8Sided Blog

a zine about sound, culture, and the punk rock dream

YouTube, Unpaid Royalty, and Missing Metadata

· Leave a Comment

The New York Times:

In a persistent problem for the online music business, large numbers of songs have missing or incorrect data about their songwriters and which music publishers represent them, leaving what is widely estimated to be millions of dollars unpaid. The publishers’ association has made a series of deals to address the problem, most recently with Spotify.



On Thursday, YouTube, which is by most estimates the most popular destination for music online, announced that it had reached a settlement with the National Music Publishers’ Association, a trade group, over the complex issue of unpaid songwriting royalties.



The agreement with YouTube {estimated to be worth more than $40 million} will give participating publishers — the companies that traditionally manage songwriting rights, which are separate from those of recordings — access to a list of songs for which YouTube has missing or incomplete rights data. YouTube will then pay any accrued royalties from a fund it has set aside for this purpose.



Again, the services get the all the blame but messy data collection and management within the industry itself is a major part of the problem.

Previously and Previously.

Ad-Supported Optimism

· Leave a Comment

Pitchfork:

When asked about the near future of free music streaming, Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s chief business officer, tells me, “What’s next is more ad revenue coming into it.” For instance, the advertising conglomerate Interpublic Group recently revealed it was shifting $250 million in TV ad spending to YouTube. Kyncl suggests advertisers could increasingly take money off traditional radio, too, and put it on the service’s clips. The record industry’s business model always differed from TV and radio in that fans bought specific songs or albums, but now it’s being tied into that same advertising-based model through free streaming.

“The music industry as a whole hasn’t earned that much from advertising, and now that’s changing,” Kyncl says. The reason industry coffers haven’t previously spilled over with ad revenues is partly a quirk of U.S. copyright law. Unlike in some other nations, radio broadcasters here pay royalties only to the songwriters, not the labels that own the recordings. But on-demand streaming service providers like YouTube and Spotify must pay both types of royalties. So, according to Kyncl, as listening goes from analog to digital, the music industry can look forward to a bigger share of the revenue from a larger market. In other words, labels—and artists who own their own master recordings—have gone from “monetizing only the super fans, by selling them CDs and LPs and tapes, to making money through ads from everybody that enjoys music,” he explains. “And that’s a big deal.”

Streaming’s Elephant In The Room

· Leave a Comment

Music Business World:

If you missed it, video music streams – YouTube with a bit of Vevo, essentially – were bigger and grew faster than audio streaming services in 2015 {according to recent Nielson data}. That’s all audio streaming services combined – including AOL, Beats Music (RIP), Cricket, Google Play Music, Medianet, Rdio (RIP), Rhapsody, Slacker and Spotify.



In 2016, then, the music business’s quest to restrict YouTube’s dominance of ‘free’ music looks like a bigger challenge than ever before. “This is absolutely the legacy Lucian {Grainge} is determined to leave,” one ally of the UMG boss recently told MBW – referring to Grainge’s recently-inked new contract with Vivendi. “Getting ‘free’ under control and dealing with the YouTube problem is his No.1 business priority.”



Yet there might be one more ace up the sleeve of Grainge and his old mentor Doug Morris. Sony and UMG are both major shareholders in Vevo – a platform that’s part-rival, part-partner, part-moneymaker and part-irritant to YouTube.



As many have pointed out, if Vevo’s YouTube relationship fell apart, it would be a in a world of pain. Lots of people can’t even distinguish between the two brands. But what’s often overlooked is that the Vevo/YouTube balance is more reciprocal than many appreciate. According to ComScore, Vevo uploads bring in around 38% of YouTube’s monthly traffic. (Videos from Warner Music, which isn’t an investor in Vevo, independently attract another 20%.) Messing with Vevo means messing with a significant chunk of YouTube’s existing $9bn annual revenue.



With all this talk of Spotify and publishing lawsuits, YouTube’s dominance in the free arena remains the hulking elephant in the room. Personally, I’m much more eager to see them reined in than Spotify.

The Sad Economics Of Internet Fame

· Leave a Comment

Fusion:

The disconnect between internet fame and financial security is hard to comprehend for both creators and fans. But it’s the crux of many mid-level web personalities’ lives. Platforms like YouTube mirror the U.S. economy’s yawning wealth gap, and being a part of YouTube’s “middle class” often means grappling daily with the cognitive dissonance of a full comments section and an empty wallet.



Fan-funding sites like Patreon are at the center of a communal movement to fund “smaller YouTubers.” But that definition gets blurry. Is someone with 50,000 subscribers worth supporting financially? How about 200,000? What if people assume you’re too successful to need money, and you’re too proud to tell them otherwise?



Like many other areas of the economy, YouTube has a basic supply and demand problem. Everybody wants to be there, so fledgling performers put up with a lot because they want to be famous.



“It’s not surprising that the failure rate on YouTube would be higher because people aren’t good judges of their own abilities,” [economist Jodi N.] Beggs said. The result is that the market is oversaturated, and subscriber numbers, which rarely make any sense, become the gatekeepers of financial success.



In a 2013 speech, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Alan Krueger said the increase of knowledge about a performer’s life and beliefs due to social media has led to not being able to charge as much for concert tickets. Besides, he said, “most people do not want to think of their favorite singer as greedy,” he said. “Would you rather listen to a singer who is committed to social causes you identify with, or one who is only in it for the money?” If an artist—a YouTuber or Instagram star, for instance—is committed to championing the little guy, they can’t very well look like they’re taking money for their work.



The recent phenomenon of the internet ‘star’ continues to fascinate. These folks sound like the YouTube equivalent of rock bands that van-tour the country by the seat of their pants … sold out shows a thousand miles away, but grueling and necessary day jobs waiting at home. The crucial difference is that the entertainers in this article are relying on third-party platforms outside of their control for their fame, which is partly why their trade is often seen as a calculated, hopeful stepping stone to more traditional media.

(h/t Jon Curtis)

YouTube’s Music App Could Rule All Streaming Services

· Leave a Comment

Wired:

YouTube’s audience is unique. They love to engage. They watch, like, and share. They make remixes, covers, lyrics clips, and response videos. And they do this for everything that’s already part of the YouTube collection, including official music videos, fan videos, and concert footage.



Now, YouTube is taking this massive corpus, mixing in some neat new features, and opening it up to everyone as a standalone app with a clear focus on just the music. Today, the company is launching its first official standalone music app called, well, YouTube Music.



My favorite feature of all is something called the offline mixtape. You determine how much of your phone’s data you’re willing to spare for songs, pick the audio quality, and let the app make you a playlist. It’s a lot like Spotify’s excellent Discover feature, except it’s refreshed daily, not weekly. The offline mixtape is another exclusive for YouTube Red subscribers.


The manner that Google has been able to develop and expand YouTube is remarkable. The YouTube that they acquired in 2006 is still recognizable today, but its present culture and varied uses of the service (such as this music focus) would be alien then. I’m certainly interested in the ‘offline mixtape’ and what YouTube does with it, as well as the integration of user generated content. Some things need to be solved … the way that YouTube presents its auto-generated music ‘videos’ is a bit clunky (here’s an example) and I’m curious how that will translate to the YouTube Music app. And there’s also the familiar issue of YouTube’s fuzzy transparency with how music creators are getting paid.

Unplugging The Rebellious Jukebox

· Leave a Comment

Music Industry Blog:

At the Future Music Forum, Frukt’s Jack Horner observed that most music genres, and indeed media as a whole, are becoming age agnostic, which means that it is really hard for Generation Edge [i.e. our current pre-teens and adolescents] to find music that they can own, that their mum and dad aren’t going to sing along to too. This is the price to be paid for media and brands having successfully convinced aging 30 and 40 somethings that they are still young at heart and in the pocket. So with no music subculture to cling to Generation Edge has instead gravitated to YouTube stars.



For those not in the target demographic, it can sometimes be difficult to grasp exactly what the creative value is of many YouTubers. But that generational inability to grasp the essence of YouTube talent is exactly the same dynamic that music always had when it was the spearhead for youth rebellion. A kid trying to explain to his mum why Stampy Does Minecraft is worth watching hours on end is simply a 21st century rerun of kids trying to convince their parents of the musical worth of Elvis, the Beatles, the Sex Pistols and so on. That is the entire point of a youth culture – older generations aren’t meant to get it.


I’m not going to go all ‘old man shaking fist’ on this, but it does present interesting challenges for the music industry. First of all, the author’s observation on the effect of music no longer being seen as ‘rebellious’ by teenagers is keen. I’ve long believed that youth-led cultural changes related to music would start to be driven more by technology than sound or style as ubiquitous access to a world of recordings makes genre labels passé. And the fact that the YouTube movement is being driven by content creating peers of ‘Generation Edge’ (ugh – I will shake my fist at that term, actually) is a bit cool and kind of sci-fi, really. Encouraging music integration into this content will probably be key, which would require an open embrace of ‘remix culture‘ by the powers that be. Services like Flipagram seem to be on the cusp.

YouTube As Well As SoundCloud Should Worry About PRS Lawsuit

· Leave a Comment

Music Ally:

We reported yesterday on PRS for Music’s decision to sue SoundCloud for copyright infringement. Over the course of the day, the key contradiction between the two parties’ statements became clear: it’s about whether SoundCloud is willing to strike a licensing deal, and specifically whether that deal would apply to both its existing free service and its upcoming subscription tier.



Meanwhile, it also became clear that this lawsuit may have strong implications for YouTube, not just SoundCloud.



In recent months, when rightsholders have complained about what they see as misuse of safe-harbour protection, they have often grouped SoundCloud and YouTube together as examples. YouTube, of course, has a licensing deal with PRS for Music last renewed in 2013.



If PRS for Music takes SoundCloud to court and wins, delivering a blow to that mooted safe-harbour defence, think how much stronger its hand will be when the time comes (as it soon will) to renegotiate its YouTube deal. Multiple sources have suggested to Music Ally that this is the real significance of the SoundCloud lawsuit. “The stakes are super high,” as one of them put it. Indeed.


2016 may turn out to be ‘The Year Of The Shake-Up’.

(previously)

How To Ignore YouTube Completely

· Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

Over the past year, major labels appear to have woken up to a crucial fact: when fans are listening on YouTube, they’re not listening on other services… and YouTube isn’t paying nearly enough.



According to IFPI estimates, YouTube and other ‘exclusively free, ad-funded platforms’ contributed $641m to the global record industry last year. Subscription streaming services coughed up $1.6bn.



That fact becomes infinitely more damning when you combine it with this one: YouTube has over a billion monthly users, and they love to play music. There were just 41m people paying for music streaming in 2014. Recent Ipsos research even found that more than a quarter of internet users (27%) listen to music on YouTube without even watching the video.



Spotify realises that all this represents a unique opportunity to debunk a music biz myth that has frustrated the Swedish company since birth. It’s the one that goes: YouTube is a friendly promotional tool, while Spotify is an income-focused commercial service.


One hold-over from the days of physical distribution is that feeling that your digital release should be available in as many stores as possible. I remember thinking this way as well in the early days of digital sales … I felt my music should just simply be available in every digital shop the same as how I wanted my vinyl releases in every mom and pop record store. But then came the realization that not all these outlets paid the same (or even at the same consistent time), and that some that didn’t push or weren’t selling adequate numbers of my label’s music were taking up as much of my effort as those that followed through.

Targeting the outlets that give you the most benefit is wise … sort of a loose application of the Pareto principle. If fans are using YouTube to stream your music, but Spotify or Apple Music are paying more per stream, then by all means you should work at pulling the focus away from YouTube.

One problem: if you or your distributor are providing music to Google for Google Play or their related services then you are probably opted in to the YouTube Music Key program. A static, generic video using the cover art will be automatically created for your song and available on YouTube which could torpedo this strategy of exception. Even the One Direction song referenced throughout this MBW article is on YouTube via Music Key. However, as far as I know, YouTube Music Key videos are not available outside of the US due to licensing restrictions … but I’m sure this will eventually change.