Mac Sign Groundbreaking Deal with Clear Channel

[GavinBrown]

http://www.billboard.com/biz/article...5y0rYXgX1BU.01


Clear Channel Media & Entertainment has cut a deal to pay performance royalties to Fleetwood Mac for songs from its recently released “Extend Play” EP that are broadcast on its 850 terrestrial radio stations. According to Clear Channel, it’s the first rights partnership between a radio company and an artist.

“Reaching an agreement with [Fleetwood Mac] is the clearest sign yet that this kind of revenue-sharing model represents the industry’s future -- it is a win-win-win, for artists, fans and the music business,” said Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman in a statement. “We look forward to helping Fleetwood Mac get their hit songs to their fans on whatever platform or device they want to find them.”

The deal may be the first with an artist but Clear Channel has already cut deals with 11 indie labels: Big Machine Label Group, Glassnote Entertainment Group, eOne, DashGo, Robbins Entertainment, Naxos, rpm Entertainment, Wind-up Records, Fearless Records, Zojak Records and Dualtone Records.

While the U.S. music industry has long sought performance royalties for master rights owners and artists -- something which is paid in most other countries -- it has never achieved that right in the U.S. The closest the industry has come was in 2010 when at the behest of Congress, record labels and radio station negotiated such a performance right and royalty, but those talks broke down and the legislation wasn’t enacted before the session ended. In 2012, Clear Channel began negotiating such deals, first with Big Machine, in exchange for predictable, reduced rates for its digital radio service, iHeartRadio.

“Fleetwood Mac has consistently pushed the envelope -- creating new sounds, making music that seems designed for radio and looking at the industry in new ways,” said Fleetwood Mac representative Azoff Music Management head honcho Irving Azoff, who is also on the Clear Channel board of directors. “It’s fitting that a group that’s played such an integral role in radio and music history would be the first band to take such a major step -- helping the music industry create a sustainable digital marketplace so it can thrive for decades to come. We’re delighted to join Clear Channel in creating a new model for the music industry one that will be good for performing artists, good for music fans, and good for the people who have invested their talent, time and money.”

[Macfanforever]

Thats great news.I hope the stations play the FM tunes on the radio now.I have 8 ClearChannel stations here in CT to play them.

ClearChannel is like a Walmart of broadcasting.850 plus station of playing power under their belt.

I'm not a fan of corporate radio .But if this the way to go to get FM tunes on the radio .I'm for it.

I wish this was done with the IYD release.

Heres a list of those CC owned stations.Look up your local station and have them play tunes from the new EP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Clear_Channel

[michelej1]

This is very interesting, although I don't know what it means. It appears strange that Clear Channel would ink such a watershed deal on an EP, rather than on some highly awaited album by a star.

The fact that it's an EP makes me wonder if there is more music coming from Fleetwood Mac that would also be part of this deal.

As far as them being paid royalties, I honestly think that it's a step backward to the old model. I think that artists have to embrace the fact that sometimes you have to give music away for "free" as part of the promotion. But in the end, for FM, they aren't going to sell enough records for it to matter one way or another. I wouldn't encourage younger artists to do this.

Stop resisting the Pandora, RDO, Spotify ilk, people. But Apple has a new radio service coming and we have to see what they do as far as content deals. They may lead a new trend in this matter.

Michele

[KarmaContestant]

I think this is all fluff and baloney.

So, here's the deal - record labels and artists want radio stations to pay them a per-play royalty each time they play a song. Good for artists, good for labels - on the surface - at least as far as money is concerned.

The reality is that the artists and labels that sign these deals will simply get little to no airtime. Why would any corporate, shareholder-profit-driven radio station choose to fill their playlists with pay-to-play songs when the vast majority of choices are not pay-to-play?

Why play one of four Fleetwood Mac songs and pay a royalty, when they can play any other artist and pay no royalty?

Until this pay-to-play royalty system is required by law for all recording artists in the U.S., it will only hurt the ones who do sign these deals.

[Macfanforever]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I think this is all fluff and baloney.

So, here's the deal - record labels and artists want radio stations to pay them a per-play royalty each time they play a song. Good for artists, good for labels - on the surface - at least as far as money is concerned.

The reality is that the artists and labels that sign these deals will simply get little to no airtime. Why would any corporate, shareholder-profit-driven radio station choose to fill their playlists with pay-to-play songs when the vast majority of choices are not pay-to-play?

Why play one of four Fleetwood Mac songs and pay a royalty, when they can play any other artist and pay no royalty?

Until this pay-to-play royalty system is required by law for all recording artists in the U.S., it will only hurt the ones who do sign these deals.

Yes I have the cheese and mayo to go with it.

I just dont trust corp radio and their doings .They ruined radio like Walmart and Home Depot ruined the Ma -Pa small stores. .We will see what will pan out with this.

[vivfox]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I think this is all fluff and baloney.

So, here's the deal - record labels and artists want radio stations to pay them a per-play royalty each time they play a song. Good for artists, good for labels - on the surface - at least as far as money is concerned.

The reality is that the artists and labels that sign these deals will simply get little to no airtime. Why would any corporate, shareholder-profit-driven radio station choose to fill their playlists with pay-to-play songs when the vast majority of choices are not pay-to-play?

Why play one of four Fleetwood Mac songs and pay a royalty, when they can play any other artist and pay no royalty?

Until this pay-to-play royalty system is required by law for all recording artists in the U.S., it will only hurt the ones who do sign these deals.

Matt, radio stations have always had to pay a royalty on every song they play. The ads they sell bring revenue dollars into the station. BMI and ASCAP monitor all the radio stations in the world to collect royalties for their artists. What this particular deal does, is remove the middle man (i.e. the record company).

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by vivfox

Matt, radio stations have always had to pay a royalty on every song they play. The ads they sell bring revenue dollars into the station. BMI and ASCAP monitor all the radio stations in the world to collect royalties for their artists.

Not quite; what you reference are licences that allow a station to licence an entire catalog, artist or label. This new deal, specifically, is a per-song royalty for each time the song is played. A license fee that gives you broadcast rights for, say, all of Polydor's artists, is very different than a deal which says that you will pay 15 cents every single time you play a particular song from a particular Polydor artist.

While the U.S. music industry has long sought performance royalties for master rights owners and artists -- something which is paid in most other countries -- it has never achieved that right in the U.S.

[RockawayBlind]

This deal is good for the band. It's amazing they were able to pull it off, considering no other artist has done this.

[CADreaming]

I think they were using the EP to test these waters.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

This deal is good for the band. It's amazing they were able to pull it off, considering no other artist has done this.

Since we don't know the value of the deal, I don't know how hard it was to pull off. But I agree with you it's good for FM for the publicity, if nothing else.
Since they have a deal in place, I just hope it means that they already have a stream for their new music -- which will increase the chance that we get new music.

For Clear Channel it would have meant more if some artist whose music the world is still clamoring to hear signed with them. And I really don't think FM is going to cause other artists to do it. I think the Eagles would have had more impact on other artists than FM would at this point.

I wish they would just let the streaming services pay what the terrestial radio stations were paying to broadcast the songs all of those years and drop the mentality that Pandora is ripping them off somehow. It's like an old lady smacking the boy scout that tries to help her across the street.

Michele

[michelej1]

Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2013 by Hannah Karp

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-h...9/SS-2-252885/

Clear Channel Communications Inc. said Wednesday it would start paying classic rock band Fleetwood Mac a sliver of the broadcaster’s radio-advertising revenue in exchange for the right to use the band’s newest music on the company’s online services.

The agreement puts Fleetwood Mac among a handful of performing artists that get paid anything at all when their music is played on the radio in the U.S. Unlike in most other countries, U.S. law requires radio broadcasters to pay so-called performance royalties only to music publishers, which represent songwriters, but not to the artists who perform the songs nor to their record labels. That is because historically, radio play gave performing artists exposure that helped them sell records. Songwriters benefit from record sales, too, but not as much as performers. As record sales have plummeted over the past decade, record labels have fought to change the law, but efforts to date have failed.

Recently, though, as Internet radio and subscription music services have grown in popularity, Clear Channel has started cutting its own deals with independent record labels to secure reduced rates on the digital use of these labels’ music—in exchange for a share of airplay revenue. Fleetwood Mac is the first band to cut such a deal directly with the broadcasting company, which owns about 800 traditional radio stations and an online music service called iHeartRadio.

The first label to sign such a deal last year was the Big Machine Label Group in Nashville, Tenn., which counts Taylor Swift among its artists. Big Machine President Scott Borchetta and Clear Channel Chief Executive Bob Pittman first discussed the idea at the Grammy Awards last year. Since then, Mr. Pittman said he has talked to “all the major players” in the music industry and has signed similar agreements with 10 more indie labels, though so far he hasn’t struck a similar deal with any of the three major record companies.

Fleetwood Mac’s direct deal with Clear Channel applies only to its new four-song EP, entitled “Extended Play,” self-released recently, because the band owns those four songs and controls all the rights associated with them. Fleetwood Mac’s best-known albums, such as 1977′s “Rumours,” are controlled by Warner Music Group, which released them, and aren’t covered by the new deal, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Pittman declined to disclose the terms of any of the deals.

Digital royalties are becoming an increasingly significant expense for music providers. SoundExchange, a division of the Recording Industry Association of America that collects and distributes royalties to performing artists when their songs are played digitally, collected $502 million in 2012, a 35% increase from 2011. Labels and performing artists have been entitled to collect royalties on digital use of their work since 1995 when the Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act took effect.

[KarmaContestant]

The first article specifically states '850 terrestrial staions', meaning brick and mortar - the above article specifically says 'online services'.

So which is it?

[Macfanforever]

CC owns Iheart Radio too.

As the reports say CC bought the rights of the music .Now if they will play the tunes is an another question.We all ready seen the zero results on Stevie IYD outing .We will see.

Heres a forum that I'm a member of.It has everything on how radio works.

The Business of radio forum section.

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?board=319.0


Check out the other sections too.

I think you can lurk without registering .

[Neal]

I was shocked when I heard "Sad Angel" on the radio about a week ago, and then again yesterday. Granted, both times were after 11pm, but it was still encouraging.

Oddly enough the station that's playing it is not a Clear Channel one (at least according to the Wiki list).

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Neal

I was shocked when I heard "Sad Angel" on the radio about a week ago, and then again yesterday. Granted, both times were after 11pm, but it was still encouraging.

Oddly enough the station that's playing it is not a Clear Channel one (at least according to the Wiki list).

I hope this deal doesn't mean you stop hearing the song on non-Clear Channel stations. Of course, I've never heard it myself. But it heartens me to think that someone else has.

Michele