Madonna has made me a fan again - NEW $120mil deal

PLEASE UNDERSTAND HOW MONUMENTAL THIS IS - MADONNA HAS JUST TRUMPED EVERY MOTHAFREAKIN' ARTISTS' DEAL - EVER!!!!! SHE IS DOING THE DAMNED THING!!!



NEW YORK (AFP) — Pop diva Madonna will sever her ties to Warner Bros. and sign a landmark 120-million-dollar 10-year deal with concert promoters Live Nation, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

The newspaper's online edition reported that the 49-year-old music superstar was close to finalizing the details of what it described as a "virtually unprecedented" deal, citing people familiar with the deal.

The decade-long pact with Live Nation would see Madonna cement her status as the world's highest paid female singer, giving her a lucrative mix of cash and stock, the report said.

In return, Live Nation would be granted the rights to three studio albums as well as the right to promote concert tours, sell merchandise and license Madonna's name, the report said. Spokesmen for Live Nation and Warner Music were not immediately available for comment.

The report added that record labels were clamoring to sign artists on similar deals as the music world adjusts to the new realities of the digital download revolution, which has led to plunging sales of CDs.

It said that in the past headline acts like Madonna would release new work through a major label before brokering separate deals for touring and merchandising with specialist companies.

Increasingly however, music industry players are seeking to secure wide-ranging deals that allow them to tap into multiple revenue streams, such as endorsement deals, concert ticketing and merchandising.

Since the release of her 1982 debut single "Everybody," Madonna has become one of the most successful female singers in history, releasing a string of chart-topping albums and singles.

According to recent figures her album sales alone have topped more than 200 million while her most recent world tour, 2006's "Confessions Tour," was the highest-earning tour by a female artist.

Madonna is widely regarded as the world's highest-earning female singer while Forbes magazine estimated her worth at 325 million dollars, in its ranking of the wealthiest women in entertainment, behind chat-show queen Oprah Winfrey, "Harry Potter" creator J.K. Rowling and lifestyle guru Martha Stewart.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jpITQI...QNmSOT2u-eWmmXg

Bad decision IMO. She should've used this deal as a bribe to get her masters from WB. She should've made a deal with them like, give me my masters or I'll sign to Live Nation.

But anyway, whoopy-doo, here comes 3 more dud albums from the Queen of skanks.

Bad decision IMO. She should've used this deal as a bribe to get her masters from WB. She should've made a deal with them like, give me my masters or I'll sign to Live Nation.

But anyway, whoopy-doo, here comes 3 more dud albums from the Queen of skanks.[/b]

Click to expand...

LOL @ Queen of Skanks :lol:

I think it's great, because she gets the best part of the deal and she got stock.

I do not get happy with hearing those deal no more. They usually are do not live up to the hype.

GO MADONNA, MAKE THAT MONEY, GIRL! :kickass:

I do not get happy with hearing those deal no more. They usually are do not live up to the hype.[/b]

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's the beauty of it. She can release 3 flops if she wants to - she's still getting $120 million!!!!!!!! That's like someone's job telling them just come to work for three days and we'll pay you 20 years worth of pay. She doesn't have to put that much effort if she doesn't want to (not saying she won't). There's a beauty in the business aspect of what she got in return of giving little to nothing. That's smart business!

I understand if you like Madonna for good music, humanatiarianism, etc., but why would her making a ton of money make you a fan? Personally, I can't stand her because I think she's a mediocre talent and a complete and utter fraud in many other areas. She's making more money now so good for her, but that doesn't make me dislike her any less.

good for Madonna that she will be hauling in a bag a cash for 3 albums, which by the way don't have to even be good.....I was never a fan and I can't say that I'll ever will be.

Her talent is mediocre, but she's smart as a whip, you can't deny it. She knows what works and she knows how to market herself better then anyone. That's for sure.

QUOTE (RubbaRubba @ Oct 11 2007, 11:18 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=1824323

Yeah, but that's the beauty of it. She can release 3 flops if she wants to - she's still getting $120 million!!!!!!!! That's like someone's job telling them just come to work for three days and we'll pay you 20 years worth of pay. She doesn't have to put that much effort if she doesn't want to (not saying she won't). There's a beauty in the business aspect of what she got in return of giving little to nothing. That's smart business![/b]

Click to expand...

And only they would suffer if her albums flop, lol. Madonna will still get paid for touring and she's supposedly to retain 90% of that. MONEY IN THE BANK, MAYNE!

QUOTE (RubbaRubba @ Oct 11 2007, 08:18 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=1824323

Yeah, but that's the beauty of it. She can release 3 flops if she wants to - she's still getting $120 million!!!!!!!! That's like someone's job telling them just come to work for three days and we'll pay you 20 years worth of pay. She doesn't have to put that much effort if she doesn't want to (not saying she won't). There's a beauty in the business aspect of what she got in return of giving little to nothing. That's smart business![/b]

Click to expand...

SO her deals with touring? Well that good but still I will not go wild over it due to the fact these kinds of thing seem to always backfire. We have seen this all others. YOu can believe there is a catch to it just like with everyone else.

Go Madonna!

Madonna is a very smart businesss woman.

Congrats to her!!

can't knock her business hustle. yeah musically to me she faded after 94,but she will easily make this loot and see money. I mean how many acts that are 25 years deep are seeing this kind of deal? i mean she is a Brand name and can do well. I ain't been big on her in years, but business wise she is sharp and will make that loot.she has a strong base in europe and can still flirt with a 1.5 million selling project stateside, plus dvd sales, touring,ring tones,,,etc... she is slick.

I don't know how I feel about this but as a fan I have come to trust that Madonna knows what she is doing. One way or another, she always comes out on top. NEVER bet against Madonna.

Yeah, but that's the beauty of it. She can release 3 flops if she wants to - she's still getting $120 million!!!!!!!! That's like someone's job telling them just come to work for three days and we'll pay you 20 years worth of pay. She doesn't have to put that much effort if she doesn't want to (not saying she won't). There's a beauty in the business aspect of what she got in return of giving little to nothing. That's smart business![/b]

Click to expand...

Quote of the day :lol:

Her talent is mediocre, but she's smart as a whip, you can't deny it. She knows what works and she knows how to market herself better then anyone. That's for sure.[/b]

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. Way to go Madonna (and whoever else helped her land the deal). :kickass2:

I heard about this.. Crazy, cool!!!

She is the ONLY ONE who has really kept it UP.. As far as in the MEDIA's eyesand opinion.. No1 calls her a 'has been'..

She's doin' it.

Madonna and Radiohead Rock the Industry

They are the latest in a clutch of big name acts to defy the music industry's traditional model

"Quicker than a ray of light," sang Madonna on her 1998 smash hit. If two seismic industry events this week are anything to go by, it was a prescient estimate of the speed at which today's music business is changing

The Material Girl is preparing to ditch Warner Music, her home for more than two decades. The company has helped her to twice as many number ones as any other female artist in history. Her new label, Live Nation, is not a label at all, but a company that makes most of its money from putting on concerts.

Meanwhile, indie legends Radiohead have bypassed their former label EMI altogether. In a brilliant marketing coup, the Oxford miserabalists set up a website to sell downloads of their seventh album, "In Rainbows", and invited fans to pay as much or as little as they like.

They are the latest in a clutch of big name acts to defy the music industry's traditional model and upset some of the decades-old relationships between artists, labels and concert promoters.

With some blockbuster performers now screaming "I want to break free", observers question whether the four music majors that generate four fifths of the industry's revenues are themselves becoming the business equivalent of rock dinosaurs, destined for a painful and graceless extinction.

Both Madonna's defection and Radiohead's move would have been inconceivable were it not tumbling CD sales – they are down 14pc this year alone. Despite the rise of Apple's online music store iTunes, legal downloads have yet to make up the difference, as web piracy remains rampant among a younger generation that has grown up with the idea that music is free.

And yet other parts of the industry are booming. The real money for most artists is in the live scene, where they take a much bigger cut of sales. Prince's recent sell-out residency at the O2 arena in London's Docklands was preceded by another savvy marketing stunt. In the run up to the dates, he gave away his new album for free via The Mail on Sunday, making a rumoured £250,000. Mark Mulligan at Jupiter Research reckons that deal was driven by the artist's desire to reach an audience of 2.5m. "Prince gave away the CD so he could sell out the O2, that was the end game and he succeeded."

Record labels are increasingly desperate to dip their toes in live music's revenue streams by signing so-called "360 degree" deals with new artists that get them a slug of ticket and merchandise sales. EMI's £80m deal with Robbie Williams gave it some such privileges as did Warner's re-signing of US band Linkin Park.

"Recorded music revenues are only telling part of the story," says Mr Mulligan. "Live is booming, as is mobile, syndication to movie soundtracks, adverts, console games, music TV channels and there's still the old staple of radio. Record labels are trying to extend their read within the value chain."

Live Nation's imminent deal with Madonna is evidence that the traditional concert industry is fighting back. "We think the deal is more a bold statement by Live Nation that it wants to quickly get deep in the music business, and less an example of Warner Music's inability to close a good deal," says Michael Savner of Bank of America, who reckons Warner was prudent to back away from mooted $120m (£59m) fee.

At the heart of all this flux is, of course, the internet. Radiohead's ''honesty box" stunt demonstrates how far the web has shaken the traditional distribution model in music.

Established bands can now go direct to their fan bases, says Alice Enders of Enders Analysis: "That allows you to do email marketing and say, 'you bought our album, we love you, come and see our next gig'."

But Ms Enders is convinced that record labels will still have a huge role to play when it comes to emerging artists. "It is extremely difficult to develop a fanbase on the web from scratch, although there are exceptions that prove the rule [Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen].

"An artist by definition occupies themselves with the creative act. Record labels are very good at managing formats and release windows, have significant expertise in A&R and everything from ringtones to territorial rights clearance." Labels also offer huge economies of scale, but as CD revenues shrivel, they are aggressively cutting costs to maintain them.

For all the hype, very few artists have gone it alone entirely. Radiohead, ironically, is seeking a record deal so it can distribute physical copies of "In Rainbows" in time for Christmas. Prince too, only backed out of his deal with Sony-BMG in the UK.

Nevertheless the big four – Universal, Sony-BMG, Warner and EMI – are clearly losing some of their clout over major stars.

"With Radiohead going independent, Paul McCartney signing with Starbucks and [Madonna's] potential move, record companies could be losing their grip on top-selling artists as they seek a bigger share of revenue," says Doug Mitchelson, a Wall Street analyst at Deutsche Bank.

The pressure is now on the big labels, he says, to "find the best up-and-coming artists and sign them to long-term, all-encompassing deals (allowing for further uncertainty in record companies' top line expectations)".

Any music executives hoping for no alarms and no surprises in the coming years are clearly in the wrong game.

Source: Dominic White, Communication Industries Editor
Telegraph.co.uk.

Radiohead's move is interesting I wanna watch and see how that goes for them

I understand if you like Madonna for good music, humanatiarianism, etc., but why would her making a ton of money make you a fan? Personally, I can't stand her because I think she's a mediocre talent and a complete and utter fraud in many other areas. She's making more money now so good for her, but that doesn't make me dislike her any less.[/b]

Click to expand...

I'm exaggerating. It's my way of saying she's a smart business woman. I'm not referring to her music.

And only they would suffer if her albums flop, lol. Madonna will still get paid for touring and she's supposedly to retain 90% of that. MONEY IN THE BANK, MAYNE![/b]

Click to expand...

RIGHT!!! That's the beauty of it. People are saying that they don't think those albums will be a hit. The great thing is - IT DOESN'T MATTER!! She's still getting $120million!!! :wild:

can't knock her business hustle. yeah musically to me she faded after 94,but she will easily make this loot and see money. I mean how many acts that are 25 years deep are seeing this kind of deal? i mean she is a Brand name and can do well. I ain't been big on her in years, but business wise she is sharp and will make that loot.she has a strong base in europe and can still flirt with a 1.5 million selling project stateside, plus dvd sales, touring,ring tones,,,etc... she is slick.[/b]

Click to expand...

wow, we agree on something. This long in the game and she can negotiate a deal like this? Man, artists need to take out their pen and paper to take notes.

*sigh* The only thing going through my mind is that I'll never see that amount of money in my life no matter what I do.

Oh, and good for her.

wow, we agree on something. This long in the game and she can negotiate a deal like this? Man, artists need to take out their pen and paper to take notes.[/b]

Click to expand...

Better believe it.

can't knock her business hustle. yeah musically to me she faded after 94,but she will easily make this loot and see money. I mean how many acts that are 25 years deep are seeing this kind of deal? i mean she is a Brand name and can do well. I ain't been big on her in years, but business wise she is sharp and will make that loot.she has a strong base in europe and can still flirt with a 1.5 million selling project stateside, plus dvd sales, touring,ring tones,,,etc... she is slick.[/b]

Click to expand...

I co-sign... but getting a deal which includes her masters would have been an even bigger payout for her now and for her kid's future...

Those are the details I am concerned about. I don't want to see her material whored out. That is one thing Warner has never done. I believe Madonna has something up her sleeve as far as that. I can't see her signing over everything.

Madonna Math, Revisited
Oct 12 2007

I still can't quite believe the supine nature in which a throwaway clause in a rushed WSJ article – "people in the music industry estimate that at current recorded-music prices, the promoter would have to sell about 15 million copies of each of its three albums to make back its investment" – has rapidly become conventional wisdom.

For one thing, the WSJ scooped everybody else on this story, so I can guarantee you that they didn't spend a huge amount of time phoning up "people in the music industry" before they ran with it. Those "people" are in fact almost certainly just one person, who probably came up with the number off the top of his head.

I talked some numbers yesterday with Peter Kafka, who's been running Silicon Alley Insider's coverage of this deal. He's also been hitting the phones, and has come to this conclusion:

After talking to industry sources, we think the breakeven per album is closer to high single digit millions per album -- this assumes that 1) Madonna is getting as much as $45 million in advance for all three albums upon the deal's close and that 2) Live Nation will have to pay onerous distribution fees to get the discs in stores.
There is a debate about how many albums Madonna sells: The only audited numbers available are from SoundScan, which only counts U.S. sales.

I'm much more upbeat on the Live Nation deal than Peter is, for many reasons.

For one thing, Madonna is not getting $45 million for all three albums upon the deal's close. More likely only half of the deal is upfront, and a large chunk of that will be in stock, not in cash.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Madonna is getting a $45 million advance against royalties for three albums. And let's say she gets $3 in royalties per album. Then Live Nation basically gets to keep Madonna's royalties for the first 15 million albums sold before paying Madonna any extra. But Live Nation, as the music label, makes its own profit on every album sold as well. Yes, it will have to pay larger-than-usual distribution costs, since it's not a major record label, and it will also have to pay marketing costs and the like. But after all that it's reasonable to assume that Live Nation's profit per album will be at least $2.50.

In order to recoup the up-front $45 million advance, then, Live Nation would have to sell just over 8 million copies of all three albums combined. Which is not far off Kafka's low estimate of the global sales of Madonna's last album alone.

If Madonna sells 7 million copies of each of her next three albums globally, then that's 21 million albums moved in all. Live Nation's profit on those albums would be $52.5 million, while Madonna's royalties would be $63 million. In other words, even if Live Nation pays Madonna a total advance of $60 million – at the top end of estimates – it's quite easy to get to a point where she earns that out over three albums, and makes a lot of money for Live Nation on top.

But that's not all. On top of album sales there are single sales, which are increasingly popular in the age of iTunes. And on top of single sales there are ringtone sales, which are huge in Europe and getting big in the US as well. And then on top of ringtone sales there are all the licensing fees that Madonna will charge people who want to use her latest song in their TV advertising or whatever. And then on top of the licensing fees are the videos sold on iTunes and the expensive remixes and "special edition" CDs and DVDs sold to completists, etc etc... It all adds up.

Live Nation is a concert promoter, so one assumes that they know what they're doing with the $50 million advance for the right to promote her concert tours: certainly concert-ticket price inflation doesn't show any signs of slowing down. And the $17.5 million for everything else – think merchandising, which has insanely enormous profit margins – seems pretty low, especially given that Live Nation is divorcing Ticketmaster and will henceforth pocket for itself all those exorbitant "convenience" and "handling" and "shipping" fees which get tacked onto every ticket sale.

And the bigger picture is even better for Live Nation, which is using this deal to get out of the razor-thin margins of the concert-promotion business and into the world of music-industry home runs. It's conceivable that Live Nation will lose money on this deal, although I doubt it. But it's equally conceivable that they will make a fortune on it, if the stars align. Live Nation has very few opportunities to make that kind of money, and it makes sense to grab this one. Warner, by contrast, has hundreds of artists who might break out into megastardom and make them the same kind of fortune – so they're less concerned about the loss of Madonna, especially given that they retain all the rights to her enormously profitable back catalogue.

Source: Felix Salmon/Portfolio.com

And the bigger picture is even better for Live Nation, which is using this deal to get out of the razor-thin margins of the concert-promotion business and into the world of music-industry home runs. It's conceivable that Live Nation will lose money on this deal, although I doubt it. But it's equally conceivable that they will make a fortune on it, if the stars align. Live Nation has very few opportunities to make that kind of money, and it makes sense to grab this one. Warner, by contrast, has hundreds of artists who might break out into megastardom and make them the same kind of fortune – so they're less concerned about the loss of Madonna, especially given that they retain all the rights to her enormously profitable back catalogue.Source: Felix Salmon/Portfolio.com [/i][/b]

Click to expand...

now that is the part I am talking about....the $120mil deal looks good in the headlines .. and it commendable but I this stage in the game.. Madonna needs to have more control of her music... and as far as I know.. she hadn't in the pass (Michael and Sony/ATV gets money off her 2 biggest hits which she has no writing credits for..)

Behind the Battle for Madonna
By KRISTINA DELL
Friday, Oct. 12, 2007

At a time when lagging CD sales and music piracy have made the album a mere accessory to touring, merchandising and licensing, it's no wonder that ailing record labels like Warner Music Group have been exploring ways to get a piece of that much more lucrative side of the business. So just imagine how they must feel now that Live Nation, the world's largest concert promoter, is close to stealing away pop music icon Madonna for a cool $120 million in cash and stock.

The 10-year deal, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would include the rights to sell three studio albums, promote Madonna's concerts and sell licensing name rights and merchandise, meaning a company that has never represented an artist before would suddenly be overall talent agent to one of the world's world's biggest music acts. If it is consummated — and both Warner Music and Live Nation refused requests to comment on the deal — it would be just the latest example of the increasingly prevalent so-called 360-degree deals that have concert promoters, record labels, ticketing agencies and management firms all invading each other's turf.

The hefty potential payout comes on the heels of a similarly bold move by Live Nation over the summer. In August, the king of concerts decided not to renew the contract that gave Ticketmaster exclusive ticketing distribution for most of Live Nation's 29,000 annual events, a loss that will rob the ticketing giant of about 20% of its sales. Instead, Live Nation is pumping up its own in-house ticket distribution arm, already the third largest in the world, which gives it a direct link to the music fans attending its shows. Not to be outdone, Ticketmaster significantly increased its stake in Front Line Management, an agency that represents such acts as Christina Aguilera, Jimmy Buffett and Aerosmith, when rumors swirled that Live Nation wouldn't renew its contract. Warner, for its part, has been looking around for partners, potentially hooking up with none other than IAC/ InterActive Corp, Ticketmaster's parent, as a way to counter Live Nation's proposal to manage all of Madonna's concerts and album releases. And earlier this summer Warner Music formed a joint venture with Violator Management, a firm that negotiates roles for rappers in films, advertisements, video games and TV programs.

The wave of consolidation in the industry may make sense for the suits, but it's not clear that it benefits the artists. Some acts like Radiohead and Prince have recently bypassed labels — and the tremendous cut of profits they typically take — altogether. Last week Radiohead released its new album, "In Rainbows," online with a "pay what you want" model. Similarly, Prince gave away 3 million shrink-wrapped copies of his new album last year in London's Sunday Mail newspaper.

"I wouldn't bundle all these rights into one cross-collateralized company," argues Randy Phillips, who manages Lionel Richie and is President and CEO of AEG Live, the second largest concert promoter after Live Nation. Phillips says Warner Music contacted him a few months ago to be a potential partner when they were worried about Madonna being stolen away, though the two didn't ultimately make a deal. "I think an artist can fare better with direct relationships. It takes different skill sets to maximize revenue in the different areas and the artist cheats herself by trying to put it all together."

Others see it differently. "It benefits the artist by having one company do it all because the agendas are aligned," says Jon Cohen, co-president of Cornerstone Promotion, which does music marketing. Regardless, most everybody agrees this particular deal would be a no-brainer for Madonna. "She is 49 years old and this is enormous risk mitigation," says Jim McCarthy, CEO of Goldstar Events, a ticketing distributor.

Despite all the speculation, the deal is not even finalized. "I wouldn't totally count out Warner Music in terms of keeping her," says Phillips.

Source: TIME.com