Streaming rates for artists.
Discussion
I've never seen the numbers presented in this way
https://mobile.twitter.com/mrtomgray/status/125141...
Bit of a shocker.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mrtomgray/status/125141...
Bit of a shocker.
A lot of artists basically got cheated as the contracts on their back catalogues pre date the streaming concept and were worded in a way that allowed their label to shaft them, so yeah they get a pittance. However a number seem to actively endorse it now with straight-to-spotify releases etc - what's changed? Does newer stuff attract a higher rate?
I'm currently involved in a published song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDVIH8gIUn8 if you're interested, I did the video!) which has exposed me to the machinations of the music industry and the facts, as the stats show, are quite shocking. They also only paint part of the picture.
For example, a song has to be streamed 100 times for it to count as a sale - in other words, for anyone to get any money.
Plus, the rates shown on the twitter post are those that the platforms pay to the distributor who then pay the record label minus their fees (anything up to 50%). The the label then pays the writer and then the performer (normally via a manager who then takes their cut).
1,000 sales will get you in the top 40. 40,000 sales or thereabouts will get you to number 1.
Sales of Ultravox's 'Vienna' in 1983 netted them £3.5m (around £7m in today's money). Had those sales been streams, they would have got £3k.
It's still possible to earn a decent income. Ed Sheeran's 'Shape of You' was streamed 2.8 billion times (Billion) which resulted in sales of £21m. To get there, you need a very supportive distributor. It's only when they back you do you get your song on 'staff picks' and promoted spots on the platform but they will only back you if they think your song will sell.
The song I'm involved with is still an ongoing project but I will come back post some insight on it as it's a fascinating story for those with an interest in music and the music business.
For example, a song has to be streamed 100 times for it to count as a sale - in other words, for anyone to get any money.
Plus, the rates shown on the twitter post are those that the platforms pay to the distributor who then pay the record label minus their fees (anything up to 50%). The the label then pays the writer and then the performer (normally via a manager who then takes their cut).
1,000 sales will get you in the top 40. 40,000 sales or thereabouts will get you to number 1.
Sales of Ultravox's 'Vienna' in 1983 netted them £3.5m (around £7m in today's money). Had those sales been streams, they would have got £3k.
It's still possible to earn a decent income. Ed Sheeran's 'Shape of You' was streamed 2.8 billion times (Billion) which resulted in sales of £21m. To get there, you need a very supportive distributor. It's only when they back you do you get your song on 'staff picks' and promoted spots on the platform but they will only back you if they think your song will sell.
The song I'm involved with is still an ongoing project but I will come back post some insight on it as it's a fascinating story for those with an interest in music and the music business.
Teddy Lop said:
A lot of artists basically got cheated as the contracts on their back catalogues pre date the streaming concept and were worded in a way that allowed their label to shaft them, so yeah they get a pittance. However a number seem to actively endorse it now with straight-to-spotify releases etc - what's changed? Does newer stuff attract a higher rate?
It's a case of not fighting the monster but feeding it. My kids (21 and 25) are copies 'consumers' of music but might daughter said the other day that she has never physically purchased a track and wouldn't know how to. We worked out that the last time she actually purchased music was in 2002 when she was 7 (Steps Greatest Hits) using some Birthday Money.
I still buy tracks but that's only because I DJ a bit and the software I use doesn't play streamed tracks.
Rod200SX said:
It's a fairly depressing world for musicians. Matt Heafy (Frontman/guitarist for Trivium) streams on Twitch most days of the week and has said he earns masses more from Twitch than he does from both albums & touring. They are a pretty big band now, too.
i'm not up on the twitch thing.. i use instagram to communicate with guys like daniel tompkins of tesseract and nick depirro of night verses and i've noticed a lot of "live @ 5pm tomorrow" type posts.. how do they earn from that platform?DanoS4 said:
We've been f&cked over for years.
BUT the key is to not rely just on streaming (that's a stupid idea) - like with any business, multiple income streams are key.
However I do agree that the rates are bl00dy terrible.
we turned down a pitiful offer in 1996 and subsequently never got signed to any label before we jibbed it in 1999.....BUT the key is to not rely just on streaming (that's a stupid idea) - like with any business, multiple income streams are key.
However I do agree that the rates are bl00dy terrible.
every band i know who DID sign to a label ended up f
ked and owing them money before the ineviteble parting of ways...we are doing it again now as of last year as i never stopped writing songs and we were all in a position that the others felt the material was good enough to want to get back in the recording studio... we did 3 tracks with no vocals last summer and intend to do a 6 track EP back end of this summer.
not one of us are expecting to earn a penny from it, rather just stick at the day jobs and treat this project as strictly a cathartic and humorous hobby... this way we don't feel any pressure, i can write whatever i want without feeling the need to market anything and you know what?..... all 4 of us are having a right laugh without the pressure on which is what caused us to f
k it off in the first place 20 years agotuscaneer said:
Rod200SX said:
It's a fairly depressing world for musicians. Matt Heafy (Frontman/guitarist for Trivium) streams on Twitch most days of the week and has said he earns masses more from Twitch than he does from both albums & touring. They are a pretty big band now, too.
i'm not up on the twitch thing.. i use instagram to communicate with guys like daniel tompkins of tesseract and nick depirro of night verses and i've noticed a lot of "live @ 5pm tomorrow" type posts.. how do they earn from that platform?Twitch you can set it up to recieve donations, so someone can chuck you a couple quid or subscribe, twitch take a percentage of what you recieve but I don't know figures. Heafy does it regularly and it is very much a jobrather than a hobby, he has consistant schedules etc.
It's quite interesting. Since streaming has become bigger I have noticed things like merch/physical items being pushed a lot more by bands, obviously better margins on these things.
On the other end of the scale, I've heard of a few record labels that maybe don't have the best relationship with their bands and either take an age to release content on to spotify etc or have even withdrawn records from the services. Theres one band & label I remember this for specifically but can't for the life of me remember. Not a huge band but popular enough to make a difference to their income, I would imagine.
tuscaneer said:
i'm not up on the twitch thing.. i use instagram to communicate with guys like daniel tompkins of tesseract and nick depirro of night verses and i've noticed a lot of "live @ 5pm tomorrow" type posts.. how do they earn from that platform?
It's a bit like a webcam, except instead of watching women take their clothes off you watch annoying teenagers play video games, I guess they're branching out to other forms of entertainment. As far as I know it's all voluntary donations though. There is quite a few millionaires out there now from just playing computer games on twitch and being vaguely entertaining whilst doing it. I'm not sure it would work for mass market music though.
GetCarter said:
I'm always amazed at so many on PH that boast about downloading free Films/TV progs/Music from dodgy internet sites and are amazed that anyone actually pays. They think it a victimless crime.
It isn't.
[/soapbox]
When movies were on DVD, they were £15. This involved the manufacturing of the DVD and its case and contents, the logistics of shipping it out, the margin of the retailers and all their overheads.It isn't.
[/soapbox]
Movies are still £15
The Studio's didn't say "Well, lets pass the savings on", neither did the more powerful directors or artists who can dictate.It is the job of the companies to milk the consumer for as much as they can. It is the job of the consumer to pay as little as he can.
If the companies found a way to make pirate streams of a movie impossible, prices of retail would go up. As they are currently competing against them.
FredClogs said:
I've never seen the numbers presented in this way
https://mobile.twitter.com/mrtomgray/status/125141...
Bit of a shocker.
Misleading no?https://mobile.twitter.com/mrtomgray/status/125141...
Bit of a shocker.
Those artists with 100 streams probably only sold 10 CDs in the old days equivelence. And thats lifetime sales- as the record shop would have binned them to make space for something else. Now it is in their hands to promote their own music at low cost, and how much they recieve over a lifetime is in their hands.
Thriller sold 1 million copies in the first week, now top artists get hundreds of millions of listens in the same period, and go up to billions.
Brand New artists who offer some new the people want can literally upload a music video they have made by themselves, and it can go to 1BN views.Take someone like the novelty rapper, Lil Dicky. He had a normal job, but spotted a gap in the market, and overnight went famous.
Streaming has also opened up new markets, there are artists who tour globally as the world has heard their music by online word of mouth. Touring has become hugely lucrative due to online.
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 14th May 16:24
hyphen said:
GetCarter said:
I'm always amazed at so many on PH that boast about downloading free Films/TV progs/Music from dodgy internet sites and are amazed that anyone actually pays. They think it a victimless crime.
It isn't.
[/soapbox]
When movies were on DVD, they were £15. This involved the manufacturing of the DVD and its case and contents, the logistics of shipping it out, the margin of the retailers and all their overheads.It isn't.
[/soapbox]
Movies are still £15
The Studio's didn't say "Well, lets pass the savings on", neither did the more powerful directors or artists who can dictate.It is the job of the companies to milk the consumer for as much as they can. It is the job of the consumer to pay as little as he can.
If the companies found a way to make pirate streams of a movie impossible, prices of retail would go up. As they are currently competing against them.
The main problem is that it has been made too easy for people to get away with it, and many now feel it's 'the norm'. Streaming jumps in to offer a merge lifeline. Sadly, for many young artists, their income stream is screwed by corporations and theft.
They must then get a proper job. (Joke BTW - well mostly).
I am lucky as my royalties are paid by the suits, rather than regular folks, but I feel for those trying to make a living from this industry. Now more than ever.
..and BTW [more soapbox], The UK is still one of the leaders in this industry. One of the few we still have some clout.
GetCarter said:
Irrespective of the above, breaking the law is breaking the law. If you steal from a shop you are breaking the law, if you download illegally, you are breaking the law.
People don't download a lot now? They streamStreaming is a civil offence and not criminal I think so not comparable, if you went to the shop and read a book in there, then put it back on the shelf and left, you haven't nicked it. It's copyright theft.
You aren't ever going to stop kids streaming though, that cat wen out of its bag, and it was the industries own fault.
hyphen said:
GetCarter said:
Irrespective of the above, breaking the law is breaking the law. If you steal from a shop you are breaking the law, if you download illegally, you are breaking the law.
People don't download a lot now? They streamStreaming is a civil offence and not criminal I think so not comparable, if you went to the shop and read a book in there, then put it back on the shelf and left, you haven't nicked it. It's copyright theft.
You aren't ever going to stop kids streaming though, that cat wen out of its bag, and it was the industries own fault.
It matters not to my income stream, so I 'have no skin in the game' as they say. But if I were starting out, I'd be mighty pissed with all of the industries, the illegal sites, and the people that take advantage of said sites.
GetCarter said:
But if I were starting out, I'd be mighty pissed with all of the industries, the illegal sites, and the people that take advantage of said sites.
Why is it any different today? Those who arent starting now will remember their songs being recorded off the radio onto blank tapes, then later their cd's being ripped onto blank CDs, then MiniDiskc and then later to MP3 CDs and then memory cards/sticks. VHS's copied also. Cracked Sky and NTL boxes.Hundreds of bootleg stalls up and down the country openly selling content at sunday markets.
This isn't a new thing? A certain percentage of the population have always had it at free or cheaper than retail price. Twas always thus.
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 14th May 17:28
Rod200SX said:
On the other end of the scale, I've heard of a few record labels that maybe don't have the best relationship with their bands and either take an age to release content on to spotify etc or have even withdrawn records from the services. Theres one band & label I remember this for specifically but can't for the life of me remember. Not a huge band but popular enough to make a difference to their income, I would imagine.
There's two reasons for this from what I see.The first is that the role of the distributor - who sit between the label and streaming / sales platforms - has become far more dominant. They are highly fickle and hard-nosed b
ds. They will only properly back a song if it is selling. But the song will only sell with their backing. This is where Social Media comes in because if you can muster a few million You Tube views of your video, then you're more likely to get distributor backing. The second is that a lot of the smaller labels tend to be run by blokes in their 50s who resent streaming so their mindset is anti-streaming. Rather than work with it. Most bands just want their stuff out there so it can at least have a chance and are more naturally attuned to the modern way of doing things hence conflict arises.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff