7.21.11 Adam News & Info

adamme

I can only answer part of your question, since I don't know how these things work in the US.
This was after idol and I have some pics from that day with various products he was photographed with, and I also remember that someone saw this advertisement you posted in some Arab country so maybe it was an international endorsement.
Here are some pics from that day.

Live Nation and AEG are promoters. There is a difference between the promoter and a sponsor. Sponsors are usually putting up money in exchange for having their name associated with something. This can take many forms from simply putting presented by on the advertisements to having dancing pop-tarts on stage (early Idol tours). The promoter books the shows, deals with the vendors, ticket sales, etc. Deals between the promoter and the artist are individually negotiated. As in there is no one single way that it breaks down. Some artists leave everything to the promoter and they make all the decisions whereas others will want control over various aspects. Some artists just want to show up and do their thing and don't want to deal with the business side of things while others want to be involved in every aspect. Without a promoter the artist must deal with each and every venue on their own. U2 did this for many years because they wanted control of every aspect of their touring but it was very hard on their management and as they got bigger they started using promoters.

As for funding that actually also involves who is ultimately taking the financial risk for the tour. In other words, who takes a bath if things go wrong. Up until the Popmart tour at the end of the 90's U2 took the financial risk meaning if the tour didn't make money they didn't get paid. That doesn't mean the crew just the band themselves. They famously almost went bankrupt with the early 90's ZooTV tour because they basically did whatever they wanted artistically and left the manager to figure out how to pay for it. By the time they toured Australia, etc. if you didn't add in merchandising revenue U2 was actually paying to play. While they made money in the US and Europe the other legs of the tour were so costly that if you looked at the finances for each leg separately they were totally under "down under". After adding in merchandise sales I believe they ended up with a 4% profit over the entire world tour. I remember Paul McGuinness saying that if they had sold 10% fewer tickets they would have been bankrupt, not by a little but by a whole lot. They had no guarantees so they would have taken the loss. They decided for Popmart to hand the reins over to the promoter and they got a guarantee but to earn anything more than the guarantee took more than half the tour.

It is a very complex arrangement and every tour works differently so there is no way to really know who is paying for what unless the parties involved say so. Adam is a self admitted control freak who seems by all accounts to be thoroughly involved in every aspect of his career. He is in charge and his management works for him. The entertainment world is very strange in that it is often very difficult to see who is really in charge in various aspects of it and it varies from artist to artist. But I've always been mystified by peoples perception of management. When you sign a contract for management in exchange for a percentage of your earnings you are hiring someone's expertise but you are the employer as in your income pays their salary. It is the artists responsibility to determine what level of control they are willing to give up. I think where a lot of artists get in trouble is in signing away control in exchange for opportunities and then realizing after the fact what they have given up. Managers, agents, record companies, etc. all tend to take advantage of the artist's desire to make it. Many artists get into contracts in the heat of the moment with stars in their eyes not realizing or paying close attention to what they are getting into. Just as in Vegas, the house always wins, unless you are a clever clever puppy. A smart and business savvy artist will be sure they can live with what they are getting before they sign on the dotted line. Bottom line in every business relationship is that in the end it is about the money. The record company's goal is to make a profit, the management company's goal is to make a profit. No matter how much they believe in and support their artists when it comes down to the money they aren't doing it for free so there will be times when the artists interests and theirs diverge. The trick for the artist is to know when to compromise and when to stand your ground. I think that Adam has had the leverage on his side in his negotiations and seems to have a good handle on his business as well as his art.

Another point that tends to be forgotten is that while in order to be on the show you do have to sign away a good bit when it comes to that record deal at the end you don't actually have to sign. Yes they have your option for a certain amount of time and yes it would be very risky to hold out until that option is up to persue other offers but Adam came off of Idol with a huge amount of media buzz that was very powerful and with his level of talent, his social & networking skills, knowledge of the industry and his in charge nature he had powerful position in negotiating. Sony would have been stupid not to give him what he wanted. All indications point to Adam having a degree of artistic control that was very unusual for a new artist and I am sure that he got that through very astute negotiation. I get really sick of artists whining about their contracts and creative control issues because it usually comes down to them having not paid attention to the business aspect of their career. Having your head in the clouds might be artistically satisfying but is no way to run a business and when you choose to sell your art you become a business person. No getting around that.

Whoa!!! rihannsu, thank you so much for your detailed explanation!!! I LOVE having a U2 stan here!! You've absorbed so much knowledge over the years, it's spooky sometimes!! I mean "good spooky"!!

LOL I have only really been a U2 stan since 2005, but I have an entire book shelf of U2 books and have read even more than what I own plus read just about every U2 archive that I could find online. Even if you are not a U2 fan their career is a fascinating study and their business sense is pretty much unparalleled in the music industry. Every up and coming artist should study their path because there are so many lessons to be learned from that band.