Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Sept 1, 2008 21:52:07 GMT
You are correct that this depends in part on how we define "success". While I know it is unsettling to people, when I am in "analytic mode" I view things which are sold at a market as I would any other product. The general rule of success which applies is that the product function as it is advertised. Hayley was advertised here as a star in the making - which means that in her case I would expect at least one platinum release and achieving gold more often than not. ... This also means as an aside that she really isnt all that "successful" in the UK either  As I stated elsewhere, she is a "second tier" star there. ...Her next contract would almost certainly not be as big as this one is under the best of circumstances, but how much not meeting expectations affects it, (if it does) will determine how many resources she has to "tick away" at America in the future. Hi Jon, you and some others seem to define "success" as "making it big", but I do not. Yes indeed, Pure failed to meet the original aims and expectations of the record company but the contract was renegotiated after Pure (after Odyssey version one, I think) and I am sure the aims and future expectations would then have changed. Decca got it badly wrong initially and that may be (and it's only my personal guess) why Costa Pilavachi had to move on to another company, after a 'decent interval' had elapsed. I don't think it's helpful or even fair to compare Hayley's current level of "success" with the Pure era, which is over and done and something that can probably never be recaptured. My measure of "success" is how well Hayley is doing now, compared to what was envisaged at the time of the contract renegotiation and on that basis, I think she's doing OK. Success to me means the ability to pursue and to earn a decent living from a chosen career and by that measure, Hayley is a successful singer. She hasn't "made it big" except in NZ but she does have a successful career now, which has leveled out post-Pure rather than declining steadily, as has been implied in this thread a few times. There was a big step down from Pure to Odyssey but since then, I suspect Hayley's earnings (one of my measures of success) have been fairly constant. Of course, we can only check this occasionally, usually when Hayley releases a new album or undertakes a new tour and the next test will come in the UK for River of Dreams (the album and especially, the tour). Hayley has already passed her first test of 2008 with flying colours, I'd say - the Japanese album and tour. So what's all this got to do with success in the US? Well, as long as more money is being earned (by Decca and Hayley combined) from the US than is being spent there, it supports what Hayley is earning in the rest of the World. This seems to be enough to provide Hayley with a good living in her chosen career and that's how I define success. It's certainly not "making it big" in the way that Decca originally intended and I don't think Hayley can ever "make it big" in the US, probably not even in the UK (though she's doing OK there). But as long as the US continues to help fill the pot and isn't draining it, I call that success. Taken overall, Worldwide, I think Hayley's success will continue for many years to come but regrettably, there may be no more than the present occasional and short forays into the US for a while yet. But you can never be sure what's round the corner. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 1, 2008 22:02:32 GMT
Hi Dave,
Actually it is the definition given to me by her record company. Not mine.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Sept 1, 2008 22:18:13 GMT
Hi Dave,
Yes, you make a good point I think. We seem to assume that Hayley's aim is to "make it big", but has anybody thought to ask her? Being a big star has its pressures, and it may be that Hayley would prefer to simply be able to make a living doing something she loves, and still be able to walk down the street without attracting a crowd.
The first time I saw Hayley perform live, I made the comment that I was glad I had seen her perform while I could still afford to. The fact that her concerts are mostly reasonably priced (and terrific value for money) is something I'm very glad about for the selfish reason that I can afford to see her quite often. If she really did take off, especially in the US, we would see a lot less of her in the UK, and I'm sure that the cost of her concert tickets would increase dramatically. But nonetheless, if that happens and it is what Hayley wants, I will be really pleased for her.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Sept 1, 2008 23:21:04 GMT
Hi Martin,
I think most artists want to succeed as much as they can. I don't think it's a matter of making it "big" as it is pursuing a full career.
In Hayley's case I think that she is such a talent that it is incumbent on her to share it with as much of the world as she can. I love coming to the UK and Ireland to see Hayley; but a lot of people don't have the resources to do so. So I think we must share this marvelous talent with the rest of the world.
Larry
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Sept 2, 2008 0:43:22 GMT
Hi Dave, Actually it is the definition given to me by her record company. Not mine. Jon Hi Jon, I am not disagreeing with the definition as applied to the "Pure" era but I do think it's about time we drew a line under it - even if the record company can't or won't let go of the problems they created (the Pure overspend). When measured from the 2005 contract renegotiation, which I think is a reasonable thing to do over three years later, I suspect that "the product" has "performed as advertised" (but what a horrible phrase to apply to a person - record company definition or not). I prefer to say, as I did, that in my opinion Hayley has had a successful career overall, since the Pure era effectively finished at the start of 2005 and I think it will continue that way. But I can see no signs at present that it is successful enough to allow another attempt to break into the US market in a big way, which is a pity as I'd love to see that. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 2, 2008 1:15:17 GMT
Hi Dave, Actually it is the definition given to me by her record company. Not mine. Jon Hi Jon, I am not disagreeing with the definition as applied to the "Pure" era but I do think it's about time we drew a line under it - even if the record company can't or won't let go of the problems they created (the Pure overspend). When measured from the 2005 contract renegotiation, which I think is a reasonable thing to do over three years later, I suspect that "the product" has "performed as advertised" (but what a horrible phrase to apply to a person - record company definition or not). I prefer to say, as I did, that in my opinion Hayley has had a successful career overall, since the Pure era effectively finished at the start of 2005 and I think it will continue that way. But I can see no signs at present that it is successful enough to allow another attempt to break into the US market in a big way, which is a pity. Dave Hi Dave, You are correct of course as far as that goes. I think perhaps I am more negative than you are - perhaps an impression skewed by the fact that I happen to live in America - which no attempt of mine to step back from can completely erase. It does beg the question however of how you and many others on this site would view her "success" if she had performed one song in the UK this year. Still, I recall two posts within the past couple of months - one of them asking Hayley to perform a song - and her reply that "it costs money". The other was in the recent thread about her pics that Joe closed (sorry Joe). In that one Steve was complaining in part about seeing all of those pics of the same dresses. When I see something like that, I do not have the reaction Steve did. It simply causes me to wonder "why". It is the way my mind works. Putting two and two together - and possibly getting five - I think that these sorts of things may give us a possibly unintended insight into her actual financial state. Perhaps it means she is merely unusually frugal - but it just might be a sign that she has to nickel and dime herself to make the rest of that contract work. That is most assuredly not my definition of "success". Jon |
|
|
|
Post by fusilier23 on Sept 2, 2008 2:35:56 GMT
I don't think Hayley is unusually frugal, although she is not as high-living as a lot of other stars, you don't see her constantly out and about at premieres (one so far), nor clubbing night after night running up big tabs, nor throwing lavish parties for her friends. What she probably has to be is realistic at this point about how she handles her "investments" in her career.
I am certainly not possessed of the financial knowledge someone like Jon has, but you don't need to be a financial wizard to understand the concept of investing where it will bring you the maximum return. That's the UK and Japan, and it has been since Hayley went international in 2004. There's also something to be said for trying to expand the portfolio and diversify, but if it's leading to losses, you don't throw good money after bad, and let's face it, Hayley has never gotten a big return on appearing in the US on her own. As I pointed out elsewhere, every time she's been high-profile here she's been either a guest of someone more high-profile or a member of a group, and regional careers aren't built on that.
I really and honestly believe that 2007 could go down in history as the year Hayley found her limits, at least for the time being. I don't say this to be hurtful or judgemental. She got a lot further than many other singers with equivalent credentials and abilities. However, she just couldn't pierce the US market, and the biggest push to do so, which took the biggest toll on her so far, Celtic Woman, failed in that respect. I say the biggest toll because she said as much to me, saying that was the toughest tour she'd been on. It would not surprise me at all if she came away from that major effort frustrated with the results and determined to concentrate where she could actually get good ones.
Another internet friend put the idea into my head that perhaps we in the US aren't all that interested in classical crossover, and he might well be right. In the cities, rap is the music of choice, while in rural areas country reigns supreme. There is a perception that classical is the music of snobs and classical crossover the music of the PBS crowd, which is, I'm sorry to say, a limited audience. Hayley has also now lost that perishable quality that attracted crowds for awhile for another singer, her youth. While I think that she did the right thing not trying to push things early on, which would have led to an early vocal burnout, the downside is that now she's just another female singer in her 20s, and those are a dime a dozen.
If I'm not mistaken, Hayley owes Universal three more albums, though, with one more to come out fairly soon, assuming the usual 18-month time between them. I think at this point her best bet is to try to finish that out in the set time, which would give her an end time of about October 2011. At that point she can try to make the shift to the US, assuming someone will finance it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Sept 2, 2008 2:43:23 GMT
Does getting on Oprah really make people big stars, or do you have to already be a household name before you get on Oprah? I'm thinking of her gradually building "name recognition" and from there perhaps having a reasonably successful album in the US, and so on. I don't really see Hayley as an "Oprah" type personality, or even a blockbuster type movie singer. Singing at the olympic games like Sarah Brightman, seems more realistic. Well, Josh Groban has been on Oprah several times, and yes, that has certainly gained him more popularity than he might've without her. Most recently his Christmas album was one of "Oprah's favorite things", and so he sang a couple of the songs on the show. Why couldn't Hayley be seen as as an Oprah-type personality? Does Josh Groban seem like one? I mean, what do you imagine as an "Oprah-type" personality? I happen to think that Oprah would be very interested in Hayley's project for young girls in Ghana, since Oprah herself has programs for young girls in South Africa. I agree that it will probably be a slow process, although I do think a song on a major movie would give her a boost. You're right, it depends on the movie. And I do hope she sings for the Olympics in London. How will joining the forum on Oprah help? Oprah probably doesn't read it, so how's that going to get Hayley on the show? I suppose it wouldn't hurt; if nothing else, it'll help spread the word. |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Sept 2, 2008 3:05:21 GMT
I don't think Hayley is unusually frugal. At that point she can try to make the shift to the US, assuming someone will finance it. How about David Foster? Hayley herself has admitted to being somewhat frugal, because that's what she had been used to growing up. Those gowns she wears at every concert are probably quite expensive, but I've noticed that she seems to change her concert outfits with each year. And there's nothing wrong with wearing the same 2 dresses everytime, especially when she looks so gorgeous in them. She only started wearing the green dress the end of last year, and the orangish-reddish-pinkish-peachish-coral one in spring (it looks different everytime I see it) . |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Sept 2, 2008 3:10:14 GMT
I think perhaps I am more negative than you are... Hi Jon, I agree with you there. ...perhaps an impression skewed by the fact that I happen to live in America - which no attempt of mine to step back from can completely erase. It does beg the question however of how you and many others on this site would view her "success" if she had performed one song in the UK this year. I can only speak for myself and I think I'd view it exactly the same as now. I would try to look at the overall picture and I would hope she could visit and perform more often (as I do with Anna Netrebko, for example, who rarely performs in the UK). Still, I recall two posts within the past couple of months - one of them asking Hayley to perform a song - and her reply that "it costs money". The other was in the recent thread about her pics that Joe closed (sorry Joe). In that one Steve was complaining in part about seeing all of those pics of the same dresses. When I see something like that, I do not have the reaction Steve did. It simply causes me to wonder "why". It is the way my mind works. Putting two and two together - and possibly getting five - I think that these sorts of things may give us a possibly unintended insight into her actual financial state. Or they may not. Perhaps it means she is merely unusually frugal Perhaps, perhaps not, though it wouldn't altogether surprise me! ...but it just might be a sign that she has to nickel and dime herself to make the rest of that contract work. I'm not sure if I exactly understand your comment there but we do need to be careful not to let ourselves drift into speculation about Hayley's personal finances. That is most assuredly not my definition of "success". Jon It isn't mine either but that doesn't mean we share the same opinion about it. Hi Libby and Steven, I do agree with most of what you have said, thanks. And now, I need sleeeep, good night all! Dave  |
|
Joe
Administrator
Supporting Hayley since 2003!
Posts: 6,715 
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2008 4:32:17 GMT
Hi all, Last night and today I was watching the Jerry Lewis Labor Day telethon (that's a nationwide TV 20+ hour program to raise funds for research on neuro-muscular diseases). The telethon had many musical performances, including young performers Billy Gilman and Renee Olstead. Hayley would be brilliant at this telethon! There is already a wonderful orchestra in place as part of the entertainment. Oh, she could do "Sonny" ...etc etc... I'm banging my desk and grinning at the thoughts of all this. Incidentally, Jerry Lewis always sings "You'll Never Walk Alone" to end the telethon.  The telethon raised $65 million for the Muscular Dystrophy Association...amazing considering the economy and the two million people displaced due to Hurricane Gustav. |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 2, 2008 9:26:03 GMT
Hi Jon,
You clearly know a lot about this business and I'm not questioning most of what you say. To clarify my own postition, I'm not trying to suggest that word of mouth alone should be relied on. My feeling is that some may be looking for too much to happen too quickly, and that it is not realistic -- and I think you are possibly saying much the same thing -- it is not realistic to expect a singer of Hayley's type to become a "top tier" star in the sense the top popsters do.
The information you provide about ages is interesting, and could go against Hayley becoming a "breakout" star, but my point was less about her age being an assert from the point of view of her becoming a star tnan the significance of it from her personal point of view.
You talk of her contract is interesting. She hit the top of the classical charts in the UK and number 8 on the pop charts. This is much higher than I or most of my New Zealand acquaintances would have expected her to get.
In fact every year she does better than we expect. As I understand it, the contract provided her enough to live on for a couple of years and she had to sell over 1 million odd albums before making much money for herself. They did put a huge amount of money into marketing it -- more than they will for subsequent contracts, but I don't see that she personally will get less from any further contracts.
I have seen a breakdown where a band of four members who sold 250, 000 albums could expect to make about $4,000 each after the production people and everyone else had been paid. Both Hayley and Gerald have said that the amount Hayley was supposed to have gotten was [word deleted] -- publicity hype. The record company has got their money back and made a reasonable profit out of Hayley. I have seen it said that Pure got Decca out of the "mire". I don't know how much truth there is in that, but I think there is some truth in the notion that "crossover" sales, of which Pure was the leader kept the "classical" music section of Decca alive.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Sissel at the same stage of her career". Do you mean in the US or in the UK? I don't know much about Sissel.
If you compare Hayley with the top "hard-core" pop singers then I would agree that she is a second, or even third tier star. I wouldn't expect anything else from a singer of her type.
But why does she have to be a "top tier" star in that sense, or even include more younger people in her fan base?
Some people here may not like the idea but I think Hayley was never a New Zealand Charlotte Church. Hayley is more of a New Zealand Nana Mouskouri. Right, she is not quite so syrupy and somewhat more modern but she is still a singer of easy listening ballads and middle-of-the road material; and her market is older people who like "pleasant". Such singers may never be top tier stars, but they have a record of longevity and plodding along happily outside of the turmoil that can occur in other areas.
And back to the gradual "word of mouth, with a few extras on top of it" notion, I'm not sure about it, and won't be dogmatic about it; but there are two points that I would draw attention to:
1. It always starts slowly and builds up. I have seen good word mouth claimed to be one of the most important factors in a products selling, and while I will defer to your understanding of what happens in the US, the comment that it would take her 70 years at the current rate seems to overlook the theory that it is supposed to accelerate or even snowball like a geomentric (chain letter) series. Of course it never goes that fast in reality, and the product must have a significant market for it to work at all.
2. We are now in the Internet age and I am thinking of "word of mouth" to include stuff posted on forums, blogs, spread by email, etc. Mind, what effect the new techology has on the whole business is something none of us knows for sure as yet.
I do grant you that singers are a different kettle of fish from other products. I believe that computer companies like Hewlet Packard, Verbatim, and Seagate, are supposed to have gained a lot from good word of mouth, but it may not apply to singers.
PS I see than Nana Mouskouri is now being included on the UK classical charts (she had a conservatoire background until her professor kicked her out for playing the abomination of Jazz in her spare time). She is also supposed to have sold over 250 million albums, and some estimate it as over 300 million. And would she have ever been considered a "top tier" star? Probably not. But my models for Hayley would include Mouskouri, Brigthman, Sissel, maybe Striesand at the outside. And then there is folky stuff that she could do.
I don't think there is that much disagreement between us in some ways. It is just what one means by "success". Perhaps I am rating what I consider "success" for a singer of Hayley's type much lower than others are. For example, I just don't see her as anywhere near as commercial as someone like Celine Dion and so wouldn't expect that level of "success".
That is the problem with the heading of this thread -- what is meant by "succeed". It may seem obvious, but it's not. Without defining, qualiying or quantifying "succeed" it is a subjective and vague idea. Sure, it's ok for a fun forum, but for a serious campaign the objectives and targets would need to be more clearly defined.
|
|
|
|
Post by fusilier23 on Sept 2, 2008 11:39:40 GMT
Interesting to compare Hayley to Nana Mouskouri, who has also never had a huge US following. There is certainly some overlap between the music, but if anything, Hayley is the opposite in her career path, trying to get out in the world early, while Nana is quite frankly someone who kept singing past her peak, a relic of the Mario Lanza era.
Stuart, I see what your point is, but four years is an awfully long time to wait for word of mouth to do much, especially in this internet age.
Basically, performers pass through five stages. The first is "Who's John Smith?" then it becomes "Have you heard of John Smith?" then it goes to "Get me John Smith," then "Get me a John Smith type," and finally "Who's John Smith?" again. She's sort of reached the third stage in the UK, but in the US she hasn't gotten past the first. Most Americans wouldn't even know her name if you mentioned it. That's not necessarily bad though, because there's nowhere to go but up from there, whereas that other singer, after a six-year absence from the US, is largely forgotten here.
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Sept 2, 2008 14:09:07 GMT
...The record company has got their money back and made a reasonable profit out of hayley. Hi Stuart, I don't want to get into most of the details of your post because much of it's been covered before in this thread however, I think it's generally known that at the end of what I call the "Pure era", the record company was left with a big loss because of their overspend. But it was Hayley's loss, in effect, because that's how record contracts are drawn up. It would take her many years to pay that off out of future record sales. I've no idea how many years but that would have been covered in the contract renegotiation. It is also why I try to to differentiate between the "Pure era" ("the record-company hype" era, if you like) and everything that's happened since, which I see as phase 2 of Hayley's international career. As long as the record company believe Hayley will have sufficient income from present and future album sales internationally to continue to pay off what they originally spent, as long as Hayley can continue to earn a living from the many non-Decca recording and other activities she has undertaken in recent years, and as long as Hayley wishes to carry on with her career (as I am sure she does), I see no reason why she cannot continue with a successful career (by my definition) for many years to come. Any subsequent contracts would follow up on the 2005 renegotiations, not on the original deal that overspent. I realise none of this relates to what most people would see as success in the US but as long as Hayley keeps things going successfully in the UK, Japan, NZ and a few other places, and can continue to sell a few tens of thousands of albums a year profitably in the US, there will remain a possibility of turning things round there. I'm not talking platinum discs but a second 100,000 seller as mentioned by Jon would be nice and could happen at any time. I am sure Hayley and her management will continue to look for future opportunities in the US such as Celtic Woman or any of the other things we have discussed. But of course, there's no "sure-fire way" to 'success'. Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 2, 2008 19:13:58 GMT
Thank you Dave. I realise I have repeated a number of points, incidentally, and intended to apologise about it. I came to my computer after being out and answered a post of Jon's without refreshing the page and seeing that my point about how we define "success" had already been covered in other posts. (I missed seeing a number of posts.)
And especially thank you for the informatin about the Pure overspend. Many of my friends and acquaintances assume that Hayley is enormously wealthy -- multimillionaire status. I knew it wasn't that simple, and that she had to pay back the money spent on promotion, but didn't know that there had been such an overspend. This helps explain why she has been going hell-for-leather the way she has and taking the advertising jobs she does, I suppose.
Given what I now know, if I were Hayley and her management I wouldn't think of going near the US at the moment. For a start, she can't be two places at once, and while she is able to get almost a concert per week in the UK and Japan and has a proven track record there (this recent debacle with the tent thing at Kurnow, or where ever, I see as an abberation) she should continue with focusing on the UK and Japan with maybe the occassional one-off concert in the US, like the Capitol Fourth thing that has a guaranteed fee.
She seems to be getting a lot of positive stories in the UK press and is being used more as a promoter of events -- the Music on Fire event is an example where she is doing a lot of promotion and speeches and she has been used as the representative for collecting the money for charities and such. She may not be top-tier as Jon says, but she seems to me to be quietly thriving, especially for a singer of her type. There must be thousands of singers and bands in the UK who would just about give their right arms to be as successful as Hayley in the UK.
I figure that Hayley should only attempt an all out assualt on the US market if she is in a position of enormous strength and can take a big loss without it being disastrous, or that she is in a position of desperation. As I see it neither apply, and since, as you say, there is not sure-fire way, she should continue attempting to gradually build in the UK and Japan.
|
|
As I stated elsewhere, she is a "second tier" star there. 
