Relationship Dynamics and Healthy Boundaries in the Artist & Manager partnership
Partnerships between artists and their managers have always been crucial to navigating success in the music business – and never more so than today, in a globalised market where over 60,000 tracks are uploaded each day to streaming services, where routes to market are multiplying and audiences are served an unceasing torrent of music, video, podcasts, books, games, messages, links and photos.
There’s a lot of competition for attention!
For better or worse, a manager’s job is to comprehend and traverse this ever-shifting landscape – providing professional and personal guidance for their clients to help them reach their creative and commercial goals.
And while our 24/7 “always-on” social media culture has undoubtedly changed the music business forever, and presented enormous opportunities to reach truly global audiences, it’s also had profound effects elsewhere – not least by encouraging more people to make music, and more people to take on the role of managers to support them.
The growth in the MMF’s membership, which recently surpassed 1,200 – more than doubling our representation from a few years ago – is clear evidence of this change. What was once perceived (or stereotyped) as a “man’s job”, is also in the process of diversification. These days, music managers are just as likely to be female, people of colour, and of all ages and classes. There are incredible role models from every conceivable background – from those starting out managing friends or relatives, through to established managers of global superstars. And, as shown by the Accelerator Programme we run with YouTube Music, a seemingly unstoppable range of talent continues to come through. These are hugely exciting times.
Our landmark 2019 report, Managing Expectations, illustrates just how diverse the profession has become, with music management encompassing both long-established global businesses and a small army of freelancers who juggle a multitude of jobs. The majority are investing finance as well as time in their artists’ businesses, as part of a development process that might take years to reach fruition.
It’s an incredibly tough, dedicated and precarious job, and one where there is little security. Most managers still work on a commission basis and, in an often volatile industry, the rug can be pulled from underfoot at any moment.
Indeed, 20% of those we surveyed back in 2019 saw zero earnings from the time they spent on artist management. Of those who do make money, 55% earn under £10k, 7.5% earn between £10-£20k, 9.5% earn between £30-£50k, 15% earn £50-£100k and 5% earn £100k+.
Over the past 18 months, the pandemic has made a tough job even tougher. Most managers have kept working for their artists even though the income has dried up.
Added to this are the pressures of increasing workloads, of a demanding digital culture, and the resulting impacts on mental health. Artists can be incredibly vulnerable, while management can be incredibly isolating. And that’s before we even touch on societal problems such as sexism, racism or homophobia – all as plainly evident in the music business as they are in other walks of life. As well as representing their clients’ commercial interests, the vast majority of managers take their responsibilities around duty of care incredibly seriously.
These issues have also been on the radar of politicians and Government for some time – whether that’s a focus on online bullying and harassment in the upcoming Online Harms Bill, the Leveson Inquiry around media intrusion and phone hacking, or the DCMS Committee inquiry on reality TV and the impact on participants of shows such as Jeremy Kyle, Benefits Street or Love Island.
Quite rightly, music is not immune from these conversations. Along with other members of UK Music and the MMF’s Chair, Paul Craig, I have participated in a string of high-level meetings focussed on artist and performer welfare. The role played by trade bodies in promoting higher professional standards is something we take incredibly seriously at the MMF. It’s an area where we constantly engage with our members and why we have updated both our Mental Health Guide for Managers and the Code of Practice that all who join the MMF are required to be aware of and adhere to.
In turn, these conversations feed into even bigger debates concerning the shifting dynamics of the music industry, much of it played out via the DCMS Select Committee and their inquiry into the economics of streaming. Leaving very few stones unturned, this process has involved all constituents in the business and is effectively looking to recalibrate a wide variety of outdated practices.
The power balance between artist and managers is very much part of this, as we examine whether traditional ways of working remain fit for purpose and strive to establish new standards and clarity about everything from how managers are paid and what they commission on, through to sunset clauses after a business relationship ends. When relationships do break down, as occurs in many walks of life, many managers struggle to find the resources to enforce their rights to be retrospectively compensated for the time they invested in their clients careers.
From an MMF perspective, our aim is to raise standards across the board and construct a sustainable music business built on mutual respect, good communications and trust.
Developed in consultation with artists and legal experts, our Code of Practice is an incredibly important aspect of this process – promoting transparency, clarity, financial probity and ethics, as well as specific sections on sexual harassment and abiding by legal frameworks that govern working with minors such as attaining DBS checks, and anti-discrimination laws such as the 2010 UK Equalities Act.
Complementing rights in contractual, commercial or criminal law, we believe our Code offers an effective approach to champion improving standards and professionalising the role of music management, while ensuring we can influence and impact the widest pool of people coming into management roles.
One suggestion to try to prevent poor conduct that has been mooted is a form of upfront licensing. Such systems do operate in other UK sectors – for instance, with football agents – albeit, in that instance, the licensing regime is self-regulatory and overseen by the Football Association not government.
Although certainly worth exploring, whether such a system is appropriate to music, whether it should be limited solely to managers and agents is debatable – and that’s before you broach thornier issues such as the scope of regulation (conduct, contractual) and who would issue the licence.
For instance, could a quasi-judicial body cover freelance as well as employee managers? Would it also cover the behaviour of established artists, who may hold dominance in the partnership with their manager? And should it cover the wider industry? An industry that’s becoming ever harder to define and stretches way beyond the core businesses of recording, publishing and live into digital, brands, fashion, media and a host of other areas.
Also, in the most serious of situations, would any allegations need to first be proven in a court of law (for example bullying or harassment) before a regulator could act, and if not, would any decision they rule on be open to legal challenge?
There are also potential implications that an upfront cost of licencing for managers alone would take place could act as a barrier to entry in the sector for early stage managers and inhibit skills development (managers helping out friends making music is often the entry route into the profession). Research carried out on manager licensing introduced in the state of Victoria, Australia, concluded that the administrative and bureaucratic requirements were especially prohibitive for new managers, resulting in larger, more established management companies holding on to their already robust competitive advantage when seeking to partner with artists. Young people and those without pre-existing contacts in the music industry could be disadvantaged further by prohibitive licensing structures. Our sector has become increasingly diverse in the past decade and introducing upfront licencing costs could make it more elite and narrow.
As part of a review of the whole creative sector led by the Creative Industries Federation that reports into DCMS, MMF is currently working with UK Music, the BPI and Musicians Union to explore how we raise standards across the whole music industry and put in support mechanisms with Help Musicians for those who need them.
Similarly, Film and TV are increasingly looking at setting standards with the BFI – recently producing guidance to help employers tackle bullying and harassment and they are part of the same process looking at how we support all freelancers across the creative industries.
As a result of these conversations, there’s already collective discussions around the creation of a possible cross-sector Independent Standards Agency (or ISA) that could help make the entire creative industries more accountable and provide a safe space for all individuals to find professional advice concerning current or historic harassment, discrimination, sexual discrimination or assault. This could potentially bring in sanctions for those breaching agreed standards but doesn’t assume (as upfront licencing would) that all creative professionals are going to commit offenses.
More work needs to be done on this but it feels that combined with initiatives like our Code of Practice, such an independent body could provide a step forward.
The MMF now represents most management companies in the UK (with 1200 members), and the specifics of our Code already go way beyond the governance or articles of association of most other trade bodies. All artists, labels, lawyers and accountants should be ensuring that the managers they work with are signed up to it. Building respect, trust and good communication between all who work in the dream industries should be a shared goal.
In a creative business where there will always be tension and division, and where struggle will always outweigh success, I maintain that our goal should always be to educate, to raise standards, to provide support and strive to make things work better tomorrow than they do today.
