Buying merch at the show is the best way to directly support musicians, especially smaller and local artists. If I’m wearing a band shirt then it’s most likely I bought it at their show. Most venues share very little, if any, of total ticket sales with artists. Some venues have adopted a “pay-to-play” scheme where the bands “buy” a set amount of tickets from the venue up front, and then hope to recoup the costs through their own ticket and merch sales. That’s how a lot of venues in my area operate, and the only people happy about it are the venue owners.
That said, a lot of popular band merch is sold under record company license by corporate retailers, or by online bootleggers/counterfeiters. Either way, most musicians won’t see much, if any, kickback from merch unless it’s sold at a live show.
Well, there is Metallica, Inc. and Slipknot (the business entity) along with all of the related brands and labels that are attached to them, off the top of my head. Many other mainstream bands are just businesses too.
Being incorporated gives you some protections when signing with a label. The corporation faces the label and would otherwise be invisible to the public unless they go looking. I’d say any smart band that signs with a label is incorporated in some capacity.
I feel like there’s a huge difference between individuals choosing to advertise a brand (especially a band or other artists) that they genuinely enjoy vs a company just paying for our attention. The intent behind it matters.
That’s pretty obtuse. They don’t advertise for a company, they’re showing their love for artists they like or feel an emotional connection to. Most bands aren’t billionaires, and I wear their gear to support them, because I want them to earn a living and make more music.
Why do people like to advertise for companies that don’t pay them to advertise?
Buying merch at the show is the best way to directly support musicians, especially smaller and local artists. If I’m wearing a band shirt then it’s most likely I bought it at their show. Most venues share very little, if any, of total ticket sales with artists. Some venues have adopted a “pay-to-play” scheme where the bands “buy” a set amount of tickets from the venue up front, and then hope to recoup the costs through their own ticket and merch sales. That’s how a lot of venues in my area operate, and the only people happy about it are the venue owners.
That said, a lot of popular band merch is sold under record company license by corporate retailers, or by online bootleggers/counterfeiters. Either way, most musicians won’t see much, if any, kickback from merch unless it’s sold at a live show.
We’re talking about bands, though? A band isn’t a company. There’s a pretty big difference between an artist and a corporation.
Well, there is Metallica, Inc. and Slipknot (the business entity) along with all of the related brands and labels that are attached to them, off the top of my head. Many other mainstream bands are just businesses too.
Most bands are incorporated for technical reasons, but your point still stands.
Most? Only the biggest bands ever consider this. I’d wager 90%+ of bands are not incorporated.
Being incorporated gives you some protections when signing with a label. The corporation faces the label and would otherwise be invisible to the public unless they go looking. I’d say any smart band that signs with a label is incorporated in some capacity.
I feel like there’s a huge difference between individuals choosing to advertise a brand (especially a band or other artists) that they genuinely enjoy vs a company just paying for our attention. The intent behind it matters.
That’s pretty obtuse. They don’t advertise for a company, they’re showing their love for artists they like or feel an emotional connection to. Most bands aren’t billionaires, and I wear their gear to support them, because I want them to earn a living and make more music.
There’s a difference between Korn and Aéropostale.