|
|
Post by ironman on Jan 8, 2009 5:16:51 GMT
... we have to return once again to the fact that all promotion has to eventually be paid for not by Decca but by Hayley. To find relatively inexpensive ways to do this (if there are any) needs to be explored. Yes, that makes sense. I didn't realize promotion is really paid for by Hayley. When someone gets a million dollar contract, for instance, I guess that means they have a million to promote & pay for all the things they need, and what is left is their actual pay? Isnt Hayley filthy rich? I figured she would be a multimillionare. To be big in america hayley would have to get a few DUIs a month and ride around in cars with no underwear on and have plent of pics to prove it. That doesnt seem to be her style which I really admire. Please don't make me puke!  Unfortunately, that's the quickest, easiest way a lot female celebrities here see to fame. I think, too, of Jessica Simpson, who put out a couple of CDs that did fairly well, though not as well as she wanted them too. She wined in nearly every interview she did around that time about not being as successful as Britney. Then, she turned on the ditz routine, and boom, she was suddenly a huge success! I know Hayley will never resort to those tactics, but I think girls like that give her record company awful ideas about how to propel her career. Though fewer in number, there are singers in the U.S. who are very popular, who have not gone in that direction. Carrie Underwood comes to mind. I'm not personally a fan (just don't care for a lot of country music), but she's obviously done very well for herself without taking off her clothes or partying like a wild child. One key difference between her & Hayley is, as someone put it, the look-at-meism factor. On one hand, it's refreshing that someone as talented as Hayley is humble, but on the other, I can see where it might be holding her back. I listen to mostly country music, country music seems to be where the better american artist are. I would hope Hayley would never go the route of someone like britney spears. If she did she would loose at least one fan.  I would rather see Hayley stay the way she is now then come to america and become some scum bag. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherany on Jan 8, 2009 10:29:34 GMT
I would rather see Hayley stay the way she is now then come to america and become some scum bag. Oh, certainly! I'm sure we can all agree on that point, though, thankfully, there doesn't seem to be any danger of that ever happening. I did mean to add to my previous post that I'm not advocating any drastic change to Hayley's personality or any compromise to who she is. In an ideal world, no changes would need to be made for her to succeed in America. Unfortunately, she has tried & not succeeded, at least not in a large, household name type of way. I touched on the look-at-meism factor, but that's one possible thing that could be holding her back out of many things that are at play. I like that she is humble and sweet, rather than cocky & wild. I just think there is a lack of pizazz in her at times. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 8, 2009 10:42:08 GMT
Hi Everyone.
While the context of some posts in this thread make me shudder some points have been recently made which are good to accentuate. The Daily Telegraph thread is misleading in that it implies Decca control Hayley's exposure. As I understand matters what actually happens is that the record company reckon a certain expenditure will create the circumstance in which subsequent sales will recover that expenditure, pay the artist's living and working costs for the duration and close with both the recording studio and the artist making a profit.
Bear in mind also requiring covering (probably within the overall initial sum quoted as the initial commitment) are the office overheads of staff and other support material both for Decca and for the artist. As i understand the position Decca has not yet recovered all their money which constitutes a debt to Hayley, or Hayley's company, dependent upon how she is trading. In effect, the record company acts as a bank advance allocating a sum from their reserves over an expected period which they expect her to earn in that time. On top of that what part of these sales constitutes Hayley's income Hayley is paying top rate tax on and so is her company if any profit is shown when calculations for servicing the overall debt are taken into account.
In my opinion, Hayley is probably not yet really rich, let alone being 'filthy' rich and were she to be in that position she would spend wisely and demand as much return for her business bucks as the recording company--on top of making a contribution to UNICEF, probably.
The idea that Hayley is 'filthy rich' is not only distasteful but fundamentally erroneous. My personal guess is that she may have 'written a cheque' for her London flat rather than mess with a mortgage since mortgages are no longer as tax advantageously a position as they once were in this country (assuming she is taxed under UK regulations as opposed to NZ regulations of which I have no knowledge).
She appears exceedingly economical in her life-style, even allowing for the fact that in her position she has to maintain a certain 'appearance of a life-style' as part of 'the job image'.
Hayley is a hard-working girl who earns her keep through hard graft and like many artists starting out on a career, or a new company launch it takes a few years to pay off those starting costs. Just like a lawyer.
It does turn the argument derived from The Daily Telegraph towards a different perspective. Is it possible that Decca were actually offering Hayley a costless way of increasing sales? From misconstruing that small molehill an entire mountain range has developed!
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jan 8, 2009 11:11:33 GMT
Hi Cherany, When an artist signs a million dollar contract, the belief that they have that amount of money in the bank is a commonly held misconception. I didn't realize promotion is really paid for by Hayley. When someone gets a million dollar contract, for instance, I guess that means they have a million to promote & pay for all the things they need, and what is left is their actual pay? Well, sort of but the artist doesn't personally see the money. As with any legally binding contract, one between an artist and a record company is incredibly complex and way beyond the scope of this forum (or my knowledge!). But, in very simple terms, what happens is this: Let's say a one million dollar contract is signed for a five album deal. That means the record company have made a commitment to fund the production, distribution and promotion of five albums up to a maximum of one million dollars, every cent of which has to be paid back by the artist out of their share of the royalties until such times as it is paid back in full. Only then will they start to receive their share of the royalty payments. So, instead of receiving a million dollars at the start of the deal, the artist would immediately be in debt by that amount. Until such times as the debt has been repaid, the artist is dependent upon live concerts (and, perhaps, sponsorship deals) for an income. Roger |
|
|
|
Post by Dean McCarten on Jan 8, 2009 11:54:03 GMT
Isn't Hayley filthy rich? I figured she would be a multimillionaire. I am sure I have read posts that have touched briefly on this subject, I wouldn't always be so sure, that just because somebody is internationally famous that they are automatically filthy rich. You forget that any money Hayley makes firstly goes to offset the money already spent by Decca/UCJ, but as a general rule we consider this a private matter of Hayley's (Well I do, but please correct me if I'm wrong) I'm sure Roger or somebody else who has posted on a similar topic can explain this better than me Cheers Dean |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jan 8, 2009 12:20:10 GMT
Hi Dean, ...as a general rule we consider this a private matter of Hayley's (Well I do, but please correct me if I'm wrong) As far as specific fact and figures are concern about Hayley or any named artists, you are absolutely correct in saying it is private. Provided we discuss the issue in only very general terms (as I endeavoured to do in my previous post) then it is acceptable within reason. Roger |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Jan 8, 2009 13:10:13 GMT
Hello everyone Hayley is a hard-working girl who earns her keep through hard graft Lets not forget that Hayley is kept very busy with her existing commitments in the UK, Japan and New Zealand as well as guest appearances, recording demands and traveling. In between which she has to find time to write new songs. There are only so many hours in the day and I doubt her record company would be happy to replace 'safe' areas of income with potentially better, but more risky areas on other than a fairly small scale. Best wishes Grant |
|
skypilot
New Member 
people say I'm cute!!
Posts: 15
|
Post by skypilot on Jan 8, 2009 13:11:54 GMT
Whilst signing a record deal would seem every artists dream, it can sometimes be the opposite. Many new artists are watching what is happening to existing artists and are steering clear of record deals which tie up the artist and force time lines for album output. This appears to curb creative flow, and that is why many commercial albums have three or four good tracks and the rest are dogs or done to death cover songs.There are other commercial outlets for record/CD sales and promotions,where artists do not lose the writes to their music or get tied down with contract deadlines, admitedly these outlets have limitations, but from what I can see they are gaining popularity and may one day replace the recording giants
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 8, 2009 19:39:46 GMT
Hi Dean, ...as a general rule we consider this a private matter of Hayley's (Well I do, but please correct me if I'm wrong) As far as specific fact and figures are concern about Hayley or any named artists, you are absolutely correct in saying it is private. Provided we discuss the issue in only very general terms (as I endeavoured to do in my previous post) then it is acceptable within reason. Roger Yes, Dean, as Roger has written there is a line beyond which detailed discussion should not go. I tried to be very careful about this in my post. My thinking was that discussion of general business practices and the music trade as a specialist business, such discussion is perhaps of interest to those less familiar. In particular I was wishing to dispel the idea that Hayley was 'flush with money'. That was not based on any specific knowledge but a general awareness of 'the world at large' and some small detailed knowledge of artist/publisher contracts. I also felt it unfair that such inferences should go unchallenged. I am sure in Faryl Smith's case a lot of her friends will regard her as a gold-mine. The reality is that she is not any better off financially than she was before. Stating that a recording studio had pre-allocated funds to promote her is not such an exciting news splash as to say she's contracted for £?million! All that has happened is money has been allocated to get her going and she has contracted to do what is necessary to earn it back! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 8, 2009 20:15:09 GMT
Whilst signing a record deal would seem every artists dream, it can sometimes be the opposite. Many new artists are watching what is happening to existing artists and are steering clear of record deals which tie up the artist and force time lines for album output. This appears to curb creative flow, and that is why many commercial albums have three or four good tracks and the rest are dogs or done to death cover songs.There are other commercial outlets for record/CD sales and promotions,where artists do not lose the writes to their music or get tied down with contract deadlines, admitedly these outlets have limitations, but from what I can see they are gaining popularity and may one day replace the recording giants Hi Skypilot. The world is in a continual state of faster and faster change and technological development replacing what we used yesterday! Allow me to use an analogy from printing and publishing. News is digital but newspapers still sell. In the book industry it was thought book publishing would be dead but they still produce even hard backed books! What has also happened is that the technology of production has changed making it possible to produce fewer copies of a book for the same unit price of production that previously required minimum runs of 2,000 to 5,000 copies. It varies across the trade depending upon the type of book and its market but while it is possible for any person reasonably computer-savvy to write their own book and to set it almost as competently as a professional printer and hand it to a printer to produce it from their electronic data, they still have to sell it. To do that they need to advertise and promote it. Even with modern technology, to do the job properly yourself there is still a wealth of industry-specific details to master and manage. It depends what your horizons are. I think J K Rowling had five refusals for her first Harry Potter. Would she have made the £30 million she is reported to be worth if she had sold it from her kitchen table? Would we have the films? Another aspect of book printing technology is that there are 2 and may be 3 centres in this country which despatch thousands of books a day to High Street booksellers. Many of those books do not exist until the bookseller places his order. If the fax/email arrives at the warehouse before 4:00pm the book will be drawn down out of the PC database, sent to the digital printer and by 8:00pm that book will be bound, packed and collected by a service like DHL for a 10:00a.m. delivery the next day. For the bookseller to know where it exists he needs information from the publishing industry's central database. Dave, I am sure, can deal more specifically with the recording industry and if he has that inclination he may like to start a new thread like 'Effect of Technology on Music Publishing'. I don't have that knowledge so it is no good me starting that thread. If this goes no further then I suggest this background illustrating book publishing helps to give an insight into how technology can/may/will affect relationships between artists, recording/publishing companies and the buying public. We are still producing books by conventional publishing! Incredibly, I have just got out of bed to add this rider! [It is half past midnight here!] What I have missed in all this is the fact that Hayley has travelled the self-make route. Read The World At Her Feet the Penguin 200 page biography of her life from 6 to 16. A family friend so believed in her as to lend her parents £5,000 (I think) to get a professional recording done from which they then produced disks on the home computer. Yet another example of Hayley being there and having done BUT it was sending those CDs out to the pros that got her the international opportunity. Couldn't let such stupidity on my part go unamended when there was a chance to add before the true 'pros here' (admin) got their chance to shame me  Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Jan 8, 2009 20:33:17 GMT
Hi Dean, ...as a general rule we consider this a private matter of Hayley's (Well I do, but please correct me if I'm wrong) As far as specific fact and figures are concern about Hayley or any named artists, you are absolutely correct in saying it is private. Provided we discuss the issue in only very general terms (as I endeavoured to do in my previous post) then it is acceptable within reason. Roger Hello Roger and all, If I may, I might add that Hayley has had one album which sold very well and still managed in all liklihood to lose money - followed by several albums which have been modestly successful given a much lower profile. This means she has a functioning career but like any viable business she has overhead as well as income. She is doing well enough to own her own house, which is no small thing for a 21-year-old. I see no reason however to suspect that she is all that wealthy at this point. Also, what I was trying to say above is merely that the markets are very noisy places over hear, so the prize often goes to the loud. While one of the most time tested marketing adages is that sex sells, there are many other ways to approach the issue. However, the things that lead to success likely do have some things in common. For examle, it may be necessary for a star in a bigger market to be more self- important or be more success driven. Examples like Carrie Underwood may not be entirely fair. The ultimate issue is really name recognition and who has it - and it may be possible that Ms Underwood doesnt have to work as hard at getting noticed because winning American Idol took care of that for her - at least in the short term. |
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Jan 8, 2009 22:32:38 GMT
Hello All,
At the risk of reaching new heights of redundancy I am going to again post my ideas for Hayley to reach more people. As I see it this thread seems to dovetail into the Hayley in the U S theme. I'll proceed as if I'm correct in my assumption.
The U S is big on nostalgia. Check some demographic statistics and you will find our population is comprised of many older people. These people are alienated by the current music prevalent in the States. They are hungry for a return to kinder and gentler times.
As I have said many times before on this forum I think Hayley could find a niche in this area.
People are tired of the bad girl images that so many of the current entertainers display.
A nostalgia album with calm music from the forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies may do very well here. Most music here is targeted to the young people. There is a wealth of timeless music available in those time periods I mentioned.
I could well be wrong, but it has worked for other artists
. Michael Feinstein comes to mind. I can picture Michael at the piano and Hayley singing a Gershwin tune such as" Embraceable You".
Well thats my two cents worth. Any comments?
Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jan 8, 2009 23:04:13 GMT
Carrie Underwood comes to mind. I'm not personally a fan (just don't care for a lot of country music), but she's obviously done very well for herself without taking off her clothes or partying like a wild child. One key difference between her & Hayley is, as someone put it, the look-at-meism factor. On one hand, it's refreshing that someone as talented as Hayley is humble, but on the other, I can see where it might be holding her back. Actually, one of Carrie's more recent songs is about "partying like a wild child", and her outift in the music video is a bit skimpy. I'm not exactly sure of the name, but it starts out saying something like "last night, I had a drink, blah, blah, and I got a little crazy".. The main line is "I don't even know his last name". I'm sorry, but I think this one is a very poor example to girls. It's trashy. Her voice doesn't even sound that good in it. My opinion of her has lowered since seeing this. The only reason I saw the video was because I went to the most recent American Idol concert, and they played videos like that during intermission. Jordin Sparks, AI 2007, is still a very sweet person, with a great voice, and still dresses quite modestly. I think she's a better role model now than Carrie Underwood. I don't think she's written any of her own songs yet, but she's still pretty young, so it could very well happen someday. I love her duet with Chris Brown, "No Air". Milewalker has a point about American Idol being responsible for Carrie Underwood's huge success. Because the contestants are just the "kids next door", they tend to be a lot more humble and modest like Hayley is, but eventually it can spiral downwards. However, very few of the actual winners are really all that famous anymore. The most successful ones are Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jordin Sparks, and now, David Cook. Taylor Hicks won in 2006, and I've hardly heard from him again since then. He was one who appealed to the older crowd, like Larry's talking about. Chris Daughtry, the 4th runner up that year, has been far more successful. So, AI gets you recognition, but it doesn't necessarily last. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 8, 2009 23:11:27 GMT
Hi Larry.
Your comment is interesting. It implies affirmation of my own view for the UK and I am uncertain as to how much I am being objective and how much I am encapsulated in my own perceptions of how things should be so it is good to hear other people's opinions.
Thank you for that interjection.
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jan 8, 2009 23:42:52 GMT
These people are alienated by the current music prevalent in the States. They are hungry for a return to kinder and gentler times. As I have said many times before on this forum I think Hayley could find a niche in this area. People are tired of the bad girl images that so many of the current entertainers display. A nostalgia album with calm music from the forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies may do very well here. Most music here is targeted to the young people. There is a wealth of timeless music available in those time periods I mentioned. I could well be wrong, but it has worked for other artists . Michael Feinstein comes to mind. I can picture Michael at the piano and Hayley singing a Gershwin tune such as" Embraceable You". Well thats my two cents worth. Any comments? I'm not sure that an entire album of old-fashioned songs would do her that much good. However, judging from songs like "There's a Sparle in your Eyes" and "Chattanooga Choo-Choo", her voice is excellent for these types of songs, so maybe she should. But I'm really not keen on her doing albums with only one genre. I think Michael Buble would be a great duet choice, and she's actually mentioned in interviews that she'd be interested in duetting with him! Even though he's from Canada, he's very successful in the U.S. with ladies young and old. Most of you know by now that I'm dying for her to duet with Josh Groban, but one with Buble might be better. There's no danger of his voice drowning her out, and it's a style that suits her voice very well. A duet with him would gain her some recognition, and hopefully, success from Michael Buble fans. I still want her to sing with Josh someday too, but maybe she should start out with Michael Buble.  |
|
