The Next Web

Why Music Is Broken – The Artist To Consumer Connection

Why Music Is Broken   The Artist To Consumer ConnectionThere is a fascinating story on TorrentFreak regarding the revenues for an artist from a streaming service such as Spotify. Or, more correctly, the lack thereof. The popular Lady Gaga makes quasi-nil from Spotify, despite being a top artist on the service.

This is an excellent example of the inherent problem in the musical industry. If we cannot fix this, piracy will never be abated.

The problem is the lack of a connection between the dollar of the consumer, and collection of that money by the artist. Right now, the lengthy and convoluted transfer process sucks the dollar dry, depositing a few spry cents in the hands of he artist.

Of course, this is supposed to be “the way it works,” due to high costs involved with music production and the like, but it seems to be nearly endless. Once an artist has paid back the recording costs in royalties, the rates that artist receives are still pathetic.

If I put my music on Amie Street, and I sell a song, I get the majority of the money. If I am a major label artist, and I sell a song on iTunes, I get a far, far smaller cut.

The connection from the fan to the band, financially, has been broken. The fan knows that their purchase will hardly help the band, or more precisely that the marginal benefit from their purchase to the band is near zero, so why do it? The cost to the fan is much higher than the marginal benefit to the band, so the fan just torrents the damn song.

There was a lot of noise when Brogan and Gary V wrote their books. Pundits said that internet people do not actually buy things, so both books were straight going to fail. Bullshit, it turned out. Crush It and Trust Agents both did well. People will still pay for quality, and they will pay if the know where the money is going.

How many people do you think bought Crush It because it was a good book, versus it being the Gary V book. Something to think about.

The vision from the consumer of the music industry is a dark room with cigar smoking lawyers. A far cry from the mixing board or the stage.

The point is, until there is a much more direct line from my purchase, to the coffers of my favorite band, I will (euphemistically) be inclined to take the lowest cost route, and fire up The Pirate Bay.

What to do? Well, artists need to stand up and attempt to take control of the situation, especially with emerging market openings such as Spotify. There is no industry without artists.

It has long been like this, out of proportion. But there was never an alternative solution to acquiring music. Now there is. I would make a healthy wager that if there was a way for people to buy music, where a full 50% of the total cost went to the band, sales would double. Overnight.

Food for thought. What do you think about the artist pay model with Spotify, and in general?

Tags: ,  

  • Since I started reading stories about low payouts to artists on Spotify I've felt a bit guilty using it, even if I do subscribe paying £10 per month.

    I feel it's a promising model for the future though, so I'm sticking with it. The more paying subscribers it has the less chance it has of collapsing like the house of cards it could well be if it has to rely on ads alone.
  • Chris clifford
    Artists need to establish a direct link between themselves and their audience. So I guess I agree. Most of the evidence suggests many downloaders to spotify etc go on to buy more but hey this is a new era of business and communication. Dont fight it but think in new ways
  • Pads
    Artists need to cut out the middlemen. Take Radiohead for example, they ditched their label and sell direct to fans online. They even let the fans chose how much they want to pay!
  • The MP3 label magnatune.com gives 50% of all revenues to their artists already and that's why I check out their music regularly and pay for streaming (I wouldn't even have to).
  • Jason
    Wonder what she gets from YouTube for 87 million listens.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M65zI9LH-as
  • jonathan B
    I would definatly pay if the artist got the money, like if linkin park got a full 50 % I'd go buy every cd twice to get more music out of them!
  • Theo
    the record company pays for the recordings, producer, studio time, touring, promotion, legal fees, merchandise development... they need the money if you want to see more recordings not the artist.
  • This year the dutch government did a research about download behaviour. Beside it's positive for the welfare of a society, the researchers concluded also:

    That the percentage of buyers is equally high between people that download and those who don't, but that people who regularly download do visit more concerts and buy more merchandise.

    With game and movie downloaders it shows, that they buy even more games and movies then people who don't download.

    Source (dutch)http://weblogs.nrc.nl/klaver/2009/01/19/downloaden-is-goed-voor-de-nederlandse-economie/

    Secondly people who use illegal ways are more willing to take a listin to unknown bands and music, expecially for upcoming bands this is extremely important. But this is also the case with Lady Gage, the Internet plays an extremely important role in her upcoming popularity the past months.

    I think the whole discussion is more about a transformation that the music branch need.

    Their profit model should shift from a product to a service approach. We slowly shift from a buy to use right, Spotify is the perfect example of this. Secondly an artist should accept that his/her future income stream will mainly come from concerts.

    Locally you can already see this new movement with small upcoming bands, these concerts in small venues are more popular then ever. This is mainly the result of the low access barrier created by torrents/Spotify to listen to their work.

    But did you do some background research on Spotify?
    Why do you think the music labels have stock shares of Spotify? Not to promote it, but just to keep an eye on the movement.
  • Robert
    Ah yes, the murky water of music licensing. I hates it, you never feel like you're doing the right thing as a consumer.

    and another thing that bothers me a lot: Copyright has become this big ugly hammer that smashes up any discussion about music into a boring tug of war about laws and the morality of it. This really doesn't help matters, because for some reason I always feel that I need to present evidence that I'm not a music pirate or I will be chased out by and angry mob with pitchforks and torches.

    It makes for a poisoned atmosphere on the net in these matters and the attitude presented by the 'powers that be' do not help.
  • Robert
    @Bram:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/...

    that's the source of the comment about labels having a share in spotify.
  • @Robert: Thanks for the link.

    But it shows once again how those record labels operate... they buy them self-in and force the start-ups that only artists with a label can have his/her music in the collection. This way they can maintain their position as the expensive black-box in the middle.
  • Theo
    I don't understand why you have to feel like you are paying the artist directly.
    why is it not acceptable to pay anyone in the industry?
    Why does eveyone hate the music industry (what confuses me is that you don't know what you hate, its just 'the music industry' -there is no single industry, especially with the movement towards inter-media, cross-platform synergies, I get the impression it is just fashionable to hate something)
  • This is a brilliant post and one that clearly says it like it is. This writing has been on the wall for A LONG LONG time. Even before internet and digital downloads became available and a primary means of purchasing music, this problem existed.

    I was involved in the music biz in the end of the 80's through the mid 90's and the divide between the artist and fan was expanding by leaps and bounds then. I shopped original acts to labels as an unofficial AR person as well as doing my own music. Some of my music friends did get major label deals, some even went on to become Grammy winners and other's contracts were written off and they vanished into obscurity. I experienced the vision with which the labels saw artists, and that was no more than if they were stocks to invest in. Not gifted artists communicating and sharing their heart and soul with fans. This has only become worse.

    The day the music industry (major) stops raping the artists and begins to VALUE them AS ARTISTS will be the day the reconnect between the fan and the major artist will begin to heal. Until that day, major acts will always be forced to go out on the road to connect with all their fans.
  • This is a great article and something I've been talking about for a long time. It's not that people don't have respect for us artists. It's that they don't respect the people keeping most of our money away from us. I always try to let people know where their money is going.
  • Another link on digital royalties and labels:
    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/major-la...

    Two partners and I are launching a site in the new year - another kick at the pay what you want model - that will work for any fan or band with no signing up required [it'll help if you do tho...]. Mission for us is more money to more artists, then let them source/hire who they need to release their music.

    @quietrevolution
blog comments powered by Disqus
 


TwitterCounter