News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The case against Spotify by tome on Thursday August 13, 2009 @08:38AM (#760606)
If it's true that touring is more profitable then I'd really like to see data for this, and a comparison between famous and little-known acts. This could add a lot of weight to arguments in favour of laxer copyright laws.
Re:The case against Spotify by mgrouchy on Thursday August 13, 2009 @08:54AM (#760640)
Honestly, it depends on how many albums the artist actually sells VS how large of a draw you are(there is a correlation between both).

Say for example an artist makes 1.35/album and sells 2 million(which is not too bad) and then does 100 shows (which certainly is not out of the realm of possibility)commands 40k fee + merch sales at the venue.

1.35/album * 2,000,000 = 2.7 million 100 shows * 40k = 4 Million + merch sales - costs

So it really depends, the more albums you sell the more money you make from albums. The less albums you sell but the more you tour, so for a middle tier artist who generally doesn't sell an obscene amount of albums but does a lot of gigs, they would certainly make more touring.

Someone like U2, probably makes more from album sales.

Re:The case against Spotify by Kuytu on Thursday August 13, 2009 @09:03AM (#760660)
"1.35/album * 2,000,000 = 2.7 million" It should be noted that especially new artists often start getting royalties after the costs of making the record and music videos have been paid. I believe that is a big reason why many one-hit wonders might sell millions world wide and go broke soon after the success fades.
Re:The case against Spotify by mgrouchy on Thursday August 13, 2009 @10:07AM (#760783)
yes, that's very true too. So after costs, it might be a break even proposition(or not as much as it might seem anyway) on an album.