Live Nation (NYSE: LYV), the big, famous concert promoter that counts Madonna as a member of its roster, reported dismal Q4 results on Monday after the bell. A huge write-down in goodwill related to a bad decline in market capitalization led to a loss per share of $4.33. That was many times more than the year-ago loss of 25 cents per share in the similar period. According to this source, Live Nation lost 89 cents per share on an adjusted basis. Wall Street was thinking that maybe the promoter would lose 22 cents per share. Quite the disparity there, eh?

Looking through the press release, I see that there's a lot going on in terms of acquisitions and adjustments. Overall, I came away less than thrilled with the business. I wasn't taken by the statement of cash flows, and I have to wonder how difficult it will be to close on the Ticketmaster (NASDAQ: TKTM) merger. There's talk of antitrust issues.

This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Some claim that Madonna has brainwashed Yankee's third baseman Alex Rodriguez, which I find hard to believe; from what I've seen of her in interviews, she barely has adequate brain matter for herself, much less extra to share. And A-Rod; you make a bazillion dollars a year, dude. If you're going to cheat on your wife and 10- week-old daughter (you dog), this is the best you can do? A woman 16 years your senior with some serious mileage on her, um, moneymaker?

The reported affair cost them each a fortune. A few years ago, Rodriguez received a $275 million contract with the Bronx Bombers, which has come out to around $6.7 million per each postseason hit so far. (Choke much?) A-Rod's jilted wife, Cynthia, sued for divorce, and the couple was officially kaput by September. Settlement terms were not disclosed. Meanwhile, the Yankees, still in need of a clutch hitter, are shopping for Manny Ramirez, who could eclipse A-Rod's baseball star (and his star endorsement value, already damaged by the bad press surrounding his divorce).

At the same time, Madonna was buying her way out of marriage to Guy Ritchie for an estimated $76-92 million. That's a lot of material, even for her.

A-Rod was rumored to share Madonna's interest in Kabbalah, rooted in Jewish mysticism. When it comes to mystery, though, not many are as perplexing as the pairing of these two. What do they share, except funny work uniforms and too much dough? Well, not so much dough, now.

Be sure to check out more Money Losers of 2008.

This post is part of a series on celebrity spokespeople who ended up doing serious harm to the brands they were hired to promote, or vice versa. See how we rank the 20 top spokesperson fiascos.

Ahh, Madonna. I was a teen in the late 80s and so she had me right where she wanted me: hanging on her every lyric, willing to be titillated, shocked, or otherwise addicted to her poppy music.

She had PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP) right where she wanted it, too, as a spokesperson for the would-be-edgy soda company in 1989. Pepsi and Madonna produced a very long and affecting commercial using her "Like a Prayer" song, in which Madonna watches the eight-year-old version of herself in a video dreaming of being a pop star one day.

The commercial was extremely well-done and well-received (it still gives me goosebumps today, despite those awful late-80s hairdos; that is, until the real video for "Like a Prayer" came out. It took "suggestive" to an entirely new level, what with the obvious flirtation between Madonna and a statue-cum-priest, the stigmata on her hands, and the burning crosses and racial tensions.

Pepsi pulled the ads and canceled all its appearances with the singer immediately, though I wonder if the company couldn't run the ads again now? If you can get past the salacious nature of the rumored affair with A-Rod, Madonna is not nearly so controversial today, and now the commercial seems sweet.

Read the entire series

Research in Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM), the company behind the super popular BlackBerry messaging device, delivered strong forecasts that topped what analysts were expecting. In spite of what many fear to be a very dour situation for technology companies, and particularly those focused on the consumer electronics, RIMM put up some very impressive numbers, propelling the stock upwards in pre-market trading.

Instead of paring back spending, consumers seem to be continuing its spending (at least on Crackberries) as the company reported that it had nearly doubled its revenues in the last year.

There are now officially 14 million RIMM devices out there. ``The BlackBerry has moved from being an enterprise tool to being something that soccer moms are using," said one analyst interviewed by Bloomberg.

As armchair analysts, we should ask ourselves why does RIMM continue to perform even in the face of recession/depression/chicken-little-sky-is-caving-in scenarios?

I think obsession is the word to describe it.

Readers should be intrigued to know that the BBC reported that mega-star Madonna "sleeps with her BlackBerry" under her pillow, just in case she "remembers something during the night."

Um, ever heard of paper and pen?

For those addicted to the aptly-nicknamed Crackberry, they just can't stop. Try to get their attention over dinner? Sorry, their shifty eyes are always glancing down. Want a quiet, intimate time alone with the family? Oops, I forgot, someone is attached by what I call "the world's longest leash."

And what if that someone is yours truly? Guilty as charged...

Zack Miller is the managing editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

The deal could be worth $150 million. Live Nation (NYSE:LYV), which is normally in the concert business, is close to a 10-year deal that would give that company a piece of every aspect of the business dealings of rapper Jay-Z. The arrangement could hardly be more broad. According to The Wall Street Journal: "Live Nation would underwrite other of Mr. Carter's (Jay-Z) business ventures in areas such as clothing, out of a fund of $25 million; in the past, Mr. Carter has been involved in clothing and nightclub businesses."

The contract is a huge risk for Live Nation, and one that it probably should not take. Shares in the company have fallen from a 52-week high of $24.09 to $12.70. The firm's profits have been unusually modest. In the final quarter of 2007, LYV had operating income of $4 million on revenue of just of $1 billion. Debt service cost the company $16.6 million. The company has long-term debt of just under $1 billion.

While signing up huge stars for long contracts may seem to be attractive, a lot can go wrong over ten years, especially if the star in question loses much of his popularity. Live Nation has a similar deal with Madonna. Perhaps that is why the company's shares have done so poorly

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

While sagging global music sales may be down, spelling hard times for music labels and the like, the proliferation of cribbed (read, downloaded illegally) music is actually driving concert sales to record levels.

Anyone heard of Live Nation (NYSE: LYV)? It only happens to be a real player in this industry. Live Nation recently announced its global ticketing initiative, which is set to debut next January. Live Nation is partnering with European firm CTS Eventim, which will provide the back-end technology and other related services for LYV's ticketing business.

So, what does this new business mean to a company that is a mover and shaker in the the promotion and production of live music shows, theatrical performances, and specialized motor sports events?

Madonna has been a trend setter for three decades and has built, not just a music empire, but a financial one. She is brash and savvy. The "Material Girl" who popularized wearing undergarments as formal wear and accent pieces has made another splash this year, not with her music or wardrobe, but with her new record contract.

She has abandoned the major record labels to sign on with a concert promotion machine for $120 million. Goodbye long-time record label, hello Live Nation (NYSE: LYV). In October, the iconic and very wealthy 49-year-old Madonna signed her biggest contract to date, and one Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG) would not match.

Live Nation, the concert promoters, have acquired her touring and recording rights. Her first album was released in 1983, 26 24 years ago, and she has been going strong ever since. According to published reports: "The rights to Madonna's tours, which continue to be highly profitable, will now be owned exclusively by Live Nation. Last year's Confessions tour featured eight sell-out performances at Wembley Arena, which is managed by Live Nation. The tour grossed $260m."

Specifics include an $18 million signing bonus and an additional advance of $17 million in cash and shares for each of the three albums in the ten-year deal. If Madonna goes on tour, she will get up to 90 percent of the profits, with only 10 percent reaching Live Nation.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007 feature. Voting has now closed and readers have chosen Oprah Winfrey as the most overpaid celebrity of the year. Be sure to let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

Oprah Winfrey returns to our Most Overpaid Celebrity category after having lost the title to Paris Hilton last year. For 2007 she is joined by overpaid celebrities Madonna, George Lopez, and Russell Crowe.

Winfrey, Madonna, and Lopez all made the Forbes Celebrity 100, a ranking of Hollywood players by pay, influence, and popularity. Winfrey, of course, comes in at number one, both in terms of pay and power. Madonna's earnings placed her at number nine on the list, while Lopez came in at number fifty-one.

Forbes estimates Winfrey's earnings at $260 million last year, and her net worth in the area of $1.5 billion, making her the nation's wealthiest African American. She'll be adding two new reality shows to her media empire, which already includes a blockbuster daytime talk show, satellite radio show, magazine, and Broadway musical, as well as stakes in hit shows by Dr. Phil McGraw and Rachael Ray. The school for girls she founded in South Africa has drawn much media attention this year, and she's recently endorsed Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Winfrey has been called the world's most powerful woman, the most influential woman in the world, one of the most influential persons of the 20th century, the world's first black woman billionaire, and the greatest pop culture icon of all time. Can any mortal person live up to all that hype?

The Associated Press is asking a question that is practically blasphemous -- the outcome of which could change the face of the music industry: Are record labels really necessary, especially for established artists?

With acts including Madonna and Radiohead forgoing traditional record deals, and international superstar Robbie Williams signing a complicated deal guaranteeing him 80 million pounds over four albums, including some revenue from live events, it's clear that the the traditional concept of labels signing artists and paying them royalties is changing. Radiohead has decided to make its album available online only and let fans decide how much to pay.

Some argue that these are exceptions -- traditional record labels are still a must for all but the most established acts. Yet even lesser-known acts can promote their music on sites like MySpace and Facebook, which allow users to feature the songs they like on their pages. A lot of young people get introduced to music this way, forgoing outlets like MTV and the radio, which are seen as too commercial and passe.

The shift probably will be gradual, with better-known acts making the leap first. But as the methods of music distribution and hit-making change, so too will the role of the record label. Long term, I think that role will become a lot less relevant.

With the news this morning that Madonna is potentially leaving Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG) for tour promoter Live Nation (NYSE: LYV), the future of the record industry is again being questioned. In the wake of English band Radiohead's self-release online of its seventh album, any move away from the record industry is demanding notice. A move to a tour promoter with album and merchandise opportunities only gives artists more control over their product, as opposed to making numerous deals with separate entities.

The Wall Street Journal's article cites that "a range of players in the music business -- labels, concert promoters and even managers and ticketing companies -- are eager to make broad deals that give them a larger piece of the pie by participating in revenue streams such as endorsement deals between artists and advertisers, as well as the sales of concert tickets and merchandise." That very sentiment spells doom for the record industry as the "newer" entities that enter the album-making business make offers that are often better than the deals the record labels offer.

The possibility of Madonna moving from Warner Music is only the most recent in a long line this year of successful artists moving from the big labels, but so far the question has revolved around embracing new technologies like the digital market. Paul McCartney shook up everything back in March when he moved from the Terra Firma-held EMI to Starbucks' (NASDAQ: SBUX) Hear Music, seizing on a market that had primarily been used for selling compilation CDs. McCartney's Memory Almost Full sold extremely well and catapulted him into the digital world. Radiohead's In Rainbows is this year's other strong case, though exact sales numbers are not available yet (however, the album's download site did get overloaded yesterday).

But the problems that face label groups like Warner and EMI are not limited to those companies. The entire business model for the music industry is being redrawn and recreated, but not by the labels. As the cases of Madonna, McCartney, and Radiohead illustrate, the artist is taking control of an industry that has long abused its power.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• Madonna, the original material girl, is signing a 10-year $120M deal with concert promoter Live Nation (NYSE: LYV), leaving Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG) in her wake, reported the Wall Street Journal.
• According to the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" column, Progressive Corporation (NYSE: PGR) is struggling due to competitors' pricing, safer cars, and a struggling economy, to name a few factors.
• The Financial Times reported that General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) will decide whether to sell its 80% stake in NBC Universal after the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, according to sources.
• Tenaris (NYSE: TS), the maker of steel pipes for oil and gas exploration, has ruled out any possible sale of itself to ArcelorMittal (NYSE: MT) , the world's biggest steel producer, reported the Financial Times.

OTHER PAPERS:

• The New York Post reported that UBS AG (NYSE: UBS) has fired David Martin, its head of interest-rate trading, and James Stehli, the head of its collateralized debt obligation unit, due to the fallout from the mortgage meltdown.
• BP PLC (NYSE: BP) CEO Tony Hayward will today unveil plans to reduce bureaucracy and duplication of management at the oil giant, reported the Telegraph.

Madonna is on her way out the door at Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG). She is being drawn away by a $120 million, ten year offer from Live Nation (NYSE: LYV), the large concert promoter.

Under the terms of the deal, according to The Wall Street Journal, Madonna will make three albums with the concert promoter. Live Nation will also promote merchandise and the licensing of her name.

Several industry observers say that Live Nation cannot make its money back on album sales. It would require close to 50 million units. But, by making money on other lines of business, like sponsorship of tours, the company may well be able to make a profit.

Warmer Music Group probably decided that the deal did not make economic sense and let Madonna go. But, that would be short-sighted. With CD sales falling and more revenue coming from digital downloads, WMG shares have lost almost two-thirds of their value in a little over a year. The stock now trades just above $11.

Digital sales do not yield music publishers as much per song as CDs do. Warner has to come up with some other way to make money. Taking a chance on Madonna's concert sales and sponsorships would have been a good first step out of a hole for Warner. But, they did not take it.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

Warner Music Group Inc. (NYSE: WMG), whose roster of artists includes Madonna, the White Stripes and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, today reported that its third quarter net loss widened as sales continued to shift away from CDs to digital sales.

The company lost $17 million, or 12 cents per share, compared with $14 million, or 10 cents, the New York-based company said in a press release. Revenue fell 2% to $804 million. Excluding one-time items, profit was 20 cents. Wall Street analysts, who excluded these types of charges, expected a loss of 14 cents on revenue of $836 million.

Digital revenue was a bright spot, rising 29% to $119 million. The company's recorded music, however, performed poorly, dropping 4% to $653 million.

Shares of Warner Music Group have dropped almost 52% this year, even though Wall Street cheered the company's decision not to bid for EMI Group Plc. The shares, though, have recently rebounded and were poised to open higher today as investors expressed confidence that Warner Music will be able to survive the upheaval caused by the digital music revolution.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and watch out for more Battle of the Brands posts.

Some people drink Pepsi, some people drink Coke,
The wacky morning DJ says democracy's a joke.
-- Cake, Comfort Eagle

Unless you are a rare RC Cola drinker, your carbonated beverage decision in the supermarket comes down to the two heavyweights: the flagship products from the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO) and PepsiCo Inc (NYSE: PEP). But the battle between these brands spans much further than the supermarket shelves. From which brand restaurants stock, to what countries each operates in, this rivalry is all-encompassing and global. But instead of a list of countries or restaurant chains, lets take a deeper look at the actual products.

Cola and Beyond

We don't have space to list, nor would you have time to read, every different variant of Coca-Cola and Pepsi, which would force me to include failed ideas such as Crystal Pepsi. Suffice it to say, you won't find many original ideas here, and when a successful idea comes from either company, an imitator just as quickly appears from the other. Coke/Pepsi, Diet Coke/Diet Pepsi, Cherry Coke/Wild Cherry Pepsi, Coke with Lime/Pepsi Lime, Coke Zero/Pepsi One, Coca-Cola Blak/Pepsi Cappuccino. Had enough yet? Because that was just a list of comparable colas. Both companies also make lemon-lime sodas, orange sodas, and other similar carbonated and noncarbonated beverages. So then what differentiates them? Certainly not their product arsenal, but taste and marketing.

Arguably the most influential female vocalist of her time or any other, Madonna is now trying her hand as a clothing designer. The songstress is partnering with H&M, the hip-but-affordable threads shack with an impressive global presence similar to her own. Her line of fashion and accessories, "M by Madonna," hit stores today. Initially, the new line with be available at 118 of the company's 1,300 worldwide stores. H&M is headquartered in Sweden and trades on the Stockholm Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HMB.

In her quiet new roles of wife, mother and yoga enthusiast, Madonna has come a long way from her 1980s heyday, when controversial fashion choices often took a back seat to her chart-topping tunes. Her fashion line reflects this evolution, offering basic career wear in muted colors.

That's not to say that "M by Madonna" hasn't already encountered criticism. A retail analyst quoted by Forbes notes that "The price-points on the clothes are a little high for H&M, who is usually known for bargain prices." A modest leather trench coat, for example, carries a price tag of $298, while a pair of patent-leather pumps will run a gal $100. I guess we're living in a material world, after all.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.