Garth Brooks Signs Exclusive Contract with Wal-Mart

[Ksyrup]

Not that I care specifically about Garth Brooks, but the concept of this - epecially on this level - is very interesting. Since Brooks owns his own masters, once his former label runs out of the current production of his CDs, his records will be available only at Wal-Mart.



Garth Brooks Inks Exclusive Deal With Wal-Mart

By Melinda Newman, L.A.

Garth Brooks has signed a multi-year, exclusive pact with Wal-Mart, making the retailer and its Sam's Clubs and Walmart.com outlets the only places where his music will be commercially available.

The deal with Brooks marks the first time an artist -- and certainly a superstar -- has aligned himself and his entire catalog with one chain. (A number of other retailers have started labels, but they were never exclusive to the retailer and most have shut down).

Speculation about a pact brewing between Brooks and Wal-Mart grew after the artist performed at a Wal-Mart shareholders meeting June 3 in Bentonville, Ark. However, until now, both sides have declined to acknowledge that they had made a deal.

Brooks tells Billboard that he's not ready to discuss details of the marriage until "we get our ducks a row," but adds that the forthcoming releases, "in everything from cost to content, will be an amazing deal for the Garth fan."

The initial deal is believed to cover only catalog since Brooks had vowed to remain retired from performing and recording new material until his youngest daughter graduates from high school in 2015. Then, he has said he'll reevaluate the marketplace and his desire to return to the music recording industry. Brooks' last studio album, 2001's "Scarecrow," has sold 2.9 million copies in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Although neither Brooks nor Wal-Mart would comment on the first arrival under the pact, industry sources say that it will be a multiple-disc box set including previously unreleased material. The set will street in late fall and will retail at around $25.

While other superstars, such as Elton John and the Rolling Stones have released exclusive box sets through Best Buy, they were DVD projects. This is the first time an artist has released an audio box set exclusively through a traditional retailer.

Such a project, because it is not available to all retailers, would not be eligible for the Billboard 200 album chart, but would appear on the Billboard Comprehensive Albums chart, which appears on Billboard.com.

Brooks' departure from Capitol Nashville, his label home since 1989, paved the way for the Wal-Mart deal. Capitol and Brooks dissolved their licensing deal in June. Brooks owns his masters, leaving him free to shop for a new deal. His catalog includes 15 projects. Capitol parent EMI can sell remaining Brooks' titles it already had in the pipeline to retailers prior to the June deal, but it can manufacture no more units.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Hasn't he already just faded away....

[JonInMiddleGA]

I saw this last night, not sure it's all that big a deal in & of itself. If he sticks to his word about not recording for another decade, I'm not sure the box set alone is going to make this a big sales item.

Conceptually it's interesting, but I'm just not sold on how much relevance he has to the music scene today. He can hit the core country audience easy enough with this deal but how many of them who want his stuff don't already have it? And of all the country artists I can think of, there aren't many in the past 20 years who sold more units to people outside the country fan base, which is a part of his potential audience that he seems to be cutting himself off from with a deal like this.

[Raiders Army]

Good riddance.

[AgustusM]

I am a country fan and I do own all of Garth's CD's

But this kind of stuff just continues to amaze me, the record industry (and apparently Garth) don't understand - the more difficult you make it to acquire music legally - the more people will download it illegally. Often it is not a matter of cost, as much as convenience.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

Often it is not a matter of cost, as much as convenience.

Because we all know how hard it is to conveniently find a wal-mart

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Because we all know how hard it is to conveniently find a wal-mart

Actually, it can be harder than you'd think. Unless they've built one fairly recently, for example, IIRC there's not a single Wal-Mart inside the I-285 perimeter in Atlanta. And there's a pretty good chunk of population who rarely if ever goes "outside the perimeter".

[Karlifornia]

This sounds like a match made in redneck heaven.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RadioFriendlyUnitShifter

This sounds like a match made in redneck heaven.

Except that's what kinda has me scratching my head about this particular artist/vendor matchup -- Garth's sales strength wasn't all about the core country audience, or even the core country radio audience. He was able to post phenomenal sales numbers because of his appeal outside the format.

Country + Wal-Mart = very good match.
Garth + Wal-Mart = well, damn, who knows ... but it doesn't seem like nearly as strong a connection as country-artist-in-general would be.

[Karlifornia]

Well, people who buy Garth Brooks records are a combo of country listeners and pop listeners. People who buy superstar pop are probably not going to some hole-in-the-wall record store to buy it. They're going to Wal Mart to buy it. I think this is a sensible move.

[sterlingice]

The only reason I could see an artist wanting to do this is because he/she gets significantly more with an exclusive contract than with a regular record label. However, I figure Garth Brooks already sleeps on a bed of money which is why this doesn't make sense. If I were his age with his cash, I'd be trying to finish off my legacy and cutting off availability to your album seems like a way to make that more difficult.

SI

[wishbone]

Luckily, we can still get the latest Chris Gaines anywhere fine music is sold...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Luckily, we can still get the latest Chris Gaines anywhere fine music is sold...

Wow. There's a blast from the past...

SI

[duckman]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Luckily, we can still get the latest Chris Gaines anywhere fine music is sold...

Thanks for the laugh.

[Ksyrup]

Not quite the same magnitude, but another of these exclusive new releases:

Ben Folds will release his iTunes Originals on Tuesday, August 30! Available only for download at the iTunes Music Store, Ben recorded 9 songs exclusively for iTunes, as well as an in-depth interview revealing the stories behind the songs.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The only reason I could see an artist wanting to do this is because he/she gets significantly more with an exclusive contract than with a regular record label. However, I figure Garth Brooks already sleeps on a bed of money which is why this doesn't make sense. If I were his age with his cash, I'd be trying to finish off my legacy and cutting off availability to your album seems like a way to make that more difficult.

SI

My guess is he's getting a huge chunk of money now, plus a % of album sales. Even if the % is less than he would get from the record company, $ now is better than $ trickling in for 10 years.

And I disagree that no one will buy his albums. In about 5 years, there'll be a whole new generation of country music fans who will buy all of his old stuff - at Wal-Mart - the same way my generation and the kids following me continue to buy Aerosmith, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Who, Led Zep, etc., albums. Not that I'd put him in that category, but in terms of country music fans, he's got tons of friends in low places...

[Raiders Army]

I disagree with your disagreement. In about 5 years, the digital music download craze will be even crazier. The next generation that you're talking about will just download stuff. Go to the store??? What???

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

but in terms of country music fans, he's got tons of friends in low places...

We really need a rimshot smiley.

[Ksyrup]

I have no doubt that downloading will continue to gain popularity, but I also know that many big-time music purchasers still enjoy "the art of browsing." Much like we haven't seen a wholesale move from paper books to electronic books, I don't expect physical CDs to die anytime soon. It's as difficult for some of us to not have a physical copy of a CD we just purchased as it is for most of us to take a dump while reading a book/mag from a screen. Hell, look at the uproar in the computer game community over downloadable-only games! By and large, people still feel the need to have the physical product. Not to mention, there's no way I could fit my entire collection on the largest MP3 player in existence...

Also, I don't know whether this agreement covers MP3s or not, but Wal-Mart has its own online downloadable music store, doesn't it?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I have no doubt that downloading will continue to gain popularity, but I also know that many big-time music purchasers still enjoy "the art of browsing." Much like we haven't seen a wholesale move from paper books to electronic books, I don't expect physical CDs to die anytime soon. It's as difficult for some of us to not have a physical copy of a CD we just purchased as it is for most of us to take a dump while reading a book/mag from a screen. Hell, look at the uproar in the computer game community over downloadable-only games! By and large, people still feel the need to have the physical product. Not to mention, there's no way I could fit my entire collection on the largest MP3 player in existence...

I find your comment about the "art of browsing" interesting. I see it as being valid with books, because there is a tactile feel to a book, as well as the look and feel being the experience.

With music, would browsing not be more effective online? You can literally listen to samples of any music with the click of a button. The argument that people still enjoy packaging for products is legit, but in CD browsing terms it doesn't really come into play because it's all shrinkwrapped and inaccessible.

You also mention that the largest MP3 player in existence can't hold your music collection... but 5 years from now, the largest MP3 player in existence will likely hold a 1000GB + of data. That should be more than enough to hold whatever music you may own.

[Ksyrup]

A couple of things:

For many music fanatics, it is the thrill of the discovery or find that is exhilarating, sometimes moreso than the music on the CD that was found. For example, I have ordered used CDs from secondspin.com - almost always when I have a list of things I'm looking for - but never have I just browsed through online catalogues. That is an overwhelming proposition to me. When I'm not looking for something specific, but just want to browse, I only do that in an actual store. And we've got a great indie/college CD shop that I usually spend an hour+ in every couple of weeks for this purpose.

I'm sure MP3 players will get to a point where they can hold my entire collection. Spending the time to rip them all to the MP3 player, though, is not a task I am looking forward to. When I bought my Zen Micro, it toook me 3 nights, 3+ hours a night, just to upload 75 albums. Including bootlegs, I've probably got 20 times that number of CDs to upload...and in 5 years, will probably have well over 2000 CDs. If you think I'm going to spend 2-3 months of nothing but ripping CDs to MP3, you're nuts.