Members Opus Antics Posted August 20, 2014 Members Share Posted August 20, 2014 I just read this: ...this year’s [NFL Super Bowl] halftime show has come with a new planning wrinkle, one so astoundingly filled with transparent greed that it’s surprising even for Czar Roger Goodell. According to the Wall Street Journal, the league wants the acts to consider paying them for the privilege of getting to play the Super Bowl, either by contributing cash from their ensuing post-Super Bowl tour, or some other type of monetary submission...There’s no mention of charity, no hint of what sort of percentage the league would be looking for from the band’s “tour income.” Apparently the three finalists the NFL is considering are Coldplay, Rihanna and Katy Perry. Think they'll pay to play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 20, 2014 Members Share Posted August 20, 2014 I doubt it. But who knows in this day and age? I understand the NFLs argument that whoever plays the SB will generate some more tour revenue than they would otherwise and they want a chunk of that. OTHO, they need to understand that if not for the big concert performance, no one would be watching their $4,000,000 a half-minute ads during the Halftime Break because most of the viewers would either be taking a crap or will have switched over to the Puppy Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WynnD Posted August 21, 2014 Members Share Posted August 21, 2014 It would be reasonable for the half time act to get a portion of those half time commercials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Opus Antics Posted August 21, 2014 Author Members Share Posted August 21, 2014 OTHO, they need to understand that if not for the big concert performance, no one would be watching their $4,000,000 a half-minute ads during the Halftime Break because most of the viewers would either be taking a crap or will have switched over to the Puppy Bowl. Exactly! The NFL gets a lot of mileage out of having a big name half time act. Gets the non-football people (the ones just there to watch the commercials) involved, and keeps people watching during halftime. Without a big name act, people are doing exactly what you said. and it's not like Katy Perry is begging for some "exposure". Whether she plays the halftime show or not, her concerts will sell out. Is it great pub? Sure. But she doesn't need it. And I'll be shocked and disappointed if this gets any traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nchangin Posted August 21, 2014 Members Share Posted August 21, 2014 Gotta pay the athlete's I spose. Wow pretty sad. Imagine telling Michael Jackson he would have had to pay to play his music. Makes about as much sense as boobs on a boar pig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nousername Posted September 2, 2014 Members Share Posted September 2, 2014 This thread reminded me of meeting a guy in line to see Volbeat last year. His Seattle based band had paid to be the second (of two) openers for a lower A, higher B level national act. I don't recall the band, sorry. <1000 capacity venues, they had to drive their own van and trailer, setup/teardown. I think they were fed, but no lodging. He said it was a wonderful experience, even with the great expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted September 23, 2014 Members Share Posted September 23, 2014 It's become a problem at all levels. We've been hearing for years... "exposure opportunity".. or some other BS. I haven't paid to play since 2009, when I learned my lesson for the last time. Pay me or screw off is my motto. Except for charity gigs, but those are just free, not P2P, and we limit those to only a couple per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Opus Antics Posted October 10, 2014 Author Members Share Posted October 10, 2014 Well, it looks like the good guys won...for this year. Katy Perry is playing and without pay to play. Hopefully that puts an end to that: "And no, she’s not paying her way to the stage, as was rumored to be the NFL ’s plan this year. “I’m not the kind of girl who would pay to play the Super Bowl,” [Katy] Perry told ESPN. We look forward to seeing more of this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted October 12, 2014 Members Share Posted October 12, 2014 When you play for free, you are paying to play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Opus Antics Posted October 13, 2014 Author Members Share Posted October 13, 2014 When you play for free' date=' you [i']are[/i] paying to play I didn't see that she was playing for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted October 13, 2014 Members Share Posted October 13, 2014 Katy Perry is playing and without pay to play. I think I misread this. Although it doesn't say she's getting paid either. Rather vague on the re-read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 13, 2014 Members Share Posted October 13, 2014 I don't believe artists who perform at the Super Bowl are compensated for that performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted October 13, 2014 Members Share Posted October 13, 2014 It also should be noted that I don't think artists are paid to perform at the Grammys, the MTV Music Awards or even by the David Letterman Show. Unless there is some sort of "scale" rate they are required to be paid by union contract or some such. But there are certainly different levels of "For The Exposure" type performances. It's one thing to play for "the exposure" at the annual local fireman's BBQ. It's another to play before hundreds of millions around the world on television. I don't think there has ever been an artist who performed at one of these things that didn't sell a ton of CDs the following week or two. Katy Perry will almost certainly earn more money due to playing at the Super Bowl than she would have playing in even Madison Square Garden the same night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1001gear Posted October 14, 2014 Members Share Posted October 14, 2014 Fyask me, at the upper echelons it's just load distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author David Himes Posted October 23, 2014 CMS Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 As much as I hate to say this, it's pretty much the norm for lower-level and newly-signed bands to pay to get on tours - even club tours. Of course, this is justified by the "exposure" you'll supposedly get. But let's say, for instance, you buy onto the Warped Tour. Even if you get on one of the bigger side stages, you'll only play for 30-200 people. And some of those smaller side stages are hidden away pretty good. On those, you might be lucky to play for 5 cows. In my opinion, the only time it makes sense to buy onto a tour is if you want to get some touring experience. Or maybe make some contacts. In the case of the Warped Tour, you do get fed, but that's just about it. You have to have your own van, RV, bus, or whatever. Most bands won't admit they bought onto a tour and even if they do, they'll probably say they were "chosen." Right. They were "chosen" because they had the money to buy on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoadRanger Posted October 25, 2014 Members Share Posted October 25, 2014 I don't believe artists who perform at the Super Bowl are compensated for that performance.I do believe they have expenses covered so the crew and sidemen are paid. While I generally hate "exposure" gigs I'd play that one for expenses no prob LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.