Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Paul McGuinness
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Michael |
"Brand" does not necessarily involve crass marketing. It's a word that has been borrowed, but should not be over-indulged in this context.
The 360 thing, well we'll see. I don't see anyone around me applying it, or even seriously considering it for the moment. So it's hard at this stage to see what a label can bring in terms of 360 services. Seems to me a lot of people are being sacked. So will the 360 services be outsourced? And guess who will end up footing the bill.
Once again, Midem was full of the big talk which is always very stimulating. Paradoxically, I don't think I have ever been so involved in good old fashioned CDs. There are still distributors looking for great records out there! There is still room for good catalogues to be worked.
The words babies and bathwater spring to mind. |
|
DJKZ |
How ironic JK i was just writing a long post about McGuinness and his article/interview in the Times.
Brands not bands are what artists become now. Some labels have understood this and the P Diddys of this world as well. You are so on the money with this one but i think that there still should be seperate agreements for each activity. |
|
JK2006 |
Interesting to see a manager slag off the 360 degrees new model.
Well, he would do, wouldn't he? No manager wants to give away management income.
But I still think the new model does indeed redistribute income from ALL sources and involves a partnership between all parties, sharing all the "brand" income - from the music, the image, the gigs, the commercials, the sponsorship, the perfumes and t-shirts and the lot.
Three or four parties - artiste (brand), manager, music, publicist - even split of everything, for as long as the brand lasts. |
|
|
|
