360 or All Rights deals have been a topic of debate and in the music industry for the past several years. Take at look at each side's argument, the infographic below, and let us know what you think.
Proponents say the deals are logical solution to the changes in the music industry. The main argument is essentially that record labels invest in a new artist they sign, with both time and money, and that they are seeing decreased returns. In the old days, it was fine to only make money from recorded music, but that's no longer profitable and the marketing team at a record label is responsible for building a musician's brand in the first place. So, it makes sense that they would ask for a share of all the income that brand earns during it's life cycle, because without that initial investment, all other accomplishments would be impossible and despite technology changes, record deals are still needed to really "make it." Another claim is that these deals help foster a more long-term, artist development career mindset.
Opponents say these deals are an unfair solution to a problem that should and can be solved in other ways. Many artists, they say, already do not see much money from a record deal and it is greedy of them to try to take even more. Many say that most labels doing these types of deals have no interest in artist development and that these contracts have not changed that. Additionally, opponents say that ideally musicians should avoid signing their rights over all together considering there are many new options for distribution and marketing that do not require a record label.
Here's an interesting infographic from Statista about the changes in the industry and the profits made from some of the most famous 360 deals in recent years. Take a look and let us know which side of the argument you're on.
What do you think?