Copycense points us to a Billboard/Reuters article over the fact that music performers are not making very much money from online streaming services. The article is designed to be “shocking,” but seems to leave out some rather important facts. For example, in the US, if Billboard did the same calculation, it would find that performers make even less from radio. That’s because performers make nothing from radio in the US, because Congress realized a while back that radio is advertising for musicians, and it seems ridiculous to force radio stations to pay musicians to advertise for them. In fact, the repeated stories of record labels illegally paying radio stations via payola showed that the market actually valued things in the other direction.
It seems quite odd that Billboard would leave this out of its analysis, instead, trying to position the streaming revenue as being so low as to be problematic. Yes, the numbers are low, but streaming radio acts as advertising for musicians that let’s them make money in lots of other ways.
This is the same discussion we had last week when some people got too focused on the question of whether or not Spotify was making people buy more music. That’s not the point. The point is whether or not streaming services make people buy more of anything that helps fund those musicians. Narrowly looking at just whether or not those streaming services pay musicians is really missing the point. It’s like asking how much NBC paid BMW to air BMW commercials. The answer is nothing. The money went in the other direction, because that’s where the real value was.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
