be in the public domain. But, as you mentioned, there will be an SR copyright (sound recording, separate from the composition), and there might be an arrangement/orchestration copyright (in pop music, "arrangements" are generally not considered copyrightable, which is a legal crime IMHO, but if it's an orchestration that has actually been written out as sheet music for everything from 1st violins down to the timpani part, that might be different).

++++"maybe I've got it wrong..."++++

Yes, you are wrong there, at least in regards to most artist deals. The artist "always" gets a royalty on sales of some kind (always in quotes because of course they almost never actually do collect, but on paper). It's a whole different story when they are a writer/composer and publishing rights are involved as well.

I can't watch your video right now, but I'm betting it's the Seinfeld episode where George does "everything the opposite." Sounds like a good plan. Or maybe not? (depends on what the "opposite" would be for you).

GJ

[joelpatterson]

Are they charging you $35 for the interview?.....