Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
I believe that we were the first publication to report on the study released by PRS in the UK, way back in July, indicating that overall music revenue was up, even as the sale of recorded music was dropping. It showed how live revenue was making up a good part of the difference, and other aspects of the business were making up more than the rest. While we've pointed to that study numerous times in the meantime, we've been quite surprised that no mainstream press picked up on this seemingly remarkable news -- as it went against the prevailing favored narrative (as pushed by the RIAA) that the music industry was in trouble. Especially when combined with the recent Harvard study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, that also showed that revenue in the overall music ecosystem was significantly higher today than in the past, it really was quite amazing that the press (and politicians) continued to spread the lie that the music industry was in some sort of trouble. It's not. It's only the business of selling plastic discs that's in trouble.The good news is that the mainstream press seems to finally be waking up to this. As a bunch of you sent in, the Times Online in the UK has published a nice study highlighting the PRS numbers, complete with some very nice charts, showing that musicians themselves are making more than ever. The other interesting part: for all the talk about how recorded music sales losses are hurting artists, the chart proves the point we've made over and over again: musicians see such a tiny part of recorded music sales that this has had almost no impact on their revenue at all. The amount of money musicians make from recorded revenue has remained just about constant.
Source: Times Online Labs blog
Now, some people have raised some concerns over the numbers -- specifically, there have been some claims that the "live" numbers are distorted due to so-called "heritage" acts and legacy acts, who have been around forever and still pack large stadiums with increasingly higher ticket prices. And, indeed, that almost certainly has some impact on the numbers. It would be nice to see a similar report that starts to break out some of the details -- and we've been talking to a few people who are trying to dig deeper into the amount of "live" and "alternative" revenue streams to better understand where the money is going. Hopefully we'll have more complete data soon, but the initial things I've seen suggest that the original point remains true. Artists across the entire spectrum of the industry are making more in live revenues than they have in the past -- and, in part, the increase in live revenue is due to file sharing. In talking to different musicians, we've been hearing plenty of stories about how they're strategically pushing free versions of their songs on local audiences before embarking on tours or even individual shows -- and they're seeing larger turnouts than in the past because of it.
Hopefully, with more mainstream publications finally picking up on this, both the press and politicians will begin to recognize that the only real "crisis" in the music industry is for those who have stupidly relied on selling plastic discs for way too long. There are plenty of revenue opportunities for musicians, and because of that (in combination with better and cheaper tools for music creation), the actual music industry is thriving at levels never seen before.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Live & recorded together only show marginal gains. The big gains are in licensing. Aren't these licensing schemes exactly what you want to get rid of Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. It just disappears? I wonder where it goes? It was probably stolen by those internet stealers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Remember how music didn't exist before Compact Discs, Vinyl Records and Wax Cylinders?
If that's the kind of world you want to live in then I feel sorry for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are you combining them? Live shows massive gains -- much more than PRS licensing. I could just as easily say that licensing and recorded together show no gain, while live shows massive gain.
The big gains are in licensing. Aren't these licensing schemes exactly what you want to get rid of Mike?
No, the big gain is in live. Licensing shows some gain, but not as big as licensing.
But, as the other commenter noted that if you took out licensing it's not like that money disappears. Instead it could still go into the market in a much more efficient means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Should that be not as much as live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Licensing is a huge part of the income stream. remove it, and guess what: it doesn't turn into music sales or tickets, because licensing doesn't come directly from consumers. So it disappears off into the economy somewhere else. Another net loss for music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We have to make sure copyright lasts for centuries!
No. A millenia.
It's the only way for music to survive in the 31st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspaper behind again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't mean on the chart. Red is the most impostant color of all the colors. It's way more imporatant than yellow.
Blechh. Yellow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder
Why would you see anything having to do with music on MTV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess what? Even long before the days of the internet if you wanted to just write music without touring or promoting your music in some way you were screwed anyway.
Live is only there making up for the losses in record sales. Remember the report you posted Mike? Total of the two together (which is how they reported them) showed only about a 3% gain total. Licencing over the same time period was showing 10% gains and more.
Good job missing the point again. The point is that while record sales have been going down, nearly every other aspect of music has shown increased revenue.
Also, live revenue is up by around £370 million, for a 70% gain, while licensing revenue is up only £114 million for a 27% gain. Whether you look at dollar amount increase or proportional increase, Live revenue is up substantially more than licensing.
The only thing going down is record sales, you don't get to mysteriously combine live and record revenue when the whole point of this discussion is to show the contrast between those two.
Nice try, shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Licensing and other things are "business to business"
Check the pdf: http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/news/research/Documents/Will%20Page%20and%20Chris%20Carey%20%282 009%29%20Adding%20Up%20The%20Music%20Industry%20for%202008.pdf
All I am doing is reporting the same thing in their report - record sales down, live sales up, combined only a 3% increase, where licensing and other items in business to business are up 10%!
So no, sorry, not a shill. Just stating facts that Mike tends to want to ignore. Basically, in the UK, the retail music industry grew 3%. That's all. Licensing grew 10%, and importantly represents 25% of the business. If this trend continues, licensing will be a bigger and bigger part of the business.
So the real growth isn't in retail, it's in B2B.
Sorry to shoot down your "shill tagging".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a good thing Some Dumb Corporation can sell licenses for Some Dumb Artist.
Just so long as the stealers are kicked offline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good luck with your future endeavours. I can't imagine you'll be collecting a paycheck much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"whooosh". That's the sound of the point going right over your head.
The whole point of this is the comparison between Record sales and Live revenue. The numbers are presented separately as well as combined, and the point at issue here is to show that Live sales have actually grown quite significantly.
In fact, if we take your idea of "if the trend continues" with record sales dropping by about 25% over 4 years and Revenue from live sales increasing by 70% over the same period, then record sales will become 0 and live sales will far outpace licensing income.
I don't really need to "tag" you as a shill. As my dad used to say: "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, if we take your idea of "if the trend continues" with record sales dropping by about 25% over 4 years and Revenue from live sales increasing by 70% over the same period, then record sales will become 0 and live sales will far outpace licensing income.
Sorry, FAIL. A bunch of things limit this, which is best explained why total consumer sales are only up 3% (rate of inflation for the period): people don't magically have more money. It is very likely that live sales and music sales will continue to trade one for the other for a short while. However, at some point, the maximum reasonable number of concert dates, events, and venues will limit that as well. Ticket price won't be able to continue to rise (Madonna was apparently about $600 us per ticket retail). So at some point, they will reach "maximum live", and things will start to fall off.
So sorry, I think you are wrong, and time will tell.
as for "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap"., all I can say is that I can disagree with you without calling you names. Perhaps your parents didn't bring you up to be polite, but mine did. I respect your right to be wrong, please do the same for me (and no, I don't work in music)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kind of like how large newspapers are failing but local newspapers are thriving.
Thanks for nothing, internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't calling you any names(unless you mean when I called you a shill, which isn't name calling, just an accurate description). I was referring to your argument, and your odd habit of combining Record sales revenue and Live sales revenue, when those are the things we are contrasting. I could just as easily combine Record sales and Licensing and point to the fact that when you combine those two things revenue has gone down significantly, while live sales has skyrocketed.
And I already know you don't work in music, you work in the Movie industry (a lawyer, if I am not mistaken).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but in the report it came from, they are put together - rightfully so, as they are BOTH consumer spending.
Effectively, all that has happened is that we traded $x of music and live for $x of live and music. The net numbers are so close, it's almost funny to watch.
So you can contract them if you like, but the reality on that level is a zero sum trading of A for B. It's even more important at that point to realize that concert ticket prices have gone up, so they net number of consumer served has likely gone down.
Don't get tricked by numbers, think past the graphic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the way you look at it, but I would have to say your interpretation is incorrect and shortsighted. Sure, the numbers are very close when you combine THE TWO ITEMS WE ARE CONTRASTING.
The way see it, these numbers show that the amount of money people are willing to spend on pieces of plastic and 1s and 0s is dropping significantly, while people are willing to use that money for the experience of a live show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But combined and net, comsumer spending hasn't moved since 2004.
I think that all it proves is that piracy has knocked the crap out of retail music sales, and with the money left in their pockets, people are paying higher ticket priced for the same shows.
Remember, without "units" to measure what is going on, you have now way to tell if there are more people seeing concerts, or just the same people paying more money for the same product as before.
All I know is that consumer spending on music in the UK hasn't moved an inch from 2004 to 2008. That is clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there is the leap of logic you always make to blame it on piracy. There are numerous reasons why recorded music sales are down and it's not just piracy. You could just as easily say that the decline is due to the industry's inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. Or the music industry's constant attacks on it's biggest fans have turned those fans off of purchasing recorded music.
Also, regarding your statements about how the total revenues have remained flat, so the industry is therefore down by the rate of inflation: Have you even looked at consumer spending reports (put out by Bureau of Labor Statistics)? Consumer spending for non-necessities has remained flat for the last 10 years. So the industry's lack of revenue growth simply reflects this overall lack of consumer spending growth. (nice try, though)
I would also have to assume by your lack of response that I got your profession and affiliation correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about the whole thingy
indeed. the main idea of the charts revealed that MUSICIANS are starting to get more living for their art.
can't you just get it? it is whatever combined/contrasted are regarded.
it's pretty obvious that the INDUSTRY is losing profits here, but hell, it's the MUSICIAN who creates stuff, not the other way.
Don't you think it's pretty fair that overall niche revenue has recombined, with the shift towards creators?
and please, leave alone all the moanings about internet pirates/filesharers. just take a look and the charts. and think again.
p.s. sorry for my language
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Poor Mozart...LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the 'OLD' music industry is thriving at levels never seen before
Guess who is making the money in live music….. yes all the old 80’s & 90’s acts who have benefitted from 'large greedy record labels' spending large amounts of cash on PR advertising and creating their brand names. If you take a look at the ‘real’ situation for small unknown bands they are often expected to play for nothing - this was not the case 10-15 years ago.
The reality is that live music revenue is booming on the back of old bands reinventing themselves and charging extortionate ticket prices. Is this your idea of a thriving music industry? I hope you enjoy the Take that concert in December!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the 'OLD' music industry is thriving at levels never seen before
Small music business. I like the sounds of that. Which is what most music is. Only a few (in the aggregate sense) musicians have a multi-national corporate presence.]
All the rest? Not an industry. I mean, not really. It's fucking music. It's one of them, what do they call it?
An oxymoron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's some discussion from working musicians
http://seaninsound.blogspot.com/2009/11/live-is-not-that-alive-few-gut.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
There are other interesting issues here: If you take the consumer stuff (live & record sales) and look at the 2004 and 2008 numbers, the totals are virtually identical. In real economic terms, this would actually be a downturn, as the econmy has grown and there has been inflation during that same period. So the music industry as a whole has only held steady, with live only just managing to make up what was lost on sales of recordings.
That means in the period from from 2004 to 2008, the only growth is in the B2B side of things. So it would suggest that the only additional payout artists are getting is because of increased licensing, not actually anything else. The rest has balanced itself out. Apparently, the public isn't willing to spend any more than a certain amount of money on musical entertainment.
This would fly in the face of the concept often pushed here that free music would suddenly increase the size of the music business tremendously. Gee, if you removed rights controls, the music industry as a whole would crash overnight.
Hmmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
This would fly in the face of the concept often pushed here that free music would suddenly increase the size of the music business tremendously
Hmm. Not sure where you got that from, but no one here has ever said that. What we said, fairly clearly (I thought) was that free music *combined with a smart business model* would increase the size of the music business.
But, you have a way with ignoring what I actually said and pretending I said something else all in order to keep posting attacks on us on every single post. I wonder why... Who could possibly have the incentive to regularly distort and lie about what we say? Who could possibly have the time to do that on every post? Gee...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
The rest is just your usual wiggle room answer. Congrats. Perhaps in the future you should take more definite positions on things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
Because you're an artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
You claimed I said if people gave stuff away for free the market would grow. I did not. That is a distortion.
Your obvious dislike for the PRS and licensing fees in general is well documented (see posts for PRS on this site).
I have no "dislike" for PRS. I have a vast dislike for their policy of trying to collect where they have no right to collect, but that does not stretch to PRS. The folks I know at PRS are all quite likable.
The rest is just your usual wiggle room answer. Congrats. Perhaps in the future you should take more definite positions on things?
Alex, your inability to comprehend nuanced answers is not "wiggling." It's explaining details, something you seem to have trouble comprehending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
Techdirt and Mike don't want that. They want reform. They are copyright reformists.
I'm the abolishionist. I want to see the music industry crash overnight. It won't happen but an artist can dream?
I love creation. And destruction. That's what art is. The act of creative destruction and destructive creation.
Because I beleive, with a historical perspective to back that belief up, that if copyright were abolished overnight, while the industrial part would fall, or be destroyed, the creative part would flourish.
Art 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians
But an abolishionist like me? Well, I would be happy to work with the reformers. Do they find my position to be a little eccentric? Not a problem, as I would be happy, in the spirit of cooperation, to work with the reformers.
My position isn't written in stone. I would be more than happy to move it in the reformist's direction if it will enact any meaningful change.
See you t'morrow, my sweet and silly shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
PRS's income is rising because they have started to aggressively license businesses (including bars, grills and restaurants and general business users) that play music to enhance their profits. The money goes to songwriters and music publisher 70% of whom are not performers.
If you look closely at the chart you will see a tiny increase in live income for artists offset by a drop in their income from recorded revenue.
For those artists assuming all the back end costs of bringing their product to market, it would appear they are losing ground ... not gaining it ... something the mainstream press really ought to take a look at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Tiny? Really? From £440 million in Live Revenue to nearly £700 million in in Live revenue in four years does not seem like a tiny increase to me. I would call that increase quite large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Really? Only musicians can have anything meaningful to say here? Its a good thing I play multiple instruments (drums, flute, clarinet, guitar). Does that somehow make my opinions more meaningful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Everyone's opinion on here is valid. Even the shills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Most songwriters aren't performing artists ... most performing artists aren't songwriters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
If I was a songwriter I would be pretty pissed at the Music Industry for not keeping up with the changing marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Of course, after the Napster debacle, I noticed that the price of a CD barely went down.
The Kazaa debacle? Didn't really move that much. And how come every CD is priced at the same price point? Is no one competing? Isn't that what corporations do? Compete?
I mean, I could go to a local gig and the musician there would be selling his CDs for a significantly lower price. But he has no volume! He'll sell, what, 10 CDs but the recording industry can sell 1,000,000 CDs? For 10 times the price?
Sure they can. Nice scam. They don't compete, they collude.
The recording industry can metaphorically die in a fire. I stopped listening to music because of their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
I walk into a big box retailer and I can find a movie in a bargain bin for $1.99 and this movie has roughly 40 hours worth of entertainment. Including a soundtrack, sure you have to watch the movie to listen to it but it's there.
Walk over to the CD section and look for the actual soundtrack to the movie.
$14.99, all for, what, 38 minutes worth of entertainment?
"But you listen to it hundreds of times! There's your value."
As a consumer I feel greatly disconnected from the things that I consume.
Soryy, I purchase a license. I'm not a consumer of entertainment. That shiny plastic disc isn't actually mine. That .mp3 is not actually mine.
Licenses rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some numbers about live music and the top acts
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7a35e791d5c3a260e0dadb8a3b6168fc
_____________
... according to the academic paper "Rockonomics: The Economics of Popular Music" by Princeton's Marie Connolly and Alan B. Krueger.
"In 1982, the top 1% of artists took in 26% of concert revenue; in 2003 that figure was 56%. ... The top 5% of revenue generators took in 62% of concert revenue in 1982 and 84% in 2003."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re "Live Revenue (to artists)" line, I have to wonder how much of this is associated with groups having contracts with the labels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]