RIAA's Bogus Math Strikes Again: Claimed 41% Decline In Musicians... Not Even Close To True
from the well,-look-at-that dept
Hey, it's time for some bogus stat debunking, thanks to Matthew Lasar at Ars Technica, showing that, once again, "RIAA math" is something more closely aligned with stuff we made up that people might actually believe.There have been a variety of similar stats being thrown around these days in debates around what's happening in the music industry from defenders of the old way of doing things, arguing that there's been a massive decline in the number of musicians out there. The stat pops up in different forms, but keeps coming back up. We first saw a version of it back in 2010 when the RIAA put up a blog post claiming that "illegal downloading = fewer musicians." While we appreciate them finally realizing that unauthorized downloading isn't "theft," the chart claims to have posted data from the Bureau of Labor statistics, showing a correlation between the number of "musicians and artists" and the decline in recorded music:
But, that chart seems to have taken on a life of its own in bizarre and ridiculous ways. Back in April, class warrior Timberg, claimed that BLS data showed a 45% decline of people employed in "musical groups and artists" from 2002 to 2011. That number has become a key touchstone for the rabid defenders of the old way. Not a week goes by without someone claiming something like it in our comments -- usually even messing up what was said. For example, that comment says that the 45% represented a decline in wages -- which is not actually what any of the numbers have shown.
In June, the RIAA's Cary Sherman gave a talk at PDF, in which he cited BLS data claiming a decline in artists of 41% from 1999 to 2011. That number was then picked up by Paul Resnikoff who posted the RIAA's updated version of the graphic and, again, insisted that BLS data says there are 41% "fewer paid musicians" since 1999.
Either way... Matthew Lasar, over at Ars Technica digs into the numbers to find that the RIAA's and others' claims... are completely bogus. First off, it appears that they failed the "how to calculate percentage change" test. Lasar also finds that the actual change based on the source data appears to be maybe a decline of a little over 8%. As he notes "8.4 percent, I'm sure most readers will agree, is a long way from 41 percent."
When confronted about this, first the RIAA admitted to playing some games with the numbers, not by using more stable yearly data, like Lasar did, but rather by using monthly data... and by selectively choosing which months to use.
"As far as the 41%, from that data set," came Friedlander's reply, "if you look at any of a variety of months between late 1999 and 2011 and 2012 (such as July '99 vs Aug '11) you can see declines around the 41% level (different months yield different figures, but some are even higher than 41%)."In other words, it fluctuates pretty drastically. Anyone who wanted to reasonably show a change, would at the very least choose the same month in different years -- since there is likely to be significant seasonal fluctuation in musician employment (for example, July is a big month for weddings, which might mean more musicians who play weddings are "full time" musicians for July). As Lasar notes, this calls into serious question why the RIAA and others are making categorical statements that just don't appear to be supported by the data. Furthermore, even if the RIAA's bogus claim of 41% is based on monthly data... that chart that it's been spreading around shows yearly data, but implies, incorrectly, that it shows a 41% decline:
The problem with this response was that Sherman's categorical statement that we've seen a 41 percent drop in the number of musicians and artists since 1999 wasn't based on a monthly chart. It was based on the yearly table that he showed the Personal Democracy conference.Finally, Lasar notes that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is actually pretty optimistic for employment among musicians to grow at about 10% over the next decade:
The number of people attending musical performances, such as orchestra, opera, and rock concerts, is expected to increase from 2010 to 2020. As a result, more musicians and singers will be needed to play at these performances.That said, I don't think a slight and temporary decline in full time musicians should be all that surprising. It's true that labels funded a bunch of musicians for many years -- but often for short periods of time and with very questionable accounting practices. The problem, of course, is that many musicians came to believe, incorrectly, that the major labels were the only way to make money in music, and so they did little to cultivate new business models. These days, however, that's happening more and more, but we don't have enough experience for people to know what really works and what doesn't. So it's an era of experimentation -- and that means that an awful lot more musicians are making some money, whereas before they made none. That's good for all of those musicians -- and might (in fact) mean that more money overall is going to musicians -- it's just more spread out. But we haven't yet reached the point where things have developed enough to match the number of full time musicians, though as people become more comfortable with these new models, that seems almost certain to happen.
There will be additional demand for musicians to serve as session musicians and backup artists for recordings and to go on tour. Singers will be needed to sing backup and to make recordings for commercials, films, and television.
Either way, it looks like RIAA math has once again been shown to be a complete fabrication, relied on by people who want to continue to support the ridiculous story that artists need labels to make money. It's sad that so many people cling to an obviously false tale, but it's good to see the numbers debunked. Hopefully we can now move on from that silly narrative and focus on new business models that do help artists get paid -- rather than ones that just help the RIAA divert money from artists.
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
The First Word
“So what the RIAA is saying...
... is that Sonny Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 has been an abject failure resulting a dramatic reduction in the number of artists being "incentivized" to create.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I dare say you need to retract your obviously false statement and publicly recognize the great intelligence found in the political species.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We all know there are just as many Bands and Artists as there were before and maybe even more now than before so your Statements are a Total Lie that only idiots and uninformed would believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, that wouldn't make the drop seem as dire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kickstarter as an example (again)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No?
Ok, do you still listen to recorded music?
Yes?
Ok.
Then why are you using this retarded analogy, you fucking moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
yeah, and people like you who haven't learned anything are doomed, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the meantime, though, I'll pay for music through sites that don't block me, saying I'm not in the right location to pay for their stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People still do use buggy whips, but not as much as they did in times gone by. Alternatives have been introduced which caused the demand for buggy whips to decline.
Likewise, there are now entertainment alternatives to listening to recorded music that weren't available back when TV viewers had their choice of 13 channels (a mere two or three in remote areas), video games were comprised of monochrome (or maybe 16-color) block graphics, telephones were massive rotary dial affairs, and using a computer network meant dialing up a BBS or logging on to Usenet.
I am not surprised that there might be a decline in the marketability of music given the competition available. What does surprise me is that the RIAA and the major labels are doing everything in their power to alienate the market that remains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The copyright industry has been thoroughly successful in bad PR. I don't want any (as in not one �) going to them to support their methods of doing business. Can't see the day soon enough went they do go under.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ars Technica = Piracy Apologists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pleebs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pleebs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
This is Mike's typically wacky twist from "not as bad as they claim" into a positive.
Here's a specific howler: Mike sez "Note that the scales are different, meaning that the data was "fitted" to make it look like a direct correlation when that's not actually the case." -- Umm, yeah, Mike, shipments are NOT employees, you don't use the same units NOR same scales. Geez. But the shape of the trends is fairly clear.
ALL you have is simple unsupported contradiction and ad hom, NO actual data to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
The issue is that one side starts at zero, one does not. I'm not complaining about the difference in UNITS, but that they don't even line up at zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
The first quote you claimed from the above is attributable to the original article at Ars Technica. If you have an issue with that go take it up with them - but then I guess you would need to create an account and log in, wouldn't you? The horror!
Your request is stupid. Not having "less musicians" is not the same as saying there are "more musicians". RIAA or RIAA-sponsored statistics have also never been known to be proven accurate, and have been ridiculed by more people than Masnick - including respected economists and other analysts that few would consider "piracy apologists".
All the grammar lessons clearly didn't help you, noobtb; all you can ever say is "Blargha flargha!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
This is OotB's typically wacky twist from "my bosses were clearly caught lying" into a nice ad hom that tries to sweep the actual embarrassing facts under the rug.
" Umm, yeah, Mike, shipments are NOT employees, you don't use the same units NOR same scales."
Yeah, which means that a graph such as this is totally irrelevant to anything. If you wanted to kajigger the scales correctly you could make it look like ANYTHING. Which, funnily enough, seems to be just what they did. The first thing you learn in a (good) statistics class is that you can use statistics to show just about whatever damn thing you want.
"ALL you have is simple unsupported contradiction and ad hom, NO actual data to the contrary."
Wow, hypocrisy at it's finest! I mean, look at all the "data" in your post! None!
Furthermore, what //happened// to all your \/slashes\\ all// over your\\\ posts?\/\ I kind of /\/\miss them :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
No, this is Mike reporting on reporting done by Ars, showing that the RIAA's numbers have no basis in any actual data. And in point of fact, appear to be almost entirely fabricated to present a figure they can use for their propaganda.
Also, let's look at two numbers. 41% and say 10%. The 41% if true would be a huge decrease, but the 10% one would NOT be a huge increase, and in point of fact, would be about average for ANY line of work. So "not as bad as they claim" into a positive would actually be the case. In fact, it would be, "that number we came up with applies to ALL careers". So there wouldn't be a negative or a positive.
"ALL you have is simple unsupported contradiction and ad hom, NO actual data to the contrary."
I guess you missed the part where Ars actually looked up all the relevant data, then found more data that could have been used, then directly asked the RIAA (multiple times in fact and received different answers each time) where they got their data from and so on and so forth. AND STILL DID NOT ARRIVE AT THE 41% FIGURE. Despite using various sources and the same way ones as the RIAA.
out_of_the_blue, I'm going to say this, I thought bob was pretty stupid. You sir take the cake. In the face of actual data and methods used, in the face of actual facts, you alone have the gall to say "nope, not true". Well, not you alone, I'm sure bob, AJ, and a few other ACs would do the same. But none as bluntly as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
So are you going to apologise to Mike for completely misunderstanding the valid criticism of the two different scales? Or would that make your head go all 'splodey?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With large record labels, how many people are between the artists and the audience? Teams of lawyers, advertising agents, band managers, stage managers, executives, producers, venues and owners, studio owners, studio staff, distributors, etc. etc.. That's a lot of dead weight to cut if the artists themselves are doing the bulk of the work without the aid of industry players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's funny....
Either way, I really like how this method works. I pay you ten dollars, you owe me 20. Now perform work for me, and I�ll try to remember how much that�s worth and I�ll let you know when we�re even. Afterwords I�ll pay you for any additional work you do after you work off what you owe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've discovered more 'new artists' on Pandora *in the last three months* and even new genres of music, that it blows my mind.
But here's the thing, a few of the CD's I've ordered are 100% indie creations. Two weekends ago I paid $10.00 cash to a guy selling some of his band's CD's at a Fall Festival - had nothing to do with the 'music industry' - and get this.....
ready?
.....
I HAD HEARD HIS MUSIC FOR FREE, BECAUSE HE AND HIS BAND WERE PLAYING IT.
THEN!!!
READY FOR THIS>?!??!??!@?#?!@#
I BOUGHT HIS CD - IN SPITE OF ME HEARING IT FOR FREE!!!
WTF?@?!?@?! THE RIAA SAYS THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!
Oh and this last month, counting the one above, I've bought 5 Music CD's; 3 used, 1 from the guy above and one from a friend.
RIAA's just mad about that, is all. They could change to give tremendous value to artists, but they are too narrow minded. And I doubt anyone, including me, would be in the market for giving the RIAA 'free' ideas; but if you want to talk $$$ - hey, that's how they work, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backwards
If they would just hire more musicians then shipments would go up.
OMGWTFBBQ RIAA is killing the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
employment beyond recordings
1) Replacement of many live musicians for movies, TV shows, live theater, commercials etc, by one guy with a bank of synthesized/sampled sounds. (Technology again!)
2) Tough anti-drunk driving laws have cut into the business of bars, which used to power a lot of popular music scenes. (I saw King Crimson, The Ramones, Richard Thompson and Uncle Tupelo in bar shows, back in my salad days.)
3) The audience for classical music, which is very labor-intensive to perform, is fading rapidly due to old age. In my 50s, I am generally at the young fringe of most of the classical music events I go to. Also, the grant/benefactor donations which have kept classical music institutions afloat are now being aimed at other goals. See Greg Sandow's blog for piles of coverage of these issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: employment beyond recordings
5) Most clubs depend on DJs and recorded music, and don't have many live events.
6) Few regions actually have a club circuit that supports full time musicians, many clubs that have live music only do it on Friday and Saturday, not enough work days to make a work week.
In many ways these points do have to do about piracy, because music has become so unimportant to many that the clubs cannot support actual musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: employment beyond recordings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: employment beyond recordings
After all, can you imagine all the great music from U2 is Bono and the Edge were working in a metal fab shop all day and a news shop in the evening just to make ends meet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: employment beyond recordings
Art forms change? Pathetic. They should stay the same all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: employment beyond recordings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: employment beyond recordings
If you're not talking about form, what are you trying to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what the RIAA is saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what the RIAA is saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90 billion dollars minus 13 cents equals 400 trillion dollars loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the article saying you shouldn't quit your job if your goal is to monetize on music and the likes? How it's about how ppl do it because they want not because of the money and the latter comes naturally? That's what the MAFIAA can't simply understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]