Topic: Economics of Music Streaming

[jackh]

It is I suppose but you have artists bringing an album out then months down the line bringing a deluxe version out with a whole new album of mediocre throwaways added on to it and calling it the same album but a deluxe version. It harps back to what I was saying about quantity over quality with the bigger artists. It's a tactic to keep getting high streaming numbers and to always be in the charts.

I remember this being discussed by a guest on Steve Lamacq's show about eighteen months ago.  It was mentioned that years ago you'd get a single release in promotion of an album, and the single would feature a couple of b-sides - I was a big Oasis fan during my teenage years, and (people can say what they want about Oasis! but) they were always regarded to have excellent b-side output.  Nowadays it feels as though you're more likely to get a remix and/or a demo and/or live version of the a-side.

Less outlay to produce variations of the same content, within the context of diminishing returns.

---

I'd be inclined to add that quite often the artists themselves are passengers to the process though - from a creative perspective, they'll produce what they can; from a content perspective, they probably put out what they're told.

[AndyMuller]

I remember this being discussed by a guest on Steve Lamacq's show about eighteen months ago.  It was mentioned that years ago you'd get a single release in promotion of an album, and the single would feature a couple of b-sides - I was a big Oasis fan during my teenage years, and (people can say what they want about Oasis! but) they were always regarded to have excellent b-side output.  Nowadays it feels as though you're more likely to get a remix and/or a demo and/or live version of the a-side.

Less outlay to produce variations of the same content, within the context of diminishing returns.

---

I'd be inclined to add that quite often the artists themselves are passengers to the process though - from a creative perspective, they'll produce what they can; from a content perspective, they probably put out what they're told.

Spot on mate. I don't use Spotify, I use Apple Music. Is there a difference to what artists are receiving on each platform or is it the same? I haven't looked into it.

[CraigDS]

It is I suppose but you have artists bringing an album out then months down the line bringing a deluxe version out with a whole new album of mediocre throwaways added on to it and calling it the same album but a deluxe version. It harps back to what I was saying about quantity over quality with the bigger artists. It's a tactic to keep getting high streaming numbers and to always be in the charts.

But again, that’s exactly how it was with physical media too. A few additional tracks that weren’t good enough to make the original cut, some extended tracks and some additional artwork... Deluxe.

[AndyMuller]

But again, that’s exactly how it was with physical media too. A few additional tracks that weren’t good enough to make the original cut, some extended tracks and some additional artwork... Deluxe.

Nah, these are full albums added on. 16 new original tracks added on to the album months down the line. You also see some artists making bloated, longer albums to ensure they get the steaming numbers in.

[Sheer Magnetism]

I remember this being discussed by a guest on Steve Lamacq's show about eighteen months ago.  It was mentioned that years ago you'd get a single release in promotion of an album, and the single would feature a couple of b-sides - I was a big Oasis fan during my teenage years, and (people can say what they want about Oasis! but) they were always regarded to have excellent b-side output.  Nowadays it feels as though you're more likely to get a remix and/or a demo and/or live version of the a-side.

Less outlay to produce variations of the same content, within the context of diminishing returns.

Think you may have a selective memory here. The 90's were notorious for bands/labels ripping off consumers by releasing multiple editions of the same single with slightly different artwork filled out with remixes and live versions as well as often mediocre B-sides, though to be fair a lot of the better Britpop bands had comparitively impressive B-side outputs.

[jackh]

Think you may have a selective memory here. The 90's were notorious for bands/labels ripping off consumers by releasing multiple editions of the same single with slightly different artwork filled out with remixes and live versions as well as often mediocre B-sides, though to be fair a lot of the better Britpop bands had comparitively impressive B-side outputs.

Just going by experience! 

Obviously you often get albums released in various formats - standard edition, one with a couple of bonus tracks or the b-sides, one with a demo/live disc, etc - but I do also recall a spell (in my experience) probably around the turn of the millennium when you might get a single released in two or three different versions.  Think I've got one by The Libertines upstairs.

[jackh]

I did laugh a couple of days ago, though, when an up & coming Belfast band that I like announced their 11-song album.

The previewed it with a 'single' release (if that even exists any more - basically £1 digital download, or YouTube, stream, etc), and I noticed that 6 of the other songs on the album were 'gathered' onto a digital EP release last summer (which I bought!).  Still sort of excited to see them release an official album, but I did have to laugh when I realised this following those posts yesterday!

[jackh]

The mention of Spotify's Daniel Ek in the Arsenal thread has prompted me to update this with the latest developments in the #BrokenRecord campaign:

https://twitter.com/MrTomGray/status/1384416974919307264

Tom Gray #BrokenRecord @MrTomGray

The letter and signatories to the letter we've sent to @BorisJohnson this morning.  #BrokenRecord

9:01 AM · Apr 20, 2021

[RedSince86]

Wow some big hitters in that list.

Thank god this Spotify guy isn't a red, such an unsavoury character, i do not know how he sleeps at night, he's like the Don King of the music industry.

[Zlen]

It still pisses me off that bulk of my subscription money goes to some random artiats I never played.

[jackh]

So the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, & Sport have published their second report into the Economics of Music Streaming today.  I'll post a news article to provide summary, but the embedded link there will take you to the report for more detail.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jul/15/mps-call-for-complete-reset-of-music-streaming-to-protect-artists

MPs call for ‘complete reset’ of music streaming to protect artists

Committee calls for investigation into whether competition in the recorded music market is being distorted

Music streaming needs a “complete reset”, according to a damning parliamentary report that calls on the UK competition watchdog to investigate the commercial power wielded by major record labels.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee inquiry, which started in October 2020 and took evidence from musicians including Nile Rodgers, reported that unless artists received a larger share of revenues, the UK’s music landscape could be transformed within a decade.

The committee chair, Julian Knight, said that while streaming had “brought significant profits to the recorded music industry, the talent behind it – performers, songwriters and composers – are losing out”.

The report says: “The pitiful returns from music streaming impact the entire creative ecosystem. Successful, critically acclaimed professional performers are seeing meagre returns from the dominant mode of music consumption. Non-featured performers are frozen out altogether, impacting what should be a viable career in its own right, as well as a critical pipeline for new talent.”

Record labels and the streaming sites are criticised in the report, which says that although streaming undoubtedly helped save the music industry after two decades of digital piracy, the companies have “leveraged structural advantages to achieve seemingly unassailable positions” in their markets.

The report refers to estimates that streaming services take 30-34% of revenues from a stream, with the label recouping 55% and the rest shared out between the recording artist, publisher and songwriter.

The MPs say they have “deep concerns about the position of the major music companies” and call on the government to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate whether competition in the recorded music market is being distorted. They say the major labels: Sony, Universal and Warner Music, benefit at the expense of independent labels and self-releasing artists when it comes to playlisting.

“The issues ostensibly created by streaming simply reflect more fundamental, structural problems within the recorded music industry,” the report says. “Streaming needs a complete reset.”

The committee recommends “a broad yet comprehensive range” of legislative reforms to protect the rights of musicians and songwriters, who it says are getting poor returns from streaming – an industry that generates £600m in revenues a year.

The 121-page report backs calls for artists to have equitable remuneration from streams, which would mean their work is classified as a “rental” when it is played on platforms such as Spotify, which has a 44% market share compared with 25% each for Amazon Music and Apple Music.

The measure would mean streams are treated in a similar way to radio plays, with a collecting society recouping royalties on an artist’s behalf. The committee says the change would be a “simple yet effective solution” to the problems caused by poor remuneration from music streaming.

It also recommends introducing a right to recapture the rights to works after a period of time and the right to contract adjustment if an artist’s works are “successful beyond the remuneration they receive”.

The suggestion of sweeping legal changes is at odds with the position of streaming sites and the three major labels, which have consistently argued the current system works and that equitable remuneration would be, in the words of the BPI’s Geoff Taylor, “a recipe for disaster” and lead to reduced revenues.

The report says recorded music revenues are still much lower in real terms than they were two decades ago, but have been rising since 2014 when the percentage of UK population illegally downloading music was at 13%, before it dropped to 5% in 2020.

Will Page, a former chief economist at Spotify, submitted evidence saying that between 2015 and 2019 the streaming-led recovery boosted UK major label turnover by 21%. “The recorded music business not only got bigger but also much more profitable for record labels. Artists, however, have not received proportional benefit,” he wrote.

The MPs are critical of the hostility that potential contributors to the inquiry faced from within the music industry, pointing out they received 80 confidential submissions because people were afraid of speaking out publicly.

Covid-19’s impact is also a focus of the report, with the MPs finding that the problems with streaming have been exacerbated because “musicians have become over-reliant on touring and live music income”.

YouTube comes in for particular criticism in the report, owing to its distinct business model. Unlike the majority of UK streaming platforms, much content on YouTube is uploaded by users rather than artists or record labels.

The platform has licensed some content and proactively removes many unlicensed uploads using its content ID system, but the different approach plays into its bottom line. According to evidence to the inquiry, YouTube accounts for 51% of music streaming per year but contributed 7% of all revenue.

If musicians upload their own music directly to YouTube, the platform’s policies explicitly prevent them from being paid a share of advertising revenue “until they achieve 1,000 channel subscribers and 4,000 hours of watch time”.

As a result, the report calls for the UK to designate YouTube’s streaming service as having “strategic market status”, and warns that the continued freedom from lawsuits that YouTube enjoys thanks to its user-generated model “has suppressed the value of the digital music market”.

[CraigDS]

The report refers to estimates that streaming services take 30-34% of revenues from a stream, with the label recouping 55% and the rest shared out between the recording artist, publisher and songwriter.

Does anyone know what the breakdown was for, say, a CD single? Would be interesting to see a comparison.

[jackh]

It's that time of year again...


https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/music/2021/12/why-i-hate-spotify-wrapped

Spotify doesn’t pay musicians fairly. And now it’s asking us to do its marketing for free?

This thought comes to my mind every December when I see someone tweeting about having streamed Ed Sheeran via Spotify for 5,000 hours during the year, or feigning embarrassment about the inclusion of Abba in the list of their top five most-played artists of the last 12 months. Spotify Wrapped – a feature made available to the platform’s users today – distils a year’s listening into statistics, such as your most-streamed songs, artists and genres. It claims to take a “deep dive” into your listening habits, producing a graphic that is easily shared on social media, and so often ends up trending on Twitter, offering ever more advertising for Spotify. I can’t stand it.

Songwriting and music-making may be an aspirational career, but there is labour involved – beyond the artists and including the writers, producers, instrumentalists, mixers and more. And while Spotify doesn’t disclose exactly how much it pays, industry experts suggest the rate is less than $0.004 per stream – an amount that is cut up by a record company and shared out between the many people who may have worked on a single song. That’s no way to make a living – never mind the fact that the touring industry (where artists often do stand a chance of making money) has been decimated by the pandemic over the last 20 months.

This is why I hate Spotify Wrapped (which should at least be called “Spotify Unwrapped”: it works as some kind of nauseating revelation after all). It’s a marketing tool – plain and simple – that the streaming platform dishes out as an attempt at a bit of fun. But its bright colours and “All is well here! Look how much music you’re streaming!” message obscures the sinister nature of Spotify’s power over the music industry and the artists no longer able to make a living from their music. It’s not fun when people’s livelihoods are at stake.

I don’t blame the fans. Music listeners only want to support their favourite artists. Many musicians choose to promote Spotify’s services too, and I don’t blame them either: the horrible infrastructure of the current industry has left them with few viable alternatives than to suck up to streaming platforms, in the hope that they will appear on the most sought-after playlists. Fans want to please artists, and artists want to please Spotify to appeal to more fans – how can this loop of exploitation ever end?

If Spotify is going to continue encouraging its users (paying customers!) to do its marketing for free, despite being valued at $54bn, then I’d have thought it could afford to bump up its per-song rate. Apparently not. Last year, it even “experimented” with a new feature that would offer artists an algorithmic boost on playlists – for which musicians would have to take a cut in their already pitiful royalties.

If that’s not enough, we can of course go through all the other suspicious things Spotify and its CEO Daniel Ek (whose reported net worth is $4.7bn) have been up to in the past 12 months, such as the €1bn stake Ek’s tech investment group has made in Helsing, a “defence start-up” that will use AI to build battlefield maps in an “ethical, responsible and transparent way”. A truly inspiring use of music-loving customers’ subscription fees.

Besides, Spotify Wrapped’s insistence on breaking down the ethereal pleasures of music listening into hard, number-led data feels pretty joyless to me. Streaming has already taken away the tangible pleasures of a vinyl record or CD. We know it exploits artists. I won’t allow it to diminish the emotional power of my favourite music too.

https://twitter.com/youarestars/status/1466165017720598535

Stars @youarestars · 1 Dec
we had 406,000 unique listeners on spotify last month. we cannot afford to pay ourselves a wage anymore. happy wrapped, everybody.

https://twitter.com/fieldmusicmusic/status/1466363720758607875

Field Music @fieldmusicmusic · 10h
Finishing up our VAT return. Quick peek at our songwriting royalties reveals that we made more money from plays in Pizza Express than we did from S*o*i*y last quarter. Dough balls with garlic butter for the win.

https://twitter.com/nadineshah/status/1466347446255202305

Nadine Shah @nadineshah · 11h
My top music moods are pissed off and exploited

https://twitter.com/_billy_nomates/status/1466121566274654212

Billy Nomates @_billy_nomates · Dec 1

[Crosby Nick]

In fairness all the stuff that came up as my top listens is all music and albums I have bought in various formats along the way. And I just have the feee version of it for when I go running. So my conscience is fairly clear.

[jackh]

Pretty gutted to see the recent developments at Bandcamp, which is generally the first place I look online to pick up music.

Bandcamp lays off half its staff after buyout by Songtradr
New job offers only made to 50% of staff of indie music champion, as $300m music licensing company Songtradr looks to cut costs

Half the staff at Bandcamp, the online music platform known for championing independent artists and labels, have been laid off following the recent purchase of the company by music licensing startup Songtradr.

Songtradr confirmed the purchase from Epic Games last month, writing in a statement: “This acquisition will help Bandcamp continue to grow within a music-first company and enable Songtradr to expand its capabilities to support the artist community.” Financial terms were not disclosed.

Announcing the layoffs, Songtradr outlined that it had completed its acquisition of Bandcamp and explained: “Over the past few years the operating costs of Bandcamp have significantly increased … After a comprehensive evaluation, including the importance of roles for smooth business operations and pre-existing functions at Songtradr, 50% of Bandcamp employees have accepted offers to join Songtradr.”

This means the remaining 50% will not have their contracts renewed. The Guardian has contacted Songtradr’s press representatives for further comment.

Bandcamp, an online music store and community with more than five million artists and labels was founded in 2007 and acquired by Fortnite developer Epic Games in March last year. It is renowned for supporting underground music by letting fans buy downloads and physical media direct from artists and labels, with Bandcamp taking a small fee.

Celebrated initiatives include in-house editorial platform Bandcamp Daily, which promotes music from outside the mainstream, and Bandcamp Fridays, a promotion started during the Covid-19 pandemic where the company’s fees are waived on certain Fridays to maximise returns for artists and labels. The company says that its customers have spent $1.2bn during the lifetime of the company, with an average of 82% of revenue going to the artist or label.

A statement shared on social media by the workers’ union, Bandcamp United, described the news of layoffs as “heartbreaking”.

It said: “We love our jobs, the platform we’ve built, and the Bandcamp community. We’re glad we have our union – co-workers who have each other’s backs. We’ll be moving together to decide what our next steps are. On Wednesday we return to the bargaining table with Epic Games, and we’ll keep you updated.”

The union had been fighting for recognition from Songtradr, and on 12 October it posted online urging people to sign a petition so they could begin negotiations with the new buyers to offer jobs to all existing staff members.

Two weeks earlier, Songtradr had told the union that it would not extend job offers to all of Bandcamp’s staff.

Songtradr, founded in 2014 with a successful first funding round in 2018, allows musicians and publishers to upload music which can then be licensed by commercial entities such as brands and content creators. It is valued at over $300m, and in March this year acquired a British competitor, 7digital, for $23.4m.

On the same day that Songtradr bought Bandcamp, Epic Games announced they were laying off 16% of global staff, numbering 830. CEO Tim Sweeney said that the gaming company had been “spending way more than [it] earns, investing in the next evolution of Epic and growing Fortnite as a metaverse-inspired ecosystem for creators”.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/oct/17/bandcamp-lays-off-half-its-staff-after-buyout-by-songtradr

[jackh]

Sean Adams (Drowned in Sound) and Loud & Quiet mag seem to be some of the prominent voices discussing this this week:

https://twitter.com/LoudAndQuietMag/status/1714010409101885840

Loud And Quiet @LoudAndQuietMag
I look at what's happening to a platform as important as @Bandcamp and further think what chance has the rest of independent music (and the music press) really got? The whole industry is in a very bad spot, and it goes extremely deep once you dig at it just a little
9:08 pm · 16 Oct 2023

https://twitter.com/seaninsound/status/1714041638983479737

Sean Adams @seaninsound
We need a cultural shift of people paying for the things they value and paying it forward for those who can’t afford it

Bandcamp has been a lifeline to artists and independent labels

Things feel bleak but maybe this is a time to come together a build a new ecosystem?
11:12 pm · 16 Oct 2023

And the band Deerhoof neatly summarising via their social media account:

https://twitter.com/deerhoof/status/1713978947468505133

𝔻𝕖𝕖𝕣𝕙𝕠𝕠𝕗 @deerhoof
Bandcamp: extremely profitable company, uniquely beloved of musicians and music fans alike, riding a wave of public goodwill, decides to sell themselves to a billionaire who then dumps them off to another billionaire who now fires half the company.
7:03 pm · 16 Oct 2023

[elbow]

Yeah, this isn't going to be good for Bandcamp and more specifically for the artists.

[Zlen]

What a shitshow.

The one place where you could spend your money on music and feel good about it.

[John C]

I can't profess to know the detail behind all this at all but I love receiving my Bandcamp emails with new stuff to listen to. I'm gutted to learn they are now laying staff off.
Please let me know if there is a decent alternative or a recommendation for a switch.