Do we need a Manager?

[Skillet]

I wish that over the decades, I would've found someone as competent and business savvy as you hardtop for a bandmate. The business / booking side of the equation is such a weak spot for so many groups. You and your partner are doing the heavy lifting.
I'd press the label reps for details as to what they think would be improved, or what it is you guys aren't handling.

 

[skwee]

The labels want one for two reasons.

First, what you’re doing is work. Once signed, they want you to concentrate on the music, your image, and promoting yourself. Anything else you’re doing takes time away from that and coukd nake you lose focus.

Second, they want a drama free single point of contact for the band. Someone who knows the biz and can buffer and act as the designated adult in the room.

This is what I was thinking. The managers were there to handle the contractual stuff, tech rider, national/int'l marketing plans, and packaging to presenters. They also can be helpful in getting radio station tie-ins when you are on tour, and building itineraries. When something goes wrong, it can be helpful to have a "bad cop" so that the band can stay friendly and keep things nice onsite. Naturally, labels are going to want to deal with a single representative who isn't "in the thick of it".

The interesting part about having management is that above your programming and playing duties, you still are expected to do the work you're already doing in the marketing materials and media/coordination/and tour management departments. This was easy division of labor in my former group (9 artists total), but certainly possible in a smaller outfit, which you seem to have worked out!


Standard for management is 15-20%, depending on the type of gig. We had a proximity thing worked out with ours: local, self presentations were no cut, and when our management split off from their main company, we negotiated a 15% (lowball) temporary cut until they proved to be healthy and their move didn't impact our company negatively.

 

[Altitude]

To me it really just becomes, do you want to pay someone else to alleviate the work you are doing? Or do you enjoy doing it and want to keep the duties?

This. The question is whether a manager would do the work better than you can, and if moving that work off of your plate would make you a better band by redirecting your time towards ________. And whether those advantages are worth the cost.

 

[onosson]

While I'm not very involved in the music business, I was in a touring act signed to a major label 20-ish years ago. Our philosophy when it came to bringing on agents, managers, even record companies was always the same: Is this person/agency going to allow us to achieve something which we could not do on our own? This could include making more money, booking better tours, etc.

I'll give a concrete example. The guy who ran our booking agency proposed coming on board as our manager. He proposed a 1-year trial contract. If he couldn't get us signed to a record contract within a year, the deal was over. Within a year, we had a record deal, and he stayed on as our manager for several years after.

 

[hardtop]

It really sounds like you guys don't NEED a manager.
You've already got an accountant and a booking agent you seem happy with, which pretty much covers anything a manager would be doing for you anyway.

It's a pity the other band guys don't contribute more ... even doing, say the van maintenance.

Out of curiosity, you say one of the others now thinks you need a manager...what does he see needs covering that you already aren't doing?
Is he one of these guys that just assume everything just happens and doesn't realise how valuable you are?

No, the guy who feels we need a manager is the other guy who "does stuff" in the band. We really try to treat our band like a democracy and everyone is absolutely considered equal, despite the extra-curricular activities not being equally divided. I would say that the others in the band are very aware of what we do, and we're told often that we are appreciated. The truth is, myself and my "co-manager" guy are the best suited for the tasks we take on, and it's best for us all if we handle them rather than delegate. For instance, none of us are wild about how he approaches social media, but none of us want to do it either, and he's the most tech savvy, so he has free reign. haha. The other two dudes in the band can't even drive a manual transmission, so I wouldn't want them anywhere near the van

 

[getbent]

These two additional points are pretty spot-on:

• "[the labels] want a drama free single point of contact for the band. Someone who knows the biz and can buffer and act as the designated adult in the room."
• "When something goes wrong, it can be helpful to have a "bad cop" so that the band can stay friendly and keep things nice onsite."

We relied on our manager quite a bit to say NO to bad offers from good people (and good offers from bad people). It takes the strain off the band, they still look like nice people, no one's feelings get hurt, etc.

 

[arbiterusa]

Recently, my band has been in talks with a couple medium sized labels about a record deal.

You need neither a manager or a record deal. You can book your own studio time and record. Then you talk distro-only with the labels. You will probably find they can't do much for you there. And that's the only thing that matters.

If you still feel you need a manager for some reason, go get a tapeworm instead. They'll do the same thing for you but much cheaper.

ETA: you guys have a booking agent and an attorney. YOU ARE SET!

 

[hardtop]

There are actually two questions. Do you need a manager and can you get a manager? I would imagine that good managers are hard to find and very picky about who they represent. Are bringing in so much money that a 15% or 20% cut would be worth someone's time?

We have at least a couple managers willing to work with us and one or two others that have shown interest. As far as brining in enough money, I dont know, I wouldn't think so, personally, but if you manage multiple bands I guess it could add up?

This. The question is whether a manager would do the work better than you can, and if moving that work off of your plate would make you a better band by redirecting your time towards ________. And whether those advantages are worth the cost.

Again, I just don't know what isn't getting done? As far as taking things off of our plates, I don't think the manager would take on our accounting, merchandise, social media, or van maintenance, would they? I don't think they'd advance shows either, which really is a 5 minute process we can do from our phones? Would they book our hotels on the road, maybe our flights for festivals? If so, I'd be worried that they wouldn't be as frugal with our money as we would be. Could they be a middleman between us and our lawyer or label? Maybe, but honestly, we only need to talk to our lawyer every 4 years (and I really enjoy talking to him BTW). Same with the label; I call our current label to get cds and records to sell at shows/tours and I guess we chat about layout when we're putting out an album. 90% of our communication with the label is honestly about baseball.
I don't want to sound obtuse, I do have an open mind about this, but I am still struggling to see how the manager relieves us of duties or responsibilities?

 

[40Hz]

This is what I was thinking. The managers were there to handle the contractual stuff, tech rider, national/int'l marketing plans, and packaging to presenters. They also can be helpful in getting radio station tie-ins when you are on tour, and building itineraries. When something goes wrong, it can be helpful to have a "bad cop" so that the band can stay friendly and keep things nice onsite. Naturally, labels are going to want to deal with a single representative who isn't "in the thick of it".

The interesting part about having management is that above your programming and playing duties, you still are expected to do the work you're already doing in the marketing materials and media/coordination/and tour management departments. This was easy division of labor in my former group (9 artists total), but certainly possible in a smaller outfit, which you seem to have worked out!


Standard for management is 15-20%, depending on the type of gig. We had a proximity thing worked out with ours: local, self presentations were no cut, and when our management split off from their main company, we negotiated a 15% (lowball) temporary cut until they proved to be healthy and their move didn't impact our company negatively.

Bingo!

A good agent running a genuine agency is worth the money unless you’ve got a strong business background with specific experience in the entertainment world. Each industry has its own little understandings and quirks.

And you transgress them at your own peril. Get branded as an amateur and it’s all over.

A real agent (there are many people calling themselves that who are not) will help you sidestep those landmines, lie to your mom about your recently acquired substance predilections, keep you from signing something detrimental to your financial future, bail you out for that little misunderstanding between you and those two guys with badges who pulled your van over at 2am, hold your hand when you’re homesick, kick your butt when you’re being a jerk, and generally handle all the things you don’t handle very well.

A good agent is gold.

Get one.

 

[Rumbledore]

if you guys sign with them, then let them hire and pay a manager to manage you as their problem

don’t go get one just because there are labels interested and they said something about something over your head

 

[JimmyM]

if you guys sign with them, then let them hire and pay a manager to manage you as their problem

don’t go get one just because there are labels interested and they said something about something over your head

Sorry but this is very bad advice. Do NOT ever use a manager your record company hires for you. They represent the record company and always will put their interests before yours. Get your own manager.

Here's why it's a good idea for a band to have a manager if serious things are happening...they can go in there and negotiate hardball for you while you still get to be the nice guy who everyone at the company loves, and probably get you better terms than you can get on your own. It's a known fact that record company execs don't particularly like negotiating with artists, and if you go in there and get hostile in a negotiation, they'll remember it. So let the manager be the dick and you guys still look like the nice guys they fell in love with when they offered you a deal.

 

[lfmn16]

We have at least a couple managers willing to work with us and one or two others that have shown interest. As far as brining in enough money, I dont know, I wouldn't think so, personally, but if you manage multiple bands I guess it could add up?


Again, I just don't know what isn't getting done? As far as taking things off of our plates, I don't think the manager would take on our accounting, merchandise, social media, or van maintenance, would they? I don't think they'd advance shows either, which really is a 5 minute process we can do from our phones? Would they book our hotels on the road, maybe our flights for festivals? If so, I'd be worried that they wouldn't be as frugal with our money as we would be. Could they be a middleman between us and our lawyer or label? Maybe, but honestly, we only need to talk to our lawyer every 4 years (and I really enjoy talking to him BTW). Same with the label; I call our current label to get cds and records to sell at shows/tours and I guess we chat about layout when we're putting out an album. 90% of our communication with the label is honestly about baseball.
I don't want to sound obtuse, I do have an open mind about this, but I am still struggling to see how the manager relieves us of duties or responsibilities?

The only way you will know what they will do is to sit down with them and ask. If you sign with them, you can be guaranteed that they won’t do anything that isn’t in writing.

 

[Rumbledore]

Sorry but this is very bad advice. Do NOT ever use a manager your record company hires for you. They represent the record company and always will put their interests before yours. Get your own manager.

Here's why it's a good idea for a band to have a manager if serious things are happening...they can go in there and negotiate hardball for you while you still get to be the nice guy who everyone at the company loves, and probably get you better terms than you can get on your own. It's a known fact that record company execs don't particularly like negotiating with artists, and if you go in there and get hostile in a negotiation, they'll remember it. So let the manager be the dick and you guys still look like the nice guys they fell in love with when they offered you a deal.

more of a difference in opinion than “very bad advice”, and “Do NOT.”etc.. i don’t appreciate being told my opinion is unsound, because you probably just misunderstood.

my prospective is that, both the labels said that in-the-future they would (labels themselves) need to assign a manager for them to handle that account (band) is all

 

[Altitude]

I just don't know what isn't getting done? As far as taking things off of our plates, I don't think the manager would take on our accounting, merchandise, social media, or van maintenance, would they? I don't think they'd advance shows either, which really is a 5 minute process we can do from our phones? Would they book our hotels on the road, maybe our flights for festivals? If so, I'd be worried that they wouldn't be as frugal with our money as we would be. Could they be a middleman between us and our lawyer or label? Maybe, but honestly, we only need to talk to our lawyer every 4 years (and I really enjoy talking to him BTW). Same with the label; I call our current label to get cds and records to sell at shows/tours and I guess we chat about layout when we're putting out an album. 90% of our communication with the label is honestly about baseball.
I don't want to sound obtuse, I do have an open mind about this, but I am still struggling to see how the manager relieves us of duties or responsibilities?

I think this is a normal small business conversation. It may be that all of the important things are getting done now, with you and your partner doing them. That's not so much the question as:

• If you weren't spending XX% of your time on this "stuff," what would you spend it on instead?
• Would the time you get back to spend on that other "stuff" be valuable? How valuable?
• How much will it cost to "outsource" the performance of the" stuff?" Is that less or more than the value you would get back by doing it?

Once you've figured that out, then you can get around to qualifying candidates based on their particular experience and skills. Relationships, etc. But that stuff only matters if there is a business case to hiring the manager to begin with.

 

[hardtop]

I think this is a normal small business conversation. It may be that all of the important things are getting done now, with you and your partner doing them. That's not so much the question as:

• If you weren't spending XX% of your time on this "stuff," what would you spend it on instead?
• Would the time you get back to spend on that other "stuff" be valuable? How valuable?
• How much will it cost to "outsource" the performance of the" stuff?" Is that less or more than the value you would get back by doing it?

Once you've done that, then you can get around to qualifying candidates based on their particular experience and skills. Relationships, etc. But that stuff only matters if there is a business case to hiring the manager to begin with.

I get what you're saying Will, however, the manager isn't going to take on any of our current "stuff". So no relief of duties has no value, I guess. The manager would have to do other stuff to create value, and that was the list of stuff I was after. I see now, through this discussion, and others I've had, that there are a few things a manager could do for us that our current team couldn't or wouldn't handle. Those things seem pretty small at this point, and appear to be more trouble than they are worth. No role that we've discussed here seems to add enough value that this person should make as much as everyone else in the band, though, that's for sure.

 

[hardtop]

Sorry but this is very bad advice. Do NOT ever use a manager your record company hires for you. They represent the record company and always will put their interests before yours. Get your own manager.

Here's why it's a good idea for a band to have a manager if serious things are happening...they can go in there and negotiate hardball for you while you still get to be the nice guy who everyone at the company loves, and probably get you better terms than you can get on your own. It's a known fact that record company execs don't particularly like negotiating with artists, and if you go in there and get hostile in a negotiation, they'll remember it. So let the manager be the dick and you guys still look like the nice guys they fell in love with when they offered you a deal.

Totally see that Jimmy, thanks. However, the new record deal will definitely be in place before we hire a manager, if we do. Just the order of how its happening, for better or for worse. The negotiations will be handled by our attorney, who works exclusively in the entertainment industry, so we are in good hands. Shows, festivals, and tours are handled by our booking agent. He's a great advocate and willing to play hard ball on our behalf... heck, we even let him handle the local shows these days

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

You are thinking in the present. You don't see the need for a manager now, but should you get singed and get really busy, then there will be things to do you are not even aware of now.
Additionally, The label will want you to have a manager so they have know consistent point of contact who is the official voice for the band. If you appoint one of the playing members as the manager, you are asking for friction and descension in the band. You would be wise to find a competent manager, preferably one with recording label experience.

 

[JimmyM]

more of a difference in opinion than “very bad advice”, and “Do NOT.”etc.. i don’t appreciate being told my opinion is unsound, because you probably just misunderstood.

my prospective is that, both the labels said that in-the-future they would (labels themselves) need to assign a manager for them to handle that account (band) is all

And that manager will be working for the company's interests, not the band's interests.

If you have a dispute with your insurance company, are you going to hire a lawyer from the insurance company to file a lawsuit? Of course you're not. Same thing. You are free to do what you want, but there's no way in hell I'd ever accept a record company's employee as my band manager because they are not on my side.

Totally see that Jimmy, thanks. However, the new record deal will definitely be in place before we hire a manager, if we do. Just the order of how its happening, for better or for worse. The negotiations will be handled by our attorney, who works exclusively in the entertainment industry, so we are in good hands. Shows, festivals, and tours are handled by our booking agent. He's a great advocate and willing to play hard ball on our behalf... heck, we even let him handle the local shows these days

OK, well if you have an entertainment lawyer negotiating your deal, then that is great and probably just as good as a manager for now. But I agree with Gravedigger Dav's post just above mine.

 

[Rumbledore]

OP: im pretty skeptical of both these “labels “ here in play.. because, im getting the impression honestly, that they’re trying to entice you into working with them by romanticizing the band manager thing.. to say you’ll get tom hanks and be real professional level if “sign something “ with me”???

that’s not right and not industrial standard. with my against the grain comment, im only try to saying that im in favor of self representation in this modern age, in that, all a “label” can really do management-wize (based on the information here), is to manage the band account for the real life person in charge whose behind the money doesn’t want to be doing taking up valuable time in nitty “club level “ phone calls, then in the same way, the person is a manager who handals a team of people to thus do the club level grunt work, and so on all the way down to the “go-fers”.

add: @JimmyM

 

[hardtop]

It seems I probably should have made it clear that we are currently with a label and we've navigated a few records together with little effort and no hiccups. Our contract with the current label has been fulfilled so we are fielding a few offers from other labels. One of these labels we have worked with before through a licensing deal. Not only have we negotiated our now expired contract, but we have turned offers down (including from one of the current players) We are aware of the communication required between the band and the label. From my experience, it is not maybe as much as some of you think it is. We're pretty small potatoes here, this is underground metal after all; they're not trying to build us into Lady Gaga