• LilNaib@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ya, I know we did sixty shows last year and grossed over a billion dollars from it, but how about we quadruple the number of staff we have to pay to only do ten shows this year. It would be really nice if we paid hundreds of employees to live on a sailboat for three months out of the year. Not like the largest music company in the world is going to expect an increase in profits.

    Who is “we” - are you employed by Taylor Swift or an affiliated company?

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, I have nothing to do with the entertainment industry beyond a passing curiosity. I was sarcastically phrasing what any contract negotiation with the largest record label in the world to highlight just how unlikely said company is going to be ok with vastly increasing costs and number of employees in order to simultaneously massively reduce income, even if one of the employees really wants to.

      There is eccentric, and then there is the point where the corporation would make more money paying an artist to not work for them becuse they cost far more to deal with then their shows could bring in.