19-10-2016, 20:05
Full article is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/an...io/7948246
My first reaction was "ho hum, so what's new?" But on reading the full article, there were a couple of things that caught my eye and are worth emphasising:
So much for downloading killing off the music industry.
And further down, a reality check:
How much financial benefit does a performer or a writer gain from having their song played on the radio or streamed on Spotify or Apple? I don't think this question has ever been satisfactorily answered, though everyone has their own opinion. Certainly the direct gain from royalty payments is small - but I would argue that the publicity is the true payoff. That publicity encourages some people to purchase the music; it encourages others to attend concerts by that performer; it gets their name known, making it more likely that they will score contracts, collaborations etc, down the track. Back in the 1950's there was a phenomenon called payola, whereby radio announcers took bribes, cash or otherwise, to play certain songs. I'm certainly not condoning that, but my point is that, far from expecting to charge royalties to radio stations, the purveyors of the music (which probably meant the record companies rather than the performers) recognised that radio was their meal ticket, and airplay was something worth paying for. In 2016, that probably still applies, you just need to add Spotify and other streaming services into the equation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/an...io/7948246
My first reaction was "ho hum, so what's new?" But on reading the full article, there were a couple of things that caught my eye and are worth emphasising:
Quote:Australian songwriters, composers and publishers made a record $333 million in the past year..... up 11 per cent on the previous year.
Royalty collections from streaming services increased by 140 per cent in 2015-16, to $27.4 million.
So much for downloading killing off the music industry.
Quote:But radio is doing more than just holding its own, it's increasing as wellJust not increasing as fast as streaming, but still increasing. Reports of the death of radio are greatly exaggerated.
And further down, a reality check:
Quote:... while the percentage increase in digital revenue was dramatic, it was still coming off a fairly low base."The actual revenues are still yet to flow through in an incredibly meaningful ways to all the songwriters,"(sic) (Some terrible grammar there.)
How much financial benefit does a performer or a writer gain from having their song played on the radio or streamed on Spotify or Apple? I don't think this question has ever been satisfactorily answered, though everyone has their own opinion. Certainly the direct gain from royalty payments is small - but I would argue that the publicity is the true payoff. That publicity encourages some people to purchase the music; it encourages others to attend concerts by that performer; it gets their name known, making it more likely that they will score contracts, collaborations etc, down the track. Back in the 1950's there was a phenomenon called payola, whereby radio announcers took bribes, cash or otherwise, to play certain songs. I'm certainly not condoning that, but my point is that, far from expecting to charge royalties to radio stations, the purveyors of the music (which probably meant the record companies rather than the performers) recognised that radio was their meal ticket, and airplay was something worth paying for. In 2016, that probably still applies, you just need to add Spotify and other streaming services into the equation.