Infographic Does A Great Job Misrepresenting Opportunities Of The Digital Era
from the ooo-pretty-charts dept
This infographic depicts the number of sales that must be made in order for a solo artist to make "minimum wage" in a month. The graphic is obviously meant to be a bit shocking, but even the slightest bit of digging turns it into more of a shoulder shrug. First of all, it is a bit misleading in that it compares not quite apples to oranges, but apples to apple slices to apple sauce to apple juice -- all in one chart. It compares albums and singles and streams all on the same scale, which is a bit unfair. If you sell 1 album for $9.99 (that had 10 tracks on it), then of course you would expect to have to sell (roughly) 10 times as many tracks for $0.99 to make the same amount of money -- that's not really much of a revelation. By looking at the data, we can compare apples to apples and get a better sense of what is going on:Clearly, it's difficult to make a living simply by selling albums, but it's always been that way. Musicians have long known that in order to make real money, they'd either have to be U2 big, or tour. However, it's very interesting to note that in the new, digital era, artists actually make more off of their album sales in iTunes than they did in the old, physical world. And selling albums digitally through cdbaby, without a label, stands to bring in much, much more money for the artist -- and frees them from the headache of distributing a physical product. The band Pomplamoose, for example, is making a perfectly good living doing just that.
format average retail price musician revenue sales to earn min. wage Self-Pressed CD $9.99 $8.09 143 iTunes Album Download $9.99 0.94 1,229 cdbaby Album download $9.99 7.49 155 Retail Label-backed CD $9.99 $0.30 3,871
Moving on, the data claims that to make minimum wage, an artist would need 4.6M plays on a streaming service like Spotify. While that might be technically true, it's a pretty meaningless calculation. It does not take into account the promotional value of streaming -- and unlike selling 143 CDs, getting 4.6M plays of a digital track would certainly lead to significant revenue elsewhere. Surely an artist would be able to translate that much attention into successful live shows or their own CwF+RtB offering. After all, we've seen time and time again that focusing on something as narrow as money earned per track sold (or streamed play) is a limited way to view a musician's earning potential.
So, while at first glance, this infographic may seem pessimistic, digging a little deeper into the data gives the real story. Exciting opportunities still abound in the world of music for those creative enough to seize them.
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
Filed Under: infographics, music industry
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
funny how you managed to agree 100% with the article yet still feel the need to start out with the idea that the article is "misleading at best".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Therefore, sign away all rights for a years worth of minimum wage.
Sounds like the labels offer a real bargoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*you assume that they sell all of the 50,000 album average each year, every year.
I don't know about you but I think I would go with the solo option. I wouldn't have to sell all 50,000 albums a year, and if I did, bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This infographic depicts the number of sales that must be made in order for a solo artist to make "minimum wage" in a month."
50 000/ 3871 = 12.92 How do you get "more than 15?"(almost 15 now)
Or do you mean label acts sell 50 000/mo?
Pink Floyd, Dark side of the Moon(A top all time best selling album). 45 mil sold. Released in '73. Average 10,126 albums/mo.
FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One hit wonders and such.
...which reminds me. There are plenty of bands that fade into obscurity because they don't sell enough records and get dropped by the label. Then there are bands that aren't selling enough and are forced by their label to make a major format change (or be dropped by their label).
Jamie Rasset was sued for sharing a 40 year old recording from one of the latter.
It's easy to focus on the stars since they get all of the attention. Even the one hit wonders get more attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading at best
The number of indie bands that sell 155 copies through CDBaby is much larger than the number of label bands that sell 50,000 copies.
Radio time is a very scarce resource, and the Big Four have a stranglehold on that resource, just as they always have. But more and more people are moving to the infinite resource that is internet radio.
Radio royalties have always been pretty small, even for famous songwriters. (It's about the same as the Spotify example.) Nobody ever got their music on the radio for royalties, they did it for promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you're agreeing with what the graphic shows
You're right in saying an album is not a track is not a streaming "listen", but that's *exactly* what the graphic shows. See how the number of album sales needed to make minimum wage under a low end record deal is actually higher than the number of track sales needed through cdbaby. That's an *excellent* illustration of the point that many bands are actually much better off now than they were under the old record label controlled system, because the artists got such a lousy deal. And selling entire albums through CD baby nets you a significantly better deal than even the biggest artists get from their labels, while still giving you global reach.
Basically, I think you're reading into the chart an agenda that isn't there. Yes, it focuses in on presenting one specific aspect of the data, but that's exactly what a good visualisation of a data set *should* do (it's also why relying overly on any one view of a data set is a bad idea - you need to consider the data from multiple angles in order to even begin to understand it).
Now, an interesting number that isn't highlighted in the graphic is the return on investment of the different mechanisms - what are the up-front costs associated with distribution once you have the master recording in your hands (we'll assume the studio costs are the same regardless). That's where the cdbaby-style systems really come into their own. With self-pressed CDs you have an inventory management problem - you can only print as many CDs as you can pay for up front, and if you print more than you end up selling you'll lose money instead of making it. With record labels, you have to earn out your advance (and their accounting shenanigans mean that will most likely never happen).
With CD baby, for as little as US$55, you can make your music available through a large number of channels, and your music is then available worldwide. That leaves the old models in the dust, even before you get into "CwF+RtB" schemes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amazon vs. cdbaby
Also, how does Pandora radio play into this concept? How much of a cut is taken if the purchase is redirected from their site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sales to earn minimum wage"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Sales to earn minimum wage"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So called publisher support.
A big label band is still stuck struggling to recoup ALL of the production and promotional costs of getting their work out there. The labels have zero incentive to be efficient about what they do since they can bill it all back to the bands.
If you're not pandering to the latest fad, that promotional support probably won't amount to anything worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assuming the sales using a label is 50,0000 for the year
50,000* $0.30 is $15,000
Meanwhile the label gets $9.69 per?
9.69 * 50,000 is $484,500
With cd baby to make $15,000 you'd need to sell
$15,000/$7.49 = 2003
So sell 2003 on cd Baby or 50,000 with a label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you'd still own the rights to your music, and control how it's produced and marketed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What strikes me as cool is this shows how working with a record label is not in your best interest.
"cdbaby Album download $9.99 7.49 #155"
-vs-
"Retail Label-backed CD $9.99 $0.30 #3,871"
That doesnt take into account the need to recoup with a label. Enjoy your indentured servitude much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recoup
If you're an artist, you're going to have to pay that either way, so you're confusing the issue a bit.
Of course, if you're not on a label, you have the option of not paying $200/hour for recording costs plus $10,000 for mastering. Most artists don't have control over their recording costs (or, more often, will have to trade royalty "points" to get it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay-Z said it best...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jay-Z said it best...
Don't know what happened, I was signed on...Anyway I don't like being an AC, so now you know it was me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ANd then there's the swag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]