FEATURE:
A Fair Slice
PHOTO CREDIT: @sgcreative/Unsplash
Will An Upcoming Parliamentary Report Help Reverse Revenue Disparity on Streaming Sites?
___________
THIS is a debate and question…
PHOTO CREDIT: Patrick Perkins/Unsplash
that has been asked and argued for years now. I think the fact the pandemic has not only helped expose and intensify the revenue earnings of smaller/less mainstream artists and some of the biggest acts; very few artists have been able to play live and earn money that way – one of the biggest revenue streams for most artists. Streaming sites offer a way for artists to earn money until venues reopen but, as most of us know, there is this gulf between the money going to artists and the labels. Songwriters and musicians on tracks earn less than the artists themselves. What artists are earning is still shockingly low. Unless you are a huge artist who commands millions of streams with each track, the reality is that you’re probably not going to make a lot from streaming sites - if anything at all. The reality is that most artists are not expecting to earn a large amount of money. More than anything, they want to ensure that they are being paid more fairly and are not seeing potential earnings go to labels; ensure they do not get a larger slice than is necessary. A parliamentary report is due that should help to address the inequality and issues inherent on streaming sites. I hope that it paves the way for actual change and a permanent solution to a problem that is weighting heavy on the minds of many artists. The Guardian recently published an article where they spoke to musicians and various figures in the industry to gauge their reaction to the upcoming report.
PHOTO CREDIT: @briant_raw/Unsplash
They asked how they feel things are working right now and what changes need to be implemented:
“Ahead of the release of a parliamentary report into the issue, notable figures from the industry have told the Guardian that music labels were perpetuating issues that need to be urgently addressed, including a system that still prioritises rights owners over artists.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Commons select committee has been examining whether the business models used by major streaming platforms are fair to songwriters and performers. From witnesses expressing fear that speaking up could harm their careers, to the boss of a major record label being described as “living in cloud cuckoo land”, the hearings have been full of testy exchanges.
Senior figures from Spotify, Apple and other streaming services have commended the virtues of streaming, and few in the world of music would dispute that the platforms saved the music industry. Music streaming in the UK now brings in more than £1bn a year in revenue. But the fact remains that artists can be paid as little as 13% of the income generated, receiving as little as £0.002 to about £0.0038 per stream on Spotify and about £0.0059 on Apple Music.
Many have been asking whether it is right that the split in streaming revenues means about 50% go to labels, 30% to streamers and the rest divided among all other interested parties”.
IN THIS PHOTO: Nadine Shah
Nadine Shah, musician
I may have been misunderstood before: I love streaming. I stream a lot of music myself. The access we have to all kinds of music from all over the world is incredible. But I believe streaming must be fixed. The three major labels are bragging about record profits while thousands of musicians are seeing virtually nothing coming back to them. Streaming is here to stay, as it should. What then can fix it and make it better for artists? A user-centric system whereby the artists you choose to play see direct payment from your subscription fee?
Subscription fees for the likes of Spotify have stayed the same for nearly 10 years, £9.99. Increasing this fee may not be so popular during a pandemic, but it does need to go up. We need a fairer system in place. We need more transparency. I wish it was the case that all artists would realise their power and all stand together and unite and strike, but so many of us are so scared to lose favour with major labels and the streaming platforms. Surely we can find a way to make streaming work for all of us, labels, DSPs [digital streaming platforms], and artists and writers.
Ayanna Witter-Johnson, singer-songwriter, cellist and composer
As an independent, self-releasing artist, streaming platforms have been incredibly useful in enabling me to more easily reach and build a global audience. At this time, with the near total disappearance of my primary income from live performance, my streaming income has become much more important to me. During lockdown streaming has soared, but the reality is that a single stream only amounts to 0.003p, which means I would need millions of streams to earn at least the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the majority of the income from streaming doesn’t trickle down to independent artists. The lion’s share goes to the streaming platforms instead of going to the creators, who are the lifeblood of the music industry. The current split of income is unfair, dangerous and needs to change because the people who will suffer the most are ultimately music creators like me.
IN THIS PHOTO: Tom Gray
Tom Gray, #BrokenRecord campaign and Gomez
Many performers currently receive no income from much of their streamed work. We change this by closing a loophole in UK copyright law to give an unwaivable right to equitable remuneration. The major rights holders were able to define the market on their terms without thought for balancing the rewards. This is market failure. However, songwriters and composers need the market domination of the major music groups to be directly addressed. The value of the song is suppressed. A referral to the Competition and Markets Authority would seem the correct starting point to address this.
Milk is a loss leader for supermarkets, so dairy farmers have the protection of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Music is a lossleader for tech companies like Apple and Amazon. We need the same protection: a regulator to ensure the lawful and fair treatment of music creators. Lastly, we need a limit of 25 years on recording contracts.
Elena Segal, global senior director of music publishing at Apple Music
We believe very strongly that creators should be paid for their art and we have done that ever since 2003 when we came into this business. Artists should be paid for their work, creators should be paid for their work and it’s what we’re committed to do every single day. We’re very happy to have a discussion about what is and is not fair, because it’s not a straightforward question”.
IN THIS PHOTO: Elena Segal
Whilst the solution may not be quick or simple, the need for progress and overhaul is crucial. I don’t think it will be as easy as making a sweeping change across the broad. There will need to be discussion and dissection to ensure that everyone gets a fair cut. Labels should not earn more than artists; songwriter, backing vocalists and session musicians also deserve more. I think Nadine Shah was right when they said people should pay more for subscriptions on sites such as Spotify. At the moment, for a monthly cost of £9.99, one can have unlimited access to music and podcasts. It is great for the consumer but, at such a low cost, there is possibly not enough money being generated to ensure that every artist, musician and producer gets a decent revenue cut. Even upping the monthly price to £15 would afford greater flexibility and would not put too many people off. Even when venues do reopen, it is not going to be a quick recovery. Gigs will start tentatively and, ensuring venues can remain safe and COVID-compliant, it will take a while before there is recovery and any sense of normality. Let’s hope that this year is one where there is improvement regarding the lack of parity on streaming sites. For all the pleasure and comfort artists have brought us during the pandemic (and do through their entire careers) it is…
PHOTO CREDIT: Jusdevoyage/Unsplash
NO less than they deserve.