Talk:List of largest music deals

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of largest music deals article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Timeline?

Hello! This is another cool article that deserved creation. I like how clean it looks so far. Besides asking for slight revisions to the head image, I'm suggesting if a timeline section would be alright. Taking influence from the highest-grossing films article, I think it will be perfectly fine to include both a table of the largest deals and a table that shows the gradual increase of such deals. Carlinal (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure (at the moment) if a timeline would be possible. I meant, it is explained in text plane (notes) if the contract was the largest at that time. Also, most of them are just estimations and rumored sums. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking

Enrique Iglesias | US$68 million deal with Universal Music Group (no ref found)
For the record: Somehow, the figure of $15–$20 million had been leaked to the media as what Diana had been guaranteed for the endeavor- That figure was inaccurate in the extreme. | From a book of AuthorHouse (deprecated publisher).

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good work on the list!

Tails Wx 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's 1 Billion deal

The 1 billion figure directly comes from Sony, not some mere speculation of the media. UPI has clearly said that $60M is the base price as reported by the media. Since this deal is based on prospective earnings or success, royalties, film production, computer games, and Michael Jackson owning his record label, the media always preferred to go with the base price of the deal.

There are multiple sources that confirm the transaction has come to be worth 1 billion over the years—for example, the years 1994, 2003, and 2022. The Guinness Book of World Records subsequently listed the transaction in question as the biggest deal at $890 million when they published a list of the ten largest contracts ever.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnically, Ellis Cashmore as did others, confirmed that Sony expected to realize (gross) $1 billion in revenue with that deal. GWR also referred to prospective earnings. The $1 billion is not the amount for what Michael Jackson signed (the actual amount was between 50, 60 or 65 million), which this list is tend to be for. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources for Ellis Cashmore? The sources that provided $1 billion were directly from Sony executives and specifically said that the deal would help Jackson to generate a worth of up to $1 billion. If you are quoting the NYT article to support your argument, “Sony expected to realize (gross) $1 billion in revenue with that deal.”

The same article says that industry executives who have followed the negotiations said the contract called for Mr. Jackson, who is already the highest-paid performer in the record business, to receive an advance higher than the $18 million he was reported to have received for the final record of his current contract. That would mean that Mr. Jackson would be paid more than $108 million for the six new albums alone on top of whatever he might receive for the movies, television shows and records he might produce, write, or star in. The 60M figure was the base price, and the deal was based on prospective earnings from multiple projects. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiholic: All sources I'm talking about came from what you have provided. Including author Cashmore (2022). And all or almost all sources agreed that the $1 billion was a record label expectation but regarding revenue/gross for them or Jackson. Would also be kind of ironic, the fact if you as believe about the $1 billion, media overall didn't highlight "Michael Jackson is the first billionaire artist" or a stuff like that, and he didn't appear on Forbes lists with that sum. Considering in his time, headlines were important that even his fellow Prince wanted a headline for his contract. The thing is more obvious when post-March 21 1991 sources, almost all said the sum was actually 50-60-65 million. March 21 sources, including the same NYT you have talking about also said: Neither Sony executives nor representatives of Mr. Jackson would say how much the singer will receive under the agreement, which had been in negotiations for six months. However, Sony officials said the company could realize $1 billion from retail sales of the various Jackson products. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deal undeniably hinges on expectations. In fact, the many different reliable resources provided here showcases a prevailing pattern of deals driven by these very expectations, regardless of the artist. As I've clarified in my edit summary and preceding comments, my stance is crystal clear: the 60-65 million figure serves as a starting point. Given that the deal's foundation rests on prospective earnings, media outlets like Forbes can report it in two distinct ways. Some opt for the base price, while others align with the statement made by a Sony Executives. However, the 65 million figure appears incongruous, particularly when considering the comprehensive scope of the deal, encompassing the release of the next six albums. It's worth noting that Jackson had previously received 18 million for his prior album. In response to your request for a source citing media referring to Jackson as a billion-dollar man, here's one TheWikiholic (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My stance also remains. Some figures were based on speculations and others from expectations. To me, most sources are clear explaining Sony's goal to reach a revenue as high as $1 billion based on his previous sucessess prior 1991, while it was not a conclusive sum, neither for Jackson's pocket. Giving the fact you want to make those changes, you may seek for a consensus. -Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Apoxyomenus in this case. It's not like the label transfered Michael Jackson a literal $1 billion to his bank account. Recording contract is an investment for the label and the artist is generally paid in advance. Future payment for the profit generated by artists' releases is another thing. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apoxyomenus: What you're engaging in is essentially selective sourcing, aligning it with your perspective. It's crucial to recognize that the majority of music industry agreements are predicated on anticipations rather than definitively quantifiable sums, and this holds true regardless of whether both parties concur on this fact or not. Take, for instance, the notable 100 to 120 million dollar deals with Madonna back in 2007. These agreements were not entirely composed of liquid cash. As reported by Reuters, The 10-year deal reportedly includes $50 million in cash and stock for the right to promote Madonna’s concert tours; a signing bonus of $17.5 million; and advances totaling $50 million-$60 million for three albums." TheWikiholic (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiholic: You're the one who provided sources for the $1 billion deal, and then, most of them explicitly refers it was a goal, a dream, a possibility, or whatever it can be called, but not part of the agreement such as Madonna's 100-120 deal you're referring. Instead, take Cashmore (2022) as example, he said explicitly the agreement was for $65 million, not $1 billion (expected revenue). Even take Mariah Carey for example, she was fired, and the label needed to pay her a termination of over $20 million but the agreement was between 80-100 million. Perhaps, we can explain these things to readers, or have a explanatory note for MJ's 1991 deal. But as I said, if you're convinced, you can open a consensus because you're the one that need to open it per policy. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sources that directly cite Sony, explicitly stating that the deal would confer Michael Jackson a worth of 1 billion dollars. UPI has also explicitly stated that the 60/65 million was the base price. Furthermore, an article in The New York Times elaborates on Jackson's contract, revealing that he is guaranteed a minimum of 108 million for his six album releases, in addition to granting him ownership of his record label, Nation Record. Jackson's deal is intricately tied to prospective earnings, contingent on factors such as album sales and promotional expenditures by the label. It hinges on the artist's stature and confidence.

In India, we have instances of actors foregoing upfront remuneration for a share of the box office collections in major cities. Ultimately, what matters in these deals is their overall worth, rather than the immediate lump sum received by the artist at the time of the agreement. Most of the time, such arrangements are an investment for both the artists and the record labels, and this holds true for Mariah Carey as well. This is exemplified by the label's payment of an additional 28 million dollars to her after her termination, on top of the 21 million she had already received from Virgin, culminating in a total payout of 49 million from her 80-100 million dollar deal.

The 60/65 million for MJ, 21 million for MC, and 50 million for Madonna represent the base or initial installment of their total agreements. The breakdown of the 108 million by The New York Times for Jackson's six album releases provides clarity on this matter. If record labels were accustomed to disbursing the entire deal amount as a lump sum at the time of the agreement, there would be no need for the subsequent 28 million dollar payment to Mariah. I refrain from seeking further consensus through an RFC, as Bluesatelite has already contributed to the conversation. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late response. The thread is becoming endless. NTY also explained how the paid was undisclosed and the billion once again, were expected earnings. While taking Carey's example when she was fired, the original agreetment was between $100-80 million. This also happens with MJ's 1991 deal, the original agreetment was between 50 to 60-65. Those are the figures taken by all artists. Not sure what Bluesatellite implies to don't open a RFC. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]