BravoTangoWhiskey Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Given how the music market has changed from purchases to streaming and concerts, how will 143 make up the outlay spent in music videos, promotion and production? I'm genuinely curious if anyone has any legitimate estimations for how much a major album rollout like this will cost a label. i think I remember years ago reading it cost 100k for max martin to be on board to do song, but i imagine that would be much higher - and then the royalties afterwards (I know he's not involved but a ballpark figure). Then I guess the costs of the collabs? Music videos? Other writers?
kellebrity98 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 3 minutes ago, BravoTangoWhiskey said: Given how the music market has changed from purchases to streaming and concerts, how will 143 make up the outlay spent in music videos, promotion and production? I'm genuinely curious if anyone has any legitimate estimations for how much a major album rollout like this will cost a label. i think I remember years ago reading it cost 100k for max martin to be on board to do song, but i imagine that would be much higher - and then the royalties afterwards (I know he's not involved but a ballpark figure). Then I guess the costs of the collabs? Music videos? Other writers? baby the collab is Kim Petras, not Mariah Carey or Madonna 8
Sheep Posted August 9 Posted August 9 After Smile bombed, Capitol would not just throw buckets of cash at another Katy record. Whatever the budget was, I'm sure it was tightly controlled and considered in relation to this worst case scenario. 1
KatyPrismSpirit Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Imagine being worried about the finances of someone that is worth half a billion dollars only on ATRL 1
Popboi. Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, Sheep said: After Smile bombed, Capitol would not just throw buckets of cash at another Katy record. Whatever the budget was, I'm sure it was tightly controlled and considered in relation to this worst case scenario. They would throw any kind of budget at it if they get a % of the tour revenue.
A-V-XYZ Posted August 9 Posted August 9 3 minutes ago, kellebrity98 said: baby the collab is Kim Petras, not Mariah Carey or Madonna Kim had a more recent Hot 100 #1 single and Grammy win compared to Mariah and Madonna. 1 1 5
GentleEarthquake Posted August 9 Posted August 9 (edited) 1,43 cents Edited August 9 by GentleEarthquake
Stunnah Posted August 9 Posted August 9 I don't think they're spending that much. The play-listing has been bad. Woman's World debuted with 40 million. For comparison, Houdini debuted with around 185 million and still has 80 million reach today. I don't think the Woman's World video was that expensive. And the Lifetimes one certainly wasn't.
Sheep Posted August 9 Posted August 9 7 minutes ago, Popboi. said: They would throw any kind of budget at it if they get a % of the tour revenue. Katy is a legacy act so the tickets would sell with or without new material though.
BrokenMachine Posted August 9 Posted August 9 The profit is in her catalog, that's how labels work. Let's say Katy gets 20% of her music and the label 80%, if 143 makes no profit she's still getting 20% from current streams/sales of her previous albums, but the label will step in and take that 20% until the whole budget of 143 gets covered 1
aotwbys Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Yeah, eventually yapping Spoiler I don't think there's much work from Max Martin on the album (Max Martin's name isn't popping up as much as expected). So they might have saved some money in that sense It's likely that the only collabs with costs attached are with JID and 21 Savage, with 21 Savage being the pricier option since he's always expensive for a feature. Doechii is signed to the label and probably didn't cost much. Kim Petras is associated with Dr. Luke, so that connection could have made the feature cheaper. And 21 Savage features can easily go for six figs, at least They didn't invest much (anything) in playlisting for WW or Lifetimes, and as far as I know, the only song that had a 1-week radio deal was Woman's World (and that's only 1 week) The album photoshoot looks high-end but I doubt it was outrageously expensive. The WW video definitely seems big budget but that doesn't mean every video from the album has to be just as costly Honestly, I don't think the album will sell less than Smile, and they can definitely make bank off the tour. Even if 143 doesn't do well, it doesn't mean people are over Katy. Maybe this album just didn't hit right now, but that doesn't mean her career is over. The Vegas residency did great, so there's still plenty of demand for her live performances 2
BravoTangoWhiskey Posted August 9 Author Posted August 9 34 minutes ago, BrokenMachine said: The profit is in her catalog, that's how labels work. Let's say Katy gets 20% of her music and the label 80%, if 143 makes no profit she's still getting 20% from current streams/sales of her previous albums, but the label will step in and take that 20% until the whole budget of 143 gets covered 2 minutes ago, aotwbys said: Yeah, eventually yapping Hide contents I don't think there's much work from Max Martin on the album (Max Martin's name isn't popping up as much as expected). So they might have saved some money in that sense It's likely that the only collabs with costs attached are with JID and 21 Savage, with 21 Savage being the pricier option since he's always expensive for a feature. Doechii is signed to the label and probably didn't cost much. Kim Petras is associated with Dr. Luke, so that connection could have made the feature cheaper. And 21 Savage features can easily go for six figs, at least They didn't invest much (anything) in playlisting for WW or Lifetimes, and as far as I know, the only song that had a 1-week radio deal was Woman's World (and that's only 1 week) The album photoshoot looks high-end but I doubt it was outrageously expensive. The WW video definitely seems big budget but that doesn't mean every video from the album has to be just as costly Honestly, I don't think the album will sell less than Smile, and they can definitely make bank off the tour. Even if 143 doesn't do well, it doesn't mean people are over Katy. Maybe this album just didn't hit right now, but that doesn't mean her career is over. The Vegas residency did great, so there's still plenty of demand for her live performances Really useful info, thanks Just wondering, a lot of people make jokes about spending on playlisting, but i thought it was illegal to pay for playlisting. I know artists found loopholes in radio payola by giving tickets and doing radio shows etc, but how do they do it for Spotify/Apple/Amazon (excluding exclusives)
UnusualBoy Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Probably. I doubt the label was expecting a smash record from this considering the people she worked him (And if they do, they're plain stupid) so they probably didn't invest much, I mean there's not much playlisting and the only thing that looked expensive was the WW video.
perpetual novice Posted August 9 Posted August 9 The album itself? No. Sounds like they were banking on this being a reinvention and comeback for her. Hopefully a tour picks up some revenue for her, but I'm not sure if her label claws back revenue from that with her deal with them. But at the end of the day she's still katy perry, the money her back catalogue makes Capitol is enough goodwill for them to not just drop her. They owe her.
Breakdown Posted August 10 Posted August 10 She's been focusing on physicals early on which is a good sign and she's planning to do an extensive tour so I am inclined to say yes
xxxlamb Posted August 10 Posted August 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, BrokenMachine said: The profit is in her catalog, that's how labels work. Let's say Katy gets 20% of her music and the label 80%, if 143 makes no profit she's still getting 20% from current streams/sales of her previous albums, but the label will step in and take that 20% until the whole budget of 143 gets covered I thought she sold it https://ibb.co/nB3bc1B https://ibb.co/nB3bc1B Edited August 10 by xxxlamb
BrokenMachine Posted August 10 Posted August 10 16 minutes ago, xxxlamb said: I thought she sold it https://ibb.co/nB3bc1B https://ibb.co/nB3bc1B Well, not sure how that works then since she's not a 'generic' case, or maybe she sold her rights knowing in advance something like this would happen
Dante Silva Posted August 10 Posted August 10 I think it's going to be one of those albums that sells relatively well (in the first few weeks) despite not having a hit single. I wouldn't be surprised if it enters the Billboard album chart at No.5 or 6. In the aftermath of the first few weeks I wouldn't then be shocked if people ask the question "With the consumption metrics of 143, has Katy migrated from being a singles artist to purely becoming an album artist?". People are going to be curious about the potential bops that lay within the album despite disagreeing with the morals/ conduct of who helped construct them". I'm open to being wrong. 1
naval23 Posted August 10 Posted August 10 it will increase the recurrent streams of "Teenage Dream" once people realize it's not good
Welovetrouble Posted August 10 Posted August 10 4 hours ago, Paultea said: Most albums, even successful ones, don't make a profit lol So how do labels make money?
.thumb.gif.af269f0eef015ca39d48a9be5a61a7d2.gif)
Recommended Posts