how do the record labels benefit by giving Timberlake an incremental performing artist credit?
why settle for streaming revenue on one artist per stream when you capture streaming revenue against two artists per stream?!
here’s a sixty-second summary on some of the shenanigans
the gross thing is that I’m sure some poor intern out there ran some math to make it look like, “the increase in streams by adding Timberlake’s name will more than offset the increased cut we’re taking from you,” you know?
it comes down to, though, the farce that slapping Timberlake’s name on something inherently adds value
jump ahead to: how'd we go from, "he's using them to rehabilitate his image," to, "be grateful Timberlake let the group be on his song"?
ugh, do you know what happened to his clothing brand?
or to his tequila brand?
in those examples, his name at least didn’t detract from anything, at least not materially
I mean, I guess it detracted from his own “personal brand” as a public figure because now we have proof how irrelevant his name is in real life, which I’d expect anyone doing due diligence to consider when making deals with the guy
but that’s why corporations hire interns, you know? “plausible deniability” stuff — the intern lacks the experience, general knowledge, whatever to incorporate Timberlake’s irrelevancy into the breakeven math, and it’s by design — the intern’s superiors want the amended terms to appear fair to *NSYNC so as to execute the deal (& expeditiously) and want the terms to in reality beat the intern’s forecast, which, the superiors know will play out but will get away with feigning incompetency or negligence if/when it comes down to it
after all, how could you reasonably expect anyone in positions of power to be there based on merit? right?
please let me know if you have any questions or anything on anything otherwise, more to come yours, jansen