sf121 - not picking on you, but your two posts were the most relevant ones I could find to frame my comments.
soxfan121 said:
Absolutely they would lose something - the +146% in record sales. The same source also said The Who (who were awful) had a huge increase in sales for their (at the time) recently released greatest hits album.
Katy Perry/Rhianna/Coldplay work for a record company. The "artist" isn't making this decision. There's a handful of artists in the world who could make that decision without the record company throwing a fit and citing contracts and threatening to sue the artist.
The NFL is providing 15 minutes of exposure to a global audience; that is ABSOLUTELY worth something. A 30-second commercial is worth $4M. The record company selling Katy Perry is using $120M in advertising time.
Oh, it's coming. Some "artists" who never had a chance to be the SB halftime act will announce they'd never pay to play and other "artists" who only care about money (as opposed to integrity) will line up to pay the NFL for the SB halftime. Nickelback is one of the few "artists" personally bankrupt enough to do it AND they are famous enough.
And when it happens, we will all blame you Ferm Sheller.
Your basic point about the value of the time is true, but you have the dynamics of the artist/label relationship backwards as it relates to live performances.
Touring has always been the one area where the artist could do whatever they wanted and the label had no say in the matter. Labels generally like tours (because of the fact that it promotes music sales) but because they don't bear any promotional risk, they have no say in what the artist does and they receive no revenues other than increased music sales that may come from the tour. And the changes in the music business over the past decade have only exacerbated this trend.
Established artists - the kind who would be a candidate to play the Super Bowl - make the vast majority of their money through touring, not through music sales. They control everything and they call all the shots. If the NFL came to them and asked them to pay to play at the Super Bowl, the artist would turn right around and tell their label "If you want to leverage the promotional value of the Super Bowl, we'll do the show if you pay the fee to the NFL and guarantee the band [insert figure here]." And because the benefits are potentially significant for the label, they would probably do so.
soxfan121 said:
I'd refute the "high quality act" statement but I see Papelbon's Poutine already posted the list.
No one is tuning out. Every single counter-programming stunt designed to draw eyeballs away from the SB halftime show has been a one-and-done exercise. The audience isn't clicking away, even if Bruno Mars is on their TV. Nope, they are watching even when the act is (speculating) Nickelback, Justin Bieber or One Direction. (oh, Bieber is coming...think about that for a minute)
I think it is dumb for the NFL to publicize this pay-for-play scheme but I'm shocked they were giving it away for free. I mean, my Up With People reference is relevant. The days where the NFL had trouble getting an act for the halftime show are loooooooong gone. Now, it is a global branding opportunity. Bruno Mars used it to drastically increase his Q rating, his record sales, his concert attendance and his brand. He made LOTS of money off that SB halftime appearance. And it is the global audience that is the key. Old American Dudes might complain about Bruno Mars but they watched. And then his record sales went through the roof.
And I'm flabbergasted that some of you (dcmissle) think there isn't a ton of money to be made here.
The NFL can probably get the label to cover some expenses and pay a nominal fee, but the reality is that the revenue to be gained by the NFL from the artist/label is a pittance compared to the advertising revenue. And the NFL doesn't see the advertising revenue in any case - that goes to the network, which pays stupid amounts of money for the right to broadcast NFL games, including the rotating right to broadcast the Super Bowl.
Where I think this scheme unravels on the NFL is that the logic they are using - "hey, look at the value of the free exposure" - can be turned around by the artist in question. They simply have to say "you make a good point - we'll pay you [insert figure] and we'll take 50% of the advertising revenue from halftime, since fans will be tuning in to see us." And the NFL can't do this without the network buying in, which they won't.
The other reason I see this failing is that the NFL wants to tightly control every element of the production. They lose this ability if they ask the artist to pay for the right to perform.
Seems to be a puzzling move by the NFL. My guess is that it's more of a trial balloon than anything else because they are trying to get a handle on the skyrocketing costs of staging the production.