The Global Media Site for Entertainment.
Menu
The streaming era of music has been inevitable in many ways, whether some like it or not. But does this streaming era have the same kind of fairness in the music industry from its predecessor of the physical copy era? It’s not all bad for consumers, but for those who write/produce/publish music on their own it’s a nightmare. It’s not a secret that streaming platforms for artists such as Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music help greatly to promote your personal brand. But unless you already have the followers to back up these promotions, you’re likely going to be getting the same 50 listeners every month. In the time of the physical era, it was actually about the same if you consider the larger companies factoring in.
The “physical copy era” ended in roughly the mid 2000s when having a Nano iPod, or something similar, became easily accessible. Now, we have the “digital streaming age” in the music industry.
YouTube music is by far the most popular streaming service currently available on the market. This is because it is widely easy to operate, has a long history of streaming, and is accessible to both listeners and performers. However, there’s more to it than that. The massive streaming platform has more to offer than initially meets the eye.
YouTube’s users have a vast and extensive library to choose from, which all stream FOR FREE an unlimited number of times. Only roughly 10% of its users pay for a premium membership, which in the music world basically means not having to wait on the stupid advertisements to end before belting out your favourite number. But are the advertisements actually stupid, or are they generating profit for the artist/company as well? Unfortunately, all the revenue comes from those pesky advertisements at such a little cost to the advertisers (between $4-10 for every 1000 plays) that is why there are so, so many of them. If an artist/company puts an advertisement on their video, it allows a payout of $0.002 per stream (20-50% of the ad income). While such a small decimal may not seem like much, if you’re getting the streams, you’re actually making a profit on the advertisement being on your video.
This algorithm was set up based on the extremely rough estimate that the sale of one physical copy of either a single or a full album takes 1000 streams on a streaming platform. Ever since this algorithm has been set up, it has been widely questioned which was better for the music industry long-term: The streaming digital age, or the physical copy era?
To put this in larger numbers, a million-streaming record in the digital streaming age would in the physical copy era be the equivalent of buying a case of Phil Collins CDs. But here’s how the digital age makes more money than the physical copy era: Most of the top streaming songs on streaming platforms are in the multi-billions for numbers, which means that $0.002 x 1,000,000,000 equals $2,000,000. For those who still have doubt, “Shape of You” by Ed Sheeran is currently the 5th most streamed YouTube Music Video at 6.08 billion views. So doing the maths of $0.02 x 6.08 billion equals $12,160,000 made in earnings on just one video.
The digital era also means the artists and companies don’t have to spend as much, if any, costs on things like printing, packaging, shipping, retail, etc. Other than royalties, the majority of the money goes directly to the artist and/or company that the video belongs to. In the digital age, you do have to expect to spend money on things such as publishers, copyrights, even promotions for either your own brand or others. But these costs are not new and have always been around in the music industry. They are simply highlighted more now that they are digitised with credits. So the digital streaming era is in fact just as fair as the physical copy era when you consider a video that gets 18,000 views (Congratulations!) is basically like selling 18 physical copies. This way of streaming for consumers merely needs to be recalculated (going upwards) like most things taking inflation into account.
Janine has always been a part of music and performing. The first show that inspired her to go into theatre was the Velveteen Rabbit which she saw as a child, and Drew works to keep that magic alive in her work. When Drew was accepted into an internship program for audio engineering at a recording studio, she jumped at the opportunity. That was at the start of 2020, and so much has happened since then, both in her career and in the world. Since then, Drew has taken several opportunities to work at recording studios, concerts, festivals, and even large theatres while spending some time on tour. Drew's favorite by far though, has been the chance to work on Broadways and West End shows, as this was a dream come true. Drew is honoured to get to share these experiences from being inside the entertainment industry.
Read Full Profile
© 2021 TheatreArtLife. All rights reserved.
Thank you so much for reading, but you have now reached your free article limit for this month.
Our contributors are currently writing more articles for you to enjoy.
To keep reading, all you have to do is become a subscriber and then you can read unlimited articles anytime.
Your investment will help us continue to ignite connections across the globe in live entertainment and build this community for industry professionals.
