Artists Make Pittance On Streaming Services

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Most people know that recording artists get hosed when it comes to how much they make per album but who knew streaming profits were so bad? Yikes! :eek:

According to Davison, each time one of his songs streams on iTunes Match, the band makes $0.00330526797710. When that same song plays on Spotify, the band makes $0.00966947678815. In other words, if Davison wants to make just one cent off a song play, it'll need to be streamed three times.
 
Thats why you do tours/merchandise for income.

The streaming should be seen like promotion, which helps other avenues, but you shouldn't expect to make money from it directly with such tiny figures. If someone likes your stuff, they will more likely buy your albums or go to your shows (same as piracy should be seen).
 
Thats why you do tours/merchandise for income.

The streaming should be seen like promotion, which helps other avenues, but you shouldn't expect to make money from it directly with such tiny figures. If someone likes your stuff, they will more likely buy your albums or go to your shows (same as piracy should be seen).

Wait, so you're ok with everyone else making a bunch off the artist but the artist should just "perform more?" How about the label makes less? How about whoever else makes less and the actual artist makes a little bit more?
 
Thats why you do tours/merchandise for income.

The streaming should be seen like promotion, which helps other avenues, but you shouldn't expect to make money from it directly with such tiny figures. If someone likes your stuff, they will more likely buy your albums or go to your shows (same as piracy should be seen).

Yeah my girlfriend's brother makes next to nothing from his albums. He makes his money touring and merchandising.
 
Youtube videos for popular artits alone are in the tens of millions.

If you add up 500 million streams from various venues over the band's lifetime, they are still making fortunes. They need to STFU and stop being so greedy and act like the "starving artists" of yesteryear that didn't need millions of dollars as incentive.
 
Thats why you do tours/merchandise for income.

The streaming should be seen like promotion, which helps other avenues, but you shouldn't expect to make money from it directly with such tiny figures. If someone likes your stuff, they will more likely buy your albums or go to your shows (same as piracy should be seen).


2rzyvb5.gif
 
Wait, so you're ok with everyone else making a bunch off the artist but the artist should just "perform more?" How about the label makes less? How about whoever else makes less and the actual artist makes a little bit more?

Even if the label(s) made 0% off streaming, and it all went to the artist, it probably still wouldn't amount to much, even minimum wage would be a push. It's only profitable for the people running it because they are raking in tiny profits from 100000 sources.

Although I agree that sites like itunes, and the music industry is way too one sided, and i'd rather do away with the "industry" (which isn't needed at all now, especially from the "little guys"), the point was the money isn't really in some types of income, and if you want to make decent money, you need to focus on more profitable avenues, labels cut or not. :D
 
Thats why you do tours/merchandise for income.

The streaming should be seen like promotion, which helps other avenues, but you shouldn't expect to make money from it directly with such tiny figures. If someone likes your stuff, they will more likely buy your albums or go to your shows (same as piracy should be seen).

Pick your poison though. Unless you're a top act that can get your venues to pay for equipment rental and manpower, much of your raw cash inflow disappears there too.
 
Even if the label(s) made 0% off streaming, and it all went to the artist, it probably still wouldn't amount to much, even minimum wage would be a push. It's only profitable for the people running it because they are raking in tiny profits from 100000 sources.

Although I agree that sites like itunes, and the music industry is way too one sided, and i'd rather do away with the "industry" (which isn't needed at all now, especially from the "little guys"), the point was the money isn't really in some types of income, and if you want to make decent money, you need to focus on more profitable avenues, labels cut or not. :D

While I agree with you, you do know a lot of labels will, in their negotiations, try to get the licensing rights. I was friends with Linkin Park (Brad as he went to UCLA and we had classes together) and they made sure not to sign a deal until one agreed to give them the licensing rights on merchandise. They could have been signed and on a label for a couple of years before.
 
Wait, so you're ok with everyone else making a bunch off the artist but the artist should just "perform more?" How about the label makes less? How about whoever else makes less and the actual artist makes a little bit more?

The label makes what the "market" of artists will tolerate as payment and what the buyers of the music will tolerate as an asking price. If one label wants to collect talented (profitable) artists, they too can compete on payment in the same way businesses compete on compensation packages for executive employees. If your business is selling talent, then the label is going to do everything it can to make the cost of the product, musical talent, as low as possible to maximize profits. It stinks and lots of us dislike big businesses, but entry into a contract with a label is willful on the part of the musicians.
 
The article seems to be intentionally excluding ALL real world numbers. Doing so is deceitful.

How often do the songs in question get played?
What is the total annual value of that?
How does this compare to radio income?
How does this compare to record sales income?

Are other income numbers negatively/positively influenced vs. no streaming?
What is the net effect?


Articles like this always remind me of when someone says "Guitar Hero does not pay enough royalties for my song in their game" and then neglects to mention that due to the song making it into the game, album sales have jumped up 1000%.
 
The label makes what the "market" of artists will tolerate as payment and what the buyers of the music will tolerate as an asking price. If one label wants to collect talented (profitable) artists, they too can compete on payment in the same way businesses compete on compensation packages for executive employees. If your business is selling talent, then the label is going to do everything it can to make the cost of the product, musical talent, as low as possible to maximize profits. It stinks and lots of us dislike big businesses, but entry into a contract with a label is willful on the part of the musicians.

Absolutely, however when payola was the way to the airwaves, you don't have a choice. Nowadays there are a lot more ways that a small band can get ahead without being fleeced.
 
The label makes what the "market" of artists will tolerate as payment and what the buyers of the music will tolerate as an asking price. If one label wants to collect talented (profitable) artists, they too can compete on payment in the same way businesses compete on compensation packages for executive employees. If your business is selling talent, then the label is going to do everything it can to make the cost of the product, musical talent, as low as possible to maximize profits. It stinks and lots of us dislike big businesses, but entry into a contract with a label is willful on the part of the musicians.

"Willful" insofar as having to deal with the devil to sell your wares. It is less bad now than it used to be, with indie artists able to burn and sell themselves than needing a record company to cut CDs or vinyl.

Pop music for the last 400 years has always needed a crapload of behind the scenes people to put on a show...without which, that band would be on the street with their cases open.
 
Wait, so you're ok with everyone else making a bunch off the artist but the artist should just "perform more?" How about the label makes less? How about whoever else makes less and the actual artist makes a little bit more?

I am not sure how much money anyone is making off of streaming though ... if you figure that iTunes match is a fixed cost of $25/year ... irregardless of how many artists or songs it matches ... Pandora is about $35/year for the ad free/unlimited streaming ... Spotify has more money at play with their highest tier of service at about $120/year ... although it would be nice if more money went to the artists ... for some of these services there isn't much money to begin with (unless they raise their prices ... which would probably kill streaming off)

I would like to see a service like Audible (the online audio book service from Amazon which I use extensively) for music ... fixed monthly cost provides credits which can be used to download any item available ... once the item is downloaded it is yours (within the typical boundaries of digital ownership) ... if a service like this was available (at the right price and with the appropriate amount of credits) I would certainly be interested in it (I think others would be too) ... a service like that could provide the artists a much higher percentage of profits than streaming ... maybe someday one of the big companies (like Amazon most likely) will offer a service like that :)
 
Wait? They don't have to sign that contract to allow streaming. They do it to get their name out there and get the music playing so people will buy the album. They are told how much they make.

Who pays for the bandwidth, server space and power bill? Not the artist. Who pays the sys admin? Not the artist. If the artist wants more money, stream it themselves with ads on the page. Find someone else that will stream it for more. Tell the company you want 1 cent per streamed song or you'll walk. The rates will rise if enough artists say they don't like it. But, since they are all wanting their music out there, they sign the contacts for the 1/3 cent. Either the majority of artists are stupid as shit and can't read or they really don't mind the 1/3 cent per song to get their music out there to entice listeners to buy their new CD/MP3 album.
 
Wait? They don't have to sign that contract to allow streaming. They do it to get their name out there and get the music playing so people will buy the album. They are told how much they make.

Who pays for the bandwidth, server space and power bill? Not the artist. Who pays the sys admin? Not the artist. If the artist wants more money, stream it themselves with ads on the page. Find someone else that will stream it for more. Tell the company you want 1 cent per streamed song or you'll walk. The rates will rise if enough artists say they don't like it. But, since they are all wanting their music out there, they sign the contacts for the 1/3 cent. Either the majority of artists are stupid as shit and can't read or they really don't mind the 1/3 cent per song to get their music out there to entice listeners to buy their new CD/MP3 album.

More likely, the streaming people like Spotify has enough deals with rights-owning record companies for enough content to stay afloat and contemporary artists either take 1/3 of a penny or get nothing....and get laughed out of the room when they ask for more.

I don't think they or their agents take the 1/3 of a penny willingly or happily or stupidly.
 
I'm a Spotify user. It's unfortunate that the artists receive so little money from streaming, but that's not really my concern. This is a concern they (artists) need to take up with their labels, who've licensed their content to streaming services.

We can editorialize on how evil the streaming services are, and how evil the labels are, but artists really do need to start taking a modicum of responsibility for the arrangements they're continually (and voluntarily) finding themselves in.
 
Absolutely, however when payola was the way to the airwaves, you don't have a choice. Nowadays there are a lot more ways that a small band can get ahead without being fleeced.

*nodnod* It's a good thing that there are more ways for them to earn money. Self-publication and selling via the Intertubes is a good thing.

"Willful" insofar as having to deal with the devil to sell your wares. It is less bad now than it used to be, with indie artists able to burn and sell themselves than needing a record company to cut CDs or vinyl.

Pop music for the last 400 years has always needed a crapload of behind the scenes people to put on a show...without which, that band would be on the street with their cases open.

I heard the labels give you pizza and an angry agent in exchange for your soul. That's got to be a great deal! Though yes, I don't disagree that there's certainly a lot more than just a desire to make music that goes into this and I also agree that the state of the industry is awful for the people that are doing the creative work. :(
 
According to Davison, each time one of his songs streams on iTunes Match, the band makes $0.00330526797710. When that same song plays on Spotify, the band makes $0.00966947678815. In other words, if Davison wants to make just one cent off a song play, it'll need to be streamed three times.

Doesn't sound too bad to me compared to albums. (and yes, albums are pretty bad)

Firstly, at the Spotify price that rounds out to be just about a cent per play.

From what I can find online, the average musician makes about ~2.3% of the sale price of an album.

I had to look up prices, as I haven't actually bought an album in a LONG LONG time (most recent album purchase was probably 1998). Judging by Amazon, a typical CD album sells for about an average of $10.

Just to make things easy, lets assume that album has 10 tracks.

So of the $10 for an album, the artist gets 23 cents, or 2.3 cents per track.

So as long as I listen through an album 2.3 times, the artist is making just about as much on Spotify as they would from traditional CD sales.

And because its so easy, they get so many plays of their top tracks.

I just don't think this is any more of a raw deal for musicians than CD's are.

And everyone knows, most of the money is in the tours and the merch anyway.
 
The article seems to be intentionally excluding ALL real world numbers. Doing so is deceitful.

How often do the songs in question get played?
What is the total annual value of that?
How does this compare to radio income?
How does this compare to record sales income?

Are other income numbers negatively/positively influenced vs. no streaming?
What is the net effect?


Articles like this always remind me of when someone says "Guitar Hero does not pay enough royalties for my song in their game" and then neglects to mention that due to the song making it into the game, album sales have jumped up 1000%.

Agree completely... Reminds me of Anti-Walmart documentaries etc, that NEVER compare to closest competitors like Target etc... It's hard to judge/compare other then "that seems nutz".

I find it funny that a year or so ago all the internet streaming sites were suing and complaining about having to pay HIGHER fees then radio etc. Granting things have changed a bit with subscription all you can listen to services.
 
Thats why you do tours/merchandise for income.

The streaming should be seen like promotion, which helps other avenues, but you shouldn't expect to make money from it directly with such tiny figures. If someone likes your stuff, they will more likely buy your albums or go to your shows (same as piracy should be seen).

Incredibly stupid viewpoint. What if you just enjoy the work of making music peacefully? Your talent is the making of the music, but lets say that you don't enjoy playing live in front of an audience. Then what - ? YOU DONT DESERVE MONEY FOR YOUR WORK! That seems to be the response because you aren't finding this unreasonable.
 
I'm a Spotify user. It's unfortunate that the artists receive so little money from streaming, but that's not really my concern. This is a concern they (artists) need to take up with their labels, who've licensed their content to streaming services.

We can editorialize on how evil the streaming services are, and how evil the labels are, but artists really do need to start taking a modicum of responsibility for the arrangements they're continually (and voluntarily) finding themselves in.

Here's the problem: Wheres the incentive to demand more money? You assume ample competition to drive up wages/salaries/royalties, but that typically doesn't happen anymore.

But yeah, you are one of those people who just lost the right to complain about his own salary in the future.
 
Think that's bad, find out how much gas stations make per gallon. It ain't much better. Yet somehow oil companies are breaking record profits. I also see musicians owning gold toilets.
 
Incredibly stupid viewpoint. What if you just enjoy the work of making music peacefully? Your talent is the making of the music, but lets say that you don't enjoy playing live in front of an audience. Then what - ? YOU DONT DESERVE MONEY FOR YOUR WORK! That seems to be the response because you aren't finding this unreasonable.

So don't hire middlemen?
 
So don't hire middlemen?

How far will you get without an agent, a recording studio, an audio engineer, and a web admin? You'll still be in your garage and/or your parent's basement.
 
How far will you get without an agent, a recording studio, an audio engineer, and a web admin? You'll still be in your garage and/or your parent's basement.

so hire a middleman?
 
Here's the problem: Wheres the incentive to demand more money? You assume ample competition to drive up wages/salaries/royalties, but that typically doesn't happen anymore.
You believe there is not sufficient competition in the music industry? That's very entertaining.

But yeah, you are one of those people who just lost the right to complain about his own salary in the future.
No, I've lost no such rights. I appreciate your concern, however.
 
You believe there is not sufficient competition in the music industry? That's very entertaining.

Exactly.

It's the other way around.

Everyone wants to be a rock star.

Because of this, it is a buyers market from the labels perspective. They can pick whomever they want and pay them peanuts, until they break through big time, and can start making demands.

That's the problem when it comes to being in an industry that everyone wants to be in.

Ever wonder why there are so many waitresses/actors in LA?

Ever wonder why professional photographers are having a touch time surviving?

It's tough to make money doing something that a lot of people find FUN, and will thus do for next to nothing.
 
Incredibly stupid viewpoint. What if you just enjoy the work of making music peacefully? Your talent is the making of the music, but lets say that you don't enjoy playing live in front of an audience. Then what - ? YOU DONT DESERVE MONEY FOR YOUR WORK! That seems to be the response because you aren't finding this unreasonable.
Have to agree here in that being a musician doesn't automagically make you a performer. But I can see how people would assume that you can apply the "Tour more if you want to make money" argument since a lot of bands have been performing before they released their studio album. It seems like a safe assumption if you don't give much thought to it.

I don't know what these artists expect to make off of streaming, but I know I won't be paying any more than I already do for my Zune subscription. I wonder what kind of deal was struck between Microsoft and the music labels for the Zune service.
 
That inforgraphic is of what, i don't see the 30% distribution gets. It's also labeled band member, you get more of the pie the more work you do, if you produce songs yourself, if you write them yourselves, play them yourseleves you get bigger and bigger parts of that pie.
 
More likely, the streaming people like Spotify has enough deals with rights-owning record companies for enough content to stay afloat and contemporary artists either take 1/3 of a penny or get nothing....and get laughed out of the room when they ask for more.

I don't think they or their agents take the 1/3 of a penny willingly or happily or stupidly.

The article says when a song of theirs is played by Spotify the band makes .009 cents per play. That's not 1/3 of a penny - that's 90% of 1 penny.

The 1/3 of a penny is a play by iTunes match - which really if you think about it only works if the person already has an MP3 of the song. That means either they bought it and the artist got something already, or they downloaded it illegally in which case the artist wouldn't get anything if it wasn't for iTunes match existing. Both scenarios are an improvement for the artist over not having iTunes match exist.
 
Back
Top