The New York Times has posted an interesting article about the relatively recent phenomenon of the 360" deal. The deal basically signs the band to a full service deal with their label, with the label taking responsibility – and a cut – from touring, merchandise and sponsorship.

The article points at recent success story, Paramore, who signed such a deal and explains:

These deals were born of desperation; after experiencing the financial havoc unleashed by years of slipping CD sales, music companies started viewing the ancillary income from artists as a potential new source of cash. After all, the thinking went, labels invest the most in the risky and expensive process of developing talent, so why shouldn't they get a bigger share of the talent's success?

In return for that bigger share, labels might give artists more money up front and in many cases touring subsidies that otherwise would not be offered. More important, perhaps, artists might be allowed more time to develop the chops needed to build a long career. And the label's ability to crossmarket items like CDs, ring tones, V.I.P. concert packages and merchandise might make for a bigger overall pie.

You can find the article here.

Do you think labels should act as full service shops providing everything from tours to merchandise or does that limit the band's choices – and ability to get the best deal?