Music Biz Insiders Say Sony-Jackson Deal Makes Sense

I'm not sure I understand all your questions in reference to my post.
You make it sound like I have some issues with hardcore fans?
I don't think it's in sony or the estate best interest to cut out M's fanbase core to focus on 15 yo kids or occasional listeners at all.
But why ignore them?
Isn't this adding even more audience?
I hope they'll restore once for all M's image/name (well they have to) and focus ALSO in the younger generations who didn't have the chance to enjoy him when in his prime but only when he was facing hell,they deserve to experience him like many of us did,but in a different way.

Oh ya,all artists have detractors,problems with their record companies,drug problems,some died,some almost died,ended up broke,in jail,they came back...as you said if the product is good chances are they'll live on somehow.

No the decline of the music industry doesn't affect only those who cheat,steal,suck..
unfortunately.
There are a lot of true amazing artist that got cut out and lost it all because they were not cool young and hot, they were not mainstream,they were unlucky,or were not understood by their own audience,didn't sell much even if they were amazing..and without them their less mainstream record companies failed as well.Unfair yes.

well...i'm curious...could you name some of those artists that were not cool, young and hot, and who were unlucky..and name some of their songs?

because i can name an act whose faces were never seen, but their songs were so great, that they became a huge success story. have you ever heard of 'steely dan'?

what i'm saying is..though it may seem like an unpopular opinion...the industry isn't as random as you say. if the song is good, the artist can do well.

there was an american idol, who was older than the normal age, but won, anyway...but as soon as his songs became unmemorable...he disappeared.

i'm never said that the general public should be ignored. they never were. everybody in the world always knew who MJ was. what i am saying is, the loyals have more power than the impression you seem to give. i didn't say you had a problem with them, but it did seem, you underestimated them. that's not the same as saying you have a problem with them. i'm just giving the loyals more credit.

i'm just saying, that the rumours of MJ's legacy being in jeopardy, are greatly exaggerrated. sony deal, or no sony deal. because, we all agree..MJ's music has proven to have too much power, through thick and thin, and breaking all the rules that are supposed to apply to the industry.

i have seen haters tap their feet to 'billie jean'.

nobody has any power to resist a quality song, no matter what.

a fantastic artist, is one thing. but the great song, is THE thing. and the great song, kept MJ's loyal fanbase loyal, and kept MJ on the map.

anyway, doing the right thing, by somebody, should never be discounted. keeping your nose clean, and not cheating, does go a long way, to take a person, or a label, in a positive direction. that, AND, a great song.

if you wanna go far, bet on those things, in life. money comes second. betting on doing just anything for money is not a good bet.

MJ represented not putting money first. and his songs are the greatest, and he didn't fit the mold. and he's the most successful. truth is, he neverhad to worry about his audience, or the configuration of it. his career demise rumours have been exaggerrated for years. his audience numbers being diminished, has been a rumour, exaggerrated. for years. i don't care how people tried to make it look..being upstanding, has worked for MJ.

even if you think you've seen somebody who didn't cheat, and was wrongly cheated out of a career, the overwhelming majority of non cheaters stand a better chance at a career than cheaters, or those who did another person wrong.

money has a magic way of escaping those who do just anything for it. so that really doesn't benefit anybody.
 
Last edited:
well...i'm curious...could you name some of those artists that were not cool, young and hot, and who were unlucky..and name some of their songs?

because i can name an act whose faces were never seen, but their songs were so great, that they became a huge success story. have you ever heard of 'steely dan'?

what i'm saying is..though it may seem like an unpopular opinion...the industry isn't as random as you say. if the song is good, the artist can do well.

there was an american idol, who was older than the normal age, but won, anyway...but as soon as his songs became unmemorable...he disappeared.

i'm never said that the general public should be ignored. they never were. everybody in the world always knew who MJ was. what i am saying is, the loyals have more power than the impression you seem to give. i didn't say you had a problem with them, but it did seem, you underestimated them. that's not the same as saying you have a problem with them. i'm just giving the loyals more credit.

i'm just saying, that the rumours of MJ's legacy being in jeopardy, are greatly exaggerrated. sony deal, or no sony deal. because, we all agree..MJ's music has proven to have too much power, through thick and thin, and breaking all the rules that are supposed to apply to the industry.

i have seen haters tap their feet to 'billie jean'.

nobody has any power to resist a quality song, no matter what.

a fantastic artist, is one thing. but the great song, is THE thing. and the great song, kept MJ's loyal fanbase loyal, and kept MJ on the map.

anyway, doing the right thing, by somebody, should never be discounted. keeping your nose clean, and not cheating, does go a long way, to take a person, or a label, in a positive direction. that, AND, a great song.

Yes I can name them,no I don't know 'dan'.
I said the industry is failing big time.Period.
You are questioning me about things I'm NOT saying...if you had the impression I'm saying the younger have more power,the industry is random,hardcore fans are not important,you had a wrong one.
I was making an observation that in no way was underestimating hardcore fans,nor I needed to restate the obvious fact they (we) are important.
I also never said nor hinted that M's legacy was in danger without this deal,JUST that this deal is huge given the current general state of music which is in the crapper.
Look if we are still not understanding each other let's use pm,but don't turn upside down what I'm saying..it's difficult enough to make sense in english at 3 in morning.
From "we all agree M's music...."I agree.
 
I don't know if it is a good deal or not. It sounds like it. I don't get how a record company and the estate come up with these figures in the first place. We don't know what other companies offered and maybe Sony was the best offer for them. Michael has a long history with them. It sounds like the estate is not just looking at albums but more use of Michael's music elsewhere.

As for Michael's 50% ownership of the Sony catalogue I don't think the executors would ever sell that. It's a huge asset and brings income to the estate. It's one of the best business decisions Michael made. This deal is about Michael's music and how to distribute that.

I know there is the concern about how Michael felt about Sony. He might have looked at them differently than how he did a few years ago. It's hard to know because he isn't here to say what he thinks. He would probably want the best deal for security for his kids.

Exactly! :yes:

My 10 cents:

Past differences aside (Mottola & Invincible) and by "industry standards", they've had an extremely profitable partnership.

Yes, Michael always deserved more and wanted more not just for himself, but for all artists.

John Branca comments, "During his life, Michael's contracts set the standard for the industry, reflecting his unique vision and talents that inspired and excited people in every corner of the world. By all objective criteria, this agreement with Sony Music demonstrates the lasting power of Michael's music by exceeding all previous industry benchmarks. Each new generation produces countless new fans who appreciate Michael's artistry, requiring a partner that has Sony's wherewithal, business acumen and foresight to properly and respectfully showcase his genius well into the future."

What ever benefits Sony will automatically be beneficial for Michael's estate, and of course they are going to do everything in their power to make as much of a profit as they can. That's what businesses do.

If it wasn't Sony, it would be some other record company with no experience with how Michael liked to do things "making money off of him."

I trust that Londell was involved and made sure that every i was dotted and every t crossed.





Londell McMillan, Esq.

A graduate of NYU School of Law, McMillan’s client roster reads like a Billboard chart: Prince, Stevie Wonder, Spike Lee, and Kanye West. In face, he’s best known as the lawyer “who freed Prince” from his Warner Bros. contract after only four months of getting involved. He says: “We were prepared to go to litigation, but ultimately it was the creativity of reaching a deal on terms the parties had to acknowledge made sense for all involved.”

McMillan says he learned business and advocacy from his mother, a New York beauty shop owner. He currently is a partner at the New York firm, Dewey & LeBeouf, LLP, and heads up its entertainment practice.
 
Last edited:
Exactly! :yes:

Past differences aside (Mottola & Invincible) and by "industry standards", they've had an extremely profitable partnership.

Yes, Michael always deserved more and wanted more not just for himself, but for all artists.

John Branca comments, "During his life, Michael's contracts set the standard for the industry, reflecting his unique vision and talents that inspired and excited people in every corner of the world. By all objective criteria, this agreement with Sony Music demonstrates the lasting power of Michael's music by exceeding all previous industry benchmarks. Each new generation produces countless new fans who appreciate Michael's artistry, requiring a partner that has Sony's wherewithal, business acumen and foresight to properly and respectfully showcase his genius well into the future."

What ever benefits Sony will automatically be beneficial for Michael's estate, and of course they are going to do everything in their power to make as much of a profit as they can. That's what businesses do.

If it wasn't Sony, it would be some other record company with no experience with how Michael liked to do things "making money off of him."

I trust that Londell was involved and made sure that every i was dotted and every t crossed.





Londell McMillan, Esq.

A graduate of NYU School of Law, McMillan’s client roster reads like a Billboard chart: Prince, Stevie Wonder, Spike Lee, and Kanye West. In face, he’s best known as the lawyer “who freed Prince” from his Warner Bros. contract after only four months of getting involved. He says: “We were prepared to go to litigation, but ultimately it was the creativity of reaching a deal on terms the parties had to acknowledge made sense for all involved.”

McMillan says he learned business and advocacy from his mother, a New York beauty shop owner. He currently is a partner at the New York firm, Dewey & LeBeouf, LLP, and heads up its entertainment practice.

well..it's interesting that that article is saying..only now...that the partnership with MJ was always extremely profitable. before June 25, the media was always saying MJ was in debt, and too many people were believing it, despite MJ's never ever filing for bankruptcy.

for me, it wouldn't make any difference what label MJ was on. indeed, the lasting power of his music, and MJ's respect for songwriting, were the key to teflon style profitablility. it was MJ's business acumen that benefitted Sony, as he said in a video. he was willing to spend more money on publishing, than anyone else. anyone else would have called it 'overspending'.

Sony didn't have to spend that 47 mill for that publishing. Michael did. nobody has a problem with a deal if they are not the ones that have to spend the money. and, then, when they see the profitability, they want in. that's what made Michael different.
 
Last edited:
well..it's interesting that that article is saying..only now...that the partnership with MJ was always extremely profitable. before June 25, the media was always saying MJ was in debt, and too many people were believing it, despite MJ's never ever filing for bankruptcy.

for me, it wouldn't make any difference what label MJ was on. indeed, the lasting power of his music, and MJ's respect for songwriting, were the key to teflon style profitablility. it was MJ's business acumen that benefitted Sony, as he said in a video. he was willing to spend more money on publishing, than anyone else. anyone else would have called it 'overspending'.

:agree:

That's no article, that's me saying their partnership was profitable. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Yes, it was always more about the artistry / messages for Michael. He would spend his own money for his video's, etc...

As for the publishing side, again I agree.
 
:agree:

That's no article, that's me saying their partnership was profitable. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Yes, it was always more about the artistry / messages for Michael. He would spend his own money for his video's, etc...

As for the publishing side, again I agree.

oh. sry
 
Yeah, it makes sense. You get to release ten albums by the greatest artist to ever live without having him around to voice his opinion on how that should be done. Where's the downside? It's an evil corporation's dream come true.
 
Yeah, it makes sense. You get to release ten albums by the greatest artist to ever live without having him around to voice his opinion on how that should be done. Where's the downside? It's an evil corporation's dream come true.

Actually, if you look at the things that were planned in the 1991 contract and compare them to this new deal with his estate, it looks to me like they're trying to do what Michael wanted, even though he gone...

1991 >>> Michael Jackson Gets Thriller of Deal to Stay With Sony

...starting with him starring in his own full length feature film "This Is It", which, under the circumstances, was wonderfully done.

No, the projects won't be exactly the way Michael would have done, down to the last detail, without his direction. However & for example, I believe that Michael would be happy that his fans got to see his rehearsals and imagine what he had planned for us. Likewise for the unreleased songs that he recorded. Why keep the recordings if he wasn't feelin' 'em?

There's a quote that he made about how he nurture's each song in a way similar to the way a baby is created...if anyone has it please post it.

For sure, his songs were great because he put his heart and soul into them and that will be evident, no matter what, IMHO.

On the financial side, his estate will get paid and so will the record company, regardless to which one, just like things would go if Michael was still here with us. If "Sony" is evil now, they were evil then. God sees all.
 
In Era of Dwindling Sales, a Megadeal for Jackson’s Estate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/media/22jackson.html

By JOSEPH PLAMBECK
Published: March 21, 2010

Could Michael Jackson break the music industry’s megadeal jinx?

Throughout the 1990s, as CDs flew off the shelves, record labels routinely signed big artists to multimillion-dollar recording contracts. Some of it was vanity: labels paid a premium to keep a big-name artist rather than risk a few wisecracks in the press for letting a star go to a rival.

And despite the precipitous drop in album sales in the last decade — about 50 percent fewer albums were sold in 2009 than in 2000 — major deals continued apace, often with bad endings. Mariah Carey’s five-record, $80 million deal with EMI in 2001 lasted one record before the label paid the singer $28 million to get out of the contract.

“If you went back 10 or 20 years ago, you could afford to do a deal that was a little outrageous,” said Russ H. Crupnick, a senior entertainment analyst at the NPD Group, a market research firm. A label’s midlevel acts could sell enough albums to cushion the financial blow. But as the number of platinum-selling albums has dwindled, from 179 in 2000 to 45 in 2009, the labels have little padding left.

“These days, it’s hard,” Mr. Crupnick said. “You can’t afford to be as generous as you might have just to have a name on the roster.”

Nevertheless, early last week Sony’s Columbia Epic Label Group, which worked with Michael Jackson for more than 30 years, announced a deal with the pop star’s estate worth up to $250 million, perhaps the largest in history.

Under the deal, Sony will release 10 projects — probably a combination of albums, DVDs, live theater or even a video game — by 2017. The new contract also extends Sony’s rights to Mr. Jackson’s previous recordings.

For the Jackson estate, the deal will help alleviate a large debt load, at least $300 million when he died, built over time by the artist’s unfettered spending. But for Sony, the deal appears on its face to be a big bet in a slumping music industry, particularly since the agreement gives the company the rights to his recordings, but not a cut from merchandise or publishing, and only limited rights to his likeness.

“Obviously the deal has a super headline number. What I thought I would see after that is likeness rights,” said one consultant to the music labels, who requested anonymity to protect his relationships in the industry. “I was surprised when I read that it is only about records and licensing.”

Despite the limited rights and the spotty record track record for the largest record deals, Sony is confident it will come out ahead with its Jackson contract. The company points to Mr. Jackson’s global commercial success, which is shared by only a handful of legacy acts, including Elvis Presley. The movie “Michael Jackson’s This Is It” has grossed more than $260 million globally, almost 75 percent of which came from outside the United States, according to Box Office Mojo, which tracks movie sales. In addition, more than half of the 31 million Jackson albums the company says have been sold since his death in June are from outside the United States.

And if the deal is a boon for Sony, it would be another sign that superstars — both dead and alive — still rule the industry, perhaps more than ever, despite proclamations that the Internet may help level the playing field.

Last year, Michael Jackson sold 8.3 million albums in the United States, nearly double the albums sold by the second artist in line, Taylor Swift, according to Nielsen SoundScan. The Beatles ranked third. And last week, a new album of previously unreleased tracks from Jimi Hendrix, who died in 1970, was the fourth-best selling album.

According to research conducted by Will Page, the chief economist at PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection group in Britain that represents artists and music publishers, the gap between the hits and the niche is wider on online music sites than at traditional retailers.

In his look at We7, a music streaming music service in Britain, 5 percent of the millions of available tracks accounted for 90 percent of the streamed songs. In traditional stores, he said, 20 percent of the available inventory accounted for 80 percent of the sales.

What that means, Mr. Page said, is “the value placed on a proven catalog of an artist like Michael Jackson goes up, as it can stand above the increasing amount of noise in the market.”

Several executives at other major labels scoffed when asked about the deal, saying their companies had learned the lessons of the past. And if that recent past is much of a guide, an executive’s job can be at stake if results are not quickly realized after a big deal. In 2006, Andrew Lack was ousted as chief executive of Sony BMG (now Sony Music), in part for pushing through a recording deal with Bruce Springsteen that cost more than $100 million.

In 2007 and 2008, Live Nation signed a handful of artists to so-called 360 deals, in which the company takes a portion of the revenue from album sales, concerts and merchandise. Madonna and Jay-Z, for example, each signed 10-year, nine-figure deals with Live Nation.

It was not long, though, before the company backed away from signing new artists. Along the way, the company’s chairman and its biggest proponent of speeding up the signing of artists, Michael Cohl, left in 2008.

David C. Joyce, an analyst at Miller Tabak, said that he expects that the Madonna and Jay-Z deals “will turn out to be low double-digit margin returns over their 10-year lives.” But investors were wary of the deals at the time — Live Nation stock dropped sharply after the signings but has moved upward in the last year as the company stopped adding new artists and merged with Ticketmaster.

Mr. Crupnick said that Sony’s Jackson deal could be even more successful. “I think in this particular case, the deal makes quite a lot of sense, both for Sony and for the estate,” he said. “There are incredibly few artists these days who can continue to create revenue streams the way Michael Jackson can.”

The amount of new material Sony will have to work with is unclear, since the estate is still making its way through the large trove of unused material kept by Mr. Jackson. Sony says there are at least 60 unreleased songs, some of which will be used for an album that the company plans to release in November.

A DVD compilation of his music videos is also in the works, and a Cirque du Soleil show using Mr. Jackson’s music, similar to the “Love” show in Las Vegas that uses Beatles music, has been reported as a possibility.

“Few brands can be continuously reinvented and re-established and reach broad demographic groups,” said Charlie Walk, a former president of Epic Records, a Sony label. “Michael Jackson can do just that.”
 
well...of course they'll say that.
it just woulda been nice to hear that kind of talk about a still alive artist.

but that will never happen.

'death to the artist, and make a profit'. boy that sure doesn't feel good coming out of My mouth.
I feel ya...I have mixed feelings about articles like this. So mixed that I don't know what to feel. Them business people at Sony don't know nothing about music. So many artists dealing with esp. major labels like Sony complain about that. With "new" albums without Michael, the artist's input, things would never be the same. As always, I just hope they put out as many unreleased materials as possible. I really don't hope for more than that. My expectation level is that low.
 
Actually, if you look at the things that were planned in the 1991 contract and compare them to this new deal with his estate, it looks to me like they're trying to do what Michael wanted, even though he gone...

1991 >>> Michael Jackson Gets Thriller of Deal to Stay With Sony

...starting with him starring in his own full length feature film "This Is It", which, under the circumstances, was wonderfully done.

No, the projects won't be exactly the way Michael would have done, down to the last detail, without his direction. However & for example, I believe that Michael would be happy that his fans got to see his rehearsals and imagine what he had planned for us. Likewise for the unreleased songs that he recorded. Why keep the recordings if he wasn't feelin' 'em?

There's a quote that he made about how he nurture's each song in a way similar to the way a baby is created...if anyone has it please post it.

For sure, his songs were great because he put his heart and soul into them and that will be evident, no matter what, IMHO.

On the financial side, his estate will get paid and so will the record company, regardless to which one, just like things would go if Michael was still here with us. If "Sony" is evil now, they were evil then. God sees all.

indeed. God does see all.

what makes this all so muddy looking is that MJ's music is soo magical, that it can cover up a lot of things.

as far as MJ keeping music he may not feel....well..i doubt any songwriter would find it wise to throw away (into public domain) anything he or she wrote, no matter what. cus u never know what the public domain will do with it.
 
indeed. God does see all.

what makes this all so muddy looking is that MJ's music is soo magical, that it can cover up a lot of things.

as far as MJ keeping music he may not feel....well..i doubt any songwriter would find it wise to throw away (into public domain) anything he or she wrote, no matter what. cus u never know what the public domain will do with it.

Word.

Yep, I fell in love with To Satisfy You by Bryan Loren just because Michael sang the chorus :wub:

True dat, I was thinking that he could've let someone else record them, just like he did with To Satisfy You and This Is It.

* From "Music From The New World" Album
* Written and Composed by Bryan Loren
* Chorus by Michael Jackson

Michael wrote To Satisfy You with Loren during the Dangerous sessions, but didn't fancy it for Dangerous and let Loren record it for his own album released in 1992. Also recorded - as 'Satisfy You' - by Damion Hall, for his 1994 abum, Straight To The Point but did not include Michael's backing vocals.

Read more: http://www.mjtunes.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=1&lid=4##ixzz0j8uLvwcr
 
Last edited:
Of course this deal makes sense to industry insiders because it = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ which is the bottom line.
 
^^^hmm..well..i didn't like that song, even with Mj singing on it.

but that's just one down..and millions of other songs Mj had anything to do with that i LOVe.
 
Back
Top