The Curious Case Of The Pearl Jam Posters

on2legs · January 2024

brewdog123 said:

show previous quotes

pjl44 said:

I would need to know what other big bands pay for one-off show posters. The lack of that context makes me skeptical of the author. The only other anonymous feedback from an artist quotes their shipping costs which doesn't make sense - I always get charged shipping.

I need a lot more info to determine whether or not this is a fair arrangement.

i know phish and tool follow this same poster/artist process as pearl jam.

i would assume artists such as klausen and ames have a grandfathered deal of sorts.

Same deal structure but they get variants and sometimes larger AP editions.

verceman · January 2024

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

on2legs · January 2024

Bella Grace is a pretty huge graphic artist. She does stuff for some major intellectual properties like Disney and Star Wars. She seems to think it’s a really good deal for the artist and she has nothing but praise for Pearl Jam if you read her comments on that Instagram post.

lexicondevil · January 2024

Wow. That was enlightening and a bit fucked up. It reminds me of when I was playing in a band in the late 80s. If you'd play the Sunset Strip you generally had to buy your own allotment of tickets and then sell them yourself to make money. We pretty much lost money every show...

Merkin Baller · January 2024

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

lexicondevil · January 2024

Merkin Baller said:

show previous quotes

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.

BV84003 · January 2024

I find it kind of puzzling that the majority of people here are okay with an artist only getting paid in numbered copies of posters that they can then sell for whatever they want to charge. Yet flippers who buy PJ records to resell for whatever price they want are pretty much the devil. Artists should be compensated. Merely giving them the opportunity to sell a few posters at exorbitant (ahem, market value) prices shouldn't really qualify.

Merkin Baller · January 2024

lexicondevil said:

show previous quotes

Merkin Baller said:

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.

Weird take.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?

spankyMP · January 2024

Meh. This seems to be an acceptable form of compensation, if it weren’t, then they wouldn’t do it.

Could it have been explained better that she could have made a quick $10k plus with s/n APs and then get future opportunities? Yes. Did it have to be? No.

Did he have to say rescinded? No. Was it snarky? Maybe. Was she snarky first? Maybe.

Also, if you still get touchy over auto-correct or typos, then that is on you. Yes, even in “professional” emails. It happens all the time, to all of us, even in publishing and legal documents and things that do get proofread multiple times. Time to accept it and move on.

Jimmydean55 · January 2024

UseUrIllusions said:

Has the market cooled on PJ Posters? I really haven’t seen lots of demand on the various FB groups. I remember before the pandemic it was crazy hot!

It has certainly cooled on the posters I have for sale! And I’d like to think they are good ones too.

bootlegger10 · January 2024

spankyMP said:

Meh. This seems to be an acceptable form of compensation, if it weren’t, then they wouldn’t do it.

Could it have been explained better that she could have made a quick $10k plus with s/n APs and then get future opportunities? Yes. Did it have to be? No.

Did he have to say rescinded? No. Was it snarky? Maybe. Was she snarky first? Maybe.

Also, if you still get touchy over auto-correct or typos, then that is on you. Yes, even in “professional” emails. It happens all the time, to all of us, even in publishing and legal documents and things that do get proofread multiple times. Time to accept it and move on.

Reading the original back and forth and not the selected snippets, I was 100% expecting TSurt to rescind the offer. Tone in emails is tough sometimes to get correct, but Jess actually said the way TSurt and PJ approaches it is upside down. She clearly went out of her way to diss them before doing her research. If she said, "that's interesting. I'm not used to that approach. Let me do a bit of research and I'll get back to you in the next few days", then I think she would have the gig if she wanted it.

Still mulling on it. I’ve always been paid for any commercial job I’ve done. Have been happy to have a sliding scale depending on the project and what they can afford… but it’s always been something. So I have to say it seems a little upside down that a band like Pearl Jam would want to pay someone for their services in merch.

But will do a bit of research and see if it’s been financially viable for the other artists. Will be in touch in the New Year!

lexicondevil · January 2024

Merkin Baller said:

show previous quotes

lexicondevil said:

Merkin Baller said:

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?

I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.

Merkin Baller · January 2024

lexicondevil said:

show previous quotes

Merkin Baller said:

lexicondevil said:

Merkin Baller said:

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?

I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.

I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?

Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.

pjl44 · January 2024

lexicondevil said:

Wow. That was enlightening and a bit fucked up. It reminds me of when I was playing in a band in the late 80s. If you'd play the Sunset Strip you generally had to buy your own allotment of tickets and then sell them yourself to make money. We pretty much lost money every show...

If given the choice between selling 100 tickets to a random local band's gig or 100 s/n Pearl Jam posters....

pjl44 · January 2024

I'm sure there are some exceptions but I would imagine the vast majority of artists being considered to design a Pearl Jam poster would be established enough to have some type of online retail set up to sell their work

lexicondevil · January 2024

pjl44 said:

show previous quotes

lexicondevil said:

Wow. That was enlightening and a bit fucked up. It reminds me of when I was playing in a band in the late 80s. If you'd play the Sunset Strip you generally had to buy your own allotment of tickets and then sell them yourself to make money. We pretty much lost money every show...

If given the choice between selling 100 tickets to a random local band's gig or 100 s/n Pearl Jam posters....

Completely missed the point. We were musicians/artists who wanted to play live and get recognition. The scene was so locked up that to get a good show you needed to do the pay to play scenario. We didn't have a choice. If we started calling out these promoters we would have been blacklisted. Maybe some of these artists are feeling the same pressure. I guess, not maybe, at least one artist thought this was a bit unfair. Anyway, I'm done trying to explain this to people. You get it or you don't. No worries.

pjl44 · January 2024

lexicondevil said:

show previous quotes

pjl44 said:

lexicondevil said:

Wow. That was enlightening and a bit fucked up. It reminds me of when I was playing in a band in the late 80s. If you'd play the Sunset Strip you generally had to buy your own allotment of tickets and then sell them yourself to make money. We pretty much lost money every show...

If given the choice between selling 100 tickets to a random local band's gig or 100 s/n Pearl Jam posters....

Completely missed the point. We were musicians/artists who wanted to play live and get recognition. The scene was so locked up that to get a good show you needed to do the pay to play scenario. We didn't have a choice. If we started calling out these promoters we would have been blacklisted. Maybe some of these artists are feeling the same pressure. I guess, not maybe, at least one artist thought this was a bit unfair. Anyway, I'm done trying to explain this to people. You get it or you don't. No worries.

It's apples and oranges

pjl44 · January 2024

A more apt analogy:

Pearl Jam is coming through and playing a 5k capacity theater. Their manager calls and says "we want your band to open!" We're not paying a fee but we'll give you 50 tickets to sell. We recommend $200 per.

Now, you personally may not feel like selling any tickets and that's fine. But those should be in high demand and many would see $10,000 and the chance to open for Pearl Jam. Not for everyone maybe but seems pretty good.

bootlegger10 · January 2024

Merkin Baller said:

show previous quotes

lexicondevil said:

Merkin Baller said:

lexicondevil said:

Merkin Baller said:

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?

I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?

Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.

TSurt didn’t move on because she hesitated. He moved on because she called their payment structure upside down and that she was surprised Pearl Jam would do that. Who would enter into business with someone after they have attacked how you operate? It usually doesn’t get better from there. The proof that TSurt did the right thing was that she selectively excluded the emails that made it logical for TSurt to rescind.

People that spend their time and efforts organizing The Home Shows, building skateparks, volunteering for the homeless, etc… probably aren’t out to stiff another artist. Sure some, some business comes into it, but end of the day the artists are getting paid.

Weston1283 · January 2024

bootlegger10 said:

show previous quotes

Merkin Baller said:

lexicondevil said:

Merkin Baller said:

lexicondevil said:

Merkin Baller said:

verceman said:

I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.

In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).

As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.

Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?

I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?

Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.

TSurt didn’t move on because she hesitated. He moved on because she called their payment structure upside down and that she was surprised Pearl Jam would do that. Who would enter into business with someone after they have attacked how you operate? It usually doesn’t get better from there. The proof that TSurt did the right thing was that she selectively excluded the emails that made it logical for TSurt to rescind.

People that spend their time and efforts organizing The Home Shows, building skateparks, volunteering for the homeless, etc… probably aren’t out to stiff another artist. Sure some, some business comes into it, but end of the day the artists are getting paid.

Yeah. If she didn't like the payment method, she could have just declined and moved on.

Blasting Tsurt and Pearl Jam online like that is just a real bad look, in my opinion. Gives off some real "look at me!" vibes.

The Curious Case Of The Pearl Jam Posters

Comments

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories