I have started a petition and met with Damien O'Connor MP this morning and handed him a letter to Marion Hobbs... I would hope you guys might see fit to sign my petition which I am also working offline to gain signatures on as well ! Signatures are anon online.. but you must give your address for it to be accepted legally.. maybe if we all speak together, maybe we can bring about a change to the system to make it more fair to the indie musician struggling for funding in NZ !
To: House of Representatives New Zealand
Petition To:
The House of Representatives NZ Parliament
Attn: Marion Hobbs The Minister for Broadcasting New Zealand.
In signing and presenting this Petition, we hope that the voices of many talented but unassisted artists and New Zealand owned independent record labels, will have the beginnings of a voice in the subject of NZOA music funding criteria.
We feel there are some serious flaws in the NZOA funding criteria, whereby a percentage NZ Tax payer money via NZ on Air is going into the hands of Multi-Million Dollar Multi National Record Companies for the continued funding of multi-platinum artists, whilst large sections of genres of music and NZ independent labels consistently miss out on funding, and are not catered for, or assisted in anyway.
The phase 4 funding is set up to mainly be available to the multi national record companies, by nature of its criteria..NZOA is propping up multi million dollar companies with a percentage of the available grants from $ 5,000 for New Artist Recording and Music videos to $ 50,000 for manufacture & marketing of their products ! Whist many NZ owned companies get nothing !
We draw your attention to the following parts of the NZOA mission statement.
"Broadcasting plays a powerful role in shaping a nation's culture and identity. Seeing ourselves and screen and hearing ourselves on air helps us to connect as a society, and to know who we are as a nation in the South Pacific."
In the current regime of funding it is those at the top of commercial broadcasting who decide on the recipients of music grants. NZOA criteria is consistently clear that only music that is seen to be "Commercial" will get funding. Basically artists have to make themselves sound like what ever is happening on the US Top 40 to get funding, which means that only a few genres get funding from NZOA. This goes against the above statement. Genres like Jazz, Country, Folk, Blues etc which fall outside of the NZ commercial radio play lists get NO FUNDING from NZOA. This is categorically wrong as it does not allow for development of New Zealand Music in these and many other Genres.
(From the NZOA mission statement)
"NZ On Air's job is to promote and foster the development of New Zealand's culture on the airwaves by funding locally-made television programmes, public radio networks and access radio, and to promote New Zealand music by funding music videos and radio shows."
"We aim to fund programmes and broadcasts, not otherwise provided in a commercial market, which are widely accessible, reflect New Zealand's diversity, are rich in information and - across the range of programming - are entertaining for all New Zealanders."
Here where it says "Not otherwise provided in a commercial market" We believe that statement should mean the exclusion of Multi-Million Dollar Multi-National companies & the artists signed directly to them, from being able to receive NZOA funding. As regardless of funding these artists will be provided in a commercial market. After all when a multi-national record company have signed an artist from NZ. Most of the profits or success of those artists will go to the multi-national company and ultimately not stay in NZ.
It is immoral that Multi Million Dollar Multi-National companies should be able to collect this money. Whilst fledgling labels owned by NZ get nothing !
We ask three things with this petition.
1/ That there is a limit on the number of NZOA Video Grants that any one artist can gain.
2/ That Multi National Record companies be ineligible for application to NZOA funding.
3/ That the criteria be adjusted to allow a broad spectrum of Genres to be funded.
NB: To members of the public, when you see the NZOA logo on a music video it means that that artist's label has been given a $ 5,000 grant by NZOA for the making of the video. Some of the artists you will see, getting these videos have had many grants for many years, even though they are multi platinum highly NZ successful artists, whilst many others, who are just as worthy, have applied over and over for funding, for not one single piece of assistance.
Thank you for signing.. Please leave your comments. Please note that as some artist who will want to sign this may fear it will effect their ability to gain a record deal or NZOA funding .. Signing this is anonymous but your name and address must be on the petition for it to be recognised by the House of Representatives.
Please distribute it and send as many here to sign as you can. Maybe this way we can bring about a fair change to NZOA's funding criteria!
[ external link ]
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
nice work Aly, looks fantastic. I ...
nice work Aly, looks fantastic.
I assume FMR/Flying Nun would fall in the 'Multi National Record companies' section though? No more NZOA funding for Flying Nun?
Good show Aly! I will certainly draw ...
Good show Aly!
I will certainly draw attention to this at other sites I frequent.
Posted to my other favorite forum. Will ...
Posted to my other favorite forum. Will also do an email to those I know who would be interested.
[ external link ]
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why ...
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why would NZOA fund non-commercial music that is unlikely to be played on radio and/or tv. I know the whole point of NZOA should be to get more NZ music on TV and radio, but it doesn't make sense for NZOA to fund music of a less commercial nature. Due to the fact the most of the music deemed commercial emough to receive some form of funding is released on major labels, its those labels acts that end up with funding. That may suck, but its a commercial reality
I concur. Moreover, the reason that ...
I concur. Moreover, the reason that major labels are targetted for NZOA funding - particularly the Album and International Marketing grants - is to provide incentive for them to continue investing in new zealand bands, rather than just importing overseas material (which is the faaar cheaper option). Bear in mind that every time a band gets an album grant, their label has committed to investing at least that much money again into a new album. I know it's kind of crap that multinationals - seeemingly with money to burn - get the most subsidies, but there'd be far fewer good kiwi bands getting commercial airplay if the grants didn't exist, just because it wouldn't make much financial sense to the labels to invest in them (except for the really really commercial stuff that they can guarantee will do well). NZOA funding has essentially been encouraging major labels to take greater risks with successful fringe acts.
Perhaps you'd be better off trying to encouraging expansion of CreativeNZ? How much money do they have to work with anyway?
That said, I tend to agree there should be a cap on the number of video grants a band gets.
In addition to Heather's more ...
In addition to Heather's more real-world points, it makes economic sense as well, when considering each label as a monopoly of sorts (in that each product they 'create' is unique, + more conditions that are also met).
Subsidies are by far the best option for maximising theoretical social benefit in monopolistic industries - but as it involves giving tax money to monopolies who subsequently increase their profits you don't see it as a vote-catching headline very often.
// I know it's kind of crap that ...
// I know it's kind of crap that multinationals -
// seeemingly with money to burn - get the most subsidies
except that they don't. Indies get a far higher proportion of NZOA grants.
[ external link ]
What multinational record company here ...
What multinational record company here hasn't downsized over the past couple of years? I'm not sure the New Zealand branches have that much money to burn.
//they don't haha, my bad, and how ...
//they don't
haha, my bad, and how many times have we had that particular discussion?
I thought Steve Maharey was the ...
I thought Steve Maharey was the minister?
good point. he is....
good point. he is.
[ external link ]
The NZ On Air system is definitely not ...
The NZ On Air system is definitely not without it's flaws. Their decision making process needs to be dramatically re-worked and there needs to be some sort of public accountability for those decisions (in particular concerning the large grants going to Phase 4 funding and television) But making "multi-national" record companies ineligible for funding is going to hurt a lot of New Zealand artists. The NZ On Air funding could be argued is the only reason that these business are able to sign NZ artists to their roster. They all have head offices to answer to, and head offices want to see a profit. A $5000 grant means that the NZ branch of the company has a chance to give a band a good shot. Without this funding I think you'll see: 1. NZ branches of the majors signing far fewer NZ artists 2. these labels dumping low-selling NZ artists off their rosters earlier and 3. Any new NZ artists that the labels do sign being even more representative of a successful overseas formula and therefore less diverse.
I'd also like to throw this one out ...
I'd also like to throw this one out there
I still believe that it all comes down to writing a good song.
A lot of New Zealand bands just aren't writing good enough songs to get funding.
Or maybe that should read they haven't written a good enough song YET and are trying for funding too early in their songwriting careers. Either way there seems to be an attitude out there that New Zealand artists are somehow automatically deserving of funding.
Added to that is the apparent refusal of some artists to consider who they are hitting up for funding and the context within which that funding agency operates. You wouldn't ask Coke to help sponsor your organic wheat grass juice kiosk and you shouldn't expect NZ On Air to fund your avantgarde art rock symphony.
// you shouldn't expect NZ On Air to ...
// you shouldn't expect NZ On Air to fund your avantgarde art rock symphony.
I think Aly's problem is that they also won't fund fairly popular genres like blues, jazz, MOR, country etc...
Which is probably fair enough, the problem being that none of those genres (with the exception of MOR, perhaps) are supported by commercial radio or TV.
It's a chicken and egg debate though ...
It's a chicken and egg debate though isn't it? They are NZ on Air and if there is no AIR for country, jazz or blues then how can they justify funding these genres? We could of course whine to the government that they should help set up country and jazz stations so these artists can get funding but that's just nuts. One would assume that if enough demand is there that people will get out there and set up these outlets themselves and communities will naturally form around them.... Like a bunch of people I know who set up websites about New Zealand music back in the day aye noizy :)
// One would assume that if enough ...
// One would assume that if enough demand is there that people
// will get out there and set up these outlets themselves and communities
// will naturally form around them.... Like a bunch of people I know who
// set up websites about New Zealand music back in the day aye noizy
ah yes. old school style.
I think the fear is that without an entity like NZOA essentially underwriting the local labels - both big and small - that the whole scene will regress to the cottage-industry scale we saw back in the early 90s, when local major acts were only willing to invest in super-friendly-US-imitation rock and the indies only survived usually through the sheer bloody-minded determination of specific music-loving individuals.
Although, I don't think that would really come to pass. I think NZOA's initial ambition, to overcome the 'average new zealander's' cultural cringe towards anything recorded by a local band or artist has been acheived. The spate of homegrown #1 singles and albums is proof enough.
Maybe, for that reason, more than anything else, it's time to look at where the money is going, and for what purpose.
It's not just an 'industry', after all.
It's about the music, man.
Hi Guys .. Jeez only posted it !! ... I ...
Hi Guys .. Jeez only posted it !! ... I figure they the majors do stuff all .... God really how many artists do they actually really fund! and if they had to access the money through indies owned here .. well good.. hey at the end of the day NZOA vid grants are a spit in the bucket of a majors budget... it wont affect them .. The budget decisions are made from outside of NZ. They cant fart here without the aussies go ahead !The fact is Ive seen you guys moan about this .. Ive moaned about it .. I hear how many bands apply over and over and over again for not one single grant ever !!!
Ive been ripped off through that system where a video producer has gained that money and never turned up with the clip...NZOA on air did phuck all about chasing him.... there are other genres that dont get funding .. I only mentioned those ones .. but just because NZ doesnt have a format radio stations ie country music station .. doesnt mean country music is not big on a global perspective .. same could be said for hard or heavy rock.. we have no chance of developing a NZ Shania Twain or a NZ Ozzie Ozbourne ! The fact is you have to mould your music to fit one of the funded genres or your phucked for NZOA money and that sucks...you have to change artistically to get the money !
Its immoral that someone who is multi platinum and signed to a major still gets $ 5k grants for videos.. there needs to be a limit otherwise stuff all people get opportunity and its very unfair !
Some barstard had to do it ! I dont give a shit im sitting on a million dollar property at the waters edge in Tasman Bay I have my own radio show and now TV show locally and am hosting an international syndicated radio show going to 40 stations in 5 countries once a month.. im doin for indies without these buggers anyway ! So why not ..!! thanks to those spreading the word please sign it then Marion Hobbs can hear a collective loud voice and she doesnt listen its an election year.. someone else will @! If it looks like enough of you care that government grant money is going into the coffers of multinationals and too many artists get loads of grants which far to many never see a red cent to help them producer their music !
[ external link ]
umm...did you even read any of the ...
umm...did you even read any of the posts?
Sorry Aly but this is a forum. The ...
Sorry Aly but this is a forum. The issues people post here are discussed from every point of view and every angle.
//I dont give a shit im sitting on a ...
//I dont give a shit im sitting on a million dollar property at the waters edge in Tasman Bay I have my own radio show and now TV show locally and am hosting an international syndicated radio show going to 40 stations in 5 countries once a month..
way to go Howard Stern
Yes it sucks that a lot of NZOA funding ...
Yes it sucks that a lot of NZOA funding ends up going to bands on major labels as opposed to those on indie labels who need the funding more. I think a lot us agree with that. But, the fact of the matter is that NZOA exists to fund projects that have the potention, at the very least, to get airtime of some sort. Essentially, if it ain't considered to be commercial, it probably ain't gonna get NZOA funding, simple as that. For those projects that aren't commercial, there is Creative NZ funding available, tho I must admit I'm not sure how that all works.
At the end of the day, while its funding policy might leave a little bit to be desired and porbably needs a bit of tweeking, we should be glad it exists so there is NZ content on our airwaves, be it commercial pap in some instances(tho thats a whole nuther argument that is)
amen - save me sheba...
amen - save me sheba
Yes sorry guys I did read all the posts ...
Yes sorry guys I did read all the posts and I do read the statistics and know that indies get a greater percentage.. I do not think it is morally correct that multi million dollar companies collect NZ grant money ! Its only NZ that gives them grant money like this im sure ! Even if it is only 23 % to the majors that 23% not going to artists that need the money to create their product ! Also I cannot see that it is fair that some bands, that are just as deserving and just as talented applys over and over again yet someone who is multi platinum and signed to a major is still eligible for grant money ... !
The last round had two multi platinum artists for a video grant thats two indie artists who dipped out !
The other thing is I realised with this last single is that it got to 25 on the Radioscope NZ airplay, it got on MORE FM 's NZ Music Revolution it got adds on about 7 stations and played on about 30 yet that was not enough to qualify it for a Radio Hits Point.. which mean that now that Phase 4 Album funding has become much harder to attain ! ... Kiwi FM is not helping lots of Genres either. ... Every other country has Genre spacific stations like Jazz Blues or Country yet we dont .. im not sure why because two genres are very popular in NZ ...and we do have the highest number of radio stations per capita .. but no genre spacific stations .. weird !!
[ external link ]
//Kiwi FM is not helping lots of Genres ...
//Kiwi FM is not helping lots of Genres either. ... Every other country has Genre spacific stations like Jazz Blues or Country yet we dont ..
There is the Little Country Radio, a network of low power amature stations:
http://www.countrymusic.net.nz/
While Blues fans can listen to the Cool Blue internet stream:
http://www.coolblue.co.nz/
Also Radio NZ and some b.net stations have Jazz focused programmes.
Last month Kiwi Fm promoted the addition of the Bads latest song to their rotate, and I've heard them play a few Nathan Haines tunes.
A few more useful links for anyone interested in the 'ignored' genres:
http://www.blues.co.nz/directory/
http://www.jazz.co.nz/
http://www.kiwifolk.org.nz/
http://www.nzcountrymusic.org.nz/
sorry slippe up there with the minister ...
sorry slippe up there with the minister . .but atthe end of the day the petition goes to the Clerk of the house of Representatives and then to the minister concerned, which may change again anyway before its presented ..
This whole topic is extremely tricky. ...
This whole topic is extremely tricky. We know the system is flawed. NZ on Air give cash out like its candy to some major label artists, videos like the feelers handycam backyard video - should not get funding! Yet getting money out of creative nz can be like getting blood from a stone.
One of the major problems with giving money to independant artists, is that many are unreliable. I have worked in various sectors of the industry and as creative and as talented as some people are, they cannot get their shit together.
What I would like to see - are independant artists passing certain criteria and getting small "leg up" grants of $1000-2000 - which they then have to be accountable for. One off grants that artists or bands can only draw on ONCE! Recording that first single or releasing those first 500 CDs, not buying a big amp to hock later for the cash when their project goes tits up.
for fucks sake - who cares... if you ...
for fucks sake - who cares... if you wanna make a video - then go out and make one - its not hard.. and it doesnt have to cost too much.. same goes with recordin.... argggg – if the love is there, you will find a way
and the money doesnt go to the multinationals, it goes to the video artists.... like me – who are poor and wants it
i dont want someone at nzonair deciding what music is 'good enough' or what artists are 'talented enough'... id much rather it was decided by amount of radioplay.. even tho the bulk of the public listen to terrible music on the whole.....
at least all the hard work that goes into these videos will actually be showcased because they will play on tv (programming also 90% lame) ...
anyways
I would tend towards this POV. I ...
I would tend towards this POV. I dislike how musicians require funding. I dislike how much money has been wasted via grants (not NZOA) on various music industry organisations also - it's put many an unsustainable idea and agenda on a very small bandwagon.
Overall, I'd rather NZOA funded less.
IMHO
//if you wanna make a video - then go ...
//if you wanna make a video - then go out and make one//
hey sam, can you make me a video?
It needs naked chicks
not autozamm naked but real naked!
yes...
yes
oh, and he doesn't mean a MUSIC video....
oh, and he doesn't mean a MUSIC video.
Yep i know what you mean thats sort of ...
Yep i know what you mean thats sort of a sound idea ...the point is the system is seriously flawed and until its pointed out that its flawed then they wont recognise that we care... I know brendan must speil of the same speech over and over to indies who get turned down but the truth of it is .. the majors should not get grant money full stop.. they dont need it
yeah - except that the 'majors' would ...
yeah - except that the 'majors' would probably end up making heaps less videos.... and dropping some nz artists... is that what you want? .. are you reading anything of what other people are saying -- just stop to think for a second
// Signatures are anon online.. but you ...
// Signatures are anon online.. but you must give your address for it to be accepted legally.
I was under the impression that such petitions have to actually be physically signed - ink on paper, not a print-out of a list of names. Have you check this out?
This PDF file on the website of the Clerk of the House of Representatives has more details.
[ external link ]
you're right Robyn - the guidelines ...
you're right Robyn - the guidelines for a valid petition are very strict. For a signature to be counted it must be ink on paper, full and valid address, correct name, signature and no comments added.
// It is immoral that Multi Million ...
// It is immoral that Multi Million Dollar Multi-National companies should be able to collect this money. Whilst fledgling labels owned by NZ get nothing !
I recommend that you get someone to proofread your petition. For example, "Multi Million Dollar Multi-National companies" should be "multimillion-dollar, multinational companies".
I think using words like "immoral" is ineffective and doesn't help your cause. How about unfair or discriminatory as alternatives?
The frequent use of exclamations marks makes the petition read like an angry blog rant rather than a serious petition. If you use clear, concise language in the style that politicians are used to, they will be more likely to take your petition seriously rather than view it as, say, the rantings of a pissed-off muso.
My thoughts exactly....
My thoughts exactly.
I'm impressed at how well the majors ...
I'm impressed at how well the majors are doing.
Warner Music
FY 2004 -- 136 million US dollar loss
EMI Music
FY 2004 -- 72.5 million pound loss
It appears that Sony/BMG are making a profit, but it's hard to extract from the TV divisions.
Sony Music managed an Y18 million ...
Sony Music managed an Y18 million profit FY2004 after an Y8million loss FY2003
Surely that's bad budget management? ...
Surely that's bad budget management? Even taking into account obvious budget blowouts, with the mark up they make, the units they sell - where is all the money going?
marketing and the need to spend a lot ...
marketing and the need to spend a lot on it due to the nature of charts now.
if it doesn't punch in high, like the top ten, then you're fucked... ish. not so much in NZ but in the UK it's endemic.
psst... anyone heard the figures for a recent high-profile nz hip-hop LP? ... less than a new mercedes SUV, but not by much... D'OH!
i should clarify... the loss incurred ...
i should clarify... the loss incurred thus far is close to the price of a new merc 4x4 ;-)
//Surely that's bad budget management? ...
//Surely that's bad budget management? Even taking into account obvious budget blowouts, with the mark up they make, the units they sell - where is all the money going?
I'm not trying to defend the majors (although maybe it seems a little that way). Just er, I think that sometimes people rather overestimate how profitable business is. I hope he won't mind me singling him out, but for example, Blink has admitted that he doesn't make a profit on his tours, and I think that sometimes there's an assumption that not making a profit is something that only small businesses manage. But big businesses are equally able to do some really shit stuff. For example. with some angst has been directed at Air NZ over the Zephyrs thing. However, Air NZ have lost billions in the last few years. That's not to say that businesses don't sometimes make a killing, but that they go through their lean times as well.
When I was dredging through company results, it was interesting to see that some of the record companies could go for at least a year without breaking even, and then a single big release could peg back the previous losses. Also, big companies tend to be stupid/slow-to-move companies, and not respond to new challenges, which is just a general tendency. With respect to record companies, I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they've really dropped the ball with respect to format changes (ie, internet).
Actually, I don't know whether it's really permeated the mainstream, but both the Warehouse and Eric Watson are doing really really badly at the moment.
Ok, so I'm not an accountant, but ...
Ok, so I'm not an accountant, but these are EMI's figures best as I can make out (in millions of pounds)
Total [recorded music] Sales 1722 (down 2%)
Earnings before Interest, Tax, and Amortisation 147.4 (down 2%)
So like before they've paid tax, EMI made an 8% profit on the recorded music they've sold. That's not an extravagant markup (so while you can argue that they may be making a big margin on some stuff, they clearly have some decent losers to balance that)
Operating Turnover 2120.7
Cost of Sales (1404.7)
Distribution Costs (92.0)
Administration Costs (583.5)
Those figures include the publishing business, and there were a bunch of other weird accounting losses. In case you really care, they've apparently gone through a major IT upgrade (I really didn't want to know that either).
Oh. Incidentally, Mercedes SUV is almost the same price as Toyota Landcruiser or a Mitsubishi Pajero....
Brackets indicate negative number ...
Brackets indicate negative number (sorry for not pointing that out. It's stupid accounting speak). so that means the 1404 ish number represents the cost of making the CDs, the artwork, the artists royalties etc. etc. etc., leavning EMI with an 8% cut....
piss food and company cars ??...
piss food and company cars ??
I hate to be cynical about this, ...
I hate to be cynical about this, because everyone wants the New Zealand music industry to thrive, but I agree that asking NZOA to stop helping the majors will affect their likelyhood of investing in New Zealand acts, and that the industry isn't really big enough to put that kind of support at risk.
Think about the amount of money spent on 'the business' of being a major label artist- Promotional marketing (TV, radio, print, web, giveaways, presskits), management, lawyers, manufacuring, distribution, touring, blah, blah, blah- what I'm trying to say is that although NZOA chips in on your recording costs, and your music video costs, 'the industry' is a much bigger beast. An artist's ability to sustain the initial momentum generated by a recording/video grant must be considered. Everything's easier when the major provides 'the back end' for you.
And I'm not sure if I agree with the point about 'profits go overseas'. Profits? How about all the Kiwis employed by the major? Bah, I'm not going to be drawn into the ethical issues surrounding multi national companies VS indies, but commercial artists need the help of the big players to compete with what's coming in from overseas.
And when I say 'compete', I mean that anyone who wants commercial success needs to think about what their competition is doing. So if a musician's goal is commercial success, there is no 'artistic conflict' involved in changing their style to be more competitive/more commercial.
Sure, it means that the artists who end up doing well are the ones who fit commercial trends, and that the artists who have unique, valuable music inevitably stay indie. But give me an example of where is this different in the whole world? NZOA can't change the way of the world, and it's unreasonable of us to expect it to. It's not without it's flaws/contradictions, and maybe they do need to recieve a petition highlighting this- but only if everyone can benefit in the end from a thriving music industry.
Alright, I fell the need to ramble - so ...
Alright, I fell the need to ramble - so please forgive me...
Don't the signed artists have to pay back the big record labels in record sales?
So isn't NZ On Air, with its $50,000 grants, matched by the record company really helping the artist? Helping them decrease the costs they must recoup in these cases?
Regardless of this, I still have no idea why it cost so much ($100,000) to record an album in the first place. I know someone will mention the "it costs even more overseas" arguement. I'm aware of this - but this is the digital age - why are artists still paying analogue prices for mainly digital recordings on the industry standard protools setup that no doubt most studios use as their main tool nowaddays?
It's cheaper for indy artists to do it themsevles, or with a small digital studio.
I think a paradigm shift is around the corner for the whole music industry and that big record companies are not the way of the future anyway.
Someone mentioned one off smaller grants? I think that's a great idea - infact - one off grants in general is a great idea. It means that next funding round you will be sure that a different set of deserving artists receive funding... but then again, New Zealanders should be happy that these grants exist at all. There is no decree or right that says that NZ artists should be funded. No matter how frustrated people are getting with the NZ On Air funding decisions, they should remember that NZ ON Air are actually doing us a favour by providing the funding at all.
In any case - people's livelihoods should not be dependent on the state. So if NZ On Air did get rid of the funding altogether, everyone (including multinationals) would very quickly find out what is sustainable, and have to learn of new ways to get their music noticed, or crumble....
Don't you just love Capitalism?
[ http://www.therockfactory.net ]
opps I fell, but I meant feel :-P...
opps I fell, but I meant feel :-P
//Don't the signed artists have to pay ...
//Don't the signed artists have to pay back the big record labels in record sales?
So isn't NZ On Air, with its $50,000 grants, matched by the record company really helping the artist? Helping them decrease the costs they must recoup in these cases?
Actually, the album grants are expected to be paid back to NZOA as well, if possible.