When Ladyhawke gets $59,000 of taxpayer funds to tour overseas, and says she will remain based in NZ, that means shes going away and earning money and coming back and paying taxes here. In business I believe they call that EXPORTING.
cheers,
Peter.
See Taxpayer money promotes Ladyhawke from NZ Herald.
The front page banner of the NZ Herald reads "Taxpayers' $60,000 gift for Ladyhawke".
Background: The Music Industry Commission funded interational development grants in their latest funding round for Ladyhawke, Electric Wire Hustle, Avalanche City, Tiny Ruins, The Earlybirds, Frequency Media Group, Parachute arts trust, and Isaac Aesili. Further info at NZmusic.org.nz.
ADDED: TV3 quoted my blog in this story. John Drinnan also popped up in the comments here, below.
Also, the full press release from Music Industry Commission on its latest funding, via Scoop.co.nz.
46 comments:
Wait -- a scheme called 'Outward Sound' is helping someone get out into the world? Outrageous!
Her record company is in the UK - she is not a member of Apra, but her royalties are returned to NZ and she lives here.
Hey, I like her music and hope she does well. But why does the music industry go nuts any time its handouts and subsidies are put up for public view?
Hi John
your article pulled out a random list of names of Kiwi artists that had got funding without referencing any returns. Its a business development grant. With your continued examination of arts funding, are you suggesting musicians are not a business? Successful entertainer gets business development grant - how is this different from successful NZ business gets development grant, like Rakon or Serato?
John - you're not putting those names up for public view - they are already publicly available. You're trying to make a case against funding the arts.
Hi Peter
Have a read of the item- it was innocuous and gave the justification for the grant.
Not everybody is plugged into the funding mechanisms - many will have been surprised that a successful musician like Ladyhawke gets taxpayer support - while other less glamorous small businesses are going to the wall. The arguments for taxpayer funding of the music industry flits between business development rationales and fostering creativity - whichever suits the grant. But it comes=down to the notion that the industry is a special case. I'm allowed to point out the inconsistencies .
I hope she stays here - but why can't her UK based record company or management company take the relatively small $59,000 punt instead of taxpayers? The answer: Because they get free money from New Zealanders
Hi John
Thanks for responding, I appreciate it. This is an interesting issue to debate.
You mention the notion that the industry is a special case - where does that notion come from? I know that was probably the perception under Labour, but that's long gone.
You can say the film industry is a special case - John Key is even prepared to change employment laws just to accommodate it. And what are the inconsistencies?
You ask why can't her record company take the punt? They probably are - most labels would provide some level of tour support as part of marketing a new release. Have you asked? Take the recent case of Fat Freddys Drop, who were deemed eligible for a similar grant of $30k for a US tour. They had to match the funding, and even then it was still too expensive to make the trip.
If this investment ($59k) is relatively small, as you say, then the potential $ returns for NZ on an artist with a track record must exceed that amount.
NZ taxpayers will make more from paying Ladyhawke than they will for paying Rick Bryants jailtime. Rugby farmers and angry Herald red-hunters, is it 1950 in New Zealand?
Rugby World cup considered "success" if it loses $30-40 million.
Have a read of the item- it was innocuous and gave the justification for the grant.
Don't be disingenuous, John. The implication of the words "Taxpayers are shelling out thousands of dollars" is clearly that something is improper.
It's a global business development grant, for goodness sake. The scandal would be if she were taking the money and sitting in a cafe in Grey Lynn. But she isn't.
Not everybody is plugged into the funding mechanisms - many will have been surprised that a successful musician like Ladyhawke gets taxpayer support - while other less glamorous small businesses are going to the wall.
That's nonsense, John, and you ought to know it. New Zealand Trade and Enterprises's International Growth Fund alone has a $60m annual budget for companies in other sectors -- that's 120 times the entire annual budget for Outward Sound.
A small development fund is being used for the purpose for which it was appropriated, as it has been for the past five years. For all your passive-aggressive attempts to hint otherwise, no one is doing anything wrong.
John your comment "it (the story) was innocuous" is telling. Your heart isn't in the story and you're not sure why you wrote it apart from creating a headline that might enrage kiwi "mum and dad" taxpayers and bait the music industry. All rather pointless.
John, you seem to imply, not for the first time, that investing in music is not as worthy or valid as investing in "real" industry. Other than your own personal bias for feeling that way, it's an odd conclusion to reach for someone who works in, and writes about, the media.
Music, like other cultural endeavours (and journalism), is exactly the kind of "weightless" export economy we should be encouraging, not pouring scorn on.
Getting international customers to pay New Zealanders for their ideas, their words, their songs is ideal for a country that cannot, and will never, compete on scale or sheer workforce size or market access as other countries can.
No digging holes in the ground or polluting rivers required. No shipping containers. No bio-hazards. No tariffs. No animals dismembered.
And, unlike other sectors that are inevitably capped by our capacity to deliver volume (ie. milk, wine, dead animals), there's no reason why a song which emanates from these shores cannot ultimately earn just as much money a song emanates from New York or London... other then the fact that a great deal of time and effort is required to get people to hear the song, like the song, buy the song.
I can't see any reason why the government helping Ladyhawke's team to do those three things is any less worthwhile than Trade And Enterprise helping an orchardist or a farmer - many of whom are already backed by much wealthier patrons and owners than any music label - find new export markets.
Last but not least, you don't seem to have any inkling that music (and other arts) have spin-offs for New Zealand in ways that widget making and cutting up animals never could. Have a listen to Brian Sweeney's presentation at the Kea NZ function in New York two weeks ago. Based on media monitoring carried out by nzedge.com, by the far biggest driver of "positive coverage" of New Zealand in the media globally is due to the Arts (28%). And "positive coverage" leads to more visitors, more investment, more influence here.
Brian's speech is here:
http://vimeo.com/24919345
And while you are at it, how about doing a story about Derek Handley's ideas from the same forum?
http://vimeo.com/24960722
Nothing to do with music funding but very interesting thinking. And far more worthy of your attention, and the Herald's column inches, than more of the same boring curmudgeonly bullying of musicians.
FFS John, the potential cashflow return to the nation from this small investment is enormous - vastly greater than the $60k offered to her.
Musicians and writers already return substantial sums to the nation from offshore airplay and performance income and we've not even begun to realise the possibilities.
And that's without - as Paul says - the other hugely positive flow from our arts internationally.
I can but applaud Outward Sound - this is smart and perfectly targeted expenditure.
There are plenty of valid questions about funding but this ain't one of them.
You may be happy that music is given a privileged position on the totem. I am not and I run a music blog. I do so because I love New Zealand music – not for financial gain or notoriety. If Ladyhawke, Electric Wire Hustle etc are able to write music and made the right choices in Music Companies, then by-rights their music will sell globally without using my taxes to promote their own business’s. Remind me isn’t that what their management/record companies are suppose to do since it’s them who are the prime recipients of the sales?? So what these artists pay taxes in N.Z? Woop de f*ck. This is merely a return to the days of Muldoonism where the Government offered the likes of farmers subsidies. Since when have any of these bands/artists promoted N.Z per-se? This is monies used to promote self-interest. No wonder the government needs to borrow 200 million plus a week to cover over-spending when we have by defacto taxpayers in N.Z supporting multi-national overseas record companies. Using this Stalinist doctrine I gather record-buyers in N.Z will be able to get the Ladyhawke album for a discount as well? There is an old saying “When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul for support."
You do have to question the numbers here though. A 60k investment in a locally based company like Serato (since the blogger mentioned it) would, in theory, turn into more business which would require employing more people - so more tax would be paid (and larger premises needed and other knock-on effects).
By contrast, if Ladyhawke's 60k investment shot her to superstardom and it returned, say, 5million would she employ any more people locally for recording or marketing skills? Nope, the first thing artists and their labels do is put them in a "better" studio in London or New York etc. And make more expensive videos through their own connections (even if they're filmed locally).
The first thing globally successful artists do with their record label's help is set up their affairs in a tax haven to minimise their personal tax obligations. If local business people do it over a couple of hundred thousand dollars then a musician will do it without doubt. It serves themselves and means the absolute bare minimum is ever cycled through the local economy.
This money, while a nice way to support kiwis going out on the big stage, has little chance of being returned in the same way an investment in a more businessey venture would. We should treat artist grants like this for what they are: a great way to support local artists. Let's not try to compare the risk/reward of it in normal financial terms.
You may be happy that music is given a privileged position on the totem.
If by "privileged position" you mean "far less than film, TV heritage arts, etc", I guess so.
And I'm sure that in the name of consistency you'll be calling for the immediate closure of Trade and Enterprise and its foreign offices and the cessation of any all development and export market support for all other industries. Oh, and no more primary industry R&D of the kind that got us to a $1 billion export wine industry. Yep, that'll work.
All of those account for many, many times more than the $500,000 in matched funding the MIC has at its disposal.
So what these artists pay taxes in N.Z? Woop de f*ck.
It seems relevant to me. I'd expect that Ladyhawke would be paying quite a lot more than $60k in tax if she cracks the American market, which is the purpose for which the matched funding was granted.
And once you've finished looking up "privileged" in the dictionary, can I suggest you check the definition of "Stalinism", because your use of it in this context makes you look pretty loopy.
I think I got this right ...
Export development support for the music industry accounts for about 0.0000000008% of Budget 2010-2011. It really is not the reason we're borrowing $200 million a week.
That’s right I don’t support any state-subisidies for any business, rock music groups, farmers, wine industry, movies – the whole bloody lot. I’m not happy my taxes are going to be employed to prop-up artists who evidently can’t make it on their own on the world stage and aren’t even seen as being worthy of adequate support from their record companies – thus they bring their cavernous begging bowls to the governments door. If you want to support these artists – you are free to do so by buying their music as are other Kiwi’s. Promote them to hell on your blog. What you are advocating is indeed economics befitting a 1960’s Eastern European regime. What I want is the free market to rule and if a Kiwi wants to buy the latest CD of a Brit band over a local one – then so be it. If a British music buyer wants to support a Kiwi artist/bottle of wine/leg of lamb over the local product – equally so be it. The market should pick winners, not you, not me and especially not public servants in Wellington using my money. PS: God I deplore guys who employ ad hominem attacks.
What you are advocating is indeed economics befitting a 1960’s Eastern European regime.
You are very welcome to believe this. You might however wish to inform the Heritage Foundation, which consistently ranks New Zealand in the top five countries in its global Economic Freedom Index (in the 2011 index we're fourth -- five places above the USA).
In the real world, industry development support is not regarded as a subsidy under any of the free trade agreements we have signed. It is a feature of all OECD economies. Indeed, most OECD countries do much more of it than New Zealand.
And no, suggesting that you look up "Stalinism" in the dictionary before you try using it again isn't an "ad hominem attack", it's a defence of the idea that words have actual meanings.
We should treat artist grants like this for what they are: a great way to support local artists. Let's not try to compare the risk/reward of it in normal financial terms.
I understand your point, but that's not the basis on which the Music Industry Commission was established. It's meant to be an industry support agency -- that's why (unlike, say, Creative New Zealand) any funding must be equally matched by the applicant. It's standard practice for the sector.
Stalin was a probably big fan of state involvement in popular culture.
John - so was Hitler.
I can't believe you Godwinned your own thread!
Godwinned? Never heard of it... oh hang on....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
Just learned something... hehe
John: You just lost the argument right there.
What I want is the free market to rule and if a Kiwi wants to buy the latest CD of a Brit band over a local one – then so be it. If a British music buyer wants to support a Kiwi artist/bottle of wine/leg of lamb over the local product – equally so be it. The market should pick winners, not you, not me and especially not public servants in Wellington using my money.
Yes. As successful as the free market model may have been in Lord Of The Flies and the banking sector, I'm not sure it's the best model for effectively stimulating fledgling export industries. Particularly when doing so from a tiny country which has barriers to entry higher than practically any other developed country... tiny population, tyranny of distance, regularly assumed to be part of Australia.
The market, of course, still will ultimately decide. The British music buyer will still make their choice whether to pick up the Ladyhawke CD or the Susan Boyle one. They will then also decide whether to buy a leg of NZ lamb or a kipper for dinner. I know which combination of the above sounds more appealing to me.
The point is that this is export development funding. In the most simplistic terms, it's an investment in getting the Ladyhawke CD onto that shelf next to Susan Boyle, or the kipper for that matter, in the first place... so that the market can decide.
Like it or not, there's going to be time, money, politics, schmoozing, touring, plugging, who-you-knows and what-you-knows involved along the way. It costs money. That's not peculiar to music or New Zealand. It's how your so-called 'free market' works. Susan Boyle will be using her piggy bank and her wiley feminine charms, and so will the man from the kipper hatchery.
I think you may find that no matter in the world you are, 'the state' does it's best to get its home industries and businesses an advantage. In the UK they used to do with colonial expeditions and mars bars, in the US these days it's done with oil contracts and aircraft carriers.
We do it with synths and '80s hair-dos. Yeah.
So let’s get this right…..grey-shoed Wellington public-servants on over 100k per year now more foresight and business accruement to decide what pop group from New Zealand is going to be the next big-thing globally than the entire record-buying population of the world? Wow! But why stop there with such amazing powers of industry insight one would have presumed they would be heading EMI. Why don’t these state-servants start a band ‘The Trough Lickers’ as well? The Trough Lickers could then approve themselves a tax-payer hand-out and be on a world tour within a month. And who cares if they fail to garnish an audience. It’s not their money anyway – the same as there will be no performance accountability with these hand-outs.
in the US these days it's done with oil contracts and aircraft carriers.
I think the US government's policy of trying to bully every trading partner into sovereign law changes that benefit its popular entertainment industry is probably a more relevant example.
But why stop there with such amazing powers of industry insight one would have presumed they would be heading EMI.
Which, I feel bound to observe, is now unhappily owned by its bankers. Not exactly the place to look for market genius.
Oh, what the heck -- time for one more.
Anyone who believes the taxpayer-funded DSIR's groundbreaking work in developing sauvignon blanc for local conditions -- creating the basis of a billion-dollar annual export wine industry -- wasn't an excellent investment is ... nuts.
business accruement
No, the applicant (or trough licker) has to demonstrate to the grey-shoed public servant that they know their market, have talent, have a plan, potential, good teeth etc.
Then the grey-shoed public servants each progressively offer more and more money to the trough licker, till the last grey-shoed public servant wins. At which time they own 51% of the means of distribution and may kiss a photo of the Beautiful Leader.
Or the trough licker gives in and takes the bag. (ie. a Jetstar ticket to Melbourne).
at this point I'd like to suggest the copyright equivalent of Godwinning be termed Brown's Law:
"As an online discussion involving any members of the Public Address community grows longer, the probability of it evolving into a discussion about copyright law approaches 1 (100%)."
With appropriate apologies to anyone who thought of this first.
A plane ticket to Melbourne? That sounds like Ladyhawke in 2003. On hang on, that WAS Ladyhawke in 2003.
I think the point can be made that, no matter how you bake this, if Ladyhawke goes off and make millions of dollars because of the support she received there will be no more employment in NZ because of it, there will be no more product manufacturer here than would be without the money. And once she reaches a threshold of success (unknown as yet) her accounts/revenue will cease to terminate in NZ whatsoever. Successful artists, like businesses, simply don't keep their affairs where it doesn't suit them financially - no matter how much public support they have for or in their homeland.
The payoff for this sort of investment is the feelgood factor and little else. That is the BEST reason to do it - like supporting your favourite sports team. Trying to justify it in financial terms is ludicrous and I challenge anyone to demonstrate a musical artist who got govt support for their cause, went on to success, and then repaid that success by way of taxes or such.
Business accruement.
I think you meant 'accoutrement'.
What an astonishingly rational argument Anonymous.
"I challenge anyone to demonstrate a musical artist who got govt support for their cause, went on to success, and then repaid that success by way of taxes or such."
OMC / Alan Jansson. The return from How Bizarre all came back to NZ. State of the art recording studio in Freeman's Bay if you want to use it - the money came from the millions of records sold and the airplay.
About 40k in NZoA grants went towards that project. It's public record that it returned some $11m to NZ (up to 2001) of which a huge hunk was paid as tax.
Thanks for all the comments, and please - add your name.
and Anonymous, re the feelgood factor - it's much more than that. As Paul Kennedy noted above "Based on media monitoring carried out by nzedge.com, by the far biggest driver of "positive coverage" of New Zealand in the media globally is due to the Arts (28%). And "positive coverage" leads to more visitors, more investment, more influence here."
I also suspect that John Drinnan's support for your argument would indicate Drinnan is against any industry getting government support or subsidies, not just the music industry. Is that the case, John?
I'm stunned. I have no idea how you can reach that conclusion. I support this person's argument that support for music industry is emotional - and should be treated that way - not dressed up with arguments that subsidies will lead to payoffs in musicians NZ tax payments. The Ladyhawke funding is a small laying off some of the risk for her UK management and record companies. Many of your friends would say small so it doesn't matter. I would say small so all three could easily afford to pay their own way. I shudder to think how your correspondents will interpret that... g'night
John, you're now so far away from the original implication of your story -- which was that there was something amiss with the grant that taxpayers were "shelling out" for -- that it's hard to have any sort of good faith discussion about it.
But Simon has provided an example of the kind of multiple than can result from this sort of support.
I was actually around for the discussions that led to the establishment of the Music Industry Commission, and they took place under the eye of the Ministry of Economic Development. That's why they are structured as they are.
You may, if you wish, take issue with the Outward Sound structure itself, but it was dishonest -- and, frankly, shitty -- of you to imply in the way you did that there had been some misuse of public funds.
Fact is, Ladyhawke was eligible for the the support and was able to present a case that got her selected. If you'd actually written a serious story arguing that an artist signed to a non-NZ based label should not be eligible (which would also take out a fledgling artist like Tiny Ruins), that would have been a discussion worth having. But you didn't.
And finally, if we're to accept your plea that "support for music industry is emotional - and should be treated that way", then I'd have to ask why you chose in the same story to selectively (if randomly) highlight another artist's Creative New Zealand grant -- which is emphatically __not__ a business grant.. Because it simply looked -- as so much of your coverage of this sector does -- petty and mean-spirited.
If Wikipedia is correct Ladyhawke is on the label Modular which is 50% owned by Universal Music one of the big four industry players. Universal has an annual turn-over of 6.0 billion U.S Dollars.
Russell you seem fairly keen on using calculators around these parts – please kindly tell us what percentage of Universals turnover a paltry 65K NZD is please?
Reminder to all: The main recipient of Kiwi tax-payer generosity will be the overseas record companies.
Will Wellington Public Servants soon be picking the New Zealand Top 40?
It's a logical progression.
On reflection why stop at the state-backed super-group The Trough Lickers?
The Music Commission could automatically place Kiwi artists at 1,2 and 3 every week if you wanted to create artifical markets and 'the warm fuzzies'you so crave.
Then for good measure why don't we sent secret teams of N.Z Public Servants on trips to U.K and Europe to buy-up every Kiwi artist on the local record-shop shelves using a state backed credit card?
All these proposals fit-into the same agenda.
PS: I was only joking about the secret teams of public servants. They would of course be highly conspicuous by their home knitted jerseys, unkempt facial hair and compulsory scuffed grey-shoes.
Hi John
I assume from your response ("I'm stunned") that your answer to my question is no (you dodged directly answering that like a politician! Kidding).
I asked it as one of the earlier commenters, whom you agreed with, said he was against all subsidies for any business.
You say "I support this person's argument that support for music industry is emotional - and should be treated that way - not dressed up with arguments that subsidies will lead to payoffs in musicians NZ tax payments" - in that case, if you do support that argument, you need to refrain from trying to slip it into news stories, as it's your opinion, not fact, and is more suited to your media columns.
These arguments are not 'dressed up' - as Russell highlighted, they are based on criteria established with direction the Ministry of Economic Development. I think we have to agree to disagree that the music business is indeed a business. Clearly, you don't think it is a business.
Wait a second....
Mr Drinnian said this thread was "peppered with personal invective and swearing". I can't find a single curseword in here. I call bullshit on Drinnian!
Never mind, maybe had an erection while writing his article and his productivity was momentarily affected.
- Proofer3
Yes, anonymous, I agree - where is the personal invective and bad language? The UK's Private Eye had ways of describing Fleet Street's hacks that apply, perhaps, no less to Drinnan. Maybe a liking for a very long liquid lunch in the local hostelry accounts for his poor grasp of the truth.
Most writer's use whiskey dick as an excuse at least once...
-Proofer3
Post a Comment