The 360 deal is a bit late in showing up in Nashville, but lawyers, executives and managers are talking about it and anticipating its arrival. Here's an excerpt from a piece on 360 deals from Music Row magazine (the print version, so no hyperlink). The article is by W. Michael Milom from Milom Joyce Horsnell Crow, PLC. (Thanks to Music Row publisher David Ross for bringing a few copies to a recent 360 deal panel discussion at Vanderbilt's law school.) As Milom writes, the 360 deal has both potential and potential pitfalls.

As long as one doesn't get hung up on such subjective concepts as fairness and equity, new artists can find relative comfort in the new multiple rights or 360 deals if they are careful to avoid giving up substantial portions of hard earned touring, merchandise and brand licensing revenue for illusory promises of higher record royalties, greater tour support and greater security during the development period of their career. One of the great challenges in negotiating such deals from the artist's perspective is that the participation requested by the label in the artist non-traditional revenue streams are easily quantifiable (e.g., "Artist shall pay to Company 10% of Net Touring Revenue as herein defined.") However, the benefits offered by the label (e.g., "Company will provide promotional support for Artist's tours during the Term") in exchange for such participation are usually much more difficult to measure or enforce. ... Absent careful negotiation and drafting, a promised partnership between the label and artist in the artist's career can become a relationship in which the traditional elements of partnership such as operational transparency, equal access to information, equal participation in key decisions and similar elements are virtually non-existent.