Now in the parliamentary proceedings against YouTube in the United Kingdom - in the situation of dissatisfaction with the level of payments from the largest video hosting site, lots of people are beginning to see it only as a tool for marketing and attracting the attention of listeners. Let's discuss whether this makes sense.
Nothing new
In the '30s and '40s, when the Western pop music industry was gaining momentum, a lot of writers and performers worried about technological innovations would only hurt their careers. There was nothing surprising about that - back then, producers would simply gather musicians in the studio, put on a couple of microphones, and ask them to play everything the way it usually sounded in concert. The recordings of the studio sessions really sold out quickly, so there was a risk of a decline in ticket sales for the performances - some of the audience lost interest in them and were satisfied with the material, which they could start and listen to on their own at any time.
That's why the unions defended the right to a steady income from recordings and tried to compensate for the losses from the lack of attendance at shows. But the labels were in no hurry to meet their demands, and there were strikes throughout the '40s. Unionists were forbidden to cooperate with record companies, but it was very difficult to influence the work of the latter.
The labels had managed to restock before the conflict started, plus they were releasing hits of the previous years and working with the so-called "hillbillies", which were not part of the professional communities and could record where and how they saw fit. And not everything was banned: musicians came to play on the air of radio stations, recorded vocals, which was quite acceptable, and cooperated with government agencies (by the way, this is how the number of publications on V-Discs was increased in those years - these were records designed exclusively for members of the U.S. Armed Forces).
Just a couple of years after the strikes were over, twice as many records were sold - the demand for them certainly increased. It was not until 1948, when mass television was already in full swing, that the labels made some concessions, albeit very small ones in terms of compensation for musicians. The use and dissemination of musical creativity for commercial purposes was becoming ubiquitous, and the approach to compensation for authors and performers simply had to be reconsidered. They suffered the most from the strikes - the public listened to what the labels and radio stations put out, forgetting everything else.
As the former Coinbase engineer stressed in his blog, only those who staked on reaching the widest possible audience instead of fighting for a slight increase in the thickness of the wallet came out of the crisis situation with minimal losses.
What now?
History repeats itself almost completely. While some complain about the level of payments from streaming services and YouTube, others see their advantages in this platform, and others are looking for more profitable opportunities for themselves in the form of selling royalty free music on platforms like taketones.com. The most obvious is the opportunity to reach an audience of many millions with a total of two billion users. To help with the recommendation of content in this case are the algorithms of the platform, which in addition is still a free video hosting. With the help of potential flaws or without it, it is worth recognizing that YouTube dominates its niche and the music component is no exception. While 20 million people subscribed to the company's streaming service last February, the number of listeners increased by 50 percent over the next seven months. In this case, we are talking about regular payments, which means a likely increase in compensation for the streams. Representatives of the platform have already openly stated that in just four years YouTube will become a leader in this indicator.
Can authors and performers demand anything when a company provides them with such a massive infrastructure and opportunities? Many people bypass payment disputes and use their YouTube channels to promote their music on paid streaming services. For example, the authors of "lo-fi" compositions, who, according to the laws of the genre, cannot make money from advertising, do so.
So music on one streaming platform actually becomes a marketing tool for other tracks, performances, and merch. Another thing is that with the latter two points, things are not quite the way musicians would like them to be in the world. What in such a situation they can promote - apart from their own profiles on alternative platforms - and whether they can make money just by not letting their fans forget about them, as their colleagues did in the old days, it is still difficult to understand. Let's see how the situation is going to develop and analyze its dynamics in some time.
 |
Just a couple of years after the strikes were over, twice as many records were sold - the demand for them certainly increased. It was not until 1948, when mass television was already in full swing, that the labels made some concessions, albeit very small ones in terms of compensation for musicians. The use and dissemination of musical creativity for commercial purposes was becoming ubiquitous, and the approach to compensation for authors and performers simply had to be reconsidered. They suffered the most from the strikes - the public listened to what the labels and radio stations put out, forgetting everything else.
As the former Coinbase engineer stressed in his blog, only those who staked on reaching the widest possible audience instead of fighting for a slight increase in the thickness of the wallet came out of the crisis situation with minimal losses.
What now?
History repeats itself almost completely. While some complain about the level of payments from streaming services and YouTube, others see their advantages in this platform, and others are looking for more profitable opportunities for themselves in the form of selling royalty free music on platforms like taketones.com. The most obvious is the opportunity to reach an audience of many millions with a total of two billion users. To help with the recommendation of content in this case are the algorithms of the platform, which in addition is still a free video hosting. With the help of potential flaws or without it, it is worth recognizing that YouTube dominates its niche and the music component is no exception. While 20 million people subscribed to the company's streaming service last February, the number of listeners increased by 50 percent over the next seven months. In this case, we are talking about regular payments, which means a likely increase in compensation for the streams. Representatives of the platform have already openly stated that in just four years YouTube will become a leader in this indicator.
Can authors and performers demand anything when a company provides them with such a massive infrastructure and opportunities? Many people bypass payment disputes and use their YouTube channels to promote their music on paid streaming services. For example, the authors of "lo-fi" compositions, who, according to the laws of the genre, cannot make money from advertising, do so.
So music on one streaming platform actually becomes a marketing tool for other tracks, performances, and merch. Another thing is that with the latter two points, things are not quite the way musicians would like them to be in the world. What in such a situation they can promote - apart from their own profiles on alternative platforms - and whether they can make money just by not letting their fans forget about them, as their colleagues did in the old days, it is still difficult to understand. Let's see how the situation is going to develop and analyze its dynamics in some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment