> Over a six-month period, Ms. Keating’s songs had been played on Pandora more than 1.5 million times; that earned her all of $1,652.74. She had 131,000 plays on Spotify in 2012. She took home $547.71, or less than half a penny per play.
People are making money, it's just not the artists
This has less to do with a "Culture of Free" and more to do with predatory business practices
I have never liked the streaming services like Spotify for this reason - the royalties seem incredibly small (the DRM is also not great).
I feel like Bandcamp (and iTunes) have a much better profit model. Offer full length samples so you know exactly what you are getting, and then charge 25-50 cents per track with 90% of it going to the creator. Despite the higher prices to the consumer, the cost feels a lot more justifiable in my mind. I've spent over $50 a month on Bandcamp before, whereas I can't see myself purchasing a music streaming service for anywhere near that cost.
If Spotify were $50 a month it'd still be worth it. I don't know how they divvy up profits but lets look at this example:
I pay $12 a month and only listen to one record three times through on that month. You'd expect the artist(s) of the record to get my $12 minus a service fee, but what I'm sure happens is the artist(s) only get the price per play x 3 and Spotify pocket the rest.
Subscription models are a huge boon for this reason, but the inequitable split might change artists' minds about these sub services.
I tend to listen to a small subset of music over and over, the artists should be getting close to that $12/month cost in my opinion.
I've just subscribed to tidal (was spotify before) for $20/month. I'm now quite happily spending $240/year which is significantly more than I ever spent on CDs(I think I bought 3 CDs in the Sam year once...). Even at $10/month for spotify I was still spending far more money than I ever spent previously. I can't believe that the industry can't flourish on that kind of income per listener. Perhaps the problem is that the majority of spotify listeners for instance aren't actually subscribers?
I agree that the royalties are too low, but there is a world of difference between zero-cost and non-zero-cost.
If the environment allows competition between distribution channels and artists are able to negotiate, artist compensation has the possibility to inch higher over time.
Case in point: Taylor Swift and Spotify. Regardless of whether her business model ultimately yields the highest return, at least she is not being compelled to distribute her material via Spotify.
I've long had the belief that the very act of audio-recording, all the way back to Edison's wax-cylinders, would eventually be the end of making significant money for music makers. That and the fact that there is only 24-hours in a day.
My point being that it is a matter of scarcity - or the lack thereof. Music, to some degree, doesn't age. Regardless of what new pop album is due out in the near future, we will still listen to Louis Armstrong sing "What a Wonderful World" as it nears it's 50th anniversary.
Any newly produced music is competition with the back-catalog of all music ever recorded. And there is only so much time during the day one can spend listening to music, so individual "consumption" isn't going to change much as time goes one.
The only real future for professional musicians is ticket sales for live performances and licensing their songs for uses in other media (movies, commercials, "hasn't been thought of yet")
As a co-founder of a marketing platform for independent artists, and not exactly a music industry veteran, I've spent the past 8 months getting very educated on the situation. It's basically a clusterf... Streaming isn't "figured out" yet, and everybody knows it.
My two cents: indie artists should take a page from startup founders and get scrappy with easy access to affordable software and marketing/engagement tools. It's certainly doable, but requires a bit of a behavioral change. Musicians want to write/record/play music, not run a business. But they have to start embracing it or they'll continue to be dependent on major label-like overlords.
PS - go watch "Artifact" on Netflix as soon as possible. It's a riveting documentary on a signed band fighting a major label who, in turn, sued them for $30mm.
Probably for the same reason I don't as an open source developer: the donation model doesn't yield a lot of income. It's more worthwhile to put your resources towards developing other revenue streams.
Maybe donation links work for some, and of course creators should have the freedom to pursue that avenue, along with the freedom to pursue others.
In US radio, unlike radio elsewhere in the world, performers don't receive royalties -- only composers do. This was set early on in the history of radio and became very hard to change.
I'm glad that we seem to have made it through an analogous phase in the history of internet distribution without artists being frozen out.
Despite the downvotes I might get, there is nothing new to see here. This is the 1 millionth article of the same ilk. We need some fresh points of view.
What I've been surprised by on previous HN commenting threads on this topic is how harsh people tend to be on the content creators' side of the balance sheet. People really despise pay walls and other existing attempts for creators to make money (you want all the songs in the world for $5 and not $10, REALLY??). As a creator myself, a scientist who publishes in academic journals, I desperately want to find new ways to help me and my colleagues monetize our works (Edit: by "monetize" I mean fundraise, NOT profit).
I'm pretty sure direct consumer-to-creator payments are part of the solution, but that solution isn't exactly lighting the world on fire like Napster did.
> As a creator myself, a scientist who publishes in academic journals, I desperately want to find new ways to help me and my colleagues monetize our works (Edit: by "monetize" I mean fundraise, NOT profit).
What's wrong with profiting from science?
I think a lot of people have this, to me incomprehensible, state of mind where they feel like things that don't matter much in the grand scheme of things (InstaSnapWhatsYo) are entitled to make lots of money, but it's morally objectionable to make money on things that matter (science, journalism, etc). That creates perverse social incentives: people who are brilliant but not particularly selfless have every incentive to spend their talents on things that don't matter, instead of things that do.
As someone who makes my living off writing open source software, I am highly aware of the challenges in finding tenable business models when distribution is free. The particular model which works for me was to become an employee of a company which uses my software. There are other possibilities, such as consulting; it's important that we continue to experiment.
Like you, I see creators in other realms as my colleagues and wish them every success.
I have yet to see any new points in the disussion of free content since reading Chris Anderson's book FREE back in 2009. The one possible exception would be the advent of Patreon and to a lesser extent Kickstarter, but these are basically just subsets of the business model patterns he described.
I'm ideologically against scientists profiting off their papers, because it's a poor incentive and harms us all, especially if they're already being funded by the public. I see absolutely no reason that a publicly funded scientist should expect to profit off the results or papers that come from publicly funded science. In short, you're not a creator that's free-lancing, you're a creator for hire, and the results don't belong to you - they belong to the financing body, which in that case, is the public at large.
A better solution is just to funnel money in to sciences through public funding mechanisms and telling you that the papers and results - free, and readily accessible to the public - are the deliverable we expect for that money.
Let me ask you this: why do you think you need to get money from the paper or results when as a scientist, you're already being paid for your work through other channels?
I just don't understand the culture of free. On one hand, everything digital is expected for free (or close to it). Even app prices have gone so low, that the majority of app developers would never be able to earn a living.
On the other, lots of hate for big corporations and further complaining when jobs go away (one of the direct results of the free culture). The ability to make a living online makes it so you don't ever have to work for a large corporation. The ultimate freedom.
I know plenty of independent artists that can't really make a living with music anymore because albums are now essentially worthless. Many of these people are now forced to sell out to big corporate record labels (and then, the same people that created this environment call them "sellouts").
You're arguing "What's good for consumers is bad for producers, so why are consumers doing it?". The answer is that consumers, in aggregate, don't care about producers. In general, people are self-interested. There is no contradiction here.
> when jobs go away (one of the direct results of the free culture).
This doesn't make any sense. If people are spending less money on one thing, they are spending more money on something else. If I pirate all my music, maybe I have an extra $100/year to go out to dinner, "creating jobs" (although I am loath to use that misleading phrase) in the culinary industry. In reality, of course, those $100 are spread across a whole bunch of areas of spending, but the aggregate effect is the same.
It enriches our lives though. While free goods cannot be measured in terms of GDP, it makes us all better off. It also brings that enrichment to a much wider audience than would be if it had a pay barrier.
You are looking at perhaps the central paradox of capitalism.
As workers we want as much pay as we can for as little effort as we can, while as consumers we want as much goods as we can for as little expense as we can.
I can give you a better perspective from gaming, since it was much more onerous for that to become nice, but it has already solved the problem.
Games tend, on average, to be on average about the size of a whole, uncompressed CD. Roughly 700 MB.
That means the first challenge is actually getting the thing to me. For a while i had two options: Either i could go out into the store, and buy it there (spending 2 hours + cash), or if they didn't have it, order it and come back later (another 2 hours). Or i could torrent it at home, spending no cash and 2 hours waiting for the download to complete while i do other things; and live with the possible risk of a letter from my ISP.
So now i have the thing. The next challenge is to get it on the computer and running. With the store-bought medium i have to hope that it is physically sound, and i need to ensure it stays that way; I also have to hope that my drive is compatible with their copy protection; and to add insult to injury, i need to keep the disc in my drive to play it, meaning i have to handle the things a lot, and have my drive uselessly make noise. With the torrent, i unpack it and install it, maybe needing to spend an extra 5 minutes to find the right crack; and live with the risk of contracting malware.
And the last issue: Software updates. This time the two options are almost the same: Find the latest update, download and install it. Torrent updates come with a risk of malware again.
Now, when i was young specifically the first and second thing led me to pirate most of the games i got. Not because i didn't want to spend the cash; but because i didn't want to spend cash, just to have to spend my own time to get the thing and live with the constant annoyance of keeping the right disc in my drive, constantly rotating.
This is especially borne out in current times. Steam is now here and while the prices are similar to physical game sales (the value of my steam library is estimated at $7000), i gladly and happily spend the money for it, since Steam solves these problems:
1. Games are downloadable.
2. The copy protection is either my online status, or a specific steam token. (In practice i've never not been able to access the games.)
3. Updates come automatically.
4. As long as Steam doesn't crash and burn, i'll be able to access the things i bought in perpetuity without needing to cat herd a gaggle of physical storages.
The "culture of free" doesn't revolve around free. There is a cost in any "free". Usually the risk of legal action or malware.
The "culture of free" is winning because people hoping to make money fail to provide solutions that actually address customers' needs. Steam has recognized and solved that issue. In the music industry things like Google Play Music, Spotify, etc. are starting to solve it.
[+] [-] fooey|11 years ago|reply
People are making money, it's just not the artists
This has less to do with a "Culture of Free" and more to do with predatory business practices
[+] [-] gear54rus|11 years ago|reply
Big corps who rant about pirates are nothing more than just hypocrites (as in the worst offenders).
[+] [-] TD-Linux|11 years ago|reply
I feel like Bandcamp (and iTunes) have a much better profit model. Offer full length samples so you know exactly what you are getting, and then charge 25-50 cents per track with 90% of it going to the creator. Despite the higher prices to the consumer, the cost feels a lot more justifiable in my mind. I've spent over $50 a month on Bandcamp before, whereas I can't see myself purchasing a music streaming service for anywhere near that cost.
[+] [-] ryan-allen|11 years ago|reply
I pay $12 a month and only listen to one record three times through on that month. You'd expect the artist(s) of the record to get my $12 minus a service fee, but what I'm sure happens is the artist(s) only get the price per play x 3 and Spotify pocket the rest.
Subscription models are a huge boon for this reason, but the inequitable split might change artists' minds about these sub services.
I tend to listen to a small subset of music over and over, the artists should be getting close to that $12/month cost in my opinion.
[+] [-] ollysb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|11 years ago|reply
If the environment allows competition between distribution channels and artists are able to negotiate, artist compensation has the possibility to inch higher over time.
Case in point: Taylor Swift and Spotify. Regardless of whether her business model ultimately yields the highest return, at least she is not being compelled to distribute her material via Spotify.
[+] [-] Malic|11 years ago|reply
My point being that it is a matter of scarcity - or the lack thereof. Music, to some degree, doesn't age. Regardless of what new pop album is due out in the near future, we will still listen to Louis Armstrong sing "What a Wonderful World" as it nears it's 50th anniversary.
Any newly produced music is competition with the back-catalog of all music ever recorded. And there is only so much time during the day one can spend listening to music, so individual "consumption" isn't going to change much as time goes one.
The only real future for professional musicians is ticket sales for live performances and licensing their songs for uses in other media (movies, commercials, "hasn't been thought of yet")
[+] [-] Disruptive_Dave|11 years ago|reply
My two cents: indie artists should take a page from startup founders and get scrappy with easy access to affordable software and marketing/engagement tools. It's certainly doable, but requires a bit of a behavioral change. Musicians want to write/record/play music, not run a business. But they have to start embracing it or they'll continue to be dependent on major label-like overlords.
PS - go watch "Artifact" on Netflix as soon as possible. It's a riveting documentary on a signed band fighting a major label who, in turn, sued them for $30mm.
[+] [-] _nullandnull_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|11 years ago|reply
Maybe donation links work for some, and of course creators should have the freedom to pursue that avenue, along with the freedom to pursue others.
[+] [-] rhino369|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|11 years ago|reply
I'm glad that we seem to have made it through an analogous phase in the history of internet distribution without artists being frozen out.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] untilHellbanned|11 years ago|reply
What I've been surprised by on previous HN commenting threads on this topic is how harsh people tend to be on the content creators' side of the balance sheet. People really despise pay walls and other existing attempts for creators to make money (you want all the songs in the world for $5 and not $10, REALLY??). As a creator myself, a scientist who publishes in academic journals, I desperately want to find new ways to help me and my colleagues monetize our works (Edit: by "monetize" I mean fundraise, NOT profit).
I'm pretty sure direct consumer-to-creator payments are part of the solution, but that solution isn't exactly lighting the world on fire like Napster did.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
What's wrong with profiting from science?
I think a lot of people have this, to me incomprehensible, state of mind where they feel like things that don't matter much in the grand scheme of things (InstaSnapWhatsYo) are entitled to make lots of money, but it's morally objectionable to make money on things that matter (science, journalism, etc). That creates perverse social incentives: people who are brilliant but not particularly selfless have every incentive to spend their talents on things that don't matter, instead of things that do.
[+] [-] rectang|11 years ago|reply
As someone who makes my living off writing open source software, I am highly aware of the challenges in finding tenable business models when distribution is free. The particular model which works for me was to become an employee of a company which uses my software. There are other possibilities, such as consulting; it's important that we continue to experiment.
Like you, I see creators in other realms as my colleagues and wish them every success.
[+] [-] yzzxy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ObviousScience|11 years ago|reply
A better solution is just to funnel money in to sciences through public funding mechanisms and telling you that the papers and results - free, and readily accessible to the public - are the deliverable we expect for that money.
Let me ask you this: why do you think you need to get money from the paper or results when as a scientist, you're already being paid for your work through other channels?
[+] [-] paulhauggis|11 years ago|reply
On the other, lots of hate for big corporations and further complaining when jobs go away (one of the direct results of the free culture). The ability to make a living online makes it so you don't ever have to work for a large corporation. The ultimate freedom.
I know plenty of independent artists that can't really make a living with music anymore because albums are now essentially worthless. Many of these people are now forced to sell out to big corporate record labels (and then, the same people that created this environment call them "sellouts").
[+] [-] wyager|11 years ago|reply
> when jobs go away (one of the direct results of the free culture).
This doesn't make any sense. If people are spending less money on one thing, they are spending more money on something else. If I pirate all my music, maybe I have an extra $100/year to go out to dinner, "creating jobs" (although I am loath to use that misleading phrase) in the culinary industry. In reality, of course, those $100 are spread across a whole bunch of areas of spending, but the aggregate effect is the same.
[+] [-] IndianAstronaut|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbrandy|11 years ago|reply
Mostly look at the word "now". At what time did musicians not need to "sell out" to "big corporate" record labels?
[+] [-] digi_owl|11 years ago|reply
As workers we want as much pay as we can for as little effort as we can, while as consumers we want as much goods as we can for as little expense as we can.
[+] [-] Mithaldu|11 years ago|reply
Games tend, on average, to be on average about the size of a whole, uncompressed CD. Roughly 700 MB.
That means the first challenge is actually getting the thing to me. For a while i had two options: Either i could go out into the store, and buy it there (spending 2 hours + cash), or if they didn't have it, order it and come back later (another 2 hours). Or i could torrent it at home, spending no cash and 2 hours waiting for the download to complete while i do other things; and live with the possible risk of a letter from my ISP.
So now i have the thing. The next challenge is to get it on the computer and running. With the store-bought medium i have to hope that it is physically sound, and i need to ensure it stays that way; I also have to hope that my drive is compatible with their copy protection; and to add insult to injury, i need to keep the disc in my drive to play it, meaning i have to handle the things a lot, and have my drive uselessly make noise. With the torrent, i unpack it and install it, maybe needing to spend an extra 5 minutes to find the right crack; and live with the risk of contracting malware.
And the last issue: Software updates. This time the two options are almost the same: Find the latest update, download and install it. Torrent updates come with a risk of malware again.
Now, when i was young specifically the first and second thing led me to pirate most of the games i got. Not because i didn't want to spend the cash; but because i didn't want to spend cash, just to have to spend my own time to get the thing and live with the constant annoyance of keeping the right disc in my drive, constantly rotating.
This is especially borne out in current times. Steam is now here and while the prices are similar to physical game sales (the value of my steam library is estimated at $7000), i gladly and happily spend the money for it, since Steam solves these problems:
1. Games are downloadable.
2. The copy protection is either my online status, or a specific steam token. (In practice i've never not been able to access the games.)
3. Updates come automatically.
4. As long as Steam doesn't crash and burn, i'll be able to access the things i bought in perpetuity without needing to cat herd a gaggle of physical storages.
The "culture of free" doesn't revolve around free. There is a cost in any "free". Usually the risk of legal action or malware.
The "culture of free" is winning because people hoping to make money fail to provide solutions that actually address customers' needs. Steam has recognized and solved that issue. In the music industry things like Google Play Music, Spotify, etc. are starting to solve it.