http://online.wsj.com/articles/nfl-to-coldplay-pay-to-play-the-super-bowl-1408465018
Interesting approach: Whats the incremental value of 115+ million people, who can buy concert tickets, I-tunes, CDs, merchandise etc.
Revenue Sharing: NFL wants SB half-time performers to share the pot.
- Thread starter bankshot1
- Start date
Interesting approach: Whats the incremental value of 115+ million people, who can buy concert tickets, I-tunes, CDs, merchandise etc.
Would never happen but would be interesting to see what sort of negative impact there might be on Super Bowl revenue if the music industry as a whole boycotted the half time show. Guessing at the very least that it might impact ratings/sponsorships as the main reason for having these acts is to draw viewers who might not normally watch either the game itself or those might tune out during the half. Hard to believe these greedy fucks can't be satisfied that they get these performers now for basically the cost of getting them there.
Goodell should mandate that the payment be directed to a charity. Perhaps one that does work for domestic violence victims.
This dude's got some brass ones.
This dude's got some brass ones.
bankshot1 said:
How many other "free"' shows does the performer play in a given year? I'm guessing there is a pretty close balance, esp for someone like Katy Perry or Rhinana who doesn't exactly need the publicity. Cold Play on the other hand might be willing to fork over some $$.
j44thor said:
They may not need the publicity, but many crave the attention and what bigger stage? Also I'm guessing the record companies strongly urge/compensate their talent to participate when the opportunity presents itself.
I imagine the music spot on SNL has to be hugely valuable to musical groups. And I also imagine that SNL pays only a nominal fee (scale) to acts that would probably play for gratis.j44thor said:
j44thor said:
Coldplay's net worth is close to half a billion dollars.
The thing about this is that it's not even the money, though. Like, even rich and famous speakers who are willing to do their thang for organizations not flush with cash generally get a small honorarium. It's not because they need the money, but it's an issue of respect--it's recognition that what they are offering is of value.
Some of these musicians really so like to think of themselves as artists to at least some degree. This is just... it seems off. Yeah, it makes business sense but I don't know that it makes human sense.
I'm just wondering if there is even a theoretical limit to the greed of this league. I suppose I should not be surprised: they bilk taxpayers for their playpens, and throw their brain-injured employees under the bus for pennies on the dollar, and compared to these outrages, this is is nothing. These aren't exactly starving artists, after all. But the NFL seems nearly crazed with the desire to squeeze every last dime from every opportunity, and they are utterly shameless about it. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
bankshot1 said:
Right and who would actually pay to play on SNL? To think the NFL is looking not just for a payment but rather a revenue share of some sort is rather ridiculous. I have to go by the TD Garden every day for work and Katy Perry was there recently. I thought there was a giant middle-school convention going on based on the crowd demographics. It is safe to say that Katy Perry's would probably bring a different set of eyes to the Superbowl than would otherwise watch.
Hell if I was Katy I might charge the NFL a share of the add revenue they get right before and after the halftime show.
j44thor said:
First off I think the NFL tactic takes a lot of chutzpah. But, that aside, the NFL charges around $4 million for 30 seconds of air-time on Super Sunday, as that is what the ad market is worth. I imagine giving a musical group 15 minutes of "free" time to promote and advertise their services must have a significant value. Now we will find out if they can extract it.
Coldplay is perfect. It really fits the NFLs last decade of musicians, that while apparently popular, would never have anyone above the age of 18 actually admit to liking them.
I actually thought they already did a halftime show because that's basically the most generic band possible.
I actually thought they already did a halftime show because that's basically the most generic band possible.
There is no way Rihanna could get through a 15-20 minute set without a. grabbing her crotch, b. lighting up a blunt, c. exposing herself, or d. all of the above. I'd love to see it.
Not only would she have to share the wealth, but also pay a huge fine. .
Not only would she have to share the wealth, but also pay a huge fine. .
bankshot1 said:
Hardy at TSH (former BCN guy, so knows the music biz) said that SB halftime performers see a "significant" jump in record sales post-event, with Bruno Mars' sales going up 164% after last years performance.
Bring back Up With People!
So the NFL is rivaling FIFA on the greed level now? Interesting.
IMO the Super Bowl halftime show is a huge waste, but I'm one of those that tune in to see the game and (if I have a chance which is not always) catch the good commercials as a bonus.
Frankly, a good halftime act helps them bring more eyes and perhaps a younger/different demographic, but it exceeds all logical expectations to extract a share of future revenues from an artist. The artists' agents should reject this on principle. Would Katy Perry/Rihanna/Coldplay really lose any business if the don't appear on the next Superbowl halftime show?
Honestly, I'm waiting for someone to tell the NFL that they have crossed a line and to go screw. Anyone.
IMO the Super Bowl halftime show is a huge waste, but I'm one of those that tune in to see the game and (if I have a chance which is not always) catch the good commercials as a bonus.
Frankly, a good halftime act helps them bring more eyes and perhaps a younger/different demographic, but it exceeds all logical expectations to extract a share of future revenues from an artist. The artists' agents should reject this on principle. Would Katy Perry/Rihanna/Coldplay really lose any business if the don't appear on the next Superbowl halftime show?
Honestly, I'm waiting for someone to tell the NFL that they have crossed a line and to go screw. Anyone.
I suspect that one of Katy Perry, Rihanna or Cold Play, at least, will tell the NFL to go fuck itself.
None of them need the League in the least. All of them can set up tours and cut music as far as the eye can see, and the NFL association will not net them an extra nickel.
This is amusing.
None of them need the League in the least. All of them can set up tours and cut music as far as the eye can see, and the NFL association will not net them an extra nickel.
This is amusing.
The NFL is on a mission to double it's revenues in ten years, so anything goes to get to that goal.
Are the prices for ads a flat rate for the SB or do they fluctuate based on when they air? I'm thinking that ads surrounding halftime probably get more eyes than those during the game, since people tune in to see the performance, while regular commercial breaks might get fewer eyes. I may be wrong, but I always thought part of the reason for big name halftime performers was to generate more ad revenue. Is this wrong?
I don't understand the faux outrage. Performers will either see benefit to this and accept, or they won't and will decline. It's business. They don't seem to care about charging the prices they do for tickets to their concerts. The market allows those prices and the NFL is just trying to see if it will support this scheme, too.
trekfan55 said:
Absolutely they would lose something - the +146% in record sales. The same source also said The Who (who were awful) had a huge increase in sales for their (at the time) recently released greatest hits album.
Katy Perry/Rhianna/Coldplay work for a record company. The "artist" isn't making this decision. There's a handful of artists in the world who could make that decision without the record company throwing a fit and citing contracts and threatening to sue the artist.
The NFL is providing 15 minutes of exposure to a global audience; that is ABSOLUTELY worth something. A 30-second commercial is worth $4M. The record company selling Katy Perry is using $120M in advertising time.
Ferm Sheller said:
Oh, it's coming. Some "artists" who never had a chance to be the SB halftime act will announce they'd never pay to play and other "artists" who only care about money (as opposed to integrity) will line up to pay the NFL for the SB halftime. Nickelback is one of the few "artists" personally bankrupt enough to do it AND they are famous enough.
And when it happens, we will all blame you Ferm Sheller.
soxfan121 said:
Yes, BUT, if they don't get a high quality act, people won't watch it. It won't be quite the same global audience. If the Partridge Family comes back to put on a show b/c they paid their way to get on the stage, people will flip to the lingerie bowl.
This is a poor decision by the NFL solely for optics. People will look at this and think, "How much is enough for this league?" That's not the reaction you want to get with any decision.
johnmd20 said:
I'd refute the "high quality act" statement but I see Papelbon's Poutine already posted the list.
No one is tuning out. Every single counter-programming stunt designed to draw eyeballs away from the SB halftime show has been a one-and-done exercise. The audience isn't clicking away, even if Bruno Mars is on their TV. Nope, they are watching even when the act is (speculating) Nickelback, Justin Bieber or One Direction. (oh, Bieber is coming...think about that for a minute)
I think it is dumb for the NFL to publicize this pay-for-play scheme but I'm shocked they were giving it away for free. I mean, my Up With People reference is relevant. The days where the NFL had trouble getting an act for the halftime show are loooooooong gone. Now, it is a global branding opportunity. Bruno Mars used it to drastically increase his Q rating, his record sales, his concert attendance and his brand. He made LOTS of money off that SB halftime appearance. And it is the global audience that is the key. Old American Dudes might complain about Bruno Mars but they watched. And then his record sales went through the roof.
And I'm flabbergasted that some of you (dcmissle) think there isn't a ton of money to be made here.
Maybe it's a function of having teenagers who are into Katy and Rihanna. The demand appears endless. And I doubt that the 50 year old in Ozone Park who scratches his nuts while listening to Francesa can be persuaded to buy anything from this crew.
But maybe, soxfan, I'm still in a rage over the rather transparent effort to award another ring to Tebow's successor, so perhaps my judgment is clouded.
I am really beginning to hate this League with a passion, for a whole assortment of things, and may well follow BB and Brady out the door when the days come.
But maybe, soxfan, I'm still in a rage over the rather transparent effort to award another ring to Tebow's successor, so perhaps my judgment is clouded.
I am really beginning to hate this League with a passion, for a whole assortment of things, and may well follow BB and Brady out the door when the days come.
He is short, whiny and usually wears a stupid hat. I was predisposed to hate his act no matter how good it was.BigSoxFan said:
Seriously? Old people love the Stones, Mccartney, Bruce, Tom Petty, and the Who. But if you think those bands are all the rage with the kids these days, you are freaking old. Sorry to break it to you. Even Prince and Madonna and RHCP are verging on old people music. They're not as bad as the aforementioned, but they aren't exactly hip and new.Papelbon said:
The idea of the SB half-time show pisses me off anyways. Why would I want to see a concert in the middle of my football game? Why couldn't I just look up concert footage on Youtube?
I think this speaks to just how beastly the Super Bowl has become. Yes football is the biggest sport in America, but even so, the Super Bowl is such a ridiculous event for the league. While people like us are interested in the game, we are still the minority when it comes to the average SB viewer. Most of the people watching are not exactly football fans, but people looking for entertainment. Whether it is the commercials or the half-time show, people that never tune into a regular season game come in droves to watch the SB. The overall entertainment value is what brings eyes to the screen, with football just kind of being something on the side.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that the half-time show and who is playing it isn't intended for the typical football fan. Is there a massive cross-over appeal between Katy Perry fans and football fans? Probably not as much as other musical acts, but that doesn't matter. Anyone who watches even a tiny bit of football is going to watch that game even if Bieber was playing the half-time show. The half-time show is a complete ploy to try and get non-football fans into watching.
I think this speaks to just how beastly the Super Bowl has become. Yes football is the biggest sport in America, but even so, the Super Bowl is such a ridiculous event for the league. While people like us are interested in the game, we are still the minority when it comes to the average SB viewer. Most of the people watching are not exactly football fans, but people looking for entertainment. Whether it is the commercials or the half-time show, people that never tune into a regular season game come in droves to watch the SB. The overall entertainment value is what brings eyes to the screen, with football just kind of being something on the side.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that the half-time show and who is playing it isn't intended for the typical football fan. Is there a massive cross-over appeal between Katy Perry fans and football fans? Probably not as much as other musical acts, but that doesn't matter. Anyone who watches even a tiny bit of football is going to watch that game even if Bieber was playing the half-time show. The half-time show is a complete ploy to try and get non-football fans into watching.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Short and whiny? That's the reason why you don't like him as a performer? Well then, your case is made and it's a strong one. Guilty.
If they want to get a cut, have the halftime show just be a concert outside of the stadium. Sell tickets, throw it up on the giant screens.
Scriblerus said:
That would actually be an awesome idea, but then the fans in the stadium would get screwed.
johnmd20 said:
Bosoxen said:
Exactly. I was at the Pats-Panthers Super Bowl with the infamous wardrobe malfunction. I could have cared less about Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson performing. I was up in the concourse with my dad discussing the first half (we were sitting in different sections).
johnmd20 said:
I'm going to infer from the part of my post that you you left out that you agree with me that he often wears a stupid hat.
sf121 - not picking on you, but your two posts were the most relevant ones I could find to frame my comments.
Your basic point about the value of the time is true, but you have the dynamics of the artist/label relationship backwards as it relates to live performances.
Touring has always been the one area where the artist could do whatever they wanted and the label had no say in the matter. Labels generally like tours (because of the fact that it promotes music sales) but because they don't bear any promotional risk, they have no say in what the artist does and they receive no revenues other than increased music sales that may come from the tour. And the changes in the music business over the past decade have only exacerbated this trend.
Established artists - the kind who would be a candidate to play the Super Bowl - make the vast majority of their money through touring, not through music sales. They control everything and they call all the shots. If the NFL came to them and asked them to pay to play at the Super Bowl, the artist would turn right around and tell their label "If you want to leverage the promotional value of the Super Bowl, we'll do the show if you pay the fee to the NFL and guarantee the band [insert figure here]." And because the benefits are potentially significant for the label, they would probably do so.
The NFL can probably get the label to cover some expenses and pay a nominal fee, but the reality is that the revenue to be gained by the NFL from the artist/label is a pittance compared to the advertising revenue. And the NFL doesn't see the advertising revenue in any case - that goes to the network, which pays stupid amounts of money for the right to broadcast NFL games, including the rotating right to broadcast the Super Bowl.
Where I think this scheme unravels on the NFL is that the logic they are using - "hey, look at the value of the free exposure" - can be turned around by the artist in question. They simply have to say "you make a good point - we'll pay you [insert figure] and we'll take 50% of the advertising revenue from halftime, since fans will be tuning in to see us." And the NFL can't do this without the network buying in, which they won't.
The other reason I see this failing is that the NFL wants to tightly control every element of the production. They lose this ability if they ask the artist to pay for the right to perform.
Seems to be a puzzling move by the NFL. My guess is that it's more of a trial balloon than anything else because they are trying to get a handle on the skyrocketing costs of staging the production.
soxfan121 said:
Your basic point about the value of the time is true, but you have the dynamics of the artist/label relationship backwards as it relates to live performances.
Touring has always been the one area where the artist could do whatever they wanted and the label had no say in the matter. Labels generally like tours (because of the fact that it promotes music sales) but because they don't bear any promotional risk, they have no say in what the artist does and they receive no revenues other than increased music sales that may come from the tour. And the changes in the music business over the past decade have only exacerbated this trend.
Established artists - the kind who would be a candidate to play the Super Bowl - make the vast majority of their money through touring, not through music sales. They control everything and they call all the shots. If the NFL came to them and asked them to pay to play at the Super Bowl, the artist would turn right around and tell their label "If you want to leverage the promotional value of the Super Bowl, we'll do the show if you pay the fee to the NFL and guarantee the band [insert figure here]." And because the benefits are potentially significant for the label, they would probably do so.
soxfan121 said:
The NFL can probably get the label to cover some expenses and pay a nominal fee, but the reality is that the revenue to be gained by the NFL from the artist/label is a pittance compared to the advertising revenue. And the NFL doesn't see the advertising revenue in any case - that goes to the network, which pays stupid amounts of money for the right to broadcast NFL games, including the rotating right to broadcast the Super Bowl.
Where I think this scheme unravels on the NFL is that the logic they are using - "hey, look at the value of the free exposure" - can be turned around by the artist in question. They simply have to say "you make a good point - we'll pay you [insert figure] and we'll take 50% of the advertising revenue from halftime, since fans will be tuning in to see us." And the NFL can't do this without the network buying in, which they won't.
The other reason I see this failing is that the NFL wants to tightly control every element of the production. They lose this ability if they ask the artist to pay for the right to perform.
Seems to be a puzzling move by the NFL. My guess is that it's more of a trial balloon than anything else because they are trying to get a handle on the skyrocketing costs of staging the production.
j44thor said:
As I mentioned in the preceding post, the idea that artists tour to promote their albums is false. Established artists (like all those who have been named in this thread) tour because that's how they make their money.
With incredibly rare exceptions, these artists do not perform for free. Even at benefit concerts, they are paid a fee to be there. And despite what the NFL says, they have paid a fee in the past laundered as "expenses".
Reverend said:
I know that's what they're asking for. Good luck with that. Who knows? Maybe there's a sucker out there who will say yes. But I can't see any of the three artists named doing it.
Edit: I mean, the NBA cut that crazy deal with the owners of the Spirit of St. Louis back in the 70s and it made the owners of the team something like $1 billion that they hadn't counted on, so sure, go ahead and ask.
Could be. But it seems like it would have to be an act that can actually increase their exposure by enough to make it worth it once the NFL's cut is netted out. That would seem to me to preclude the highest end acts which are what's supposed to give the Super Bowl Show it's caché in the first place.Average Reds said:
I mean, how much can Katy Perry actually increase her exposure? I went through a 2-3 year period where every time I heard a female vocalist pop song and wasn't sure who it was, it turned out to be Perry.
Reverend said:
I wouldnt mind a little more Katy Perry exposure. (Though we may not be talking about the same type of exposure)
Well, that album *did* have the most #1 singles for a female artist ever (tied with Thriller for most overall). So... you *were* basically only hearing her for a few years.Reverend said:
Edit: It was Bad, not Thriller, that produced 5 number ones. My...er, mistake.