YouTube's $1 Billion Royalties Are Not Enough, Says Music Industry (bbc.com)

YouTube said Tuesday that it has paid the music industry over one billion dollars in advertising revenue in the past 12 months. The music industry thinks that sum is not enough. From a report on BBC: "Google has issued more unexplained numbers on what it claims YouTube pays the music industry," said a spokesperson for the global music body, the IFPI. "The announcement gives little reason to celebrate, however. With 800 million music users worldwide, YouTube is generating revenues of just over $1 per user for the entire year. "This pales in comparison to the revenue generated by other services, ranging from Apple to Deezer to Spotify. For example, in 2015 Spotify alone paid record labels some $2bn, equivalent to an estimated $18 per user." In his blog post, Mr Kyncl conceded that the current model was not perfect, arguing: "There is a lot of work that must be done by YouTube and the industry as a whole. "But we are excited to see the momentum," he added.

Comments

Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut out the greedy RIAA pigs and give the money straight to the artist.

Re:Here's an idea

[lgw]

I haven't found music through marketing since I was a teen. Sure, marketing in any industry will always be able to sell inferior crap to the ignorant, and that may never change, but there are plenty of ways to discover music these days. Heck, do labels even bother with payola any more (do kids still listen to the radio?).

These days I usually discover new artists through the various "people who bought/listened to X also bought/listened to Y" algorithms on Amazon, YouTube, etc. I think a lot of people find new music through Spotify's algorithms (has there been a Spotify payola scandal yet?).

Marketing was just more important in the days of broadcast media and limited distribution channels for records. Now there's no scarcity of airtime or shelf space.

Re:Here's an idea

[drakaan]

...or bands that we find via something like YouTube. That's the real reason the RIAA is trying to squeeze Google. They don't like the deal they got with Apple's iTunes, and don't want to be even *more* left behind. They failed to embrace online digital distribution when customers initially clamored for it, tried to sue their way out of it being possible, and now are scrambling to try and figure out how to claw their way back to the same type of margins they once had when they controlled distribution and marketing.

Re:Here's an idea

[AthanasiusKircher]

However, many independent artists would leap at the change to sign with a label, since 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

THIS. People always make the mistake of looking at high revenues that big-name artists get and dream of doing that themselves.

But that's kinda like dreaming of playing for the NBA or NFL or whatever -- sure, it happens, but the 99% of the kids out there playing high school sports will never have a chance at those sorts of salaries.

It is common for creative people to assume that they create the only value that matters, and that marketing, promotion, and distribution are all worthless.

Exactly. There's this new myth of "YouTube-o-genesis" -- just put your stuff up on YouTube, and users can "discover you," and then you start raking in the big bucks, no labels or whatever needed.

And yes, that HAS happened. But for every sudden "YouTube sensation," there are 10,000 people out there who are uploading stuff that gets 5 views only from their friends. And among those 10,000 unlucky people are usually loads of talented folks... they just need some help getting attention.

Labels can still be a path to help that (though they're not the ONLY path). Getting a few percent of revenue from a label that actually promotes you, gets you gigs, etc., is likely a lot better than the beer money people chip in when you just sing at the local karaoke bar.

And I hate the RIAA's abusive copyright tactics as much as anyone else here, and I'll be the first to criticize labels that do bring in large revenues for their executives and staff, but pay a pittance to artists. Nevertheless, they CAN still serve a function, and thus many independent artists still DO sign on.

Re:Here's an idea

[tbannist]

Labels affiliated with RIAA are already finding your "favorite" bands for you. If I go through your music collection, 99% of it will be music from RIAA affiliated labels (or whatever IFPI affiliated marketing/promotion entity is in your part of the planet).

I think the point was that, while most of our current favourite bands might have be found by the RIAA, we'd still have favourite bands if the RIAA and it's affiliated labels didn't exist. In fact, there are arguments that can be made that we might actually have better music if the RIAA affiliated labels weren't picking our favourite bands for us. They have been accused many times of producing cookie-cutter music and drowning out diversity with conservative musical picks.

Re:Here's an idea

[silentcoder]

The metal scene is actually still mostly like that. Perhaps less so in America but there metal was basically killed by the hair-metal movement anyway and became extremely small ever since. Ignore the Nu-metal stuff - since mostly they are of the sausage-factory variety, but you did also have Slayer, Death and Manowar who wrote their own stuff, experimented with new ideas (Manowar basically invented the combination of choral and metal music), produce their own stuff, play their own instruments and push boundaries. Even metallica has had periods where they created real art and their the most commercial metal band America ever had (and the best-selling world-wide of all time).

This is a LOT bigger in Europe - the best metal for two generations have come out of the Slavic countries - Norway, Germany and Finnland in particular and the generation before it was Britain. Priest and Maiden were fantastic and Maiden is still fantastic, still touring, still innovative - they may have grown old but they never grew stale (I saw them live a few months ago and it was one of the best shows I've ever been at). The German scene started out with bands like Accept, which was a one-hit-wonder in the US but had a long and illustrious career back home, and moved into legends like Hammerfall and Blind Guardian. Later they and their neighbours would birth bands like Amon Amarth, Children of Bodom, Korpiklaani, Nightwish - all of which had their own unique approaches to a very wide genre which had already significantly innovated from other metal subgenres (a focus on singable lyrics, low-use of bass but heavy use of rhythm guitars, extremely rapid double-bass-drum patterns, elements of opera, choral and classicalmusic mixed). And most of them are unknown outside their home countries. Meanwhile Norway gave birth to black-metal which is one-part music one part polical protest against the dominance of the state-church, and then Armenian/German band Powerwolf took the stylistics of black metal, mixed it with the musical stylings of powermetal and based their lyrics on the mythology of the Holy Roman Empire for a completely unique sound and style.

There are still great bands out there pushing boundaries, combining absurdly different influences into truly unique music - they just aren't in the USA anymore. In many ways the country is just too conservative. Every time you have an artist actually pushing boundaries, trying different things, exploring a different approach to theatrics - there's a million protesters blaming them for every ill in society. In the 1980's they burned Maiden's records (though the band didn't mind because, in their words: 'before they could burn the record - they had to buy it first'), in the 1990s they blamed Manson for Columbine (even though neither of the shooters listened to the band), a few months ago buzzfeed blamed Slipknot for the racism of Trump supporters (so it's not just the rightwingers who do that), and a judge had to tell law enforcement that listening to Insane Clown Posse does not automatically make you a gangster (so it's not just metal bands either).

That's why it doesn't happen anymore - because in America any band that doesn't toe the line very carefully will never get airplay, never get on radio - just face a constant barrage of harassment and horror. So while bands and musicians may be brave - the record companies aren't, they will have one or two controversial acts (because controversy also sells) but they won't risk anything more.

Back in the mid-1990s Oasis was planning a tour in the US which was struggling to sell, Bon Jovi at the time said "Oasis will never be very successful here, because America is too conservative"
And that's coming from the least controversial, least metal, musician to ever play hair-metal about a band that, honestly, was just a fairly average British pop-rock band who did nothing particularly original or special memorable in their music and whose sole claim to notoriety was once outselling the Bible and calling themselves "Greater than god" - which they stole from the Beatles anyway.

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing YouTube to Spotify.. seriously?

How many of Spotify's users are there for music? I'm betting its close to 100%.
How many of YouTube's users are there for music?

I am going to say this just once.

[nitehawk214]

If you give money to the recording industry via bands with recording contracts. You are part of the problem.

Giving those assholes money enables them to feed their greed.

Time for the dustbin of history

[uncoveror]

The recording industry is as obsolete as buggy whip manufacturers, and pop music is something frivolous that is highly overvalued. That billion is way too much.

Go ahead RIAA - push Google too far

[zerofoo]

I'd love to see the day where Google says fine - we can't agree on a price therefore, we will remove all your copyrighted content from Youtube.

The best way to handle a bully is to stand up to them. The RIAA needs Google far worse than Google needs the RIAA.

I agree that 10% of something

[rsilvergun]

is still more than 100% of nothing, but with some of the contracts out there the band ends up in debt paying off their "advances". 100% of 0 is better than 10% of -$100,000.