Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Is Streaming Good for Musicians?
This week, Taylor Swift rattled her fans and the music industry by removing all of her songs from Spotify. The move was seen as an effort to drive up sales of her new album, but it also reignited the debate about streaming services and royalties for artists. As listeners begin to move from CDs and downloads to streaming, is the trend good for music and musicians? Is the model sustainable for an industry still trying to recover from the digital challenges of the last two decades?
* remove = 치우다; 제거하다/ drive up = (물가 등을) 빠르게 끌어올리다/ reignite = 재점화하다/ streaming service = 스트리밍(연속적인 데이터 전송) 서비스/ royalty = (음악 작품 등의) 저작권 사용료(수익금)/ sustainable = (오랫동안) 지속(유지) 가능한

 지난 20년, 디지털(방식)의 도전으로 부터 회복하려는 음악 산업에게 스트리밍은 과연 지속성이 있는 모델인가요?

1. Today the Road Is a Musician’s Best Friend
Seems to me that we need to relearn that songs and albums have value. Music is an art form, like any other.

2. When Artists Won’t Play for (Fractions of) Pennies
If it takes a thousand streams of a song to make what the label grosses from the sale of one downloaded album, the decision to leave Spotify is an obvious one.

3. Music Streaming Is Here to Stay
As the recording industry learned when digital downloads became pervasive, businesses that ignore consumers do so at their own peril.

4. There’s No Single Music Business Anymore
We should consider which business models give the broadest swath of creators an opportunity to reach fans and earn a living.

Sample Essay

When Artists Won’t Play for (Fractions of) Pennies

Anyone wondering why Taylor Swift pulled her music from Spotify needs to just follow the money.

When a label sells a download from iTunes, iTunes takes its cut (30 percent of the list price) and remits the rest to the label. The label pays the songwriter a “mechanical” royalty, which is typically about eight cents per song (for a 10-song album, they pay out roughly 80 cents). The label then also pays the artist who is signed to the label (who is not always the same person as the songwriter) a royalty that is typically between 12 and 18 percent of the list price. So, on a $10 list price of a download, the artist might see around $1.50 per download (assuming that the artist has recouped some or all of the money the label spent to record and market the record, etc.)

So, for an artist like Taylor Swift who writes or co-writes most of her songs, and will be one of the rare artists who actually recoups the money her label spends making and marketing her records, she’s set to make somewhere in the vicinity of $3 per record sold (whether as a download or physical).

Now, compare this with what she might make from Spotify or other streaming services. Spotify pays out fractions of pennies per stream. According to Spotify, as of December 2013, the average rate is $0.007 per play.

You can do the math. If it takes a thousand streams of a song to make what the label grosses from the sale of one downloaded album, the decision to pull the record from Spotify is an obvious one from a financial standpoint.

Still, there is an argument to be made that Spotify and other streaming services provide exposure to artists, which can then be converted to other revenue-generating models, such as touring, merchandise or the placement of songs into films and ads.

Taylor Swift, of course, already generates a tremendous amount of money from these types of activities. This may explain Spotify’s rather desperate plea to her to keep her music on Spotify.

The company has been desperate to convince the artist community that they will make up in volume what they lose in margin. I don’t think anyone believes this any more. So why then would labels still put music on Spotify? Again, follow the money. In order to get their catalogs, Spotify had to give the labels equity. So if or when Spotify sells or goes public, the labels will enjoy a windfall. How much of this will flow through to the artist? My sense is zero.