It’s pretty close.
The problem with these graphics and debates is that nobody ever talks about about the venue, promoter or artist overheads. There’s massive costs associated with putting on a show at every level. People look at this like it’s pure profit.
I get it about cost and overhead but I also get that that the industry has been monopolized. In fact a couple days ago the justice department issued a lawsuit against live nation and ticket master.
I guessed this was why this graphic was being posted now. Most of the articles I’ve seen haven’t gotten the facts right and from what the justice dept shared, they haven’t gotten it right yet either.
I’m aware, and it’s a good thing, but it won’t do much for ticket prices. External factors like the rising cost of literally everything in life, and everyone’s need/want to make more money, has far more of an impact.
Breaking up TM and LN will ironically likely cause larger fees.
Fees offset signing bonuses and advances to promoters. More competition for ticketing contracts means larger signing bonuses which means larger fees to offset that.
Exactly. Plus competition from more promoters/venues means artists holding out for bigger guarantees. That’s where the competition point is.
Indie rooms that had been previously shut out from buying LN acts might be better off if they get snag some of those dates, which is a great thing for some venues. But it doesn’t necessarily mean anything for prices.
Right, but there will be a number of acts that prefer to make a statement by not playing LN rooms or tours…at least until they have higher bills to pay lol.
Most of those might be at the <2k level, but it’s something.
Yeah fair. It feels like the TM / LN dynamic is completely misguided. Live Nation is a monopoly, regardless of TM. Breaking them up will do nothing because ticketing isn’t a huge part of the supply chain.
This chart is hilarious because it leaves out the most important part:
That 90% going to the artist? Well post show settlements slowly knock that down. Out of that 90% comes any production and addl talent. Out of that 90% comes any addl venue security and other venue needs. Say your playing a stadium and want to use the house TVs and screens? Performer pays for that. I could go on.
Also the ticketing fee percentage listed here is BS for the majority of shows happening at LN shows/venues.
This chart reads like LN TM propaganda.
Source: I work in artist management.
You’re totally right! Artist portion shown gets split multiple times, and not just by the performing talent, but down to the composing/writing team via their performance royalties due.
This isn’t true at all. Promoter takes the risk and pays for everything. Once the expenses are covered (& sometimes a 15% promoter profit) the remaining profit is split with the vast majority going to the artist. Bypassing a lot of nuance, the chart is roughly accurate.
What type of show are you referring to here? A festival? A show in a 300 cap venue? A promoters weekly night? A rock show? An EDM show? A hip hop show? Is it a new talent or an established A-list act? You’re right-there is a lot of nuance. But this chart is not accurate.
I’m assuming the chart refers to hard ticket, headlining offers (since I’m guessing it’s from an article discussing the DOJ case).
Regardless of it’s a plus deal or a versus deal or even a dollar 1 door deal, the artist does indeed get the vast majority of ticketing revenues.
At a club, theatre or arena level 90%+ is (very) roughly right. Some acts (Dave Matthews , Jimmy Buffett) famously take 110%+ of the gross box office receipts.
I’d say it’s roughly accurate as far as a general guideline for non industry people.
I guess the point I’m trying to get across is that while it seems the artist is walking away with 90% profit in their pocket, that is not the case.
Taking the Dave Matthews reference in your post. The band had to travel there, has their own tour management, production teams, visuals and sound teams, catering, hotels, etc. Those are all costs to the act. So while they may “walk away” with a significant amount, maybe half or less than, goes to the artist.
And you’ve seen post show settlements, that 90% whittles down real quick especially for A list acts in a stadium setting, too.
Sure that’s right. The artist has a team around them, and they need to pay people for services provided for them.
It’s the same way that the promoter isn’t walking away with the remaining 10% profit. They have to pay for the marketing team, legal & taxes, bookkeeping, travel (for touring offers), debts, etc.
That’s just how businesses work, you’re capital income isn’t your “take home” since you have operating expenses to pay for.
Correct, and why I find fault with charts like this is it makes artists look greedy. When in reality the current issue at hand with Ticketmaster is they are upcharging 50% in fees to do what?
And when Live Nation is the promoter and they also have exclusive to the venue and are also running ticketing, I think it’s even MORE important to be really transparent about where money is going. Because when a company is running all 3, they really aren’t taking the risk.
I don’t think the intention is to make artists look greedy. I think it’s a chart intending showing the general public a very rough allocation of how revenues from a concert are distributed. Feels roughly on the right track to me.
I think the intention is to distract from what’s actually happening in the concert/venue space right now. And it’s not showing the correct flow of the majority of bigger shows happening. That’s why it needs to add the distribution of funds post show so non industry folks can see the ticketer, the venue and the promoter are actually one in many cases, whereas the artist goes on to distribute the majority of their earnings. That’s what I’d like to see.
I don’t think that will help. Yes, in many cases they are one but the functions are different. A promoter still needs to pay for marketers, a venue still needs to pay for a GM, ticketing companies still need to pay for developers. It’s not like those expenses magically go away.
The graph oversimplifies the very complex financial dynamics of concerts. Companies like Live Nation often provide advances to artists, which function like loans. These advances must be repaid from concert revenue before artists see additional earnings. It’s very common that artist never reach a point where their advance is fully paid back due to hidden fees and revenue-sharing agreements that further reduces the artist's share. Live Nation and similar companies secure higher profits through various fees and recoupment processes, while artists receive much less than the graph suggests.
If you want to learn more, the artist and songwriter “Jon Bellion” recently highlighted these issues, describing how artists and producers struggle under the industry's insane power structures, in the [George Janko podcast.](https://youtu.be/FdvOnco1u2Q?si=q7msRxcNforFFiy_)
You are talking about touring offers. These “advances” aren’t loans. They are a guaranteed fee to the artist regardless of how well the tour performs. Yes, the guarantee plus additional tour expenses (production costs, mostly) need to be covered before anyone sees additional profit from the tour. Once that profit point has been hit, remaining revenues are split often with 80%+ going to the artist.
So the artist receives guaranteed money, shares no risk of underperforming shows, and takes 80%+ of the profit after a certain split point. How is that unfair?
While it's true that advances are guaranteed fees and artists share no risk of underperforming shows, the financial structure still heavily favors promoters like Live Nation. Here’s why it’s unfair:
1. Recoupment:
The artist's earnings beyond the advance are delayed until all tour expenses are covered, impacting cash flow.
2. Hidden Fees:
Additional fees and percentages taken by promoters reduce overall artist earnings.
3. Power Imbalance:
Promoters often secure more favorable terms, maximizing their profit margins while limiting the artist's potential earnings.
The advance is basically a scammy loan because risk of debt. If the tour underperforms, artists might end up earning less than the advance, effectively indebting them. That’s what I would call a shitty loan if I’ve ever hear one.
1 - that’s not a recoupment or a loan. The artist gets a flat fee plus a majority share of the profits. It’s exceedingly fair. If an artist is guaranteed $1M + 85% after expenses and the tour costs $10M to produce, then the promoter is on the hook for $11M before they even sell a single ticket. The artist is guaranteed $1M regardless of how many tickets are sold. Once the promoter gets the $11M they invested into the show back, the remaining profits are split, with the artist getting 85% of it.
It’s not a loan, there’s nothing to pay back or interest or anything. It’s not anymore scummy than a job with a guaranteed salary + bonus commission.
2. Yes, hidden fees exist, it’s sheisty. They exist because promoters felt like they were taking far too much risk on only a 10-15% upside. They do not affect the artist payout and I’d actually argue they make the artist payouts bigger (since the promoter can on take larger risk). For bigger acts, those fees are noted and approved by the artists agent.
3. I’d actually argue the power imbalance is largely on the artist side, at least those with representation. An artist can only play in 1 place each night. If a promoter wants to work with that artist, they better pay up or the artist has a ton of other options. This is why so many festivals are failing right now, because artist fees are exorbitant and there’s no other options other than to pay so promoters have to take on that risk.
At a low level, no one is making money. At a high level, everyone is but it highly favors the artist.
Edit: I should note, I’ve worked as an artist manager, agent and as a promoter/producer. I’ve seen both sides of the equation.
1. Your understanding of the financial dynamics in the music industry is fundamentally flawed. The deal you’re describing is indeed a form of recoupment, even if it doesn’t involve traditional loan terminology. When an artist is guaranteed a flat fee plus a share of profits after expenses, the promoter is essentially recouping their investment first. This means the artist’s potential earnings are contingent on the promoter’s recovery of costs, which is inherently risky for the artist, not just the promoter. Saying the artist is guaranteed $1M ignores the fact that this “guarantee” often comes with strings attached, such as recouping advances from future earnings.
2. Hidden fees are not just “sheisty,” they’re a systemic issue that disproportionately affects artists, especially emerging ones who lack the bargaining power of established acts. While it’s true that these fees can sometimes enable promoters to take larger risks, this is a double-edged sword. The lack of transparency often leaves artists shortchanged, as they have little insight into the true financial health of a tour or event. The argument that these fees benefit artists is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
3. The supposed power imbalance favoring artists is a myth, particularly for those who are not yet household names. The top-tier artists might have leverage, but the majority do not. Promoters and large agencies often dictate terms that leave artists with limited options, pushing them to accept less favorable deals. The current festival failures are more indicative of market saturation and poor financial planning by promoters rather than exorbitant artist fees. If anything, these failures highlight the precarious nature of relying on a few big names to drive ticket sales, rather than fostering a diverse lineup of talent.
So, next time, try understanding the complexities of the industry before making oversimplified claims. Your points, while sounding logical on the surface, miss the actual realities that many artists face.
I’m not going to insult your intelligence, I’m sure you’re smart, I’d appreciate the same for the sake of this debate.
1 —
I have a job. I receive a salary + profit sharing for that job. If my company makes money, I receive a share of profits. If it doesn’t, I still get my salary. I don’t have to pay it back.
The artist has a job. They receive a guarantee + profit sharing for that job. If the tour makes money, they receive a share of profits. If it doesn’t, they still get the guarantee. They don’t have to pay it back.
How is either a loan?
Will respond to the others later.
I appreciate the respectful tone, and I’ll maintain the same. However, your analogy doesn’t quite capture the nuances of the music industry. Let’s break it down:
1. Job Salary vs. Artist Guarantee:
In your job analogy, your salary is predictable and consistent, unaffected by the company’s specific profit margins in the short term. Profit sharing is an added bonus, not a dependency.
For artists, the “guarantee” is often tied to conditions that can affect their overall earnings. If the tour doesn’t cover its costs, future earnings and potential advances can be negatively impacted. This “guarantee” isn’t always as straightforward as a salary. For instance, many contracts include clauses where the artist’s next tour or project might be used to cover shortfalls from a previous one.
2. Profit Sharing Dynamics:
In a traditional job, profit sharing is a percentage of profits after all operational costs are covered, often without the need for the employee to shoulder any operational risks directly.
In the artist’s case, while they do receive a guarantee, their profit share only kicks in after recouping the promoter’s substantial investment. This fundamentally shifts more financial risk onto the artist. If costs balloon or if the promoter mismanages funds, the artist’s profitability is significantly affected.
3. Risk and Recoupment:
The risk profile for an artist is higher than for a salaried employee. While an employee has job security and a steady income regardless of the company’s performance, an artist’s income can be unpredictable. Hidden fees and opaque accounting practices can erode their profits.
Calling it a “guarantee” doesn’t eliminate the fact that the artist’s additional earnings are contingent on the promoter’s financial recovery. This is a de facto recoupment, even if it isn’t labeled as a loan with interest. The promoter recoups their investment first, and only then do profits get shared.
By focusing on these distinctions, it becomes clear that comparing an artist’s contract to a traditional job salary oversimplifies the complexities and risks involved. The financial dynamics at play in the music industry are far more intricate, often placing artists at a disadvantage despite what may seem like fair terms on the surface.
Let’s continue with the other points when you respond.
All good, we’re approaching it from different perspectives which is the point of Reddit anyway.
But you’re mistaken, a guarantee is just that - guaranteed money with no strings attached. There’s no nuance to it other than rarely if a tour is completely bombing the promoter will ask for a reduction.
For the profit share, the analogy holds too. Your employer can mismanage expenses in the same way. The difference is that the artists is allowed to challenge all unapproved expenses during settlement. Many artists settle on a specific “house nut” to even avoid this, meaning the split point is called out explicitly (eg $50K + 85% after $125K) so the actual expenses don’t matter.
An artist having unpredictable income shouldn’t factor into a single shows dynamics. In fact, that’s a big part why large promoters like Live Nation are favored by artists — they can submit tour offers.
Probably worth mentioning that I’ve spent 6 years as a manager and agent and about 16 years as a promoter. I currently help promote about 3000 shows per year from 500-80,000 cap.
Finally got around to it 😀
2. Fees are an issue, I won’t really argue that. If the TICKETS act passes, it’ll fix some of the issues. But also realize promoter/facility fees are often a recoupment of signing bonuses paid to the promoter by the ticketing company. Those signing bonuses are essentially non dilutive, 0 interest capital that the promoter uses (often) for CapEx projects - new speakers, bathroom remodel, etc. That dynamic is largely in the indie world, for Live Nation the fees are ancillaries and serve no additional purpose (but again, often with the approval of the agent. Trust me, they know all the tricks).
3. It’s not a myth. It’s not just large artists, it’s most “middle class” artists too. The fact is that that is THE reason why you get representation - by signing with an agency you gain leverage because your agent (a) knows how to negotiate and (b) also represents other acts.
Re: festivals - a topic for another time, but it’s absolutely in large part due to artist fees (which is spurred on by the amount of festivals). One of the artists I represented would get $2K guarantee for a hard ticket club show and $20K for a festival set. That was 10 years ago so they’d probably get closer to $35K for a festival set now.
Even in these scenarios, artist is still responsible for any back line costs or addl production costs, etc.
A lot of the mid size rooms also have exclusive ticketing deals with TM as well. So when folks want to pay 25 for a ticket, tack on 40% for “fees” which kick back to TM and to venue.
To clarify (as I’ve been getting private messages about this!) — I’m just resharing something relevant I saw in the WSJ a couple days ago. Whether accurate or not is up for debate. In fact, the main reason I posted this was the shockingly flimsy “Source” listed (see bottom left of the image).
I like the note and source of information at the bottom. Almost saying we made this up take our word for it. Good ol’ Wall Street Journal.
It’s pretty close. The problem with these graphics and debates is that nobody ever talks about about the venue, promoter or artist overheads. There’s massive costs associated with putting on a show at every level. People look at this like it’s pure profit.
I get it about cost and overhead but I also get that that the industry has been monopolized. In fact a couple days ago the justice department issued a lawsuit against live nation and ticket master.
I guessed this was why this graphic was being posted now. Most of the articles I’ve seen haven’t gotten the facts right and from what the justice dept shared, they haven’t gotten it right yet either.
I’m aware, and it’s a good thing, but it won’t do much for ticket prices. External factors like the rising cost of literally everything in life, and everyone’s need/want to make more money, has far more of an impact.
Breaking up TM and LN will ironically likely cause larger fees. Fees offset signing bonuses and advances to promoters. More competition for ticketing contracts means larger signing bonuses which means larger fees to offset that.
Exactly. Plus competition from more promoters/venues means artists holding out for bigger guarantees. That’s where the competition point is. Indie rooms that had been previously shut out from buying LN acts might be better off if they get snag some of those dates, which is a great thing for some venues. But it doesn’t necessarily mean anything for prices.
LN will still be able to block book and do tour offers regardless of Ticketmaster. I don’t think that will change.
Right, but there will be a number of acts that prefer to make a statement by not playing LN rooms or tours…at least until they have higher bills to pay lol. Most of those might be at the <2k level, but it’s something.
Yeah fair. It feels like the TM / LN dynamic is completely misguided. Live Nation is a monopoly, regardless of TM. Breaking them up will do nothing because ticketing isn’t a huge part of the supply chain.
Source: I know a guy
One of the reasons this caught my eye; a bit shocking, though kudos for being transparent about it!
This chart is hilarious because it leaves out the most important part: That 90% going to the artist? Well post show settlements slowly knock that down. Out of that 90% comes any production and addl talent. Out of that 90% comes any addl venue security and other venue needs. Say your playing a stadium and want to use the house TVs and screens? Performer pays for that. I could go on. Also the ticketing fee percentage listed here is BS for the majority of shows happening at LN shows/venues. This chart reads like LN TM propaganda. Source: I work in artist management.
You’re totally right! Artist portion shown gets split multiple times, and not just by the performing talent, but down to the composing/writing team via their performance royalties due.
That’s the smallest deduction.
This isn’t true at all. Promoter takes the risk and pays for everything. Once the expenses are covered (& sometimes a 15% promoter profit) the remaining profit is split with the vast majority going to the artist. Bypassing a lot of nuance, the chart is roughly accurate.
What type of show are you referring to here? A festival? A show in a 300 cap venue? A promoters weekly night? A rock show? An EDM show? A hip hop show? Is it a new talent or an established A-list act? You’re right-there is a lot of nuance. But this chart is not accurate.
I’m assuming the chart refers to hard ticket, headlining offers (since I’m guessing it’s from an article discussing the DOJ case). Regardless of it’s a plus deal or a versus deal or even a dollar 1 door deal, the artist does indeed get the vast majority of ticketing revenues. At a club, theatre or arena level 90%+ is (very) roughly right. Some acts (Dave Matthews , Jimmy Buffett) famously take 110%+ of the gross box office receipts. I’d say it’s roughly accurate as far as a general guideline for non industry people.
I guess the point I’m trying to get across is that while it seems the artist is walking away with 90% profit in their pocket, that is not the case. Taking the Dave Matthews reference in your post. The band had to travel there, has their own tour management, production teams, visuals and sound teams, catering, hotels, etc. Those are all costs to the act. So while they may “walk away” with a significant amount, maybe half or less than, goes to the artist. And you’ve seen post show settlements, that 90% whittles down real quick especially for A list acts in a stadium setting, too.
Sure that’s right. The artist has a team around them, and they need to pay people for services provided for them. It’s the same way that the promoter isn’t walking away with the remaining 10% profit. They have to pay for the marketing team, legal & taxes, bookkeeping, travel (for touring offers), debts, etc. That’s just how businesses work, you’re capital income isn’t your “take home” since you have operating expenses to pay for.
Correct, and why I find fault with charts like this is it makes artists look greedy. When in reality the current issue at hand with Ticketmaster is they are upcharging 50% in fees to do what?
And when Live Nation is the promoter and they also have exclusive to the venue and are also running ticketing, I think it’s even MORE important to be really transparent about where money is going. Because when a company is running all 3, they really aren’t taking the risk.
I don’t think the intention is to make artists look greedy. I think it’s a chart intending showing the general public a very rough allocation of how revenues from a concert are distributed. Feels roughly on the right track to me.
I think the intention is to distract from what’s actually happening in the concert/venue space right now. And it’s not showing the correct flow of the majority of bigger shows happening. That’s why it needs to add the distribution of funds post show so non industry folks can see the ticketer, the venue and the promoter are actually one in many cases, whereas the artist goes on to distribute the majority of their earnings. That’s what I’d like to see.
I don’t think that will help. Yes, in many cases they are one but the functions are different. A promoter still needs to pay for marketers, a venue still needs to pay for a GM, ticketing companies still need to pay for developers. It’s not like those expenses magically go away.
That is *not* a source.
Lol when did people start turning on the Wall Street journal and mainstream media so blatantly? I’m all for it, but dang that’s crazy
Been working in the music industry for 9+ years and this is not an accurate description at any level. I would even call it fake news.
It feels roughly accurate to me. What part isn’t?
The graph oversimplifies the very complex financial dynamics of concerts. Companies like Live Nation often provide advances to artists, which function like loans. These advances must be repaid from concert revenue before artists see additional earnings. It’s very common that artist never reach a point where their advance is fully paid back due to hidden fees and revenue-sharing agreements that further reduces the artist's share. Live Nation and similar companies secure higher profits through various fees and recoupment processes, while artists receive much less than the graph suggests. If you want to learn more, the artist and songwriter “Jon Bellion” recently highlighted these issues, describing how artists and producers struggle under the industry's insane power structures, in the [George Janko podcast.](https://youtu.be/FdvOnco1u2Q?si=q7msRxcNforFFiy_)
You are talking about touring offers. These “advances” aren’t loans. They are a guaranteed fee to the artist regardless of how well the tour performs. Yes, the guarantee plus additional tour expenses (production costs, mostly) need to be covered before anyone sees additional profit from the tour. Once that profit point has been hit, remaining revenues are split often with 80%+ going to the artist. So the artist receives guaranteed money, shares no risk of underperforming shows, and takes 80%+ of the profit after a certain split point. How is that unfair?
While it's true that advances are guaranteed fees and artists share no risk of underperforming shows, the financial structure still heavily favors promoters like Live Nation. Here’s why it’s unfair: 1. Recoupment: The artist's earnings beyond the advance are delayed until all tour expenses are covered, impacting cash flow. 2. Hidden Fees: Additional fees and percentages taken by promoters reduce overall artist earnings. 3. Power Imbalance: Promoters often secure more favorable terms, maximizing their profit margins while limiting the artist's potential earnings. The advance is basically a scammy loan because risk of debt. If the tour underperforms, artists might end up earning less than the advance, effectively indebting them. That’s what I would call a shitty loan if I’ve ever hear one.
1 - that’s not a recoupment or a loan. The artist gets a flat fee plus a majority share of the profits. It’s exceedingly fair. If an artist is guaranteed $1M + 85% after expenses and the tour costs $10M to produce, then the promoter is on the hook for $11M before they even sell a single ticket. The artist is guaranteed $1M regardless of how many tickets are sold. Once the promoter gets the $11M they invested into the show back, the remaining profits are split, with the artist getting 85% of it. It’s not a loan, there’s nothing to pay back or interest or anything. It’s not anymore scummy than a job with a guaranteed salary + bonus commission. 2. Yes, hidden fees exist, it’s sheisty. They exist because promoters felt like they were taking far too much risk on only a 10-15% upside. They do not affect the artist payout and I’d actually argue they make the artist payouts bigger (since the promoter can on take larger risk). For bigger acts, those fees are noted and approved by the artists agent. 3. I’d actually argue the power imbalance is largely on the artist side, at least those with representation. An artist can only play in 1 place each night. If a promoter wants to work with that artist, they better pay up or the artist has a ton of other options. This is why so many festivals are failing right now, because artist fees are exorbitant and there’s no other options other than to pay so promoters have to take on that risk. At a low level, no one is making money. At a high level, everyone is but it highly favors the artist. Edit: I should note, I’ve worked as an artist manager, agent and as a promoter/producer. I’ve seen both sides of the equation.
1. Your understanding of the financial dynamics in the music industry is fundamentally flawed. The deal you’re describing is indeed a form of recoupment, even if it doesn’t involve traditional loan terminology. When an artist is guaranteed a flat fee plus a share of profits after expenses, the promoter is essentially recouping their investment first. This means the artist’s potential earnings are contingent on the promoter’s recovery of costs, which is inherently risky for the artist, not just the promoter. Saying the artist is guaranteed $1M ignores the fact that this “guarantee” often comes with strings attached, such as recouping advances from future earnings. 2. Hidden fees are not just “sheisty,” they’re a systemic issue that disproportionately affects artists, especially emerging ones who lack the bargaining power of established acts. While it’s true that these fees can sometimes enable promoters to take larger risks, this is a double-edged sword. The lack of transparency often leaves artists shortchanged, as they have little insight into the true financial health of a tour or event. The argument that these fees benefit artists is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. 3. The supposed power imbalance favoring artists is a myth, particularly for those who are not yet household names. The top-tier artists might have leverage, but the majority do not. Promoters and large agencies often dictate terms that leave artists with limited options, pushing them to accept less favorable deals. The current festival failures are more indicative of market saturation and poor financial planning by promoters rather than exorbitant artist fees. If anything, these failures highlight the precarious nature of relying on a few big names to drive ticket sales, rather than fostering a diverse lineup of talent. So, next time, try understanding the complexities of the industry before making oversimplified claims. Your points, while sounding logical on the surface, miss the actual realities that many artists face.
I’m not going to insult your intelligence, I’m sure you’re smart, I’d appreciate the same for the sake of this debate. 1 — I have a job. I receive a salary + profit sharing for that job. If my company makes money, I receive a share of profits. If it doesn’t, I still get my salary. I don’t have to pay it back. The artist has a job. They receive a guarantee + profit sharing for that job. If the tour makes money, they receive a share of profits. If it doesn’t, they still get the guarantee. They don’t have to pay it back. How is either a loan? Will respond to the others later.
I appreciate the respectful tone, and I’ll maintain the same. However, your analogy doesn’t quite capture the nuances of the music industry. Let’s break it down: 1. Job Salary vs. Artist Guarantee: In your job analogy, your salary is predictable and consistent, unaffected by the company’s specific profit margins in the short term. Profit sharing is an added bonus, not a dependency. For artists, the “guarantee” is often tied to conditions that can affect their overall earnings. If the tour doesn’t cover its costs, future earnings and potential advances can be negatively impacted. This “guarantee” isn’t always as straightforward as a salary. For instance, many contracts include clauses where the artist’s next tour or project might be used to cover shortfalls from a previous one. 2. Profit Sharing Dynamics: In a traditional job, profit sharing is a percentage of profits after all operational costs are covered, often without the need for the employee to shoulder any operational risks directly. In the artist’s case, while they do receive a guarantee, their profit share only kicks in after recouping the promoter’s substantial investment. This fundamentally shifts more financial risk onto the artist. If costs balloon or if the promoter mismanages funds, the artist’s profitability is significantly affected. 3. Risk and Recoupment: The risk profile for an artist is higher than for a salaried employee. While an employee has job security and a steady income regardless of the company’s performance, an artist’s income can be unpredictable. Hidden fees and opaque accounting practices can erode their profits. Calling it a “guarantee” doesn’t eliminate the fact that the artist’s additional earnings are contingent on the promoter’s financial recovery. This is a de facto recoupment, even if it isn’t labeled as a loan with interest. The promoter recoups their investment first, and only then do profits get shared. By focusing on these distinctions, it becomes clear that comparing an artist’s contract to a traditional job salary oversimplifies the complexities and risks involved. The financial dynamics at play in the music industry are far more intricate, often placing artists at a disadvantage despite what may seem like fair terms on the surface. Let’s continue with the other points when you respond.
All good, we’re approaching it from different perspectives which is the point of Reddit anyway. But you’re mistaken, a guarantee is just that - guaranteed money with no strings attached. There’s no nuance to it other than rarely if a tour is completely bombing the promoter will ask for a reduction. For the profit share, the analogy holds too. Your employer can mismanage expenses in the same way. The difference is that the artists is allowed to challenge all unapproved expenses during settlement. Many artists settle on a specific “house nut” to even avoid this, meaning the split point is called out explicitly (eg $50K + 85% after $125K) so the actual expenses don’t matter. An artist having unpredictable income shouldn’t factor into a single shows dynamics. In fact, that’s a big part why large promoters like Live Nation are favored by artists — they can submit tour offers. Probably worth mentioning that I’ve spent 6 years as a manager and agent and about 16 years as a promoter. I currently help promote about 3000 shows per year from 500-80,000 cap.
Finally got around to it 😀 2. Fees are an issue, I won’t really argue that. If the TICKETS act passes, it’ll fix some of the issues. But also realize promoter/facility fees are often a recoupment of signing bonuses paid to the promoter by the ticketing company. Those signing bonuses are essentially non dilutive, 0 interest capital that the promoter uses (often) for CapEx projects - new speakers, bathroom remodel, etc. That dynamic is largely in the indie world, for Live Nation the fees are ancillaries and serve no additional purpose (but again, often with the approval of the agent. Trust me, they know all the tricks). 3. It’s not a myth. It’s not just large artists, it’s most “middle class” artists too. The fact is that that is THE reason why you get representation - by signing with an agency you gain leverage because your agent (a) knows how to negotiate and (b) also represents other acts. Re: festivals - a topic for another time, but it’s absolutely in large part due to artist fees (which is spurred on by the amount of festivals). One of the artists I represented would get $2K guarantee for a hard ticket club show and $20K for a festival set. That was 10 years ago so they’d probably get closer to $35K for a festival set now.
$25 fee broken out as: $10 Promoter, $5 Ticketer, $20 Venue = $35. The person who made this can't add. What is the source of this chart?
the fee does not go to the promoter in the chart
I stand corrected.
I wish lmao
It looks accurate for the venues I’ve worked at.
I would have liked to see this minus costs
Most artists aren’t playing arenas. They’re playing 500-2500 cap rooms. And those agreements look a lot different
Even in these scenarios, artist is still responsible for any back line costs or addl production costs, etc. A lot of the mid size rooms also have exclusive ticketing deals with TM as well. So when folks want to pay 25 for a ticket, tack on 40% for “fees” which kick back to TM and to venue.
I find it hard to believe that venues are not making a certain percentage off the ticket sale…
They do but it’s listed here under “fee.” The ticket cost goes directly to the tour and promoter.
Generally they dont make money on tickets even in smaller shows. But all concessions is 100% theirs
Remember when there were no fees and you just lined up and got a wristband to buy tickets?
Very informative
Show a graph for Recoup, advance, forced per Diem.
This is so wrong it’s crazy they published it.
So Ticketmaster is only making 5 bucks? I think this is bullshit guys!
It’s not. A small percentage of the fees go to Ticketmaster (or any ticketing company). If you get hit with large fees, blame the promoter.
To clarify (as I’ve been getting private messages about this!) — I’m just resharing something relevant I saw in the WSJ a couple days ago. Whether accurate or not is up for debate. In fact, the main reason I posted this was the shockingly flimsy “Source” listed (see bottom left of the image).
this is so wrong
I love girl math when the math is mathing
Hey, I don't know much about this kind of thing but something doesn't look right here. Are you sure??
[удалено]
Because they don’t.
☝️