Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

digitalmusicnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#71

Post by kthejoker2 »

jasode wrote: post #68
NathanKP wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the middlemen and the way the revenue is distributed through them. Someone who produces and uploads their own video that reaches a stupidly huge number of people will make bank guaranteed, just like someone who is reaching their audience directly through Patreon. On average you should be able to get $5-$10 per 1000 YouTube video views if it is on your own monetized channel. So that 35 million views pro…

>On average you should be able to get $5-$10 per 1000 YouTube video views if it is on your own monetized channel. So that 35 million views probably generated around $245,000 dollars for someone. Not disputing your numbers but just putting it out there that Hank Green estimated $2-per-1000.[1] That calculates 35m views to be ~$70k. Google also recently changed its engagement algorithms and everybody's views and moneti…

One data point, my wife's channel has averaged $1.14 per 1000 views in 2017.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#73

Post by dkrich »

mfoy_ wrote: post #45
dkrich wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should they get most of the monthly fee? Spotify offers the ability for that user to listen to that artist plus a million others and thus carries the overhead required to create a platform for that artist to publish in the first place. This seems a bit like saying that I as a taxpayer should only have to pay for the public services that I, at this point in time, take advantage of.

That's why Spotify takes its cut, no? Comparing listening to different artists to funding multiple agencies with tax dollars isn't a valid comparison. It's like saying that when I buy my favourite brand of ice cream at the store, that the other ice cream brands will get a cut simply for gracing the shelves.

No, it's like saying that when you buy your favorite brand of ice cream at the store the grocery store keeps most of the profit because without the store the ice cream manufacturer wouldn't have a place to sell to the masses.

If said artist is in such high demand, then he or she can go make their own streaming platform, charge $10/month, and keep 100%. Obviously that isn't the case, so they must get some utility out of using the Spotify platform.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#74

Post by WalterBright »

Applejinx wrote: post #33
look_lookatme wrote: post #15

> How will I be able to support my gift? In the end what we are seeing is that that golden era of creators making a living (and much much more) was an anomaly. Control of new types of distribution created scarcity and new forms of expression and shifting norms jacked up demand. But now distribution is free, instant and global. Demand has flatlined and production has exploded. The hard question a creator needs to ask…

If even people reaching a truly stupidly huge number of people don't get even close to making a living (I get more than that off a few hundred people on Patreon for the work that I do), in a situation where those operating the streaming services are renting out entire floors of office buildings in Manhattan, your question is disingenuous. Just because some of us are eking out a sort of existence in the new era doesn'…

> abolishing money

Communes have been tried, voluntary ones and forcible ones, over and over. They never work out. People just aren't wired up that way.

> Star Trek

is an imaginary utopia. You can always make things work when writing a script.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#75

Post by kthejoker2 »

csallen wrote: post #63
Applejinx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If even people reaching a truly stupidly huge number of people don't get even close to making a living (I get more than that off a few hundred people on Patreon for the work that I do), in a situation where those operating the streaming services are renting out entire floors of office buildings in Manhattan, your question is disingenuous. Just because some of us are eking out a sort of existence in the new era doesn'…

Simply reaching huge numbers of people in and of itself isn't necessarily valuable. They may listen to what you've produced and enjoy it. But are they paying to listen? Did they buy the track or sign up for a subscription? Are advertisers paying to be featured alongside the song, or to use it in their commercials? If not, maybe your song isn't so valuable. If those listeners could easily listen to some other song for…

To your last point, it's not quite like that. What happens is the Andre Lindalls of the world re cord demos. The artists listen To the demos and more or less "bid" on them. Top tier artists get top tier songs. Or rather they get songs they think will be hits.

So there is a hierarchy among songwriters even for pop stars, it's definitely not a vast ZMP pool.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#76

Post by benjaminjackman »

alehul wrote: post #27
StringyBob wrote: post #5

I pay GBP10 a month for Spotify. I've never listened to Justin Bieber on Spotify, but lots of other people (who don't pay) do. As a percentage of my cash, how much goes to Justin Bieber vs how much to the bands I've actually listened to who have many less total plays? Or - do neither of them get anything?

The other comment was correct that most of the pooled money will go to Bieber, however I feel there's a better way to frame it. Economically speaking, you can imagine if Spotify had 100 users paying 10 GBP each; 99 listened exclusively to Justin Bieber, and 1 to 'Band.' All users listen to music in equal frequency. Though 99% of the pooled money — and if divvied up equally, 99% of 'Band' fan's money — goes to Justin…

>Economically speaking, you can imagine if Spotify had 100 users paying 10 GBP each; 99 listened exclusively to Justin Bieber, and 1 to 'Band.' _All users listen to music in equal frequency._ [emphasis mine]

Well obviously not all users listen to music at the same frequency (which i know you are likely well aware). What is the reason that they don't just take each users $10 then dole that out only according to the songs that person listened to. So if the user listened to one artist the entire month, then that one artist get's the full portion of the $10 that is given to artists.

That will help with the situation where: 1. Someone else listens to bieber on repeat 24/7 (why should that affect where another's $10 goes) skewing the sample massively towards that artist.

2. In terms of free users, segment them off and pool the ad revenue again boxed on a per user basis.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#77

Post by mfoy_ »

dkrich wrote: post #73
mfoy_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why Spotify takes its cut, no? Comparing listening to different artists to funding multiple agencies with tax dollars isn't a valid comparison. It's like saying that when I buy my favourite brand of ice cream at the store, that the other ice cream brands will get a cut simply for gracing the shelves.

No, it's like saying that when you buy your favorite brand of ice cream at the store the grocery store keeps most of the profit because without the store the ice cream manufacturer wouldn't have a place to sell to the masses. If said artist is in such high demand, then he or she can go make their own streaming platform, charge $10/month, and keep 100%. Obviously that isn't the case, so they must get some utility out…

No... you're missing the point entirely The store is Spotify. The brands are artists.

If I buy brand A, the store gets a cut, and brand A gets a cut. Brand B gets nothing.

With Spotify, if I listen to Repartee, Justin Bieber is still getting some of my money.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#78

Post by look_lookatme »

danvoell wrote: post #55
look_lookatme wrote: post #15

> How will I be able to support my gift? In the end what we are seeing is that that golden era of creators making a living (and much much more) was an anomaly. Control of new types of distribution created scarcity and new forms of expression and shifting norms jacked up demand. But now distribution is free, instant and global. Demand has flatlined and production has exploded. The hard question a creator needs to ask…

"But now distribution is free, instant and global" The only word in this phrase that's new is global. You could always go out on the corner and "instantly distribute" your music for free. What we are seeing in music is the same as we are seeing in the retail industry with Amazon. Those who own the distribution channel create the winners and the losers. With certain distributers having so much leverage they take power…

You are making a semantic argument. I apologize for not being more precise with my language.

Going out on the street to sell your music is hardly meaningful distribution at all compared to putting up a Bandcamp with your music for sale. One has the upside of maybe a few hundred people in a day, the other has billions of Internet-connected consumers.

In the past, the distribution channels were owned by radio conglomerates and retail conglomerates and distributors/publishers/marketing/etc. Basically the music industrial complex. And it was very hard to penetrate that complex with your art and have anyone consume it, much less pay for it. And they picked winners and losers capriciously.

Now you can put your music on YouTube, Spotify, Bandcamp, iTunes, etc. If one of those won't take you, there are others that will. And you can promote a song on Reddit and it can go to the front page and you can have millions of people listening to your music tomorrow. That's what I mean by distribution.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#79

Post by amelius »

look_lookatme wrote: post #15

> How will I be able to support my gift? In the end what we are seeing is that that golden era of creators making a living (and much much more) was an anomaly. Control of new types of distribution created scarcity and new forms of expression and shifting norms jacked up demand. But now distribution is free, instant and global. Demand has flatlined and production has exploded. The hard question a creator needs to ask…

> But now distribution is free

That is laughable. Middle-men like YouTube (Google), record companies and other channels take most of your money. I wouldn't call that free.

(Discoverability is part of distribution)

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#80

Post by WalterBright »

briholt wrote: post #54
look_lookatme wrote: post #15

> How will I be able to support my gift? In the end what we are seeing is that that golden era of creators making a living (and much much more) was an anomaly. Control of new types of distribution created scarcity and new forms of expression and shifting norms jacked up demand. But now distribution is free, instant and global. Demand has flatlined and production has exploded. The hard question a creator needs to ask…

Turns out writers weren't being paid for their songs, but were being paid for a portion of the massive markup on a plastic disk. Now that the disks are gone, the value of the song is laid bare. The same has largely become true for software. How many new Lotus's or Corels are being funded today?

Yup. The value of software has been driven literally to $0. Yet I still keep writing software :-)
Post reply on HN