How does this work then?

When the likes of Zoella and Stampylongnose and countless other video bloggers make millions from YouTube videos – how do music videos not pay? Or do the music industry mean ‘not pay enough’?

Or are people not watching music videos in the same numbers that they watch vloggers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/adele-coldplay-one-direction-ed-sheeran-youtube-streaming-spotify-bpi-a7038981.html

YouTube streaming is making it hard for artists to earn a living, BPI figures show

Yes I’m not sure how Adele gets by on her £85m.

Probably not as well as YouTube on their £80bn?

I skimmed the article but I imagine bigger artists are caught in a catch 22 of their own making. Primarily they want to sell albums via itunes/amazon or whatever. Some (but not all) want to stream via paid services like spotify, some are going to be resistant to this as they rightly or wrongly imagine it will detract from album sales and many it seems don’t want anything to do with youtube as it’s free to use there’s no guarantee of any income from it.

If artists invested time in developing their youtube channels it’s hard to imagine that it wouldn’t be lucrative for them, or at least as lucrative as other comparatively popular youtube channels. Then again, maybe that’s an issue as bigger artists are probably used to getting fortunes for relatively little.

Yes I’m not sure how Adele gets by on her £85m.

Are you saying she’s representative of music artists in general?

Or just being a smartarse?

Zoella et al don’t really make ‘millions’ – Zoella was estimated to make £600k in 2014/15. But most of this is for product placement at £20,000 a pop, not Youtube royalties.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/business/2016/03/how-youtubers-really-make-their-millions

also the youtubers are pretty small operations. The music industry might accrue £25m from youtube but most of this will go to the labels, publishers and management, with the small remainder being divvied up between several band members, songwriters, performers, and possibly producers.

If artists invested time in developing their youtube channels it’s hard to imagine that it wouldn’t be lucrative for them, or at least as lucrative as other comparatively popular youtube channels.

maybe, but most musicians would rather just do it as a hobby than spend their days trying to use their music to sell product endorsements. I certainly would.

Either its a hobby or a job, no one pays me for my hobbies.

Or just being a smartarse?

I’m referring to the rather dramatic headline. They should be paid fair but to say they struggle and then concentrate on people like Adele is a mockery.

Probably not as well as YouTube on their £80bn?

Mr YouTube made £80bn.

Either its a hobby or a job, no one pays me for my hobbies.

er, yes, thanks for that.

When does it become a job? When someone makes £8k in a year? £12k?

When does it become a job? When someone makes £8k in a year? £12k?

I would imagine when you pack in the day-job and music is the only thing you do to earn money.

When does it become a job? When someone makes £8k in a year? £12k?

Whilst I’m sure there are plenty of penniless musicians out there, I’m pretty sure they’re not the ones losing out to youtube as their income will be from gigging and TBH as others said, no one pays for my hobbies so they should think themselves lucky.

Adele and Taylor Swift might be losing out, be they’d never notice.

The people losing out in any meaningful way are the ones in the middle, Oasis made their millions and retired. The current wave (and indeed those 10 years ago at the height of pirating) of Indie bands will maybe never make enough to retire on. But why should they? I don’t keep getting paid for what I produced when I was 22. In which case it’s just a job. A bass player in an indie band is no more dedicated/talented/whatever than an undergrad studying for a degree.

I would imagine when you pack in the day-job and music is the only thing you do to earn money.

Well you’d be wrong for very many musicians, who also have day jobs.

Yes I’m not sure how Adele gets by on her £85m.

Adele is a/the number 1 artist, there are 10,000’s struglging to make a living. Adele refused to allow her album onto streaming services.

Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube is killing music. We’ll be left with “global” stars and hobbyists.

I don’t keep getting paid for what I produced when I was 22

Because you didn’t “invent/create something”. Music is no different than a patent on a good idea

I thought home taping was killing music

A patent lasts 20yrs, music copyright 50, and even thats not enough for poor talented struggling Cliff.

Adele is a/the number 1 artist, there are 10,000’s struglging to make a living. Adele refused to allow her album onto streaming services.

That is why I’m querying the use of the hardline then using Adele as an example, it doesn’t make a very good argument.

Whilst I’m sure there are plenty of penniless musicians out there, I’m pretty sure they’re not the ones losing out to youtube as their income will be from gigging and TBH as others said, no one pays for my hobbies so they should think themselves lucky.

unfortunately, they are – i was one of them! in 2005 as a musician, about 20% of my income came from sales and royalties. By 2015 that had dropped to about 3%, and gigs were no more plentiful (because everyone’s chasing more gigs to make up the shortfall). When you’re not earning much to begin with, that’s a pretty tough drop to take (i am now back in gainful employ).

And youtube et al has to be a major part of that. My figures went from selling 1500 vinyl and a handful of downloads, to 200 vinyl and 200,000 plays on streaming services. Probably no net change in the popularity of the music, but the former made a profit and the latter will make you a loss!

not trying to sound bitter here, you can’t fight the tech.

Life as a regular, jobbing musician is far far removed from what appears to be the popular perception. But it’s the reality for most musicians. So it’s frustrating when

The current wave (and indeed those 10 years ago at the height of pirating) of Indie bands will maybe never make enough to retire on

1 Direction.

ambalaya

Adele is a/the number 1 artist, there are 10,000’s struglging to make a living. Adele refused to allow her album onto streaming services.

Haven’t there always been successful musicians and struggling journeymen? A friend of mine gets £400 a wedding and he is pretty much booked out for the next two years. Another is a session musician who gets about £7-800 per day. They also have day jobs.

Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube is killing music. We’ll be left with “global” stars and hobbyists.

Technology has completely changed the music industry business model. Artists like Adele who are backed by giant companies want to maintain their old models and control. Adele’s albums probably cost millions to produce and promote because of the corporate machine surrounding her.

I use youtube and spotify to find artists and then I buy their stuff on bandcamp. I’m buying more music now than I ever did before and it’s mainly because of youtube. A lot of the stuff I buy is from smaller bands who are effectively self publishing. While they may not be able to make Metallica money, youtube gives them a literally global broadcasting platform and bandcamp or itunes means people all over the world can buy their music instantly.

Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube is killing music. We’ll be left with “global” stars and hobbyists.

]

actually i have always thought (with some back of an envelope maths) that paid streaming could provide a viable future for the music industry, if we can get enough people onto it. It’s just the transition that’s hurting.

I think the likes of Stampyshortdick make money because their expenses are low – a camera, some it equipment and away they go – admittedly they’ve taken years to build their following. Adele or whoever else is the tip of a spear of an expensive PR machine.

Because you didn’t “invent/create something”. Music is no different than a patent on a good idea

I’m an engineer, it’s what I do 😉 but my employment contract says that anything I create is my employers (including patents and good ideas).

My point was, music for a lot of people is a hobby, for a lucky few it becomes a job, and for a lucky fewer it makes a LOT of money. The fact that those that in the 90’s would have been driving around in a Rolls Royce are now limited to an A3 on hire purchase is really not tugging at my heart strings.

I don’t notice a drop in music output quality or quantity, so the system isn’t broken.

Life as a regular, jobbing musician is far far removed from what appears to be the popular perception. But it’s the reality for most musicians.

That’s just economics though, more bands/artists than there are gigs or people buying albums.

Same way I’m about to be made redundant because people just aren’t buying enough petrol (or rather Saudi Arabia, the Adele of the oil industry is soaking up all the business).

I’m a big fan of Spotify. I can’t remember the last time I paid for an album but I happily subscribe to Spotify Premium. Through this I’ve got into loads of new bands, many of whom I’ve since paid to watch.

Whilst I do feel for those artists struggling by, but as suggested earlier, it’s just a hobby until they make the decision to pursue it as a career. There’s a similar argument going on with Championship rugby players, they might not be making millions but they’re pursuing their dream, and I’m envious of that whilst I’m sat in my 9-5.

Who cares if the most successful artists are well paid via other revenue streams (physical formats, legal downloads and gigs) that doesn’t mean that Google should get away with building the success of YouTube off the back of their hardwork and creativity without paying them properly for the privilege.

Also, whining that most musicians aren’t proper musicians because they have to do other work as well to make ends meet, is piffle. Only a tiny tiny proportion of musicians can make proper money, and this focus on large companies relying on them for their content without paying them properly reminds us of one the reasons why.

I’m a big fan of Spotify. I can’t remember the last time I paid for an album but I happily subscribe to Spotify Premium.

Yep, I probably spend about the same with Spotify subscription as a I would if I bought CDs (actually more, as I’d probably only buy half a dozen CDs a year).

Who cares if the most successful artists are well paid via other revenue streams (physical formats, legal downloads and gigs) that doesn’t mean that Google should get away with building the success of YouTube off the back of their hardwork and creativity without paying them properly for the privilege.

Profit isn’t a dirty word.

And there’s probably umpteen coders sat in youtubes offices earning less than the artists they’re promoting.

Also, whining that most musicians aren’t proper musicians because they have to do other work as well to make ends meet, is piffle. Only a tiny tiny proportion of musicians can make proper money, and this focus on large companies relying on them for their content without paying them properly reminds us of one the reasons why.

There isn’t an automatic right to make money. Some musicians are downright terrible, some are brilliant, some are average or mediocre. Just putting ‘Musician’ on your CV doesn’t confer the automatic right to make a living from that.

I can play the guitar, and I have a day job. I don’t begrudge the fact that I’m not making millions whilst wadeing through a dressing room of passed out teenage groupie conquests.

And there’s probably umpteen coders sat in youtubes offices earning less than the artists they’re promoting.

They probably earn more than the average ‘musician’ though. Not that I begrudge that, at least they have a proper job 😉

Profit isn’t a dirty word.

And I didn’t use it. Not sure YouTube even officially makes a profit. That’s not its job, it’s to give Google ad sales a huge advantage over anyone else trying to make a dent in their ad market.

I probably spend about the same with Spotify subscription as a I would if I bought CDs (actually more, as I’d probably only buy half a dozen CDs a year).

I pay for Spotify Premium. Before that I bought almost no music.

So cash is coming into the music industry from me that wasn’t previously, because of streaming.

Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube is killing music.

Not really.

Musicians were entertainers that worked in live venues before we had this odd technological blip of records. The blip is gone and they’re back to where they were, just with global free advertising.

Not sure YouTube even officially makes a profit.

They don’t..

Google Inc. nurtured YouTube into a cultural phenomenon, attracting more than one billion users each month. Still, YouTube hasn’t become a profitable business.

The online-video unit posted revenue of about $4 billion in 2014, up from $3 billion a year earlier, according to two people familiar with its financials, as advertiser-friendly moves enticed some big brands to spend more. But while YouTube accounted for about 6% of Google’s overall sales last year, it didn’t contribute to earnings. After paying for content, and the equipment to deliver speedy videos, YouTube’s bottom line is “roughly break-even,” according to a person with knowledge of the figure.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967

I pay for Spotify Premium. Before that I bought almost no music.

So cash is coming into the music industry from me that wasn’t previously, because of streaming.

this is why streaming could work in the longer term.

I reckon there are enough people out there that used to buy very few CDs, but would be willing to pay £x a month (if it was convenient enough) to have access to all the music ever, to balance out the minority who used to buy 5 albums a week but have stopped.

it’s just getting there!

It’s not that it is isn’t making money for artists, it just makes them far less than Spotify etc. due to hiding behind safe harbor protections (which enable YouTube to avoid liability for copyright infringement taking place on its platform).

They pay around 1/6th of what the other do.

That’s what the fuss it about.

Safe Habour only protects them from not proactively policing copyright, they still take illegal uploads down when asked to, so it’s not a big deal. Most artists have youtube pages with their stuff there already.

this is why streaming could work in the longer term.

I reckon there are enough people out there that used to buy very few CDs, but would be willing to pay £x a month (if it was convenient enough) to have access to all the music ever, to balance out the minority who used to buy 5 albums a week but have stopped.

it’s just getting there!

And getting YouTube to stop pretending its not a streaming service.

😉

And getting YouTube to stop pretending its not a streaming service.

YouTube Red might go some way towards this.

YouTube’s bottom line is “roughly break-even,” according to a person with knowledge of the figure.

Well that’s me convinced.