Streaming is not the reason why dinosaurs are no longer earning much.

[sarumbear]

The UK’s competition authority finished an investigation into streaming music, and concluded that the concerns that many musicians have about their income are not caused by competition, but are more inherent in the dynamics of streaming per se, specially the explosion in supply.

Music and streaming market study

The CMA has completed its market study into music and streaming services.

www.gov.uk

 

[Rednaxela]

Streaming is now the primary means for artists and labels to distribute music and has been pivotal in securing the sector’s recovery from piracy.

Interesting. Never thought if it this way.

 

[fpitas]

I'm not real close to that industry, but I thought the big bucks were always in concerts and swag.

 

[Doodski]

I'm not real close to that industry, but I thought the big bucks were always in concerts and swag.

Me too. Hence why music artists want to tour.

 

[tomtoo]

Me too. Hence why music artists want to tour.

Maybe you have to see the promotion factor. Its not the just tour income its also promotion. I mean compare "this guys make good music on YT(name it) vs. "That show yesterday was just crazy good". Its a mixture, to get big maybe you need both?

 

[fpitas]

Maybe you have to see the promotion factor. Its not the just tour income its also promotion. I mean compare "this guys make good music on YT(name it) vs. "That show yesterday was just crazy good". Its a mixture, to get big maybe you need both?

You do, since the music has to reach your audience to get them to go to the shows.

 

[kemmler3D]

The big bucks are in concerts and swag for artists because they see precious little of streaming royalties. The actual revenue labels get from streaming vs. what they used to get from CDs in the pre-napster era is still quite small, partly because intermediaries like Spotify are taking a huge cut, and partly because it's just less money being spent.

IMO the labels blew it big time when they tried to shut down Napster and other piracy avenues without a suitable alternative. They should have bought napster and offered it as a subscription for (say) $40 per month or something. At the time, the consumer wasn't yet totally used to free digital music, and Apple had not yet come in and set pricing norms through iTunes. They had more power to set pricing at that time, but they decided to sue people in court instead of understanding that their business model's technological viability was completely over and done with. If they HAD, they could have been making at least double what they are now, IMO.

Once people got used to $0.00 for digital music, it was a tough climb back up to (say) $12/mo... but people used to happily pay that much per CD. They let the gravy train roll on too long and destroyed the perceived value of recorded music through negligence.

 

[fpitas]

The big bucks are in concerts and swag for artists because they see precious little of streaming royalties. The actual revenue labels get from streaming vs. what they used to get from CDs in the pre-napster era is still quite small, partly because intermediaries like Spotify are taking a huge cut, and partly because it's just less money being spent.

IMO the labels blew it big time when they tried to shut down Napster and other piracy avenues without a suitable alternative. They should have bought napster and offered it as a subscription for (say) $40 per month or something. At the time, the consumer wasn't yet totally used to free digital music, and Apple had not yet come in and set pricing norms through iTunes. They had more power to set pricing at that time, but they decided to sue people in court instead of understanding that their business model's technological viability was completely over and done with. If they HAD, they could have been making at least double what they are now, IMO.

Big dinosaur companies often struggle with the future.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The big bucks are in concerts and swag for artists because they see precious little of streaming royalties. The actual revenue labels get from streaming vs. what they used to get from CDs in the pre-napster era is still quite small, partly because intermediaries like Spotify are taking a huge cut, and partly because it's just less money being spent.

IMO the labels blew it big time when they tried to shut down Napster and other piracy avenues without a suitable alternative. They should have bought napster and offered it as a subscription for (say) $40 per month or something. At the time, the consumer wasn't yet totally used to free digital music, and Apple had not yet come in and set pricing norms through iTunes. They had more power to set pricing at that time, but they decided to sue people in court instead of understanding that their business model's technological viability was completely over and done with. If they HAD, they could have been making at least double what they are now, IMO.

Once people got used to $0.00 for digital music, it was a tough climb back up to (say) $12/mo... but people used to happily pay that much per CD. They let the gravy train roll on too long and destroyed the perceived value of recorded music through negligence.

The big bucks have always been in concerts and swag. Even in CD, LP, or 45's it was that way. Creative accounting by music companies made them rich from media sales and rarely were the main money maker for artists. Concerts and touring were. The rules are a bit different, but once again music companies make off like bandits and musicians don't as far as media goes.

 

[sarumbear]

The big bucks are in concerts and swag for artists because they see precious little of streaming royalties. The actual revenue labels get from streaming vs. what they used to get from CDs in the pre-napster era is still quite small, partly because intermediaries like Spotify are taking a huge cut, and partly because it's just less money being spent.

It’s obvious you haven’t read the study I posted.

Here are some figures for you to understand the industry in the US.

30+ Harmonious Music Industry Statistics [2023]: Worth, Data, and Revenue - Zippia

Music industry research summary. From vinyl to CDs and from digital downloads to digital streaming, the recorded music industry has seen some significant shifts in the last 20 years. Here are some current statistics about the music industry that will help paint a picture of where it’s been and...

www.zippia.com

 

[nerdstrike]

I suppose if you compare it to radio broadcast, rather than CD/vinyl sales... Without everyone knowing your name, you can't book out Wembley or whatever the US equivalent venue is.

 

[sarumbear]

The big bucks have always been in concerts and swag.

Do you have any data on this? I’ve been trying to find live event revenues but couldn’t find any data. Line Nation & AEG annual reports may have some data but I haven’t tried it yet.

Creative accounting by music companies made them rich from media sales and rarely were the main money maker for artists. Concerts and touring were.

I don’t have the data but I do know that The Beatles stopped touring in 1966, five years before disbanded and before releasing their biggest selling albums, including Sgt. Pepper…

The rules are a bit different, but once again music companies make off like bandits and musicians don't as far as media goes.

This is no longer the case since streaming became the main revenue source. Stream figures are out there everyone to see. Labels can no longer hide them. Naturally how the artists are paid is decided on their contract with the labels, but that’s their prerogative, not an industry issue.

 

[kemmler3D]

It’s obvious you haven’t read the study I posted.

Here are some figures for you to understand the industry in the US.

30+ Harmonious Music Industry Statistics [2023]: Worth, Data, and Revenue - Zippia

Music industry research summary. From vinyl to CDs and from digital downloads to digital streaming, the recorded music industry has seen some significant shifts in the last 20 years. Here are some current statistics about the music industry that will help paint a picture of where it’s been and...

www.zippia.com

Um, not sure what I said contradicts either of the links you posted. Inflation-adjusted revenue is still way down from the peak CD years, this is nothing new.

Although the publishing share of streaming royalties has increased in recent years, compared to the CD era, we are looking at more artists fighting over a small share of a smaller pie.

Executive summary

www.gov.uk

 

[sarumbear]

They let the gravy train roll on too long and destroyed the perceived value of recorded music through negligence.

However, they are having the last laugh. Music sales is now larger than the CD era, thanks to streaming.

 

[sarumbear]

Um, not sure what I said contradicts either of the links you posted. Inflation-adjusted revenue is still way down from the peak CD years, this is nothing new.

Have you checked the figures in your country or even the world or do you have a different data set?

Infographic: From Tape to Tidal: 4 Decades of U.S. Music Sales

This chart shows U.S. music industry revenue since 1980 by format.

www.statista.com

 

[kemmler3D]

Have you checked the figures in your country or even the world or do you have a different data set?

Infographic: From Tape to Tidal: 4 Decades of U.S. Music Sales

This chart shows U.S. music industry revenue since 1980 by format.

www.statista.com

Um, yeah it's pretty much the same graph? Inflation-adjusted revenues are way down from the peak at 1999-2001.

 

[sarumbear]

…we are looking at more artists fighting over a small share of a smaller pie.

That’s called democratisation of an industry. What’s wrong it? Besides, the same happens on every sector.

 

[sarumbear]

Um, yeah it's pretty much the same graph? Inflation-adjusted revenues are way down from the peak at 1999-2001.

Good luck.

 

[kemmler3D]

how the artists are paid is decided on their contract with the labels, but that’s their prerogative, not an industry issue.

Pretty debatable that it's not an industry issue given that the labels and live music venues (at least in the US) are very few in number and very large in market share. I think you could argue for pseudomonopolistic behavior in the music industry as you could in several other industries.

That’s called democratisation of an industry. What’s wrong it? Besides, the same happens on every sector.

What's wrong with musicians making way less money than they used to? I dunno, nothing if you hate new music I guess. Anecdotally, even big label deals are less favorable than they used to be, in that they often stipulate that the label takes a share of touring revenue also, in so-called "360 deals". Not sure how common those are, though.

Music is a smaller industry in the US and UK than it used to be... don't see how there can be any debate on that point, although at least I certainly agree that streaming services are not the cause of the decline, at any rate.

 

[Doodski]

Pretty debatable that it's not an industry issue given that the labels and live music venues (at least in the US) are very few in number and very large in market share. I think you could argue for pseudomonopolistic behavior in the music industry as you could in several other industries.

The entertainment industry in some countries is subsidized by the government. Canada for one has rules regarding air time for Canadian content. Where does that fit in?