More Charts The Record Labels Don't Want You To See: Swedish Musicians Making More Money
from the artists-are-doing-better-than-ever dept
We've already discussed the research on the UK music industry that shows both that live revenue is more than making up the decline in recorded revenue and that musicians themselves are making more revenue than ever before. Some people have suggested that this is a UK-only phenomenon, but a worldwide study found the same thing as well. And, now it looks like the same is being found in Sweden as well -- home of The Pirate Bay, which we keep being told is destroying the industry. Swedish indie record label owner Martin sends in the news on data from the Swedish music industry, which looks quite similar to the UK data. First, it shows that while there was a tiny dip in overall revenue, it's back up to being close to it's high, mostly because of a big growth in live music:Chart by Daniel Johansson
Chart by Daniel Johansson
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
Are more concert tickets being sold (more attendance) or is it just that ticket prices have been jacked up?
Are artist revenues up, or are they failing to remove expenses off the other side, which were formally paid by others (not artists, not their revenues)? Essentially, where are artist NET revenues?
It also appears that, just like the UK numbers, the actual live and record is flat or down over the period. Is this the case? Why would there be no increase even considering things like inflation and such?
It would appear that the music industry, for all the "innovation" out there, is essentially flat (and down from a peak in 2002).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either way they are making more money. If prices went up but people still pay means that the music has gotten better.
"Are artist revenues up, or are they failing to remove expenses off the other side, which were formally paid by others (not artists, not their revenues)? Essentially, where are artist NET revenues?"
That is what is shown in the second graph. The amount of money to artists has gone from just 880 to almost 1100 millions of SEK.
"It also appears that, just like the UK numbers, the actual live and record is flat or down over the period. Is this the case? Why would there be no increase even considering things like inflation and such?"
I think you got confused with the colors like I did. Live is blue in the top graph, but green in the second. It looks like live to artists is WAY up. While recorded to artists is down and SAMI to artists is up a bit.
"It would appear that the music industry, for all the 'innovation' out there, is essentially flat (and down from a peak in 2002)."
That might be because in 2002 there was a huge spike in recorded, but the other two continued to grow steadily. It may be because of a balance has not been met. Recorded will probably decline still while the other two continue to grow. Over time it will be a higher overall income, but for now it is more stagnant because of change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, if artists are making more money up front (gross) but are then paying management, promotion, marketing, and other costs off the back side, what are they actually seeing net?
Basically, is it a money in, money out sort of a thing? If what they were getting before was a NET after everything, of course the gross would be bigger, no?
Also, there is no indication as to the number of acts this money is distributed over. There is no indication as to the "high and low" of the numbers. What percentage of the income is made by a small number of artists?
Also, there is no indication if there has been a change in the live scene landscape. Have their been more pricey festival type shows? Has there been a regulator change that has allowed more live music in clubs, example? Has their been a shift in the country from recorded (dj) music to live music?
Simple graphs don't answer the questions.
However, one thing is clear - net, the consumers are not spending any more money on music today than they were 10 years ago, not in the UK,and not in Sweden either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gross vs. net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gross vs. net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd be interested in this as well.
Here's what has happened in the US.
"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.
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7a35e791d5c3a260e0dadb8a3b6168fc "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree we can't determine either way, but you only mention one way. Just a little food for thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell me, Ferret, as a child, did your dad touch you in funny places?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you think Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah - right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And please try to find numbers back into the 80's so we have a good pre-p2p baseline. I strongly suspect the curve goes UP as people discover more music and I'd like to see a graph that confirms it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wuts this?
If you were abused ferret, we can get you out of that situation. But the first step is for you to realize it doesn't make it right for you to abuse Lobo Santo in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pOINTS TO PONDER
2. If we had a stadium that could handle 1million people? could they fill it? 3 million show'd up in moscow for a Concert by JM Jerre'.
3. Digital security on music is stupid, it doubles the price and stops NOTHING.
4. AVAILABILITY and finding the MUSIC you like are the MAIN reasons to FIND illegal music. We arent all 16 years old any more.
5. IF the recording industry UNDERSTOOD the idea of DIGITAL music, and would augment their SYSTEM, they could make it cheaper and easier to release music. You could use a KIOSK system and the customer could PICK and choose, PAY, and it would Download the music DIRECT to you..and the system could store MILLIONS of music on the system, in a 4x4 BOX, in the FORMAT BEST for the customer.
6. COPYRIGHTS and TIME. the music industry has TONS of music that hasnt seen the light of day for 50+ years.. it should ALL be released to the public domain. ANYTHING over 20 years SHOULD be released..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
second, lets assume they did make the numbers available....
with 30 years of artists popping up here & there saying they are getting the shaft by their label and the recent proof of extremely shoddy (and i still say completely illegal) accounting methods only an idiot would trust any numbers they gave without having them independently verified by some other means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the artists were getting X, but it was net of everything, and now they are getting Y, but it is before expenses, then how do you compare the numbers?
Artists claim they get shafted, the labels lose their shirts on about half of the advance money they put out, and yet everyone gets rich and famous? Hmmm. Most often artists get "shafted" by themselves, signing away publishing rights, giving away song writing credits, and so on, all because they want on the gravy train so bad they don't care the price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The labels wouldn't be the ones to have the concert income numbers. Those would come from the artists and their managers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is that record company executives aren’t making as much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The data
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=taH5JWabLc88pz3NGP20qkQ&output=html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The report
Although there was a notable decline in live revenues during 2005 and 2006 for
these specific companies, the over all trend correlates well with the STIM figures.
The live business is a highly volatile business and these particular companies, when
combined, clearly had a decline in revenues during those years. What is important
though, is that the overall trend is in compliance with the STIM figures.
This does not necessarily mean that all artists, big and those starting a career,
have received more money for their live performances in the latest years. The
Internet and the World Wide Web has created new ways for musicians and artists
to promote and distribute their music, services like MySpace, YouTube, Last.fm
and Facebook have made it possible for artists to gather an audience early in their
carrier, but, it is still very difficult for small artists to make a living on live
performances.
The increase in live revenues has probably benefited mainly artists that already
have a successful carrier as well as a substantial back catalogue of recorded music.
One could argue that record labels have invested large amounts of money in
creating these artist brands during many years, brands that live promoters now have
the possibility to use when the end consumer tends to pay more for live
performances than recorded music.
Interesting! The report itself draws a similar conclusion to some of us, that the lower end still isn't making a living at it.
Further, there are other quotes mentioning the signficant changes already in 2009 (music sales revenues up 18%, digital sales up 80%), which suggests that piracy had a very significant and clear negative impact on music sales. With the IPRED and other moves in Swedish law, suddenly people are paying for music again and recorded music revenue is way up.
Mike, would you say that this is an indication that not only to people value music, but they are obviously willing to pay for it when they can no longer safely and easily download it for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The report
They haven't done such a good job interpreting those data. And the report is full of unsupported claims and guesswork. Such as the part you just quoted. They have abolutely no data to support what they say in that quote, since they haven't investigated it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The report
The major shift on sales in Sweden has been noted before:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1018597087.shtml
Mike tried his damnedest to try to make it sound like anti-consumer industry tactics were to blame, and buried the massive increase in sales in the body of the text. The real headline was the rapid uptick in music sales as soon as people realizes they couldn't infringe with impunity. Seeing sales up 18% overall and 80% increase in digital would be headline news if it went the other way. Most importantly, it would at least for 2009 signficantly reverse the trend and indicate that piracy has a significant impact on sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The report
And the 80% increase in digital is just what to expect when you look at the trend in buying patterns over several years.
The report fails to look at those factors.
From the data presented in the study you can only make two conclusion, which is:
1. There is a rapid change in consumer spending away from recorded music towards live performance and the overall spending by consumers is mostly constant.
2. Artists are getting a larger share of the revenue and recording companies less. Its unclear if the artists net income is rising but its very clear that this means more of the music industries revenue is in direct control by the artists themselves and not in the control of recording companies. This means a huge shift in power within the industry.
Its a pity that that the authors don't focus on analyzing this very interesting fact, which they are the first to actually confirm with solid data, and instead spend a lot of the report repeating unverified claims made by the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The report
you wrote: "Further, there are other quotes mentioning the signficant changes already in 2009 (music sales revenues up 18%, digital sales up 80%), which suggests that piracy had a very significant and clear negative impact on music sales."
um no it doesn't suggest anything about piracy any more than it suggests that better music was released and people decided it was worth purchasing...or even that as more files were shared..more got to "try before you buy" and then went on to buy more of the music they liked..
See how easy it is to "suggest" ? except I don't spout it as proof of anything unlike you and your completely transparent agenda. Go sell your brainless crap elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The report
for 8 years, sales of recorded music went down. There is nothing to suggest that any single artist or whatnot could suddenly change the course of the music industry overnight.
However, IPRED and other parts of Swedish law came alone, TPB lost it's case, and "suddenly" people are paying for more music, and significantly, the sales of digital version almost doubles. Now, you can "suggest" all you like about a sudden burst in quality of music, and you are welcome to it, but it isn't supported by what is out there.
Swedish law changed, it is much more difficult to P2P legally, the cloak of anonymous is more easily pierced, which makes it harder for people to "hide" online.
So you can draw any conclusions you want, I drew mine, it happens to match up with a lot of the evidence that is around right now about sales, and that is all it is. If you cannot accept that perhaps, just maybe, that changes in the laws have changed people's habits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality called, it wants you to notice it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TechDirt "Relevant Omission" strikes again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very relevant to interpreting the report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure entertainment should not be this rewarding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]