The Curious Case Of The Pearl Jam Posters

She’s bent they pulled the offer and now she’s trying to drag Pearl Jam in a social media tantrum.  

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.  

Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again. 

SHZA said:

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.  

Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again. 

Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had. 

IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,. 

Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say. 

There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists? 

bootlegger10 said:

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. 

Merkin Baller said:

SHZA said:

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.  

Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again. 

Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had. 

IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,. 

Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say. 

There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists? 

I wouldn't call it exploiting, Any artist who thinks it's a shitty deal can pass. I look at it more as market based. Like anything else, the most talented people in a given field can command higher compensation. I see a definite trend for the recent PJ shows that the artists who are willing to take this deal may not be in as much demand. That's not to say it's not a fair deal for them given the exposure and other benefits people have mentioned. But for someone like Emek, he probably gets a better deal from other bands. Not necessarily a flat fee, but for his QOTSA and Foo Fighters prints for example he has had many many variants that presumably make those gigs more profitable than what he would get from 100 PJ APs. Emek and Sperry got to do variants for  PJ in the past (Foil chief, foil mermaid, blue linen leopard) and Munk with the purple moose. Seems like they need to sweeten the deal at times. 

Do you guys think TSurt was on a tight deadline so had to make a call? Or do you think they jumped the gun in canning it? I'm not sure how far they'd need a final submission from an article in advance of a gig. Brad Klausen definitely seems the best qualified to answer this stuff. Seems to me like both sides can be right and also ignorant of the other's perspective. Might be a great deal in comparison to the way she's used to doing so, but having such a different business model has obviously taken her aback and communication/breakdowns could have been better. It's a shame she won't get the chance to do it. But yeah again I'm just trying to be philosophical and think they're reaching out to NZ artists for NZ concerts. Roll on November (allegedly).

pdalowsky said:

Niko80 said:

It's a smart business approach by the band. Asking the artist to sell AP´s, the artist will put more work into the piece to make sure it sells. 

It will generate better art for the band. Just speculating here.. 

Yo dude, well its been quite a long time since we got a really good poster....soooooo................LOL

But regardless those AP's have all sold so the artists have been compensated pretty well. But then I wonder how long a piece like a Pitts 13 takes to create? I mean in hours. I wonder exactly how profitable it can be which will depend on how time intensive the process is. 

Been too long man! Bought a membership again with the goal of scoring some tickets for the upcoming tour. Hopefully I get to see you along the way! 

SHZA said:

Merkin Baller said:

SHZA said:

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.  

Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again. 

Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had. 

IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,. 

Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say. 

There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists? 

I wouldn't call it exploiting, Any artist who thinks it's a shitty deal can pass. I look at it more as market based. Like anything else, the most talented people in a given field can command higher compensation. I see a definite trend for the recent PJ shows that the artists who are willing to take this deal may not be in as much demand. That's not to say it's not a fair deal for them given the exposure and other benefits people have mentioned. But for someone like Emek, he probably gets a better deal from other bands. Not necessarily a flat fee, but for his QOTSA and Foo Fighters prints for example he has had many many variants that presumably make those gigs more profitable than what he would get from 100 PJ APs. Emek and Sperry got to do variants for  PJ in the past (Foil chief, foil mermaid, blue linen leopard) and Munk with the purple moose. Seems like they need to sweeten the deal at times. 

All great points, and we're in agreement that this is all market based.

As far as long standing relationships and / or more talented artists getting extra consideration or concessions... isn't that how most if not all industries work? 

I think that's the overall point here... this is how the industry works. I don't think Pearl Jam approaches this differently than most if not any other band, and the insinuation from the author of that newsletter that this is a problem unique to PJ is unprofessional at best. 

bootlegger10 said:

spankyMP said:

bootlegger10 said:

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!

I agree completely, but perhaps I was treading too lightly in my post as to not get flamed for not siding with the artist.

Not sure why we have to feel like we need to protect the artist.  For every Pearl Jam there are probably 1,000 other musicians who make only enough to pay the rent.  We should feel bad for teachers, nurses, first responders who are underpaid.  Not artists that know it is a tough way to make money but they want to follow their passion.  I would love to follow my passion and sit around and play golf all day.  But reality sinks in.

I'm not sure either and in this case I don't. With situations like this, as with many topics, some people are unable to evaluate on a case by case basis and always side with the little guy or the one doing the calling out. Just read the comments on the blog post, everyone jumping to the side of the artist, but in this case it seems like there is either nothing to see here or just blame that should be shared by both parties.