TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- iTunes vs. Beatport: Which gives artists more money?

iTunes vs. Beatport: Which gives artists more money?

So I see a track that's available on iTunes and as well as on Beatport. I don't care which one I buy from, both cost the same. So which store gives the artist more money?

doesn't matter where you buy them. the artist gets a % of total sales no matter where you buy them from, they don't get more if you buy them from beatport or itunes or djdownload or juno

labels distribute to a select # of digital outlets depending of their distributer. so if the label distributes with kompakt, then they sell their music wherever kompakt spreads it

pretty sure i'm right

quote:

Originally posted by jupiterone doesn't matter where you buy them. the artist gets a % of total sales no matter where you buy them from pretty sure i'm right

you're not. the statements list every online download shop individually. and different online stores take different percents of the sold units. audiojelly takes 50% of every sold unit as far as i know, beatport takes 40% if i remember correctly. these might differ based on the deal the label has made, but i believe audiojelly's 50% is a standard there.

plus tracks have different prices on different stores, which also naturally affects on how much money does the artist make.

quote:

Originally posted by a98 you're not. the statements list every online download shop individually. and different online stores take different percents of the sold units. audiojelly takes 50% of every sold unit as far as i know, beatport takes 40% if i remember correctly. these might differ based on the deal the label has made, but i believe audiojelly's 50% is a standard there. plus tracks have different prices on different stores, which also naturally affects on how much money does the artist make.

thought i remembered something about that with my previous contracts, thanks for clearing up

Yea, i would say Beatport, pretty much regardless of % as itunes charges .99 for a track and beatport is at least 1.99 for the first month or so of a release, if not 2.49. Anyway you cut it, the artist makes more from non-iTunes sites per single sold. ALTHOUGH... if you do add up amount of sales for a specific track if you can get some cross-over appeal then a release can make more on iTunes.

For example, one of our latest releases on Perfecto, a rerelease of Shannon- Let The Music Play has done MASSIVELY on iTunes, one of our biggest releases since we launched Perfecto Digital yet has not even broken any of the top charts in sales on Beatport.

So yea, food for thought.

beatport takes 50% and some extra fees for creditcards etc.
the label takes 50% and fees for promotion. artist is left with nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by palm beatport takes 50% and some extra fees for creditcards etc. the label takes 50% and fees for promotion. artist is left with nothing.

haha... no. Not exactly.

The 50% for the label is NOT from the gross sale amount, its %50 from the amount the label receives.
Very basic example:
Say the label has a 50/50 deal with Beatport and the artist has a 50/50 deal split with the label.
The track sells for $2 (round it up a penny to keep the math more simple).
Beatport takes $1 the label takes $1.
The label then splits that $1 with the artist 50/50, in this scenario the artist makes .50.

Now, yes their are clauses built into most contracts where the label can recoup some other costs (promotional/remix fees) which can often times lead to the artist making very little on a track or even nothing. Thats why its good to get a heathly understanding of what your contract reads in signing a track. Also, ask the label for accounting statements on a regular basis to see where all the money is going.

quote:

Originally posted by KennethThomas haha... no. Not exactly. The 50% for the label is NOT from the gross sale amount, its %50 from the amount the label receives. Very basic example: Say the label has a 50/50 deal with Beatport and the artist has a 50/50 deal split with the label. The track sells for $2 (round it up a penny to keep the math more simple). Beatport takes $1 the label takes $1. The label then splits that $1 with the artist 50/50, in this scenario the artist makes .50. Now, yes their are clauses built into most contracts where the label can recoup some other costs (promotional/remix fees) which can often times lead to the artist making very little on a track or even nothing. Thats why its good to get a heathly understanding of what your contract reads in signing a track. Also, ask the label for accounting statements on a regular basis to see where all the money is going.

I might have to PM you later for some advise. I'm off to ebay to purchase some talent.

BTW, thanks for getting that tune stuck in my head. I remember disliking it in 90's. Wonder how I'd feel about remix...

How does revenue work for remixes? Say Rank 1 did a remix of a Marcel Woods song - if I purchased the Rank 1 tune, would the artist revenue be distributed between the two of them, or would Marcel Woods get the whole income?

Also, what about collaborations? Are those split evenly? What about when a collaboration tune is remixed, as happened with the Rank 1/Alex M.O.R.P.H. tune "Life Less Ordinary" a couple years back?

quote:

Originally posted by supersaw abuse How does revenue work for remixes? Say Rank 1 did a remix of a Marcel Woods song - if I purchased the Rank 1 tune, would the artist revenue be distributed between the two of them, or would Marcel Woods get the whole income? Also, what about collaborations? Are those split evenly? What about when a collaboration tune is remixed, as happened with the Rank 1/Alex M.O.R.P.H. tune "Life Less Ordinary" a couple years back?

with big name artists such as the ones you mentioned, the remixers are payed in advance fees. and just like advance payments for original artists this is slowly changing and more and more labels are just going to pay royalties to remixers as well. especially smaller labels.

there's no standards for those, but what i've seen is, from the amount the label receives, either:
25% to original artist and 25% to remixer(s)
10% to original artist and 40% to remixer(s)
0% to original artist and 50% to remixer(s)

these are the most common that i've seen, but it all depends on the contract.

with collabs the royalties are of course split between the two, unless they have their own agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by supersaw abuse How does revenue work for remixes? Say Rank 1 did a remix of a Marcel Woods song - if I purchased the Rank 1 tune, would the artist revenue be distributed between the two of them, or would Marcel Woods get the whole income? Also, what about collaborations? Are those split evenly? What about when a collaboration tune is remixed, as happened with the Rank 1/Alex M.O.R.P.H. tune "Life Less Ordinary" a couple years back?

My experience is that the remixers rarely see any back end %. I actually prefer no back end as it is so hard to collect and takes ages, so i prefer a flat fee. A lot of labels prefer this as well as then they dont have to account for that remixer on that one version of the track. They can still keep the basic split between the original artist and label the same across the board on all the mixes on the package.

Although, I am now seeing labels who dont want to put much money up front offer larger % on the back end to entice bigger remixers. It may even turn into a flat 50/50 backend deal with the remixer for their remix with the Original artist cut out on that one version if this added name is adding much more to the package.

Bottom line though, there are all sorts of deals and splits and it can vary from project to project and label to label.

The artist makes far more money if you paypal me and let me buy your music direct for you.

quote:

Originally posted by enydo The artist makes far more money if you paypal me and let me buy your music direct for you.

+1

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.