Tag: Royalties

Categories
Industry News News

Sony Music Stuns Industry, Writes Off Unrecouped Balances For Heritage Catalog Artists

sony music

Sony Music is the first major label to forgive unrecouped advances for heritage artists publicly, and the industry will likely follow its lead.

It sounds crazy to anyone outside of the entertainment industry, but there are musicians walking the Earth in 2021 who have never seen a penny of their streaming royalties due to unrecouped advances from two decades prior. Many artists with deals prior to 2000 have fought for years to see streaming revenue for their major label releases, but labels have been slow to act. Instead, many consider any revenue generated from new mediums of consumption as payment toward outstanding advances from when that artist’s material was originally released. You may have a thirty-three year old album that never put a dime in your pocket because the advance was never repaid, and until this week, every label seemed okay with taking what they felt was owed to them.

In a letter sent to thousands of artists today and obtained by MBW, Sony Music Entertainment (SME) has announced the launch of a new initiative called “Artists Forward”, which it says focuses on “prioritizing transparency with creators in all aspects of their development”.

SME’s landmark new policy under “Artists Forward” is called the Legacy Unrecouped Balance Program. The letter confirms: “As part of our continuing focus on developing new financial opportunities for creators, we will no longer apply existing unrecouped balances to artist and participant earnings generated on or after January 1, 2021 for eligible artists and participants globally who signed to SME prior to the year 2000 and have not received an advance from the year 2000 forward.

“Through this program, we are not modifying existing contracts, but choosing to pay through on existing unrecouped balances to increase the ability of those who qualify to receive more money from uses of their music.”

To put this in simpler terms, Sony is writing off any outstanding balance for catalog artists with the label before 2000. That action means that those artists will now receive a cut of all streaming revenue from their material. It also means that they will be applicable to receive money from any future revenue streams.

Music has a long history of record companies taking advantage of artists. Our industry needs musicians, and yet, we treat them as second-class citizens. We act like they should be grateful for the opportunity to perform rather than being happy they chose us to work their release. The latest action by Sony shows that trend may finally be changing, and we hope others do the same.

Categories
Artist Advice Business Advice Editorials Industry News News

What are Neighboring Rights and Royalties? [VIDEO]

Neighboring rights and royalties are one of the least understood aspects of the music business in the US, and unfortunately, the reason for that is mostly out of artists’ control.

In today’s music business, knowledge is power. Understanding the various ways people or companies may use your music and how you can earn from their use matters more than ever. Neighboring Rights is a term that relates to the royalties earned from the public performance of a sound recording. The performing artists on the recording and the copyright holder of the master recording are entitled to receive royalties every time it is broadcast on TV, radio, or any other live performance.

In short, neighboring royalties for performing artists and master owners are the same as the performance royalties are for songwriters and publishers.

All that will make sense to some of you, but others probably need a little more insight. We certainly did. Thankfully, our friends at The Modern Musician have a new video that further explores neighboring rights, and the royalties artists can earn through them. Check it out:

Perhaps the most interesting piece of information from the video above is that the US does not recognize neighboring rights. Broadcasters in the United States are exempt from paying license fees to performers and labels when a sound recording plays on terrestrial TV. As a consequence, the US does not have a traditional organization for the collection and distribution of neighboring rights royalties.

But why? Why doesn’t the US have a group responsible for this?

The answer goes back to 1961 and the Rome Convention for the protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms, and Broadcasting Organizations. Only countries that are signatories to this convention recognize and pay neighboring rights and only performers who are permanent residents of these countries — or if the musical recording was made in one of the countries that signed — are eligible for these royalties. The United States is not a participant.

One consequence of the US decision to not recognize or pay neighboring royalties is that it hurts an artist’s ability to profit. In an era where physical media is declining, and competition for ticket sales is fiercer than ever, artists need as many revenue streams as they can find. Neighboring royalties would not change every performer’s life in a significant way, but it would put more money in their pockets.

Categories
Industry News News

YouTube claims it paid over $3 Billion to the Music Industry in 2019

YouTube, one of the most popular destinations for music discovery and consumption, is citing huge 2019 payouts to change the conversation around its notoriously low royalty rates.

In a quarterly blog post released this week, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki praised her company’s relationship with the music industry. “YouTube offers twin engines for revenue with advertising and subscribers,” she wrote. “Paying out more than $3 billion to the music industry last year from ads and subscriptions.”

YouTube recently announced $15.5 billion in ad-supported revenue for 2019. Before you start believing the company gave nearly 20% of that money to the music business, take a moment to read Wojcicki’s comments again. The $3 billion paid to the industry is from a combination of ads and subscriptions (meaning YouTube premium subscriptions, which now number above 20 million worldwide).

That said, the $3 billion mentioned in Wojcicki’s report is pretty stunning. According to calculations published by Music Business Worldwide, the 2019 payouts account for one-quarter of YouTube’s lifetime payments to the music industry. MBW believes YouTube has overtaken or is close to overtaking Apple Music as the industry’s second-largest digital partner (behind Spotify).

These numbers are huge, but they are nothing compared to the video consumption rates YouTube has shared in recent years. In 2018, YouTube claimed that “more than 1 billion music fans come to YouTube each month to be part of music culture and discover new music.” In June 2019, a report came out claiming that music videos were watched just under two trillion times on YouTube in 2018, representing 20% of total views on the platform. $3 billion is a lot of money, but is it enough to represent one-fifth of the total consumption on the platform?

Wojcicki also shared the following insights about YouTube’s evolving relationship with the music business:

We’re also partnering with artists to support and amplify their work through every phase of their career. Dua Lipa was in YouTube’s first-ever Foundry program — our initiative to develop independent music acts. Justin Bieber and Billie Eilish have built massive global audiences by directly connecting and engaging with fans on YouTube. At just 18 years old, Billie is now one of the world’s biggest stars with five recent Grammy wins. And from its early days, YouTube has been a home for artists who found creative ways to use the platform to help expand their reach. In 2005, OK Go had one of the first viral hits with their music video, “A Million Ways.” Fans posted their own versions of the boy band-inspired choreography, and OK Go decided to make it official with a dance challenge on YouTube. We continue to see unknown artists make it big with a single viral hit. Last year, Lil Nas X’s “Old Town Road” became a YouTube phenomenon and the longest-leading single atop the Billboard Hot 100.

YouTube has long been criticized for its notoriously low royalty rates on views, but the numbers from 2019 show that image may be changing for the better. We’ll bring you more on the platform’s relationship with the industry as soon as additional details become available.

Categories
Industry News News

Music accounts for 5% of all YouTube content — and 20% of all views

Despite being one of the lowest paying streaming platforms, artists worldwide can see their careers change overnight through YouTube.

The study by Pex showcases categories on YouTube that are dominant drivers of growth and engagement for the platform. The study examined the performance of publicly available videos on YouTube for a period ending December 31, 2018. The results reveal that YouTube has over 5.2 billion videos, 1 billion hours of content, and 29 trillion views.

To put that figure into perspective, it would take 41,666,667 days of nonstop watching to view everything that was available on YouTube when the study was completed. Even more content is available now.

According to the data Pex shared, YouTube saw around 621 hours of content uploaded every minute in 2018, or roughly 10 hours of content every second. That’s even higher than the 500-hour estimate shared by CEO Susan Wojcicki earlier this year. Unsurprisingly, the length of these videos has increased each year since the restriction lifted.

Youtube videos are getting longer, and ads are largely to blame.

The reason for the change of the average video length is likely the result of YouTube’s advertising deal with creators. YouTube shares a portion of the revenue for ads shown during the video with that clip’s creator, but the service limits how many ads can be displayed based on the length of the accompanying video. Longer videos, therefore, equal more ads, which means more money for creators (even if their viewers are frustrated).

Gaming is the fastest-growing category on YouTube thanks to the popularity of services such as Twitch, but music still has the lead.

The average length of a music video on YouTube is 6.8 minutes, with an average of 2,411 views per minute and 16,397 views per video. That’s compared to the gaming category’s average of 24.7 minutes per video with only 121 views per minute and 2,987 views per video.

Music is the category with the shortest videos, but it generates the most views per average video. The music category received 20% of all total views on YouTube last year — but makes up only 5% of YouTube’s content. Music and Entertainment are the two YouTube categories that deliver the highest returns, but YouTube doesn’t want you to know that because both entertainment and music videos often require the company to pay royalties. YouTube does not want to share revenue anymore than it needs to, which is likely why the streaming giant has been investing heavily into original content.

The less YouTube needs major labels and movie studios, the better, at least for YouTube.

Categories
Editorials Industry News News

How Spotify’s new Hulu bundle may hurt musicians

Following an appeal to stop mechanical royalty rates from rising, Spotify’s latest bundle threatens to take even more money away from artists.

Spotify made headlines this week by announcing Spotify Premium now includes a free subscription to Hulu’s ad-supported plan. The new perk is available now to new and existing subscribers alike, but not everyone is thrilled with the news.

The streaming giant has been battling a string of negative press since coming out against new royalty rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board (Spotify). Spotify was not alone in appealing the ruling, which plans to raise mechanical royalty rates by 44% over the next four years, but the company made matters worse for itself after posting a blog in defense of their decision. 

“Does Spotify think songwriters deserve to be paid more?” the post asks. “Yes — this is important to songwriters and it’s important to Spotify. The industry needs to continue evolving to ensure that the people who create the music we all love — artists and songwriters — can earn a living. The question is how best to achieve that goal.”

As we covered last week, the new CRB ruling aims to raise the value of a song from $0.003 per stream to $0.004, but Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, and Google disagree.

In its blog post, Spotify said it is generally supportive of a 15 percent rate, provided the rates cover what it calls the “right scope of publishing rights,” including those for videos and lyrics. Spotify argues that the CRB’s decision limits the type of non-music offerings it can present to potential subscribers.

“A key area of focus in our appeal will be the fact that the CRB’s decision makes it very difficult for music services to offer ‘bundles’ of music and non-music offerings,” the company said. “This will hurt consumers who will lose access to them. These bundles are key to attracting first-time music subscribers so we can keep growing the revenue pie for everyone.”

The music industry, however, is not buying Spotify’s claims.

David Israelite, the CEO president of the National Music Publishers Association, cut straight to the chase on Twitter by saying that it was a “big mistake” for Spotify to “try to deceive songwriters and artists” with the blog post.

In its blog post, Spotify said it is generally supportive of a 15 percent rate, provided the rates cover what it calls the “right scope of publishing rights,” including those for videos and lyrics. Spotify argues that the CRB’s decision limits the type of non-music offerings it can present to potential subscribers.

“A key area of focus in our appeal will be the fact that the CRB’s decision makes it very difficult for music services to offer ‘bundles’ of music and non-music offerings,” the company said. “This will hurt consumers who will lose access to them. These bundles are key to attracting first-time music subscribers so we can keep growing the revenue pie for everyone.”

Many in the music industry were quick to argue against the company’s claims. David Israelite, the CEO president of the National Music Publishers Association, said on Twitter that it was a “big mistake” for Spotify to “try to deceive songwriters and artists” with the blog post.

“I didn’t think Spotify could sink much lower — but they have,” he said. “This statement is one giant lie. I’m sure a PR team spent a great deal of time and energy crafting a statement to try to deceive artists and songwriters. They must think artists and songwriters are stupid. They are not. The CRB ordered a rate increase for songwriters. Spotify is against it. It really is that simple.”

Songwriters of North America (SONA) seconded Israelite’s comments by saying that Spotify, along with Amazon, Pandora and Google, who are also appealing the CRB rates, are clearly in the wrong.

While it’s easy to appreciate the allure of Spotify’s Hulu bundle, it’s also hard to ignore the fact that offering more for less ultimately comes with a price. If Spotify is charging consumers the same amount for its service while offering access to another service altogether the money being spent will inevitably be split between those entities. Whatever share Spotify takes will then be split between the company and the artists who rely on its platform to get their music to consumers.

Spotify may have a point in its argument against the ruling, but the company may also have ulterior motives for wanting to keep mechanical royalty rates low. Musicians don’t care if consumers get access to Hulu with their Spotify account. Some may even argue artists are against it, as it provides more programming that distracts consumers from listening to music.

It’s clear the battle for mechanical royalties is far from over. Right now, consumers seem to care about the needs of their favorite musicians, but will the promise of cheaper streaming solutions be too good for them to resist? Only time will tell.

Categories
News

Spotify doubles down on distribution by taking a stake in DistroKid

Spotify playlists are shaping the future music business, but reaching the curators of the most influential lists is often incredibly difficult. We can help.

When Spotify unveiled plans to allow artists to directly upload music to their service in late September those working in the distribution market did not seem too concerned. After all, artists would still need their services if they wanted to make their music available on the numerous competing platforms that did not offer such tools.

This week, Spotify gave them another reason to be concerned.

The streaming giant announced Wednesday morning through its blog that the company has taken a stake in DistroKid, a Boston-based distribution service that allows recording artists to upload music across online stores and streaming platforms including Spotify’s biggest rival, Apple Music.

This means, whenever artists directly upload their music to Spotify they will also be able to distribute that same upload to all competing platforms, as well as digital retailers. Spotify will receive a percentage of the overall royalty payout, but at this time the exact amount to be retained the company is not available.

Speaking to the deal, Spotify wrote:

“For the past five years, DistroKid has served as a go-to service for hundreds of thousands independent artists, helping them deliver their tracks to digital music services around the world, and reaching fans however they choose to consume music. The service has been a trusted and reliable partner to Spotify, which is why they’re a natural choice to enhance the experience for artists using our beta upload feature. As part of this partnership, Spotify has made a passive minority investment in DistroKid.”

A release date for the integration has not been made available. We will update this story as more information becomes public. In the meantime, feel free to review our breakdown of Spotify’s direct upload deals, which initially appeared on the blog earlier this month.

Categories
News

Producer alleges major label(s) used the term ‘mixtape’ to pay them less

What is a mixtape? Merriam-Webster will tell you a mixtape is a compilation of songs recorded from various sources, but hip-hop fans know that is only one definition. Mixtapes are also a way for up and coming artists to showcase their developing sound. Before the age of Spotify, and long before the royalty rate associated with sampling rose, many hip-hop artists would sample the hits of other artists and add their own verse (or verses). The reworked track would then be burned to a CD or shared for free online, often both.

Record labels were not always directly involved with mixtapes. In fact, many viewed a rapper’s mixtape as being akin to a band’s 4-song demo. That all began to change after sites like DatPiff and other mixtape hubs began seeing hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions, of downloads for a single mixtape. Labels then recognized that mixtapes could be a smart marketing tool, and as long as they could keep production costs low they would be able to promote more new talent with less risk.

But there was a problem: Mixtapes still cost money. They may cost less to produce than a traditional album, but there were still numerous people involved in the creation of a mixtape that needed to be paid. Labels, or perhaps their lawyers, realized many of those working on mixtapes would likely love to be associated with a major label and therefore willing to work for less if there was a promise of more opportunities in the future.

The solution was fairly simple. Projects labeled as ‘mixtapes’ or ‘street albums,’ otherwise known as any record released for promotional purposes that are not sold in stores, would pay less than traditional albums. Producers wanting to work with talent on the rise accepted this deal, often signing into longterm deals to work with the label on multiple projects, and for a while, everything seemed to make sense.

Then Spotify happened. Now, for the first time ever, more and more people were streaming music than ever before. They also began buying music less, which in turn lead labels to focus more and more marketing efforts on promoting their presence on streaming platforms. This lead to releasing albums exclusively to streaming platforms – AKA – they released albums they never planned to sell in a traditional sense. These albums were then dubbed ‘mixtapes’ or ‘street albums’ so those working on them would be paid less, but in reality, they’re commercial products being pushed to consumers the same way a label might promote a traditional record.

In short, producers got screwed because outdated language made it possible for the record industry to pay them less for the same amount of work through a very basic act of wordplay. Here’s one producer discussing how it happened to them:

Technology and the way we consume media changes far faster than the institutions that bring us the media we crave. This has been proven time and time again throughout pop culture history. The early stars of television could never have imagined a world with VHS tapes, let alone streaming, so none of them thought to ask for compensation if/when their series made it to those platforms. Likewise, musicians who were successful in a time before the internet have found the battle for royalties to be a constant uphill battle.

It’s not about foresight, however, because nine times out of ten the studios and record labels working with talent are no more aware of what the future will hold than those who produce content for them. Instead, corporations use legal jargon to ensure they always dictate how royalties and sales will be split between them and their talent. For example, since the dawn of the internet many labels have begun adding a clause to their contracts with talent that stipulates they will be allowed to distribute the music on sales and streaming platforms that have yet to be invented. That way, should a new Spotify or YouTube appear, there will be no argument as to whether or not the label gets a piece of whatever money that new channel brings in.

If all this makes it sound like the industry is rigged against the talent you wouldn’t be the only one to feel that way. Throughout time artists of all sizes in every corner of entertainment have had to bargain with those who financed their creative pursuits in order to ensure their livelihood. The chances that this trend changes anytime soon are slim, but thankfully there is more information available than ever that can help artists better navigate this area of the industry. In fact, here are a few books we recommend:

Categories
News

Stickup Kid speak out against streaming songs on YouTube

It’s hard to imagine going more than a day or two online without relying on YouTube for something. Maybe you need details on a big story, or maybe you want to see the latest trailer for the long-awaited adaptation of your favorite comic book, or maybe, if you’re like the vast majority of young people in America today, you need YouTube to enjoy your favorite music. While streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music are boasting subscriber numbers in the tens of millions, YouTube is welcoming several times that many people each and every day to the content hosted on their servers. Video is bigger than ever, and all signs point to its importance in culture only continuing to grow in the years ahead.

Knowing this, you may be wondering why more artists don’t ask fans to stream their music on YouTube as opposed to subscription based streaming services, and the answer is simple: There is very little, if any, money in YouTube. Unless an artists runs their own account and is the only YouTube users posting material from their albums on the service it is unlikely any real income can be generated from the world’s largest video platform. Between competing streams, which are often posted by devout fans hoping to make new fans through recommended videos and easy access to material, and the incredibly low payouts for advertising through the platform, YouTube has made it virtually impossible for people to see substantial returns for sharing their art. Some may argue the availability of material on the platform makes it possible to recruit new fans, who in turn will support the artist down the line, but it is virtually impossible to predict how many people can be converted or when, if ever, they may financially back the artist who entertains them.

For the most part, artists around the globe accept YouTube as a way to reach more listeners, but not as a way to make money. For some, this is enough, but those still struggling to make their art a career feel differently. Here’s an open letter from the band Stickup Kid to their fans regarding the availability of their material on YouTube that was posted earlier this week:

Straight up, YouTube is making it exponentially harder for musicians to survive. There is a huge gap between how much revenue is earned by musicians uploading music to YouTube, and how much of that actually goes to the musicians.

So if you are wondering why it seems like a lot of bands are breaking up, think about it. Your average band is dropping around $10-20k, and most likely more, to record an album (not to mention time, blood, sweat, tears) only for people to stream it for free on YouTube, which is dominating subscription services like Spotify and Apple music.

I just want to remind you guys that every time you listen to a song that makes you feel some type of way, there was an artist who sat there in his/her lonesome and practiced the fuck out of that song, then did take after take after take to get it right. Not to mention all the other expensive and time consuming processes.

What motivation is there for someone to want to join a band if the deck is stacked against them from the start?

Until the music industry and the internet get it right, WE the listeners have to be the ones conscious about this. Please support your favorite artists by purchasing FROM THEM!

heart emoticon
SK

What more needs to be said? Keep all this in mind before you stream another song via YouTube.

Categories
News

Apple Changes Royalty Plan Following Taylor Swift’s Open Letter: Will Pay Labels During Free Trial

Whether you’re an artists working in pop, country, rock, rap, hip-hop, black metal, doom, grindcore, folk instrumentalism, post-modern opera, or some obscure combination of everything in between, everyone in music owes Taylor Swift a bit of thanks for speaking up against Apple’s new royalty plan for the launch of Apple Music over the weekend. Her open letter, which called the plan to not pay artists during the company’s three-month trial launch ‘disappointing,’ went viral just jours before senior vice president of internet services and software Eddy Cue tweeted that Apple would, in fact, pay artists during the 90-day period. 

In an interview with Billboard, Cue elaborated that it was Swift’s letter that turned him around on the issue. “When I woke up this morning and saw what Taylor had written, it really solidified that we needed a change. And so that’s why we decide we will now pay artists during the trial period.”

Everyone expected the tech giant to respond to Swift’s letter, but the seemingly immediate change of policy came as a surprise to many, including Swift herself. “I am elated and relieved,” she tweeted after the new broke. “Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.”

Some in the music community, while happy about the news, were concerned that it took an artist as big as Swift to complain before action was taken. As you may recall, we ran a story early last week that shared the concerns from numerous people in the indie music community. Those same concerns were shared on countless blogs and news outlets, but it seems Apple didn’t think to respond until Taylor Swift made it a point to get involved. To his credit, Cue told Billboard he had heard “concern from a lot of artists” before hearing from Swift. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not that had the same impact.

Apple will be eating the cost of the royalty payout, as the company intends to not charge any consumer for using the service during its first 90-days of existence.  That will no doubt be a big bill to pay, but considering the company is expected to be valued at $1 trillion by 2016 it seems like a tab they will be able to cover.

Apple Music is set to launch on June 30, and we are planning to run an editorial with our initial impressions not long after. For now, spread the word of the new royalty plan so artists make a it a point to claim their Apple Music Connect profile as soon as possible.

James Shotwell is the Marketing Coordinator for Haulix. He is also a professional entertainment critic, covering both film and music, as well as the co-founder of Antique Records. Feel free to tell him you love or hate the article above by connecting with him on Twitter. Bonus points if you introduce yourself by sharing your favorite Simpsons character.

Categories
News

The Impact Of Streaming Music Services On The Livelihood Of Indie Artists

Hello and welcome to the final Advice column of the week. We did not set out to run a series of in-depth editorials over the last few days, but sometimes content develops in ways you never expected. For this particular piece, we became fascinated with the struggles of signed bands and wanted to shed a light on their troubles to help developing artists prepare for the realities of life in the music industry. If you have any questions about the content in this article, or if you have an artist you would like to see featured on this blog, please contact james@haulix.com and share your thoughts. We can also be found on Twitter and Facebook.

Today I was scrolling through the latest music headlines when I stumbled across a post from my friends at Indie Vision Music that captured my imagination. I Am Empire, a relatively popular rock band signed with Solid State Records, shared a photo on their Facebook page showing a quarterly streaming royalties statement. The image, which you can view below, was not exactly the kind of thing rock and roll dreams are made of:

The band offered an explanation for the image on the original post: 

“A glimpse into being an indie artist on an indie label. This I Am Empire royalty statement shows nearly 500,000 internet radio streams/plays on one quarterly statement. Total royalty paid from this portion. $.58 per band member. Spotify streams.. nearly 50,000 streams.. paid $3.35.”

Anyone who keeps an eye on industry news knows that photos of royalty payments like this are nothing new in the world of music, especially in the realm of hard rock. In January of this very year, Darkest Hour guitarist Mike Schleibaum shared a photo of a check for $0.01. “This is what we call, “BIG TIME!,” he wrote on Facebook. "Don’t worry..big news is coming but for now..we got to spend all this cash!”

Here are six more examples for those who love tiny checks.

If you’re an artist dreaming on one day making music your full time career, seeing images like this being shared by some of the biggest people in your preferred genre of music can be incredibly disheartening. People have been saying for years that the music industry is either dead or dying, but it’s a lot harder to brush off as nonsense when you see the types of payouts headline artists are being given on a regular basis. Life should never be about the money, of course, but people must be able to make a living in order to provide for their own basic needs (not to mention the needs of their family). 

There is not a lot you can do in the immediate future to change the tide of streaming payouts, but I do believe that we will see that area of the business undergo several more evolutions before it’s more or less ‘figured out. The give and take between the companies responsible for the platform, the labels who signed the talent, and the talent themselves needs to be addressed in a big bad way. Again, that’s nothing you haven’t heard before, but that does not mean it will never happen at all. It will, but things like this take time. You must be patiently pro-active, or in other words doing whatever you can to make the best of things while the powers that be workout the ‘big idea’ stuff for the rest of us. Even if you’re not giving part of your proceeds to a label, the amount of money you’re earning off each stream is a fraction of what you deserve. You have a voice, so the I advice that you put it to use and make your frustrations known. Things won’t change over night, but every bit of fight certainly helps move things along.

You are not helpless or alone in the war against streaming payouts and the ever-shrinking revenue streams made available to artists. The struggle to make a living in music is as real for you as it is for your favorite musicians and the professionals who work with them (most of the time). You cannot change things right away, but you can promote the continued support of live music and ask fans to buy your music whenever possible. Most people do not understand the way streaming payouts work, and because of that fact they sometimes see no difference between buying a single on iTunes for a dollar or streaming that same song through their premium Spotify account. Be honest with them about the realities of streaming and some will come around to the notion it might not be the ‘industry savior’ so many have made it out to be. They will remember your message and make it a point to financially support you whenever possible. Others will never listen, but that’s just life.

The best thing you can do for yourself in this situation is to set an example for others to follow. Support music. Go to shows, buy albums, share photos of your vinyl, tweet at musicians, and do whatever else you can think of to get the point across that you not only love music, but you care about those responsible for making it. Others will notice your efforts and follow suit. If you’re in a band, this means they will follow and support you. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it may work wonders for your career.

Exit mobile version