We are not rich, and we are not famous.
November 25, 2014 12:00 AM   Subscribe

 
That was very interesting. I'm always curious about how the new economic paradigms work out for people, and it is good that someone shares the hard numbers. I'm also in awe that they are willing to take the risk of trying to live off their music.
posted by Harald74 at 12:16 AM on November 25, 2014


"Nataly and I each draw a salary of about $2500 per month from Pomplamoose."

While being an indie muso might not be a path to financial riches, Jack didn't mention that he is a founder of Patreon which has now taken in about $17m in sweet sweet VC dollahz. I guess he's learned that in a gold rush you want to be the guy selling shovels.
posted by PenDevil at 12:40 AM on November 25, 2014 [28 favorites]


Jack didn't mention it, but he is a founder of Patreon which has now taken in about $17m in sweet sweet VC dollahz.

Really? Well, good for him. Patreon seems to helping a lot of indie artists make a living. For example, Jeph Jacques, who draws the excellent webcomic Questionable Content, now has a nearly $10K/month income because of it.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:54 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]


I dunno, when I had $2500 per month, I felt pretty rich
posted by scrowdid at 1:00 AM on November 25, 2014 [11 favorites]


Add me to the chorus praising Patreon for being the best (as in most good) business model for supporting artists that exists today.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:02 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]


We lost $11,819?!
posted by clavdivs at 1:10 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure why selling shovels should be non-profit. Is a dead river involved?
posted by Mblue at 2:06 AM on November 25, 2014


I'm not sure why selling shovels should be non-profit. Is a dead river involved?

It seems that Patreon takes a 5% cut. Credit card transaction fees account for another 4 or 5%, so creators get 90% of all donations.

Kickstarter also takes a 5% cut
.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:26 AM on November 25, 2014


Wow. It was nice - and really interesting. Thanks !
posted by nicolin at 2:28 AM on November 25, 2014


Patreon is great! Well, at least as seen from the outside as someone who feels good about giving a tiny amount of money to people who make cool things repeatedly.
posted by debagel at 2:31 AM on November 25, 2014


Another really interesting breakdown of the cost of touring was shared by Scottish musician Fish in January 2013

"No matter how you look at it It’s all a gamble which in previous scenarios I have lost my shirt and underpants by taking."
posted by DanCall at 2:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


Pampelmuse?
posted by ipsative at 3:48 AM on November 25, 2014


I dunno, I heard that it's okay for Spotify to toss just a few pennies out every once in awhile because musicians are rolling in that sweet tour dough. This is probably bullshit accounting made up by anti-Future bullies.
posted by uncleozzy at 4:16 AM on November 25, 2014 [11 favorites]


That banner image, tho. That one dude, phone aloft, in the front row is why I'm too crotchety to go to shows anymore. At least he's holding it landscape-wise. If he was holding it portrait, I would be on a crowdsurfing murder mission.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:53 AM on November 25, 2014 [18 favorites]


I work in this business, on the venue side. Just read this on my phone and didn't dig in too deeply, but: if they did 24 shows and only grossed a little over $100k in ticket revenue, they either (1) didn't sell enough tickets, (2) didn't charge enough for tickets, or (3) had terrible contracts. Those are failures of management, promotion, or both. An act of their size should be taking about $4k a show after (most) expenses, not before.

The business of touring concerts doesn't scale smoothly from tiny cover band to arena show. If you don't watch expenses, if you don't choose your venues carefully, you can end up in a situation where you can't sell enough tickets to pay for the room. Your promoter is going to try to push you towards bigger rooms because that's where he makes his money, and because he looks like a big shot if he tells you you can sell out stadiums. But it can be a financial disaster for a band to try to get too big too soon.
posted by penduluum at 5:16 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


It is true that once you are committed to putting on a "big rock show" with lights and a tour bus that cost management becomes a thorny issue. I commend them for paying their crew over $1k/week each - that's huge, and way beyond what I've experienced on the tours I've been on. I'm not sure what venues they played, but to paraphrase penduluum, making the leap from 150 cap rooms like the Cafe du Nord to 500+ cap rooms like the Fillmore in SF or Cat's Cradle in Carborro is no easy feat. Plus those venues take a cut of your merch sales. You need a lot of momentum (and marketing $$) to make that happen.

It is surprisingly hard to find videos of them playing their rock stuff live, but from what I could scrounge up it looks like they are far less irritating live, since they smile and sweat etc.
posted by grumpybear69 at 5:58 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


I now feel guilty for not making it to their Cleveland show.
posted by slogger at 6:14 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


Why do some DJs make millions for doing shit?

I assure you that most of us work our asses off and make very little. So it all balances out, I guess.
posted by 1adam12 at 6:29 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]


it was important at this stage in Pomplamoose’s career to put on a wild and crazy rock show.

Came for the tales of rock n roll excess, wasn't disappointed. They are the Jack Blanchard and Misty Morgan of their generation. Now if they'd just put a Tennessee Bird Walk mashup on their setlist then I would be jubilant.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


I work in this business, on the venue side. Just read this on my phone and didn't dig in too deeply, but: if they did 24 shows and only grossed a little over $100k in ticket revenue, they either (1) didn't sell enough tickets, (2) didn't charge enough for tickets, or (3) had terrible contracts. Those are failures of management, promotion, or both. An act of their size should be taking about $4k a show after (most) expenses, not before.

They implied in the article that they intentionally did more show for less money so they could get people to come back for the next tour.
posted by empath at 6:48 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


They implied in the article that they intentionally did more show for less money so they could get people to come back for the next tour.

At least as he describes it in the article (which is maybe putting a positive spin on events, rather than describing what was planned in the first place) the tour sounds something like a loss leader in support of the money-making side of things.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:55 AM on November 25, 2014


An act of their size should be taking about $4k a show after (most) expenses, not before.

That's the thing, though - what's their "size"?

If you look at their "gigography" on Songkick, they played a lot of 600-cap (or smaller) venues - their mention of an over-1000 crowd in their hometown (well, home area, anyway) was, I think, a highlight, not an average. And of course a lot of venues will book shows they well know won't come close to selling out, because being open and bringing in some money through the bar is better than being closed. So getting a lot less than $4K a night is entirely normal. Especially for a new band that hasn't toured much, like Pomplamoose. Venue bookers are well aware that a zillion hits on YouTube doesn't necessarily translate to actual warm bodies buying tickets.

And that's pretty much how the touring business works - your nightly income can vary a LOT. Even for big bands - 2000 capacity venues in Akron, 10,000 in NYC.

Which is my only quibble with the article - good for them for publishing the numbers, but the tour & "indie musician" (hell, even "name" musicians who are past their hit-making days) economics they're describing has been Standard Operating Procedure for literally decades. The "new paradigm" they're describing is not so new, except in the fact that people are assuming that a pile of YouTube views = money, somehow, and their non-tour creative output is selling songs on iTunes & Loudr and the YouTube videos they self-create to promote those songs, rather than selling CD's and having a label finance videos to play on cable TV.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:03 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]


It is better to sell out a smaller venue than not fill a larger venue from PR standpoint, but I imagine their hands were tied with all of those expenses.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:05 AM on November 25, 2014


That one dude, phone aloft, in the front row is why I'm too crotchety to go to shows anymore.

I hate them too but I feel better by knowing I'm superior because I'm actually enjoying the show.

Also, if I was in a band, I would ban cell phone videos. Get into the shows people! Why watch the show on a tiny screen when THE BAND IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:17 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


1adam12: Why do some DJs make millions for doing shit?

Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd, and name recognition counts for a lot. Behold, the most ridiculously overpaid DJs in the world, 2014 edition. Big venues + residencies (playing the same location for an extended period) + high ticket prices + high attendance = beaucoup bucks.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:33 AM on November 25, 2014


And for comparison, Billboard ranks the highest-paid musicians of the past year, a list of more "traditional" musicians (pop, country, hip-hop, R&B, rock, etc).
posted by filthy light thief at 7:38 AM on November 25, 2014


On his "Working" Podcast, David Plotz recently talked to the guitarist for They Might Be Giants. He mentioned that for a band of their profile, the difference between making money and losing money on tour usually boils down to two things:

1) playing six shows a week rather than five
2) fitting everything into a trailer that gets hitched to the bus, rather than paying a truck to haul it separately.

Also, they sleep on the tour bus. No hotels.

If you want to support a band financially, the best way is to buy their merchandise at the show. The ticket revenue gets divided up numerous ways, but merch has a good margin and is often the difference between making money and not for an act, even on tours by the biggest acts.
posted by dry white toast at 7:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]


That one dude, phone aloft, in the front row is why I'm too crotchety to go to shows anymore.

He just needs Howlin' Pelle Almqvist of The Hives to set him straight: "Everybody please take a picture. I'll smile, and you can walk out after that. I'll fucking pose right now. And now, put those cameras away and dance. If you don't want to do it for me, do it for yourself."
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:02 AM on November 25, 2014 [12 favorites]


And for comparison, Billboard ranks the highest-paid musicians of the past year, a list of more "traditional" musicians (pop, country, hip-hop, R&B, rock, etc).

Some of the entries on that list are absolutely astounding. Did you know Trans-Siberian Orchestra was the 24th best-paid musical group? I wouldn't have guessed!
posted by LSK at 8:02 AM on November 25, 2014


DJs can make a ton of money in venues because they bring in a ton of money. On an ordinary night with a well-known, but not superstar, DJ, a club can easily make $100 per person on the dance floor in booze and cover and $1000 per person in table minimum in the VIP. ($1000 per person is where front row seats for the most famous bands in the world scalp at.) Double or triple those numbers for the true superstars. And that's to say nothing of clubs in Vegas where the casinos will pay even more than those numbers justify to give something truly special to comp the whales.
posted by MattD at 8:10 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


I dunno, when I had $2500 per month, I felt pretty rich

Yeah, this is the income level where I start to feel middle class. It's also like 2x the minimum wage and a little bit north of America's median net compensation, as reported by the SSA for 2013.
posted by pullayup at 8:11 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


A nice sophisticated view in how he appreciates the tour as a long-term investment in audience experience: lights, a full band, a band that was rested enough to play well (as opposed to having slept in the van or fans' couches).

Still, it jumped out at me that the band self-managed the tour. To have such light revenue given their fan base and the quality of the show suggests that they put their ticket prices too low (an easy mistake to make), and maybe didn't get the promotion and splits they should have from venue owners/promoters.
posted by MattD at 8:15 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


($1000 per person is where front row seats for the most famous bands in the world scalp at.)

It's a fairly minor point, but the money scalpers get for tickets does not affect the money the venue or the band makes. Scalpers pay face value (or maybe less if they have an "in") and then try to sell the tickets for a higher price to desperate concert-goers. All the money over and above the face value of the ticket goes in the scalper's pocket.

suggests that they put their ticket prices too low (an easy mistake to make),

In this situation, the band doesn't set the ticket price. The venue does. The band (through their booking agent) asks for a guarantee (with a venue/band split after ticket sales reach a certain dollar amount), negotiations happen between band & venue, the venue/promoter does some research on the act & uses their experience and knowledge of their market, and, honestly, gut instinct, to figure, "It's a fairly safe bet we'll sell 'X' number of tickets @ $Y each totaling $Z, so we'll guarantee the band $Z minus 20 percent, and anything over $Z plus 10 percent will get split 70 (band)/30 (venue)."

IOW, the band can influence the ticket price, but not actually directly set it.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


"We are not rich" sounds about as credible as "We are not racist"

Maybe not rent a Mercedes van next time?
posted by 99_ at 8:51 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


Assuming their numbers are correct, they're solidly middle class. Take home pay of $2500 a month is what, $45k a year? Maybe less?

OTOH, they've built up a ton of good will and have a bunch of assets and connections that they can draw on, which is worth a lot of money, aside from their actual income.
posted by empath at 8:55 AM on November 25, 2014


Maybe not rent a Mercedes van next time?

Not sure that would have helped very much.
posted by josher71 at 8:58 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


Some of that money that they spent went to pay my son, who ran the lights at their show here in Pittsburgh. For what it's worth, lighting guys don't make $2500 a month for working shows the size of Pomplamoose.
posted by octothorpe at 9:11 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]


"We are not rich" sounds about as credible as "We are not racist"

Except that, y'know, actual numbers are available in TFA. And dragging parallels to racism into a discussion like this seems...counterproductive. At best.
posted by Ipsifendus at 9:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]


Except that, y'know, actual numbers are available in TFA. And dragging parallels to racism into a discussion like this seems...counterproductive. At best.

Being willfully dense doesn't help either. Here, I'll try a simpler construction for your delicate sensibilities:

"I guess we need a Betteridge's law for discussions of personal wealth"
posted by 99_ at 9:43 AM on November 25, 2014


His thoughts were red thoughts:
Mblue: I'm not sure why selling shovels should be non-profit. Is a dead river involved?
It seems that Patreon takes a 5% cut. Credit card transaction fees account for another 4 or 5%, so creators get 90% of all donations.

Kickstarter also takes a 5% cut.
OK, that's interesting, but apparently irrelevant to the question you quoted.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:55 AM on November 25, 2014


Re: the "mercedes van" -- when you are in a touring band and you're doing a van tour (as opposed to a bus tour) you basically have two choices: a ford econoline, or a sprinter (the mercedes.) They probably rented their van from Bandago -- many, many bands do. Sprinters are WAAAAAY more comfortable, and WAAAAAAAAAAAY better on fuel, because they are diesel. The rental cost is more per day for the Sprinter, but you really do save a lot on fuel, so it can actually work out better ESPECIALLY if you are towing a trailer.

In the past year I have done one to two week tours with 6 people plus gear in the Econoline and it is very, very tight. If I were going out for a month, the Sprinter would have been worth it just in terms of getting at least a few feet of personal space (as opposed to a few inches).
posted by capnsue at 9:59 AM on November 25, 2014 [10 favorites]


Being willfully dense doesn't help either. Here, I'll try a simpler construction for your delicate sensibilities:

"I guess we need a Betteridge's law for discussions of personal wealth"


Nope, doesn't help! I still have no clue what point you're making. Is it that they are rich? That's not supported by the numbers in the article. Is that they shouldn't be talking about not being rich, for some reason? Is it that Pomplamoose are white? Or are you working from some secret decoder ring that turns declarative statements such as "We are not rich" into yes/no questions? Disregard my delicate sensibilities and enlighten me!
posted by Ipsifendus at 10:11 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


Assuming their numbers are correct, they're solidly middle class. Take home pay of $2500 a month is what, $45k a year? Maybe less?

$2500/month is $30K/year. Or, it's $15.62/hour.
posted by briank at 10:23 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


> Also, if I was in a band, I would ban cell phone videos.

I'm old enough to remember when venues generally wouldn't let you take photos (and when Axl Rose started a riot over one guy taking pictures). These days any such ban would a) be unenforceable and b) eliminate the sizable portion of the audience who is there expressly to take pictures and post them online.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:29 AM on November 25, 2014


$2500/month is $30K/year. Or, it's $15.62/hour.

That's pre-tax. If they're making $2500 after taxes, that's around $45k a year.
posted by empath at 10:32 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


I thought the article's candid discussion of tour costs was really interesting and enlightening.

The thread discussion on whether they are "rich" or not...not so much.
posted by mcstayinskool at 10:37 AM on November 25, 2014 [10 favorites]


That's pre-tax. If they're making $2500 after taxes, that's around $45k a year.

Yes, I just did the basic math.
posted by briank at 10:47 AM on November 25, 2014


I have a band on tour right now, ending in a few days time. I'm de facto manager, because I run the label, and they don't have any money to finance it on their own. It's the fourth European tour I've done now. On one of the four we've had a profit, the others have come out negative. At the end of a month of touring, we might just make 4000 euro profit - which is then divided between three band members, plus a 10% payout for myself.

The band is from W. Africa, and it's difficult to understand that touring Europe does not mean you've made it. It's impossible to come back from Europe without the expectation that you've made gads of money - family members, friends, other musicians, all flock around those recently returned from tour, waiting for some type of helpful handout. It's further complicated by the falsities told about Europe and America - no one wants to come back to visit their families with stories of struggle in the first world. This type of post is exactly what I'm putting together, but with the intention of sharing it via Facebook channels with other Francophone West African musicians.

With declining album sales, touring is celebrated as the "real" way to make money. And while you can make something in touring, just like in music sales, the more you outsource to other people, the less you make. There are ways of becoming more independent - you manage yourself on tour, the band does all the driving, you stay with friends instead of hotels, and lastly, you book the tour yourself. We don't do all of this, because we can't - that 15% you pay to a booking agent is actually money well spent, unless you want to become versed in venues and festivals and know all the promoters by name.

At the end of expenses, touring is not really just about the band that is touring - it's an industry that supports lots of other ancillary roles. Clarity is very important, and it's nice to hear more about this to dispel myths of touring. It's work, like anything else.
posted by iamck at 11:58 AM on November 25, 2014 [16 favorites]


Also, if I was in a band, I would ban cell phone videos. Get into the shows people! Why watch the show on a tiny screen when THE BAND IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!

Nah. It might get on my nerves a little, but I know people are sharing those photos, videos, what have you. I hope they do. I hope other people see and wish they were there. Those people might spend some money on our tracks, or come next time.

If you don't have an advertising budget, people taking clips of you playing , then posting them on facebook with 'This band is BANANAS!' is literally the best pr you can have.
posted by lumpenprole at 12:26 PM on November 25, 2014


Nope, doesn't help! I still have no clue what point you're making.

My point is you should never write a headline like 'We aren't rich' because you post a single data point (revenue from one tour). If they want to post a P/L for a year, or better, since the band was created, then it might be an interesting conversation (and is perhaps justified). But because one segment of your business -- which, by your own admission was a loss leader -- underperforms, it doesn't give you license to make sweeping declarations about your economic status. It's bad accounting, bad journalism and bad statistics.

To reiterate my original point, I've noticed that people who feel impelled to open a conversation with "I'm not _____" are more ________ than they believe.

To make the headline less trolly, it simply could have been 'Here are the financial results of our recent tour' or 'How much does a tour make? Here are the numbers.' which is still click-baity enough to draw traffic. Or go all Upworthy "You will never believe how much tour revenue 100 million YouTube view gets you!"
posted by 99_ at 12:51 PM on November 25, 2014


My point is you should never write a headline like 'We aren't rich' because you post a single data point (revenue from one tour).

Well, it's just as well that they didn't do that then. That wasn't their headline, it was mine - "We aren't rich..." is the the pullquote I selected to titled the FPP.

The title of the Medium article is "Pomplamoose 2014 Tour Profits (or Lack Thereof)"
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:59 PM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]


If they want to post a P/L for a year, or better, since the band was created, then it might be an interesting conversation (and is perhaps justified). But because one segment of your business -- which, by your own admission was a loss leader -- underperforms, it doesn't give you license to make sweeping declarations about your economic status.

It's finally happened. Pitchfork has merged with H&R Block.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:45 PM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]


Pitchblock.
posted by hangashore at 1:52 PM on November 25, 2014




The new Fugazi retrospective sucks! And Jesus, you call that a business model?

posted by Ipsifendus at 2:14 PM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


That was interesting and enlightening. I never would have thought of a tour as a "loss leader" product.

Although now I am kind of curious - this reminds me I saw a free Pomplamoose/OKGo show* at the Kennedy Center a few years back, how does that sort of thing get paid for? I can't imagine everyone involved is donating their time and I don't recall there being any sort of visible commercial sponsor.

*Yes, it was awesome.
posted by psoas at 2:21 PM on November 25, 2014


If you have a problem with my formatting in the FPP, take it to MeTa. Otherwise, kindly drop this ridic. derail, because your random hostility is deeply boring.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:08 PM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]




I think that some people assume that (famous == rich) and it was pretty illuminating to see how much work it takes for artists to get somewhere near a middle class life.
posted by octothorpe at 4:15 PM on November 25, 2014


"37 days of touring for DH in 2013 = ~$280 paid to each of us (4 "crew"), with ~$7,500 in expenses."

I'm not sure I get it - is he upset that Pomplamoose pay their band members and crew well? That they played larger venues with more production?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:18 PM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


If you have a problem with my formatting in the FPP, take it to MeTa. Otherwise, kindly drop this ridic. derail, because your random hostility is deeply boring.

Random is an odd choice. My 'hostility' is pretty specific. Rich is relative. Success is relative. And the data provided doesn't provide enough to substantiate the pull quote you used.

Chris Ott had some interesting points in response to David Lowery (one of the Shallow Rewards ep on Vimeo). I think the arguments made by Damon Krukowski were a little specious.

Conte's post is perhaps effective marketing or propaganda for his businesses, but I don't find it persuasive as anything other than a too slick by half appropriation of a much longer conversation about how one can fund and live off making 'art'. So yeah, to me he's Amanda Palmer with a different stage act.
posted by 99_ at 4:44 PM on November 25, 2014



"37 days of touring for DH in 2013 = ~$280 paid to each of us (4 "crew"), with ~$7,500 in expenses."

"28 days of touring Pomplamoose = -$6,000 paid to each member, with $150,000 in expenses."

I'm not sure I get it - is he upset that Pomplamoose pay their band members and crew well? That they played larger venues with more production?


I think the Tweeter (and some commenters on the original article) are saying that Pomplamoose paid the band and crew too much (in addition to salary, they got $20/day for food) and stayed in too luxurious hotels. This made the tour lose money, plus people seem to think it is not rock n roll enough-- they should have a tiny van, should sleep in the van or on people's floors or at the very least a Motel 6 not a Best Western, should give $10/day for food, etc etc etc.

When I was younger this made perfect sense, being "hardcore" meant that you cared about the music over everything else.

Now at the ripe old age of 34 I think, "When I have to be traveling yet still awake & aware enough to do my job well, I spend more than $20/day on food, and I REALLY like sleeping in real beds with clean sheets." My job isn't even creative or physically taxing, so I can't begrudge Pamplemoose's choices.
posted by holyrood at 5:05 PM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]


people who can tour rough into middle age are a rare breed.....Mike Watt, guys like that
posted by thelonius at 5:41 PM on November 25, 2014


empath: That's pre-tax. If they're making $2500 after taxes, that's around $45k a year.
Goddammit, don't tease me like that! Are they rich enough to hate or not?
posted by IAmBroom at 7:18 PM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]


I'm 37 and still tourin rough, and yeah I come from a DIY/punk/hc background. I don't think this band does. (that is okay.) But when I read that this band were actually able to pay their backup band and crew pretty darn well I was psyched. (rather than going for an Amanda Palmer type deal.) I feel like MAYBE one of the points of the dude's orig post was "hey, i am lucky enough to make a living making music, here is how i did it."
That said I'm still like...YOU GOT HOTEL ROOMS EVERY NIGHT AND ONLY 2 PPL PER ROOM NOT 4? COME ON! Whenever I am on tour and we decide to spring for a hotel room you better believe that the only thing I care about is being not next to the loudest snore-er.
But then again, I am not going to tell this band how to live. I still have to have a day job.
posted by capnsue at 11:53 PM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]


Finally a Pomplamoose post to divert some of my hate and rage away from the Ferguson white supremacy sajd9P*SPDUosdadiufPSU.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 11:58 PM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]


Looks like they would have saved 9k had they halved the hotel room cost. The band is a couple, I think?, making me wonder if this was a choice that had to do with them getting a room for themselves and and not wanting to make the rest of the people touring have to bunk four in a room while they didn't.

It might be that that level of comfort is worth the 9k to them.
posted by josher71 at 6:34 AM on November 26, 2014 [1 favorite]


I guess "professional artistry" where you lose several grand per tour is feasible with several other million dollars in venture capital making it not really matter.
posted by codacorolla at 9:58 AM on November 26, 2014 [3 favorites]


It's less "we're the Mom and Pop of indie", and more "we're the subsidised loss making artisan bakery of indie". This tour did not need to lose money, and probably wouldn't have lost money if they had to worry about losing $11k having a massive impact on them personally.

There's a good expansion on how badly done this looks by a manager here.
posted by MattWPBS at 4:09 PM on November 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


There's a good expansion on how badly done this looks by a manager here.

I think that's a pretty solid analysis. It does look like they were living above their means in terms of the tour bus, and the accommodation costs, and they could have managed with cheaper alternatives and still not have been doing it rough. The merch numbers look a bit odd too.

I disagree with him in part on the salaries issue, as he seems to have ignored the fact that four of the band members were session artists, and needed to be paid. From the article, it appears that Conte and Dawn did not budget a salary from themselves. Conte states that '[o]ne week of salaries for four musicians and two crew members (front of house engineer and tour manager) cost us $8794'.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:46 PM on November 27, 2014




Sob story from band that lost $11,000 was actually a marketing stunt
How, exactly, were they able to put $17,000 on a credit card? We can’t comment on Conte’s finances specifically, but it may have something to do with the fact that Patreon has raised $17 million dollars from venture capitalists and angel investors—and skims 5 per cent commission from those who use their site. Factor in the $6,326 figure Conte cited above with the fact that they’re producing two videos a month and the number grows further.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:10 PM on December 1, 2014




How, exactly, were they able to put $17,000 on a credit card?

Because credit card companies are happy to extend stupid amounts of credit to people, regardless of their ability to pay it back. I ran up more than that when I was making like $30k a year.
posted by empath at 8:20 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


So it turns out that Pampered Moose are really just crab fiends!
posted by codacorolla at 11:18 AM on December 4, 2014


« Older Internet culture puts trolling on a pedestal   |   "we knew the B-52 could be destroyed just like any... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments