Are drummers getting screwed when it comes to endorsements?

T

The Old Hyde

Guest
I was just thinking, why are top drummers not paid by the companies they endorse? Tiger Woods was getting 5 million a year from Buick ( doubt he even had one) and other athletes make untold millions endorsing other products not related to their sport, so why do drummers settle for discounted gear and clinic work? I think the top guys should band together and hold out for money instead of just an advertisement shot.
 
Re: Are drummers getting screwed when it comes to endorsments?

To many well known drummers in general. If the top guys all demanded money it would be simple for them to get dropped and for some other up and coming drummers to get endorsed who will gladly do it.
 
Re: Are drummers getting screwed when it comes to endorsments?

I doubt drum companies have the budgets car companies have or sports comapnies, as well. The sales could hardly be compared. Also Tiger Woods used to have an influence to cause interest and sales for Buick. His exposure on tv ads, etc, was a hundredfold greater than any drummer ad in MD, or wherever.

I'd find it refreshing if endorsers played and endorsed their choice of equipment based solely on personal use, not any business arrangements.
 
Re: Are drummers getting screwed when it comes to endorsments?

No.

The number of athletic shoes sold is million times more than the number of drum kits sold.

Nike, Adidas, Buick(General Motors), each company in it's own right is bigger than all the major drum companies combined.

Steinway owns Selmer, who owns Ludwig. The entire conglomerate was recently sold for $512 million. Nike had $24 Billion in revenue in 2012.

Fender Musical Corp is the largest single music distributor, who owns Gibraltar, most of Gretch, all of LP, Toca, in additional to, of course, Fender guitars and all their off shoots, was valued at roughly $395 million in their failed IPO.

Adidas sales for 2012 was valued at 14 billion euros.

In terms of sales, a major big name drummer endorsing a drum brand is not worth much compared to a major athlete endorsing a shoe brand.
 
I think the top guys should band together and hold out for money instead of just an advertisement shot.
& you'd be delighted to pay for that in higher gear prices?

Most mass produced drum gear retail prices already consist of a high portion non production related cost without seeking to add even more. Anyhow, the value of a deal for the top guys is also global support - that's the expensive bit. We play one of the instrument's that's difficult to transport by air. A set of golf clubs is easy by comparison.

The biggest factor of all is market size. The drum market is tiny by comparison to sports goods & similar. Really, a totally different scale. There just isn't the money for "millions" in remuneration, not even close, even with the biggest companies in drums.
 
Tiger was a poor example. Im not saying 5 million a year from Ludwig, but if I was say Alex Van Halen during the 80"s and 90's, would it be ok to get 100 grand a year to stay with Ludwig? Based on a sliding scale for company size millions is certainly out of the question and the money from the bottom line of say Ludwig, shouldn't change my gear price. Buick cars stayed the same price when they dropped tiger, just like when they signed him. I wonder why so many people think its ok to get basically nothing as compensation.
 
Tiger was a poor example. Im not saying 5 million a year from Ludwig, but if I was say Alex Van Halen during the 80"s and 90's, would it be ok to get 100 grand a year to stay with Ludwig?

Finances in the MI industry just don't allow for that kind of cash to be thrown in one direction. Within a company's marketing budget, the endorsement allocation is usually pretty small, and $100k is much more than most companies have to spread around to everyone on their roster, let alone one person. In Ludwig's case, I doubt that it would be Alex anyway.

Also, when you think of how large Yamaha is for example, you also have to understand that in the USA, there's a division called Yamaha USA that operates somewhat independently from their zilllion-dollar parent in Japan, at least in terms of the budgets they are allocated, and how they handle them. I suspect the same goes for Pearl, and I know Sonor is under Hohner USA, which handles its budgets very carefully these days. There are precious few US Sonor endorsers to begin with, let alone that any of them would be paid cash.

I wonder why so many people think its ok to get basically nothing as compensation.

MI endorsers don't get "nothing", they are compensated in the form of monetary discounts (up to 100% for the top names,) support, ego, and in some cases the guarantee of paid clinics (which means they have to earn that pay.) There is a severe minority of players who are rumored to get cash for their endorsement, but knowing what I do about the industry and specific companies, I have my doubts.

Bermuda
 
Tiger was a poor example. Im not saying 5 million a year from Ludwig, but if I was say Alex Van Halen during the 80"s and 90's, would it be ok to get 100 grand a year to stay with Ludwig? Based on a sliding scale for company size millions is certainly out of the question and the money from the bottom line of say Ludwig, shouldn't change my gear price. Buick cars stayed the same price when they dropped tiger, just like when they signed him. I wonder why so many people think its ok to get basically nothing as compensation.

Another difference is athletes do more for their endorsements.
They make numerous TV commercials, which can take days to make per commercial. And multiple photo shoots.

A top drum endorser does maybe one photo shoot per year, if that. Which maybe takes a few hours. Maybe they do some autograph sessions every once in a great while.

It really doesn't compare.
 
Another difference is athletes do more for their endorsements.
They make numerous TV commercials, which can take days to make per commercial. And multiple photo shoots.

A top drum endorser does maybe one photo shoot per year, if that. Which maybe takes a few hours. Maybe they do some autograph sessions every once in a great while.

It really doesn't compare.
And they get paid to make those commercials and probably get royalties every time they air, they have to get a SAG card to shoot them so the union looks after them im sure.

again, athletes were a bad comparison, however do you know of anyone who ever bought a Buick because of Tiger?

also I said a sliding scale, everyone seems to think its ok to be endorsing for no money and that's ok, Im not about to in that situation so it really has nothing to do with me.

And Bermuda, Van Halen in the 80's and 90"s was about as high profile as a company could ask for in an endorser. I was just using Alex as an example.
 
I know at some point in the '90s Korn was endorsing Adidas and were recieving compensation for that endorsement. At that point they were playing to 40,000 fans a night 250+ nights a year. So it made sense for Adidas to jump on that bandwagon. No individual drummer can have that type of reach. It would have to be the entire band.

I worked as a non union rigger for one of their shows in Sacramento. They had Adidas shit everywhere. Shoes, clothes, cologne, towels, everything had the adidas logo on it. I obviously don't know what the compensation numbers were, but the rumors had it in the 5 digit neighborhood.
 
however do you know of anyone who ever bought a Buick because of Tiger?

Clearly Buick do....or they wouldn't have continued to throw all that cash at him. Same obviously goes for Nike.

Advertising works.....it's been proven time and time again. If it didn't, it simply wouldn't be the billions (upon billions) of dollars a year industry that it is. Sometimes ecconomics is a very simple animal. Advertising is one of those times. Getting people to identify with your product via the use of high profile endorsement, works. The income dollars generated by clever marketing and advertising says it does.
 
I know at some point in the '90s Korn was endorsing Adidas and were recieving compensation for that endorsement. At that point they were playing to 40,000 fans a night 250+ nights a year. So it made sense for Adidas to jump on that bandwagon.

The big difference there is, trying to compensate someone in shoes would be a bit ridiculous - and cheap - whereas offering discounts on musical gear that amount to several thousand dollars is welcomed consideration to a musician for using their name and likeness. Would I take the cash value of my discount instead of a deal on gear? Heck no, I'd rather have the gear! I already get paid to play, I don't need to be paid (cash) to lend my name to a brand.

Of course, the amount of consideration depends on the artist in question, some are more valuable in terms of their influence, and may be entitled to more of a discount than others, even though they're on the same artist roster.

Bermuda
 
Clearly Buick do....or they wouldn't have continued to throw all that cash at him. Same obviously goes for Nike.

Advertising works.....it's been proven time and time again. If it didn't, it simply wouldn't be the billions (upon billions) of dollars a year industry that it is. Sometimes ecconomics is a very simple animal. Advertising is one of those times. Getting people to identify with your product via the use of high profile endorsement, works. The income dollars generated by clever marketing and advertising says it does.

Buick dropped him, he got paid for years because he had a five year contract. I don't see a lot of buicks in the parking lot of my golf club btw. I never said advertising doesn't work, I said there is a disparity in what drummers receive for their endorsement. A discount just seems unfair. A guy who owns a music store can sell his nephew a kit for 10% above cost or less if he choses and that's probably a deeper discount than endorser gets..is that fair?
 
... I said there is a disparity in what drummers receive for their endorsement. A discount just seems unfair. A guy who owns a music store can sell his nephew a kit for 10% above cost or less if he choses and that's probably a deeper discount than endorser gets..is that fair?

It has to do with the financial impact the endorser/campaign has. For example, more people drive cars, or wear sport shoes, than play drums (or probably any instrument where marketing matters.) The potential for sales is far greater with everyday items than with something relatively niche in the scheme of things, and the endiorser's reward is commensurate with that.

As for endorser discounts, they vary, as does dealer cost, there's no standard percentage. 10 up from dealer cost is a petty good deal on the street, but it's safe to say that dealer cost is the most an artist has to pay if they have an endorsement agreement. Buying retail, even for a relative, would not be a deeper discount.

At any rate, the "top drummers" mentioned in the original post wouldn't have to worry about shallow discounts.

Bermuda
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone gets screwed because its a mutual agreement.
Anyway I don't understand the great interest in these endorsement deals.
 
One of the worst companies I have noticed for so called 'Endorsements' is SoulTone cymbals...

They pretty much hand endorsements out to anyone, and they claim that you receive an 'artist's discount' when in reality when their cymbals cost $600 for a crash, you end up paying the same amount you would from one of the 'Big 3' companies anyway...

The word 'endorsement' itself shouldn't really be thrown around lightly. I wouldn't bother approaching a drum company in all honesty, unless I thought it would be worthwhile, and by worthwhile, I mean going on a world tour filling at least 1000 seat venues at every gig. I know some players on Major labels who find it hard to get a decent endorsement. Unless you can prove you will be advertising the brand pretty much all the time, you're hardly going to get anything for free and lucky to be getting a 10% discount.

In all honesty, playing drums is damn expensive.
 
The other side of the question is what sort of recognition and publicity do drummers generate?

Somebody like Tiger Woods has global name recognition that extends way beyond his chosen field. My 10 yo son knows who Tiger Woods is, and knows that he uses Nike. This despite golf being a topic of total non-interest in our household.

Ask a non-drummer to name a top drummer. My guess is that you would hear Ringo's name a lot. (NB - we're talking recognition here, not evaluating what makes a top drummer.) And interestingly, Ringo is generally credited with kids taking up drumming, and wanting Ludwig kits, in the 60's.

Ask not what companies can do for drummers, but ask instead what the drummers can do for companies.
 
A guy who owns a music store can sell his nephew a kit for 10% above cost or less if he choses and that's probably a deeper discount than endorser gets..is that fair?

But that kid doesn't get international support by way of his chosen kit being readily available in any city he plays. Nor does he have the ability to pick up the phone and speak directly to the artist relations contact at the company either.
 
kind of brings up the thought of .. do sports players deserve the amount of money they get?

I don't think they do.

Define "deserve".

Then extend the issue to everybody who earns "a lot" of money.

And while you're at it, define "a lot" of money.

You are making a value judgement (you believe that sports players should be paid less) where none should apply. Sports players are in an open market that is based on their skills and from those skills on the money they can generate for the people who pay them. Economics 101.
 
Back
Top