How much money would the "Idols" have made by now?

[Jaffas85]

How much money do you reckon successful Idol's such as Kelly, Ruben and Runner Up Clay would have made by now?

Do they get a healthy cut of the profit from their album sales?

They'd make a fair bit from touring too wouldn't they?

Do you reckon that they'd all have atleast $1,000,000 each by now?

[George Tropicana]

Kelly made more money from modelling with Candies.

[Ragin]

Jaffas85 said:

How much money do you reckon successful Idol's such as Kelly, Ruben and Runner Up Clay would have made by now?

Do they get a healthy cut of the profit from their album sales?

They'd make a fair bit from touring too wouldn't they?

Do you reckon that they'd all have atleast $1,000,000 each by now?

No. The show makes them stars, so I'd guess they reap most of the profits too. If they want to make money they'll have to get endorsement deals or something. Chances are their second albums will give them a bigger cut, but unless they hit, it won't matter.

[flarbygarby]

Well that sucks. They get the fame part, but not the money.

[Ragin]

flarbygarby said:

Well that sucks. They get the fame part, but not the money. 

But in the end, the fame gets them their money.

[Bob]

uhm they get a $1million recording contract from the get-go.

[Jaffas85]

Bob said:

uhm they get a $1million recording contract from the get-go.

Doesn't mean they get $1,000,000 it just means they get signed to a label to record and release music under.

[Bob]

Jaffas85 said:

Doesn't mean they get $1,000,000 it just means they get signed to a label to record and release music under.

nooo i thought they actually get a mill

[Ragin]

Bob said:

nooo i thought they actually get a mill

It's misleading I'd bet. I don't know, but if it's anything like I'm familiar with, the million is all part of the deal, meaning it has to cover recording costs, promotion etc.

I knew a band that got signed by a major label and they got a contract that was close to a million in worth, but they got paid virtually nothing. Studio costs + promotion costs + distribution costs end up being a lot of money. Most starting bands end up owing money to the label if they aren't hits.

Is American Idol that way? I'd bet they are based on the fact that labels are greedier today than they eveer have been.

[flarbygarby]

well, I once saw this special coverage on E! (or some station like that) where they did a quick interview with Kelly Clarkson for the z100 Jingle Ball(or something) and they asked what she was getting her family members for Christmas. Her response was something along the lines of: 'Well, now that they all know that I have money, they're all asking me for something so I don't have an excuse." I don't recall the exact words but I know it was something about her having money. So realistically, I think they do get some portion of a profit.

[WhySoSerious?]

Ragin(was said:

It's misleading I'd bet.  I don't know, but if it's anything like I'm familiar with, the million is all part of the deal, meaning it has to cover recording costs, promotion etc.

I knew a band that got signed by a major label and they got a contract that was close to a million in worth, but they got paid virtually nothing.  Studio costs + promotion costs + distribution costs end up being a lot of money.  Most starting bands end up owing money to the label if they aren't hits.

That's not exactly correct. Industry custom is that promotion costs, distribution, manufacturing, advertising, marketing, shipping, etc. are not recouped from the artist. Things that are recoupable are advances, recording costs (which are generally paid by the artist out of the advance), tour support, video production costs (usually only half recoupable), etc.

[jond7699]

I am not sure I completely understand ?

[Ragin]

TCorey said:

That's not exactly correct.  Industry custom is that promotion costs, distribution, manufacturing, advertising, marketing, shipping, etc. are not recouped from the artist.  Things that are recoupable are advances, recording costs (which are generally paid by the artist out of the advance), tour support, video production costs (usually only half recoupable), etc.

I know you are in the business, and I mean no disrespect, but I'm pretty sure it is customary (at least for some labels) for the label to recoup ALL costs associated from the artist from the album sales before the artist starts seeing any of the money from album sales. If I am incorrect on this, I just want to say it is only because I'm old and that's the way it USED to be done, again with at least some labels.

[WhySoSerious?]

Ragin(was said:

I know you are in the business, and I mean no disrespect, but I'm pretty sure it is customary (at least for some labels) for the label to recoup ALL costs associated from the artist from the album sales before the artist starts seeing any of the money from album sales.  If I am incorrect on this, I just want to say it is only because I'm old and that's the way it USED to be done, again with at least some labels.

If those costs are recouped by the label it's because the artist had an awful lawyer who didn't negotiate them a decent contract.  Customarily in the industry costs associated with making the discs and getting them into stores are borne by the label.  Recoupable items are generally any money that is paid directly to the artist or associated with the recording of the album. 

In practice labels don't break this industry standard (I know we all like to think they're monstrous), but I'm sure it has happened before.  It's just not what generally happens.

[Ragin]

TCorey said:

If those costs are recouped by the label it's because the artist had an awful lawyer who didn't negotiate them a decent contract.  Customarily in the industry costs associated with making the discs and getting them into stores are borne by the label.  Recoupable items are generally any money that is paid directly to the artist or associated with the recording of the album. 

In practice labels don't break this industry standard (I know we all like to think they're monstrous), but I'm sure it has happened before.  It's just not what generally happens.

Okay, I stand corrected. It is not customary then.

Perhaps a better question for me is this then, because it is possible something else led me to believe this.

Is it possible that somebody spent so much money RECORDING an album that they'd have to sell 3 million copies just to start making money as an artist?

I'm wondering if the recording costs I took to meant all the other costs too because it just seemed so out of reason.

[WhySoSerious?]

Ragin(was said:

Is it possible that somebody spent so much money RECORDING an album that they'd have to sell 3 million copies just to start making money as an artist?

I'm wondering if the recording costs I took to meant all the other costs too because it just seemed so out of reason.

Well, generally the artist is given an advance.  For a brand new artist signed to a major label I've heard figures in the range of 175-300K are the norm.    That amount is used to not only record the album, but for the artist to live off of.  Generally the artist won't record an extravagantly expensive album because they won't have any money left to pocket.  If they do blow all of their advance on the album and have to ask for more, the label will likely agree, but they'll bitch and grumble, taking the extra money from other places besides album sales like publishing royalties or future albums.

I can't imagine having to sell 3 million units to recoup if you're a new artist though.  Only if you're a superstar who has a multi-million dollar advance for each album would that be typical. 

However, if this is a band you're referring to maybe they had a larger advance because they had to split the money five ways.  And if the label gave them tour support, they'd have to pay that back.

[jond7699]

That clears things up alot. Thanx Tcorey

[Ragin]

TCorey said:

Well, generally the artist is given an advance.  For a brand new artist signed to a major label I've heard figures in the range of 175-300K are the norm.    That amount is used to not only record the album, but for the artist to live off of.  Generally the artist won't record an extravagantly expensive album because they won't have any money left to pocket.  If they do blow all of their advance on the album and have to ask for more, the label will likely agree, but they'll bitch and grumble, taking the extra money from other places besides album sales like publishing royalties or future albums.

I can't imagine having to sell 3 million units to recoup if you're a new artist though.  Only if you're a superstar who has a multi-million dollar advance for each album would that be typical. 

However, if this is a band you're referring to maybe they had a larger advance because they had to split the money five ways.  And if the label gave them tour support, they'd have to pay that back.

The one I was thinking of on the 3 million figure was a well established artist. The other band I knew some members of, were signed to a major label and never really made a dime from the deal. That's part of where I draw the idea that these new artists aren't making a lot, I guess, but perhaps had these guys sold more records they would have, I don't know. As it was they ended up in pretty bad shape, finanacially.