Mac Sign Groundbreaking Deal with Clear Channel
 

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.”

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

So which is it?

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 .

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:laugh:.

Michele

All Access Music Group

Bob Pittman, Part 2: Time For Radio -- And The Labels -- To Change The Paradigm

June 25, 2013 at 9:59 AM (PT)


Read more: http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/ar...#ixzz2XJ1HFwAf
Follow us: @allaccess on Twitter | all.access on Facebook

In the final part of the exclusive two-part ALL ACCESS Power Player interview, CLEAR CHANNEL Chairman/CEO BOB PITTMAN touches on delivering to advertisers expectations, iTUNES and what it means for iHEART and the other streaming services ... and he detailed the reasoning behind its out-of-the-box revenue sharing deals with labels -- and more recently, FLEETWOOD MAC -- as a way to get around exorbitant streaming costs.

"If you look at how streaming costs are set up, most radio companies are either not going into it or doing a little as it’s too damn expensive not getting enough return," he noted. "So the pressure is on everyone to find a solution that’s not taking money from one person’s pocket to put it into the other -- as that’s not a long-term business.

"What we need to find is how we can grow a market that can mainly feed the artists," PITTMAN continued. "At the end of the day, I love the record companies, but I really love the artists and want to make sure that they make as much money as they can. And going forward we have found some markets that can grow -- so in five years it’s bigger and even 10 years it’s even bigger.

"That’s the goal of this," he concluded. "And it requires us all to do things we haven’t done in the past. We stepped up and have given the participating companies a piece of our broadcast revenue. Some think we shouldn’t do that since we’ve never done that. And labels are going to have to do some new things if they want to succeed in this world."

Read the entire interview here.


Read more: http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/ar...#ixzz2XJ1NoydV
Follow us: @allaccess on Twitter | all.access on Facebook

Clear Channel Makes Revenue-Sharing Deal With Fleetwood Mac
 

From NY Times, June 13, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/business/media/clear-channel-makes-revenue-sharing-deal-with-fleetwood-mac.html

The radio giant Clear Channel has struck a deal to pay Fleetwood Mac when the band’s songs are played on the radio and on the Internet.

The revenue-sharing deal, announced on Wednesday, was characterized as the first of its kind between a radio station owner and a music act. Last year, Clear Channel started to sign similar deals with record labels.

The 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,” Bob Pittman, the chief executive of Clear Channel, said in a statement.

Payments for radio broadcasts of songs, called royalties, have been a source of disagreement within the recording industry for decades. Historically songwriters and music publishers have received those royalties while the record labels and musicians have not. The Web works differently: there, whenever songs are streamed, the performers are paid. As radio stations have migrated to the Web, these two systems have come into conflict, leading companies like Clear Channel to come up with fixes.

Clear Channel’s first revenue-sharing deal, announced this time last year, was with Big Machine, the record label that counts Taylor Swift among its artists. Since then Clear Channel has signed similar deals with a number of independent labels.

Earlier this year Fleetwood Mac released four songs, its first set of new music since 2003. Fleetwood Mac’s longtime manager Irving Azoff, the former chairman of Live Nation, is a Clear Channel board member. In a statement he said, “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.”

Clear Channel Makes Revenue-Sharing Deal With Fleetwood Mac
 

By BRIAN STELTER
Published: June 13, 2013

The radio giant Clear Channel has struck a deal to pay Fleetwood Mac when the band’s songs are played on the radio and on the Internet.

The revenue-sharing deal, announced on Wednesday, was characterized as the first of its kind between a radio station owner and a music act. Last year, Clear Channel started to sign similar deals with record labels.

The 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,” Bob Pittman, the chief executive of Clear Channel, said in a statement.

Payments for radio broadcasts of songs, called royalties, have been a source of disagreement within the recording industry for decades. Historically songwriters and music publishers have received those royalties while the record labels and musicians have not. The Web works differently: there, whenever songs are streamed, the performers are paid. As radio stations have migrated to the Web, these two systems have come into conflict, leading companies like Clear Channel to come up with fixes.

Clear Channel’s first revenue-sharing deal, announced this time last year, was with Big Machine, the record label that counts Taylor Swift among its artists. Since then Clear Channel has signed similar deals with a number of independent labels.

Earlier this year Fleetwood Mac released four songs, its first set of new music since 2003. Fleetwood Mac’s longtime manager Irving Azoff, the former chairman of Live Nation, is a Clear Channel board member. In a statement he said, “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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/bu...-mac.html?_r=0

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/...landmark-reve/

November 29, 2013 Newstalk Return of the Mac by Stephen McNeice

http://www.newstalk.ie/Return-of-the...twood-Mac-2013

The Fleetwood Mac story is an epic one.

Four long decades have seen so many break-ups, retirements, disagreements, falling-outs and reunions that it’s hard to keep track.

Given the dizzying history and interpersonal complexities, we can only consider it a small miracle that Fleetwood Mac 2013 consists of Stevie Nicks, Lindsey Buckingham, John McVie and Mick Fleetwood. Only the retired singer / songwriter Christine McVie (ex-wife of John) is absent from the iconic Rumours-era line-up. The others will all be taking to the O2 Dublin stage in September.

The remaining quartet was also responsible for the ‘Extended Play’ EP released earlier this year - the first new Fleetwood Mac material in a decade. The reviews were reserved but respectful, determining it was solid ‘three star’ material; not another Tusk or Rumours (one of the best selling records of all time - estimates of around 40 million sales - and a perpetual presence on ‘best albums of all times’ lists).

Six studio albums followed Rumours but none could repeat it’s phenomenal success. The band name alone ensured several subsequent releases went Platinum. Whatever about the others, Rumours’ staggering sales alone exemplifies the fact that the band were, and continue to be, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the traditional record sales model. Behind the scenes, however, the band continues to experiment in surprising ways.

Extended Play was released digitally and independently, through LMJS (Lindsey, Mick, John, Stevie) Productions rather than their long-term label Warner Bros, and in June, the band signed a ‘first-of-its-kind’ deal with American radio conglomerate Clear Channel. The deal was dubbed a “direct performing rights partnership” - effectively a deal between the company and the band to ensure the band receives fixed revenue from any airplay of their new songs on both digital & broadcast radio. Although performance royalties are typically paid to artists in other countries, it is only now beginning to be implemented in the US through Fleetwood Mac and a handful of indie labels.

While many artists have spoken up about the battle for digital royalties, Fleetwood Mac have managed to forge a deal that is seemingly satisfactory to both themselves and Clear Channel (who operate 850 US radio stations) - bypassing the record labels who traditionally act as intermediaries.

Bob Pittman, CEO of Clear Channel calls Fleetwood Mac “the perfect band for radio... Reaching an agreement with them 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.”

The band’s longtime manager Irving Azoff - who, tellingly, is a member of the Clear Channel board of directors - says that the band “has consistently pushed the envelope. 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.”

As significant as the deal is, it is currently only for one band on one service. While Clear Channel (and its digital offshoot iHeartMusic) is a major player in the US, it is international streaming services like Spotify that are really causing contention. The arguments against such services are many: that they pay artists a pittance, that they suit ‘catalogue’ material more than new releases, that establishing or independent artists are getting lost in the crowd (the latter point recently receiving a lot of media attention after Thom Yorke pulled his solo material from Spotify in solidarity with neglected new talent). Indeed, Spotify don’t even deal directly with artists.

On the other hand, the most common argument for such services is that the traditional model is gone and isn’t coming back, and it’s better to start establishing a model where the artist is paid something instead of nothing. It’s an acceptable compromise between the various interests that is proving difficult to achieve.

Cellist Zoë Keating publicly released details of her earnings, revealing that less than 5% of her digital income comes from streaming services compared to paid downloads. But she remains level-headed about streaming. In her public Google spreadsheet, Keating writes, “I think Spotify is awesome as a listening platform. In my opinion artists should view it as a discovery service rather than a source of income.” However, she also points out “I've said multiple times what my issue with Spotify is: fairness. I care about making the playing field level for all recording artists: signed or unsigned.”

Certainly, this is where the Fleetwood Mac arrangement proves both more and less progressive than it might initially appear. On one hand, the fact that it signals a service provider making a direct deal with an ‘unsigned’ artist is a promising development. If such a model is adapted further, all categories of musicians might find themselves in a more favourable position. Then again, new artists aren’t Fleetwood Mac, and probably don’t have the privilege of their manager being on the board of directors of an influential company.

Will the Fleetwood Mac deal prove to be a trendsetter? Is it a mere aberration in an endless battle between commerce, art and digitisation? Can we cynically dismiss it as an old-fashioned deal from an old-fashioned band? On that last point, maybe not: Fleetwood Mac, well into their fifth decade, are still going their own way. Let’s hope others follow.

This article originally appeared in Newstalk Magazine for iPad in August.

So far I did not hear any of the FM new tunes on the radio.



Clear Channel is the most corrupt radio station owner in the country .They ruin radio .They are like pac-man gobbling up the Ma-Pa stations and turn them into robo-automated stations that have no live jocks on hand to run it the right way and have short playlists that play the same 10 crap tunes an hour.


Sorry about the rant.

I have always wondered what was behind this deal. How come we just hear that it was made and don't get further information like 'Clear Channel got exclusive streaming rights to 400 songs.'

The fact that we don't know the music content of the deal makes me think (or just wishfully dream) that it's not about old FM catalogs, but maybe prospective stuff from them. Michele

Indeed, that is correct - it is not about their catalog, but rather for new music only, which is why this deal is not the 'exlusive-mega-extreme' deal that it sounds like. All hype -

I underscored the word 'any', because it is so important, in context. The deal ensures the band is paid for 'any' airplay of their new songs from Extended Play. Not a word about old material, and ironically not even a deal that there would actually *be* any airplay for the new material.

Yes .The right thing to do is play every tune in the FM library but they concentrate on 10 popular tunes and play the crap out of them.

Here in CT the station have no problem playing FM oldies.When it comes after 2004 which they put on the ignore playlist.

We all know this is what they do with every artist. Often the best songs were never released as singles. But I think this is the reason that Stevie uses to justify playing the same songs on every tour without budging. It must be so frustrating for an artist, any artist who has recorded and released a multitude of songs to always have to play their hits.

But I hope if this deal was for new FM songs, that people contemplated it being more than just the EP.

But yeah, the "groundbreaking" deal talk and headlines is just publicity for Clear Channel. Nothing really noteworthy happened and the value of the contract is probably minimal.

Michele

Yes I agree.Its not only Clear Channel.CBS radio,Cumulus Media ,Cox Radio,Emmis Communications ‎ and others do the same.


Yes I agree.With 860 plus stations under their belt .They can do anything .They own the world.Clear Channel is Walmart of radio.

The FCC should of not relaxed the radio ownership rules.Its getting out of hand.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/review-bro...wnership-rules