Categories
Artist Advice Editorials Industry News News

How The Pocket Gods Fought Streaming Royalties And Won [Video]

A clever marketing decision from UK rock band The Pocket Gods has launched the group into the global music spotlight and brought much-needed attention to concerns over streaming royalties.

Spotify finds itself in a lot of hot water right now. The streaming giant is currently embroiled in a battle over misinformation and free speech centered around controversial podcast host Joe Rogan that has, to date, involved multiple rock legends and even earned a response from the White House. In addition to this, the Daniel Ek founded platform is battling several protests from artists worldwide concerned over the minuscule royalty rate offered by Spotify. While Joe Rogan earns $100million, musicians earn roughly $0.004 per stream before splitting that money with their team.

Longtime Haulix clients The Pocket Gods have developed a unique solution to their problems with Spotify. The English rock band is currently making headlines with plans to record and release a 1,000 track album comprised entirely of 30-second songs. The tracks are long enough to be counted as legitimate streams by Spotify but run much shorter than the average song.

The Pocket Gods were inspired to attempt this undertaking after reading an article in The Independent from professor Mike Errico. He said that Spotify’s methods surrounding what constitutes a song—otherwise known as their decision to count plays after 30-seconds—could signal the end of the three-minute pop song.

“I saw the article, and it made me think, ‘Why write longer songs when we get paid little enough for just 30 seconds?’” The Pocket Gods frontman Mark Christopher Lee told i News.

The new album – ‘1000×30 – Nobody Makes Money Anymore’ – directly references Spotify’s business model, and as such, Lee says that it means the band “run the risk of being thrown off the platform.”

Of the process of writing the album, he added: “We wrote and recorded 1,000 songs, each a shade over 30 seconds long for the album. The longest is 36 seconds. It is designed to raise awareness about the campaign for fair royalty rates.”

The logic behind Errico’s original story and The Pocket Gods’ new material is sound. If an artist stands to make the same amount of money for a 30-second song as they do from one that runs several minutes in length, then what is the value proposition of making longer songs? When it takes the same amount of time to consume one modern pop song in full as it does to hear 4-6 tracks of The Pocket Gods’ record, any artist hoping to make money will see the value in writing shorter material.

“Spotify is a great musical resource, and it allows indie bands like us to upload our music without record companies,” the frontman added. “I also believe in free speech even though I’m a massive Neil Young fan, so I don’t support the boycott. We just want to raise awareness of the royalties issue.”

This week, Music Biz host James Shotwell connected with Pocket Gods’ Mark Christopher Lee for a quick chat about the album, the response, and where the band goes from here. Check it out:

Music Biz is brought to you by Haulix, the music industry’s leading promotional distribution platform. Start your one-month free trial today and gain instant access to the same promotional tools used by BMG, Concord, Rise Records, Pure Noise Records, and hundreds more. Visit http://haulix.com/signup for details.

Categories
Industry News News

3 Major Record Labels Now Earn $2.56 Million Every Hour

Despite the global pandemic, the three biggest record labels on Earth are still generating serious revenue in 2021.

A new report from MBW finds UMG, Sony, and WMG on course for one of the most lucrative years in music industry history. After reviewing the Q2 financials of each of the three major music companies, the leading industry platform found each label in an impressive growth period. Combined, the recorded music arms of the three major music companies generated $4.63 billion in the three months to end of June – up by an incredible 40.1% (or +$1.32 billion) on the same period of 2020. When you add global publishing revenues to recorded music revenues at UMG, SMG, and WMG, the three majors generated $5.60 billion in calendar Q2 2021, up by $1.53 billion (or +37.6%) on the same period of last year

That $5.60 billion turnover equates to the three majors cumulatively generating $61.5 million per day in the year’s second quarter – or, in turn, $2.56 million every hour.

Based on the current numbers, UMG, SMG, and WMG should finish the year generating more than $20 billion. That’s still a few billion short of the industry’s early 2000s high, but it’s closer than any other year this decade.

To put this figure further into perspective, a recent review of royalty rates from leading streaming services finds that independent solo musicians need at least 101,000 monthly streams to earn the equivalent to the minimum wage in the United States ($1256.67 per month). That number is much larger for a group featuring four or five members. It’s even larger when you have to account for label cuts, management cuts, etc.

When considering how many artists complain about their income level compared to the money music generates, one inevitably asks: Where does all this money go?

The answers are endless and (mostly) obvious. There are staffing costs, taxes, office costs, travel, promotion, and so on. It costs a lot of money to be among the biggest entertainment companies on the planet, and as rapper T-Pain revealed earlier this year, many people don’t realize how much labels spend to break and support talent.

Not found in the MBW report is any information on what portion of the money generated by these record labels will reach the artists on their roster.

Categories
Industry News News

How Many Song Streams Does It Take To Earn Minimum Wage in 2021?

As the competition among streaming music platforms intensifies, many continue to wonder whether or not artists can support themselves on song streams alone. 

The current federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour. The minimum wage may vary from state to state, but $7.25 per hour is the lowest an employer can pay unless the employee works in food service. Waiters and waitresses typically make far less, and the sooner you learn that the sooner you will begin to treat them better.

When you crunch the numbers, a person working full-time for minimum wage grosses roughly $1256.67 per month.

Most musicians hate to think about money. Artists like to believe that their pursuit of creative endeavors is pure. Many will tell you they are not in it for the money, but let’s be honest: it all comes back to money. You may be the greatest songwriter ever to live, but unless you can pay your rent and feed yourself, your career will only last a short time. 

Consumers don’t understand money as it relates to the music industry. They know that there are record labels and people in positions of power with millions of dollars to spend, but they also know that many artists are broke. The industry sells music as a lifestyle brand where everyone lives their best life, complete with jewelry and the latest tech. Still, most industry professionals live quiet lives that look nothing like what is sold in marketing campaigns. If you were to ask the average listener how much money their favorite act makes, they would tell you a figure rooted in their love of that talent. “Jack is so good,” they might say, “so I assume he’s doing well.”

In reality, Jack is living couch to couch whenever his band isn’t on the road. Jack doesn’t have health insurance, and he cannot remember the last time he saw a dentist. Jack is barely scraping by, but he doesn’t complain because he’s living his dream.

With more people than ever choosing to stream music instead of purchasing it, we recently began to wonder how many streams it would take to earn minimum wage. Finding the answer proved difficult because every service has its own royalty rate, and many streaming platforms use a sliding scale that fluctuates daily. After checking several sources for the most up-to-date rates, we ran the number and found the answers. Check it out:

A solo independent artist keeping 100% of their streaming revenue needs at least 100,534 streams per month (on Tidal) to earn minimum wage. On Spotify, the current most popular streaming service, that same artist would need 287,568 streams to see a similar return. 

Remember: The number in the chart above are for solo artists. A four-person band would need more than a million monthly streams on Spotify to earn minimum wage. Depending on their management and label cuts, that figure may be even larger!

Artists around the world continue to fight for higher per-stream royalties, but as of right now, no service seems likely to budge in their favor. Stay tuned. 

Categories
Industry News News

How TikTok Royalties Are Calculated

TikTok is the premiere music discovery platform on the planet, but how are artists making money?

Exposure doesn’t pay the bills. As much as musicians enjoy any promotion they receive from a site or platform, money talks. Money makes the world go round, and it plays a role in the music business. It seems every other conversation in entertainment these days involves streaming royalties or a lack thereof. But what about TikTok royalties? The social media giant welcomes over 100-million users every month, most of whom spend hours on the app watching videos that include sound. Do artists get paid? If so, how?

For starters, yes, TikTok does pay artists for use of their music.

In comparison to other major platforms such as Spotify who pay per total number of streams, TikTok operates differently when calculating royalties and bases calculations on the number of videos made using your music, as opposed to the number of times the video is watched. That can often become confusing if you are measuring the way royalties are worked out against othersservices, so it’s important to understand the main difference here is that big view counts don’t equal large royalty payments.

To put it another way, the quantity of videos matters more than the total view count. One hundred videos with no views using a specific sound will generate more money than a single video with one million views. The views don’t matter.

TikTok royalties are based on market shares rather than metric views. To calculate the market shares, TikTok uses what is called “a creation.” A creation is when a user selects a release from TikTok’s library to make a video. Users can then make their own creations inspired by existing creations, all amounting to new creations. So, to put this simply, every time a user decides to use your music to make a video, this generates royalty.

And how much is a video worth? According to estimates online, TikTok royalties were close to $0.0067 per video using your music in 2018 and moved to $0.030 per video in June 2019. Based on these figures, ten thousand uses of this music would generate approximately $300.

Of course, this information is likely to change, TikTok is an evolving platform, and the conversation around royalties is unending. The company could easily choose to approach artist payments from a different position or price point overnight. When they do, we’ll cover it, so make sure you’re following Haulix on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
Industry News News

New Platform The Van Hopes To Disrupt The Streaming Marketplace

The Van hopes to separate itself from its streaming competitors by emphasizing artist compensation over company revenue.

The van is a new worldwide music streaming platform exclusively for indie artists & labels, that enables & encourages listeners to support artists by compensating them directly. The platform encourages bands to make a contribution to the artists they enjoy without requiring a subscription fee or purchase minimum. It is perhaps the first streaming platform to truly place talent before its own interests, and it’s now available worldwide.

For listeners, the van removes the usual commitments & requirements that impede their ability to compensate artists flexibly, equitably and directly. For artists, it offers another means by which to monetize their creative work, on a non-exclusive basis, free of platform fees — while allowing them to upload & manage their music independently (without third-party distributors).

PayPal powers all transactions, and U.S. listeners on the mobile site can make contributions using Venmo. Funds from the artist’s share of a support transaction are deposited into their PayPal account immediately, subject to no holding period.

BUT. There is a small catch.

Artists and labels are personally invited and approved by The Van admin. Curation is managed by human programmers highlighting a limited array of releases at any one time and foregoing the use of algorithms that tend to filter out as much great music as they corral.

Does the world need another streaming service? It’s effortless to say that it does not. After all, the vast majority of all recorded music is available on every platform, and the number of unique benefits any platform can offer is limited.

The world needs a streaming service that emphasizes the importance of compensating artists instead of celebrating algorithms. Musicians worldwide are unhappy with how Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon music compensate talent. These corporations are making billions while artists make fractions of a cent, and no amount of picketing or complaining online seems to convince those in power to change their methods. The Van may not prove to be a perfect solution, but it is attempting to find better ways of compensating artists and highlighting their talent. That’s better than nothing.

Categories
Industry News News

Spotify Will Not Offer Penny Per Stream Royalties To Artists

Following massive global protests at the company’s many offices, Spotify has responded to demands that they make a significant increase to their per-stream royalty payments.

Artists everywhere rely on streaming revenue to pay their bills. That is more true now than at any other point in time. With touring still on hold for most of the world, streaming revenue makes up the bulk share of an artist’s earnings from recorded music. Demand for higher royalty rates will probably always exist, but recently, one such demand actually received a response from the leading music streaming service.

In March, the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW) organized the protests for higher royalty rates and additional transparency, including a demonstration outside of Spotify’s World Trade Center offices. Many individuals turned up at the latter event, photos and footage show, with the vast majority of the participants appearing to have either played an instrument or carried a sign.

Among the many demands being made, the loudest and most widely shared is a drastic increase in per-stream royalty payments. The current model offers musicians roughly $0.004 per stream, which many believe is too low. Artists present at the protest want that rate raised to $0.01 per stream. It’s a rate anyone can understand, but it would mean a significant hit to the streaming giant’s revenue.

In a response to UMAW, Spotify denied the request. 

The UMAW detailed the company’s formal follow-up in a lengthy chain of tweets, indicating first: “Spotify has issued a response attempting to address some of our demands. We are pleased that Spotify has recognized the legitimacy of UMAW and the artists around the world who are demanding better payment and treatment.

The union’s response continues: “However, Spotify has failed to meet any of our demands. The company consistently deflects blame onto others for systems it has itself built, and from which it has created its nearly $70 billion valuations.”

Spotify also responded with the launch of a new site aimed at increasing transparency. That site — Loud And Clear — provides insights into how the company works and how many artists earn a livable wage through the platform. 

Categories
Industry News News

Soundcloud Introduces ‘Fan-Powered Royalties’ Plan To Pay Artists More Fairly

Soundcloud is onto something revolutionary in the world of streaming: Give listeners’ money to the artists they listen to and not those they don’t.

Calculating the amount of money an artist is likely to earn from streaming is far more complicated than most would assume. No service, including Spotify and Soundcloud, pays based on stream counts alone, and none offer a consistent royalty rate per stream.

Generally speaking, subscriber money is traditionally placed into a large pool that streaming services then pay to artists by comparing their streams for a month to the total streams on the platform.

Here’s an example: If Taylor Swift gets 5% of all streams on Spotify in June, she and her label will get 5% of your monthly subscription fee, even if you never listened to one of her songs.

Soundcloud has a plan to change this, and it begins with fans.

According to an announcement made on Tuesday, March 2, Soundcloud will soon begin using what it calls a “fan-powered royalty” system to compensate artists on its platform.

Under the new model, if a user paying $10 a month only listens to five artists, those five artists will get an equal split of that $10 — after SoundCloud takes its cut — no matter how many times the user listens to each of them.  

Users paying to support the artists they listen to instead of every artist on a platform may sound like an obvious notion. However, Soundcloud is the first mainstream streaming service to attempt such an effort. Others may follow suit in time, but it seems unlikely to happen unless artists and labels work together to push for change.

Soundcloud’s “fan-powered royalty” system goes into effect on April 1.

Categories
Industry News News

Spotify Patents Tech To Monitor Your Speech and Infer Emotion

Spotify wants to know its users better, but its plans to do so are causing a stir online.

Have you ever opened Instagram or Facebook and saw an advertisement for something you were recently discussing in conversation? You never looked for the product on those apps, yet they seem to know what you want? If so, you’re not alone.

Many people believe big tech companies are spying on users’ behavior to create smarter algorithms that serve targeted ads. While that hasn’t been proven, it is eerie to see how well the algorithms currently in use understand your wants and needs.

Spotify’s latest patent is fanning the flames of spyware conspiracies, and it’s not hard to see the connection. The company filed a patent detailing how it could use microphones to determine people’s “emotional state, gender, age, or accent,” according to Music Business Worldwide.

The patent application was submitted back in 2018, but it wasn’t awarded until January 2021. The proposed tech would use its inferences about users to make listening recommendations. If it thinks you’re angry, for example, it may suggest a heavy metal playlist. If you just got dumped, maybe some Juice WRLD will soothe your broken heart.

The company also intends to throw in environmental sounds to the mix, like “vehicles on a street, other people talking, birds chirping, printers printing, and so on,” allowing for context-based recommendations. For example, if the algorithm believes you’re in Los Angeles, it will recommend songs and artists that people visiting the West Coast typically enjoy.

Many questions surrounding the patent have no clear answers. It’s not likely that Spotify will reveal more information about its plans until their tech is ready if such a product ever exists in the first place. Patents are often a legal cover for ideas or experiments a company considers but may ultimately never use.

But if the day comes to pass when Spotify introduces its listening tools, you can be certain some users will be upset. People will want to know when the app is listening, and they will want the ability to opt-out of sharing their life with a tech giant.

It’s important to remember that most of us already share more data with tech giants like Spotify than we realize. Our phones know where we are, what we look for, who we speak to, what we listen to, what movies we plan to watch, and we’re hoping to purchase. Similar information is known by countless websites that we visit, and many share their data with others to build smarter algorithms to keep us hooked on their products. You can call it insidious, or you can call it smart business. Either way, our data isn’t really ours anymore.

Categories
Business Advice Editorials Industry News News

Music Streaming Is Stalling. Should We Worry?

After bouncing back from historic lows in March, music streaming is beginning to stall, but is it time for the industry to panic?

In the decade since its rise to industry dominance began, music streaming has consistently grown, adding more songs and subscribers with each passing day. The tech has evolved as well, allowing for offline streaming, engaging looping videos, unique artist-specific promotional opportunities, and more. Streaming is an incredible sector of the music industry, which in many ways is still in its infancy, but that doesn’t mean the good times will last forever.

There’s good and bad news, so let’s start with the good. Streaming services have continued to add U.S. subscribers this year, according to MIDiA Research, growing by 11 million paying users from January to September, to 117.9 million. Global growth has continued as well.

Now for the bad news. Despite the rising number of subscribers, the total number of streams has remained the same for the last four months. According to Billboard, audio music streams have averaged 17.5 billion a week since September. That’s up slightly from the early March pre-pandemic peak, before the lockdown cut music listening down by 13% to a year low of fewer than 15 billion streams, as consumers stopped commuting and obsessed over the news. Streaming gradually rebounded, increasing 15% by the end of June — but has plateaued since.

Streaming music consumption in 2020

These numbers do not include podcast streams, which may be a good thing for streaming services. Spotify and other streaming companies have invested hundreds of millions into podcasting over the last two years. These services don’t share as much revenue with podcasts — many of which they now own — as they do musicians. A rise in podcast consumption means more money stays with the streaming service, which is bound to make investors happy, even if it means hurting the music business.

Let’s talk about the music business because that is what matters here. There are possible explanations for stagnant consumption, and most appear to be temporary. For starters, the vast majority of consumers no longer have a commute for work. The time between leaving home and arriving at a job is when many adult listeners consume the majority of their music content. A similar event is happening with young listeners and school. No bus rides, field trips, or walks to and from class equates to a lot less time when consumers are likely to put on headphones and turn on music.

There’s also an argument to be made that stagnation is due, at least in part, to a slow release schedule. While many indie artists pushed forward with release plans in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, labels with significant investments in their talent may choose to hold releases until the imminent return of live music. Labels and major talent — many of whom entered 2020 with plans and promises to release music — need the revenue from touring to recouped production and promotion costs, so until touring is feasible, most choose to hold records that may otherwise be ready to go. We’ve spoken to several labels sitting on anywhere from one to twelve releases that are completed but still have no release date because of the uncertainties surrounding live music in 2021.

These factors, plus the rising popularity of podcasts, have put the music in a unique position. While video streaming services such as HBO Max are doubling their release efforts to consumers engaging with their product, many in the music industry are trying to wait out the pandemic. They’re giving fans just enough to let them know they’re still active. Unlike most video platforms, music streaming services do not directly produce music content on their platforms. Spotify doesn’t necessarily need a new Drake release to make money. Drake and his team need that release. Apple Music doesn’t need a new Lizzo album. Lizzo and her fans need a new Lizzo album.

But should we worry? I don’t believe so. As we enter 2021 with the promise of vaccines and the potential for some level of normalcy, the industry is the most hopeful and enthusiastic it has been since March. By the time we hit the first anniversary of lockdown in three months, music’s role in the remainder of the year will be clear. If live music returns, many office jobs and schools will as well. Commutes will return, prominent artists will release big records, and live events will remind everyone what makes music special. Human beings have turned to music in the darkest times and the best moments throughout our history. The majority of consumers may be distracted by more pressing matters at the moment, but that passion has not gone away. No film or streaming series can compare to the way hearing the right song at the right time can make you feel, and that is something consumers will always want.

Be patient. The future is bright.

Categories
Industry News News

Calculating Spotify’s Per Stream Payout is Harder Than You Think

The most popular streaming service on the planet has a bad reputation when it comes to paying artists, and the math speaks for itself.

No one denies the need for artists to make a livable wage. If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that musicians cannot rely on tour revenue to stay afloat. Fans are often encouraged to buy music because it helps more than streaming, but who amongst us listens to physical media regularly? Opening Spotify on our phone or computer is easy, and more often than not, the easiest method of consumption is the one consumers prefer.

The per stream royalty rate at Spotify is mystery. Visit ten websites claiming to know the exact amount offered to musicians and you’re likely to find ten different answers, each more worrisome than the last. The reason for the confusion is in the math.

Spotify does not pay a flat rate per stream. Major labels and artists in a position to negotiate may get one price, but people using distribution platforms-which accounts for the vast majority of musicians on the platform-get another. The streaming company also factors in the total amount of plays on the platform in a specific timeframe against how many streams an artist receives during that time. So getting 100 plays in Q1 of 2020 could easily prove more or less valuable than 100 plays in Q2.

The two biggest factors, however, are listener type and location? Streams from premium users pay more than streams from listeners using the platform’s ad-supported tier. For example, streams from the United States pay more than streams from India because subscription rates and advertising levels are comparatively higher in the U.S.

Of course, Spotify doesn’t offer data related to the rates in each region or how payouts for streams from premium users compare to payouts from those using the ad-support free tier. Musicians, labels, and industry analysts often say they should, but Spotify has no reason to do so unless forced.

After gaining access to streaming payouts from multiple indie artists over the last six months, we’ve found that Spotify is paying, on average, between $.003 and $.005 (one-third of a penny to one-half of a penny) for each stream. Again, that number is likely higher for artists on major labels and other industry companies who have unique deals with the streaming giant. In some cases, that number could be much smaller. For example, premium subscribers from Indonesia pay roughly $3.51 per month for the service, so streams from that region earn less for musicians than streams from Denmark (where people spend more than $14 per month).

To put that figure into perspective, let’s consider that the minimum wage in the United States is defined at the federal level as being $7.25 an hour, which amounts to an annual salary of $15,080.40 when based on a full-time, 40-hour workweek. With an average payout of $0.004 per stream, solo artists need 3,770,100 Spotify streams to earn that amount. That figure is much higher for groups, especially when you factor in label splits, songwriter payouts, and management cuts.

The question now is what can we do? Streaming is here to stay, and even though growth may be slowing in certain regions, the fact remains that we now live in a digital world of on-demand listening that won’t be reverting to physical media consumption for anything less than an act of God.

Artists wishing for better pay need to band together. Not just on a national level, but internationally as well. The problem with streaming royalties effects musicians from all walks of life in every style of music. Just 10% of artists account for more than 3/4 of the total payouts, which means most creatives are earning next to nothing. That cannot continue, or at least, it should not. But who will be the first to take a stand, and what will make corporations like Spotify listen?

Exit mobile version