Blog

Newsletter Editorial #126 - It's The Economy, Stupid

Jenny Tyler — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:00:00 +0100

The economics of the music business can be hard to quantify in the absence of meaningful, reliable and regular data capture with which to inform and influence a range of policy and decision making. But it’s getting better and we read with interest headline stats from UK Music’s 2015 annual report - Measuring Music - which now places the live sector as having experienced the fastest GVA and employment growth throughout 2014, and was the only sector in the entire UK economy to grow by 5% (UK economy growth being 2.6% in 2014).

Fast forward to 2017, only time will tell whether we'll be discussing 2016 as positively, should the UK make a #Brexit on June 23, in which case the live sector, exports, manufacturing and copyright reform perhaps stand to loose the most.

To the best of our knowledge we were early off the starting block with this debate (We Need To Talk About Europe). Though our own survey results proved inconclusive, individually, respondents reinforced ours and others’ thinking on the topic which has since become more detailed and thankfully way more dignified than vast swathes of political rhetoric which has left the electorate poorly served in this important debate. Pitchfork’s Laura Snapes’ piece is particularly illuminating, and for the undecided, a worthwhile read.

Both the performance of the live sector and the fact that a disproportionately high number of musicians continue to struggle to sustain the most modest of incomes (not to mention future financial provision) are particularly relevant to our own current research projects.

Operating within one of the leading universities for commercial music business affords us the opportunity to work with some of the sharpest minds in the industry, not to mention the numerous disciplines entwined within complex subject matters.

So it is that gratifying to be able to report that the first half of this year has seen MusicTank deep in research mode, spanning topics as diverse as musicians’ mental health, London’s night time economy and busking (busking report available here), involving academic and industry talent across law, social sciences and planning, in addition to commercial music business.

We’re also soon to publish the latest in our Future Thinking strand of activity, with the subject of music industry diversity adding to last years’ topics of big data, private copying and the making available right. This paper will get an airing at UK Music’s forthcoming Diversity event, 13 July, and will shortly be available as a free download, here.

All this serves to evidence that we continue to be nothing if not timely on issues affecting the business of music, and were delighted to learn that Remi Harris - author of our funding guide, Easy Money? - was recognised in the Queen’s Birthday honours, for services to the music industry.

Also dominating our agenda for the past few months has been a website re-design which is nearing completion and which will greatly improve the functionality of our site, and make more visible the huge amount of content available to site visitors and members alike.

Watch this space...

Editorial by Jonathan Robinson

READ FULL NEWSLETTER

The Music Industry & Mental Health: Can Music Make You Sick?

Jenny Tyler — Wed, 25 May 2016 15:35:00 +0100

TAKE THE SURVEY...

[Updated with video: June 7th]

From dubstep to orchestral players, stories of instances of psychological and emotional turmoil experienced by musicians as well as other members of the musical supply-chain are commonplace.

Launched at The Great Escape on Friday 20^th May as part of Help Musicians UK’s mental health campaign, this project marks the country’s first ever academic research into this issue, conducted by Sally Gross and Dr George Musgrave, University of Westminster / MusicTank.

This research is reaching out to stakeholders across a broad age and genre range in pursuit of a more inclusive and holistic reflection of the state of musicians’ mental health and industry practice, and extends its focus beyond musicians to all those involved in the creative music process to include producers, sound engineers, re-mixers, composers, songwriters, live crew, labels and publishers.

THIS SURVEY NEEDS YOU!

Take the survey, and read more information on the campaign, HERE.

Intentionally provocative, the charity’s campaign, MAD – Music and Depression - seeks to find solutions, rather than simply starting conversations, and will be informed by this academic study, which will explore how the music industry can have a negative impact on the mental health of those working within it and investigate initiatives that can tackle some of the issues.

Launching this research at The Great Escape convention, HMUK Chief Executive Richard Robinson said:

“Today’s announcement represents a huge milestone for mental health in the music industry as well as new strategic direction for HMUK as the independent voice for musicians. Help Musicians UK want to build a robust and effective service for those musicians with mental health issues – but we know we have to listen and be part of the conversation. It is all too easy to suggest solutions but we believe our academic study will do more. We want to build sustainable solutions”. [Read Help Musicians UK Press Release]

Said Sally Gross, academic lead, ‘Can Music Make You Sick?’:

“For those of us living and working in the UK music industry, stories of instances of psychological and emotional turmoil experienced by musicians as well as other members of the musical supply chain are common place.”

“We hear the cries of artists crushed as their songs are rejected by mainstream radio, nervous as they await news of record contracts, despondent as they leave stage from a poor performance, or heartbroken as their friends earn money while they still eat Super Noodles at 28 years old.

“The pain is heard daily; in the lyrics of the songs they write, and in the screams of their public tweets, from Facebook to Radio 1 the news of the struggles and frustrations of working in the music industry are getting louder. “Of course in a sense none of this is new, the history of music is the history of these struggles. However in the age of Austerity and the new knowledge economy it would appear these struggles are taking on a new dimension as the numbers of aspiring creatives has increased unimaginably and the unit value of music (if there every was such a thing) has economically imploded.”

These experiences are known only too well by the authors of this research project. Sally Gross has worked across many areas of the music industry from DIY record label owner to A & R at Mercury Records to International Business Affairs manager for the French independent record Label Ya Basta Records and music publisher Science et Melodie, as well as in artist management since starting out in 1990.

Co-author, Dr. George Musgrave, was the first ever unsigned act to be placed on the MTV Brand New List in 2012 as ‘Context’, subsequently earning the support of Ed Sheeran, Mike Skinner, Plan B, and signing publishing and record contracts with EMI/Sony/ATV and Atlantic Records respectively.

Speaking about the project, Dr George Musgrave said: “We are really excited to be conducting the first-ever academic study of the complex relationship between the music industry and mental health. Many know the well-publicised stories of Amy Winehouse and others, but we are particularly interested in shining a light on the everyday experiences of those battling conditions which many have, until now, not felt able to speak about, and asking wider questions about the risks of music.”

Both are now academics working in the field of creative labour; Sally being the program director of, and George a Senior Lecturer on, the highly successful MA Music Business Management course at University of Westminster.

It is from this perspective, as academics, practitioners, and academic practitioners that this research seeks to explore the dynamic emotional reality of life in the competitive world of the UK music industry.

Please help us to better understand the true picture of mental health by taking (and sharing) our short 5-minute survey

Words of Support:

"This research is a long over due opportunity to “see, focus upon and really deal with" some of the dark matters trapped within the industry looking glass, previously kept frosted over or only sensationalised when selling headlines and its all a bit too late…."
Conrad Thompson ( PKA MC Conrad)

"Any relationship needs to be healthy to be productive, and this research into the well-being of artists is a vital first step toward understanding what we need to do better as an industry to protect our artists and their art."
Andy Inglis, 5000

_______________________________________________

JUST 5 MINS IS ALL IT TAKES TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY HERE
Read more about Help Musicians UK and their MusicAndDepression campaign here

Tidal Forecasts Strong Revenue Increase In 2016

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:55:00 +0100

The struggle has been seismic for Jay-Z’s Tidal music streaming platform since its launch in 2015. Recent figures however, suggest that it could be turning the corner in terms of its rising number of monthly subscribers.

In March of this year, the Bangkok Post were one of the first to report the news that Tidal had reached the milestone of 3 million monthly subscribers, with it’s paid tier spanning in excess of 46 countries globally, showing that Tidal is starting to gain momentum in its efforts in challenging premium streaming giant, Spotify.

It’s been a big year for Tidal so far, with the exclusive streaming of Kanye West’s new album ‘The Life of Pablo’. One thing Tidal haven’t lacked since their inception is a long list of high profile musicians endorsing their service. The likes of the aforementioned Kanye West, Madonna, owner Jay Z and wife Beyoncé, Rihanna, Coldplay and Nicky Minaj have all showed their support for Tidal as reported by BuzzFeed.

The on-demand music service had a troublesome start though, regardless of its recent surge in subscriptions. It’s vow “to change streaming to benefit artists” seemed to have fallen on deaf ears with the company using the “richest names in music” to promote its services instead of fledgling artists building a name for themselves. It did however promise to showcase 1,000 tracks by unsigned artists, though any physical evidence of any of these artists wasn’t on show to the public during the launch – instead music royalty was paraded in front of the media and any other onlookers who tuned in to see Jay Z’s latest business venture see the light of day.

While attracting some 3 million subscribers shows a huge improvement on 2015’s balance sheets, it is still a far cry from Spotify’s devoted 30 million paying customers. Additionally, Tidal have been overtaken by Apple Music, which has garnered 11 million subscribers in its brief tenure operating in the streaming industry.

This year, as mobile sales and Internet connectivity increases, many media outlets are expecting a shift in the market share between Spotify and Tidal. Whether the emphasis will be on aiding up-and-coming musicians remains to be seen but some feel Spotify may have reached their ceiling.

There will also be a host of other variables to consider in the music industry in 2016. Vinyl sales remained strong last year and are forecasted to continue rising in 2016 and beyond. We’ll see the reforming, and re-emergence of some of the best bands in the world. Radiohead are likely to return with a new album and are presumably set to continue to shun streaming services as part of its initial release strategy. Additionally, legendary rock band Guns N’ Roses will reform to play Coachella, record a new album (which is unlikely to appear on Tidal or Spotify), they have already released a raft of merchandise, including selling the rights to leading online slots provider Spin Genie who recently launched the successful Guns N’ Roses-themed game. Additionally, the band have been reportedly been demanding $3 million-a-show. All of this has the potential to take the light off the streaming services and shift the focus to the more traditional forms of music through tangible physical products.

While 2016 definitely looks promising for Tidal, the struggle certainly isn’t over yet. Huge financial outlays on launches such as ‘The Life of Pablo’ would not have been cheap and the streaming service will need to see sizeable returns sooner rather than later.

That said, the recently released IFPI report may have some welcoming news for Tidal and others, revealing, “streaming revenues were up 45.2%, helping to drive 3.2% global growth.” The report also suggested that, “music consumption is exploding globally, but the ‘value gap’ is the biggest brake on sustainable revenue growth for artists and record labels.”

With digital sales contributing 45% towards global music sales, the industry expects a proportion of that to shift to streaming due to the ease and low cost to consumers. News like this will no doubt help Tidal grow in the remaining months of 2016, however their ability to innovate will be a deciding factor as to whether they can steal subscribers from Spotify and wrestle more revenues from digital sales across to their monthly subscription service.

Newsletter Editorial #125: Diversity's Whitewash

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:40:00 +0000

The music industry’s tussle with the issue of diversity most recently typified by a near all-white role call of 2016 BRIT winners has rightly forced this important debate centre stage. And not before time.

Regrettably, you don’t have to look very far to realise that this is likely a reflection of what goes on inside some but by no means all music and entertainment companies.

Nor is it just about artists either. As Remi Harris pointed out in a post on this issue earlier this week, whilst there may be many successful examples of support and career opportunities in the industry, climbing the ladder of career advancement and breaking through the (seemingly reinforced) glass ceiling is, by a long way, the preserve of very few from a BAME background.

McKinsey’s 2015 Diversity Matters research findings make compelling reading for those concerned with company performance – whether it be financial, competitive, employee or customer focused:

“Recent research has found that companies in the top quartile for gender or racial and ethnic diversity are more likely to have financial returns above their national industry medians. Companies in the bottom quartile in these dimensions are statistically less likely to achieve above-average returns. And diversity is probably a competitive differentiator that shifts market share toward more diverse companies over time.

While greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit, the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful”

Similarly, drilling down into the music industry specifically, 2013 research by BASCA’s Vic Bain points to transformative changes for music businesses that fully embrace equality and diversity practices.

It’s therefore bewildering why as an industry we find ourselves seemingly unable to embrace change and build a workforce that is truly representative of multi-cultural Britain. As Craig David collaborator Big Nastie said in his C4 interview during the furore of this year’s BRITS and the ensuing #britssowhite backlash:

"… for our country to do good, we need to embrace our country.”

In an attempt to shed further light on this impassioned topic, MusicTank will shortly be publishing a paper on diversity, the findings of which highlight the failure of policy to trickle down within corporations and the hidden discriminatory attitudes and endemic unfair practices within the UK music industry.

Coming at a time of a renewed commitment in some quarters to affect positive change through a revitalised diversity task force, we look forward to debating the paper and the issues it raises a little later in the year.

Editorial by Jonathan Robinson

READ FULL NEWSLETTER

...UPDATE ME ON YOUR DIVERSITY PAPER & EVENT

Newsletter Editorial #124: Brexit - We Need To Talk About Europe

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 08:55:00 +0000

MUSIC INDUSTRY SURVEY
Please spend a few minutes of your time updating us with your views about the EU and the UK music industry...
COMPLETE HERE

With the Europe ‘In’ or ‘Out’ debate rarely off the news agenda, and with a forthcoming referendum that could take place as early as June, it’s somewhat surprising there hasn’t been more open dialogue across the music business about the implications of a result favouring Britain’s exit from the EU.

At first glance, the fact that the music and creative industries aren’t in the critical list of sectors recently identified as most likely to be adversely affected by a Brexit ¹ might be justification enough for this to not be too high on the businesses’ agenda.

Indeed, a recent and unscientific MusicTank straw poll of music industry trade bodies and leading organisations reveals only that formal positions have either yet to be agreed, or publicly declared.

It would be fair to assume that that a Brexit would undermine the EU Commission’s on-going copyright review as affects rightsholders, and perhaps reason enough to conclude that as an industry, we’re better off ‘in’; not to mention the de-stabilising effect on infrastructure projects that seek pan-European agreement, such as the European Digital Single Market, and other initiatives aimed at reducing the friction in cross-border licensing and trade.

Conversely, the fact that there is currently an absence of complete harmonisation of copyright across the Union illustrates that EU membership is hardly a panacea for all that ails, either. Our Private Copying debate last year, highlighted stark differences in approach between some fellow member states (further highlighted in our blog post series), regardless of the common bond of EU membership.

As if dealing with the rigour of the US Visa application isn’t hard enough for UK touring artists, that this could be replicated across EU member states in what might partly amount to retaliatory behaviour by our European neighbours, not to mention the added regulatory burden facing the UK music export market frankly doesn’t bear thinking about. As UK Music’s Jo Dipple reminds us in a recent CBI report – the UK is a net global exporter of music; 60 per cent of which is exported to Europe and the US.

There are potentially unintended consequences of a Brexit, too. Almost certainly, incoming visa applications from Europeans would require proof of work - a disincentive for those in industries with low job security, such as the arts, with additional risks of diluting the talent pool in a sector that has particularly benefited from a vibrant cross-cultural mix of creatives.

The EU is far from perfect; current irregularities concerning withholding tax on monies earned in other member states peculiar only to the UK and Sweden, to the detriment of rightsholders and collection societies, is just another example of further reforms required of an EU in need of urgent reform.

Over the coming weeks, we hope to be able to facilitate some debate on this topic via the 'Comment' link below; equally we’d be pleased to receive any and all comments.

¹ for the curious... chemicals, automotive, financial services and mechanical engineering, more…

Editorial by Jonathan Robinson

READ FULL NEWSLETTER HERE... | EMAIL US

MUSIC INDUSTRY SURVEY ON EUROPE
Please spend a few minutes of your time updating us with your views about the EU and the UK music industry...
COMPLETE SURVEY HERE

Keith Harris: Why Are Catalogue Albums Outselling New Releases?

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:30:00 +0000

I read this week that in America last year, catalogue albums outsold new releases. This could be as a result of any one or a number of different things:

Recent albums have not been of the quality of the albums of yesteryear, possibly due to reduced investment by record companies, on both the A&R process and the studio recording process. This will have been exacerbated by the fact that many older albums have been re-mastered, improving the sound quality and bringing them in line with newer recordings;
The record industry has gone through its golden era; its best days are now firmly behind it. As a result, the age of record buyers is creeping ever upward, therefore the new demographic of people buying records points towards consumers buying older albums by older artists. Re-mastering probably has a role to play here too;
The world of streaming has opened up a new world to a younger audience who are now discovering the wealth of music available from days gone by – the success of 6 Music with its heavy leaning towards classics of rock history, would tend to lend some support to this theory;
New artists and albums are finding it very hard to make an impact on the public consciousness. The demise of much of the music press and the narrowness of particularly commercial radio playlists would generally endorse this view;
It might also be that faced with the sheer number of new recordings available, many people have given up on music discovery because of a lack of time. Many of the traditional gate-keepers have also been disappearing, with the decline of the music press, and the fragmentation of the radio audiences for new material, due to customised radio services;
It could just be that we have now moved to a generation, which has grown accustomed to turning to YouTube as a destination of first choice for acquiring new music.

Whichever one of these turns out to be true, I think that the industry would do well to spend some money to find out the reasons for this slightly worrying development.

The trend over the last several years towards assuming that just because music is new, that it is good and chiming with a younger audience. The evidence from the live music market place with hugely successful tours from so called Heritage acts, would indicate that older music is very popular with young audiences.

It certainly strikes me that this is an early warning; that many traditional assumptions about the future of the recorded music industry are being challenged.

I’m not sure whether that means taking a good look at the age profile of the record company executives or the age profile of those in the media who are responsible for bringing us the best of the modern music output, but it would seem that the status quo is not necessarily a good idea.

For the sake of the current generation of musicians let’s not just shrug our shoulders and move on.

Keith Harris - Chair, MusicTank

MusicTank: 50% Off January Sale

Jenny Tyler — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:00:00 +0000

With time the most valuable commodity of all, why not take advantage of the following generous discounts on time-saving music industry resources and know-how?

50% Off MEMBERSHIP Until January 31st:

Become a new MusicTank member – buy half-price annual access to over 13 years of reports and transcripts (including 'Easy Money') and enjoy generous event discounts with promocode: JANSALEMEM16 for £22.50 standard, £11.25 students JANSALESTMEM16 (normal price £45 individuals/ £22.50 students)

Company, organisation or institution discounts by arrangement
HE Special price until end of Jan: £399 unlimited student/staff access for your college or university
- contact us

Archive topics include: Creators' Rights In The Digital Landscape; Private Copy Exemption: Rightsholders And Remuneration; Moneyballing Music: Big Data, Consumers And A&R; Is Technology The New Beatles?; The Artist Economics Of Streaming; Ad-Funded Piracy; Getting Primary Tickets Back Into The Hands Of Fans; Improving The Live Experience; Can The Music Industry Afford To Go Green?; Making Available, Communication To The Public & User Interactivity; It's Just A Click Away: How Copyright Law Is Failing Musicians; The Dark Side Of The Tune: The Hidden Energy Cost Of Digital Music Consumption; Remake, Remodel: The Evolution of the Record Label; Let's Sell Recorded Music!; Meet The Millennials and many more...

Becoming a member will also give you access to our earlybird members rate for our upcoming
TOUR MANAGEMENT 1 DAY COURSE

UPSKILL FOR 2016:
The Road To Tour Management: 1 Day Course, 2016
22 Feb |10:00-18:00 | University of Westminster, Central London

ABOUT: Returning for a second consecutive year, Andy Inglis focuses on one of the most interesting, pertinent and specialised areas: Tour Management. Whether you want to be a TM, or you’re just the only member of the band who’s got decent WiFi and can liaise with the promoters, this course will prepare you for the all the things you hadn’t thought of, and set you straight about all the things you had.
WHO IS THIS FOR?: artists, musicians and bands needing to take on tour management responsibilities OR wanting the knowledge to successfully appoint a tour manager; artist managers similarly taking on this additional role OR looking to further their knowedge in order to take on a tour manager; AND those contemplating a career as a tour manager...

For a full course overview and to book click here...
WATCH: course video summary
Earlybird rate ends 30 Jan

50% Off 'EASY MONEY?' Until January 31st:

Easy Money? The Definitive UK Guide To Funding Music Projects - use promocode: JANSALEGUIDE16 and save £9.99 (normal price £19.99) Including:

A 100-page, digital publication (specially developed to enhance time-saving even further with all resources hyper-linked & quick/accessible navigation).
The 6 sources of money - grants; friends and family; crowdfunding; sponsorship; debt; investment - and how to secure them
The 5 funding stages: idea developing; assessing; acquiring; delivering; reporting
An aggregated list of 100+ additional trusts and foundations that provide finance specifically to the music sector
Case studies from 40+ artists, managers, businesses, entrepreneurs and funders – gain insider perspectives on how to gain funding

More...

50% Off TRANSCRIPT "Creators' Rights In The Digital Landscape" Until January 31st:

This think tank considered the pressing issue of creators’ rights and remuneration in the digital landscape. It was informed by the presentation of a paper by Fiona McGugan, which considers the evolution of communication rights that overshadow conventional distribution and reproduction rights as music consumption increasingly shifts away from ownership, towards access models of streaming services. Understanding how these rights are applied, territorial variations in the application of rights, and how licensing structures are determined according to the levels of user-interactivity of digital services lie-at the heart of possibly the single biggest issue facing the music industry in recent times - how much artists get paid.

Buy transcript here for only £9.99 (discount already applied)

If you have any queries regarding any of our events or activities, please call +44 (0) 20 8357 7317, or email us

What else would you like to see us doing in 2016?
Contact us

Catch up on our blog here
Post jobs and opportunities for free here

COMING SOON - The MusicTank website gets a facelift...

Newsletter Editorial #123 - Truth & Reconciliation: Recalibrating Creators' Share From Digital

Jenny Tyler — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:05:00 +0000

It was never going to be a straightforward debate.

Our recent session on creators’ digital rights occupies an important yet complicated space in a rights debate fraught with complexity.

Centre stage is the determination that a stream not be considered the same as a broadcast (even when streaming platforms offer their own ‘radio’ channels as part of their service), meaning creators’ royalties are paid on the same basis as a sale of their work, rather than a straight equitable 50:50 split as is the case with broadcast works.

Understanding how we got to this impasse is enlightening. As David Stopps eloquently described, the WIPO Treaties that were borne out of recognition of the need to accommodate the impact of emerging, disruptive new technologies including the Internet were at the time quite visionary, bearing in mind the process began in 1992 – then occupying a world of dial-up Internet that was by some distance pre-iTunes (2002), and by a long way, pre-streaming (2008 - 16 years later…).

The irony however, is that the very legal instruments created in good faith to protect creators’ digital rights have so comprehensively failed to evolve during the rapid development of digital and online distribution. Depressingly, to re-visit and amend WIPO Treaties is a herculean task involving 217 countries and a timeline that would see most of those currently grappling with these issues well into their dotage.

Thus, 2015 has played out against a backdrop of discontent from the artist and performer community which, in light of recent Q4 and year-end financial results, is only set to become louder; Warners and Universal have both announced that streaming has overtaken download revenues (Q4), with ‘digital’ now accounting for almost half of all revenue.

Whilst this is great news for the platforms and the wider industry, it’s not such great news for content creators on which the music and tech industries depend, the vast majority of whom are clamoring to secure a fairer share out of streaming.

That label business could survive on a 50:50 split of net profits from streaming is as unviable as the notion that creators can continue to sustain themselves on the current meager payout which for all but a rarified few just tips over into low double figures.

There have been notable examples of label support for both streaming platforms and artists. In true Independent spirit, Beggars was the first off the block to publicly declare its position and share streaming royalties truly equitably with its artists, noting that it had to row back from that position a year or so later – a 50:50 split being economically unsustainable in the long-term.

There’s clearly a desperate need for some middle ground in a debate that is certainly polarised, and that once and for all also needs to address the wider issues of artist deductions for digital music as part of an agreed way forward.

The industry is desperately in need of a pragmatic response to determining what that split should be.

In the short term there is no incentive for labels to necessarily reduce their share of the pie to favor creators, however, it’s absolutely in the long-term health of the industry – not to mention the economy - to reach a pragmatic, sustainable solution for all.

The French have taken a bold step in establishing an ethical code of conduct between artists, labels and digital services – albeit a voluntary one – called Agreement For A Fair Development Of Online Music. Essentially it’s a call for true transparency of digital deals; an attempt at establishing a fair and level playing field in the digital music ecosystem, and was drafted at the behest of the French Government.

Whether or not there might be an appetite in the UK for a similar code is a moot point in an industry loathe to be further regulated. No doubt, how the French code progresses will be closely observed.

The MU’s Horace Trubridge warns of a very bleak future in the absence of an agreed way forward. From the perspective of a sector that has united so well in its fight on matters such as copyright reform and anti-piracy, yet is so divided in reforming digital deals founded on analogue constructs, his call for “a truth and reconciliation process between labels and performers” couldn’t come at a more important time.

Editorial by Jonathan Robinson

READ FULL NEWSLETTER HERE...

Women In Music In 2015 - 'Who Run The World'

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:35:00 +0000

Following Alison Lamb’s recent round-up of Women in Music in 2015 featured here, readers might be interested to know that a new company has been established in London to help improve the visibility of women in the grass roots music scene. Who Run The World was launched in August 2015 in response to this issue, which evidently resonates with many talented female artists working to make their own way in music in London today; to-date the company has received over 100 artist submissions in that short space of time in the form of female soloists, female-fronted bands, and bands who include female instrumentalists.

At first glance from the outside, underrepresentation of women in music may not be felt or be a particularly well-known issue facing artists today, with artists such as Adele and Taylor Swift proving themselves great successes in 2015 as the year’s highest selling artists. However, articles and statistics published in the last few years have brought this very real issue to light - according to The Guardian, only 30% of London’s artists are female, and PRS reported in 2013 that of their membership of over 95,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, only 13% were female. This gender divide is also reflected in the business side of the music industry; latest statistics from Creative & Cultural Skills (2012/ 13) revealed that the divide across all music industry related jobs is 67.8% male to 32.2% female.

My name is Beth White, I am a 22 year old singer/ songwriter from north west London with 10 years’ experience as a performing artist, and I am the founder of Who Run The World. I was inspired to start up the company as a result of my hugely impactful experiences gigging for female promoters in Brighton as a university student - with Vicki Cook of FemRock, and Chuck SJ Hay of Hush Hush. When I returned to my London home as a graduate, I found that the same experiences frankly could not be found in London’s underground music scene; most of the time I found myself sharing line ups with up to 1 or 2 other female musicians, and in my experience in London, all ‘behind the scenes’ jobs - promoters, sound engineers and venue managers - were occupied by men. I strongly feel that there is nothing wrong with that per se, though elements such as community support and talent nurturing that I found in Brighton were certainly lacking - and I felt it was high time to bring this to London’s grass roots music scene.

In my experience, I also took issue with most London promoters’ ‘pay-to-play’ model (where artists purchase tickets from promoters to their own shows to sell on), which often leave highly talented yet struggling musicians out of pocket for wanting to perform. It is my aim that Who Run The World will take on a different format, creating a strong community to promote all of our unsigned artists instead of penalising these artists for wanting to put on a show and share their music with audiences in the capital.

Who Run The World launched at Apples and Pears Bar in Brick Lane, which was filmed live on TV by London Live, and we were granted a monthly acoustic residency show every second Thursday of the month during the launch. My policy on accepting artists onto our roster is that so long as they are talented women, regardless of their size, race, age or genre, they have a fair shot at gigging with Who Run The World, so we also host full band showcases of varying genres monthly in order to make all kinds of women as visible as possible in as many grass roots music gigs as we can orchestrate.

Our plans for 2016 include building on our strong community by working closely with London universities in their Feminist and LGBT+ societies to bring female-fronted gigs to them as social events - Who Run The World was recently featured in The F Word, a blog for contemporary feminism in the UK, and we have a Valentine’s Day 2016 event in the works for the lesbian/ bi community as an alternative to London’s LBT nightlife, which also characteristically tends to be under-promoted. We also hope to dip into the festival market in the summer.

As our 100+ artist submissions gives evidence to, lack of visibility for women in music is certainly felt, and I strongly believe women need to take responsibility in redefining the grass roots music scene to have any chance of changing the male-dominant culture of the music industry today as a whole. A recent BBC Three documentary series by CODA-signed artist Charli XCX brought lack of visibility of women in all sectors of the music industry to light, while Vice reported this year on the lack of female presence in the UK’s festival scene, an issue which spurred the founding of Robomagic’s new monthly showcase called Finding The Female Headliners, that launched on the same night as Who Run The World back in August.

Alison Lamb describes a call to arms for equality for all, across all sectors. As Who Run The World continues to grow, it is my hope that this can and will be achieved, and such explicit attempts to support women and redefine the industry will no longer be required, as real change will happen for all female artists. Until such a time, 2015 has certainly proven to be a promising year for women in music, and like all movements or attempts at affective positive change, it has to start somewhere.

Beth White
Who Run The World

Women In Music In 2015 - How Far Have We Come?

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:32:24 +0000

What a year 2015 has been. In the mist of big events for the industry, Apple Music launched, Adele releasing much-anticipated new music and streaming platforms biting the dust, it has sadly, been a year when we've seen that we work in an industry where sexism still very much exists.

It has been the year of these two words: 'women' and 'music'. There have been a number of troubling (and very public) statements made from male perspectives this year which have been hugely documented in the music press. You know the ones, we’ve all heard and read about them. They aren’t going to get any more column inches here, but suffice to say, women are more than capable of discovering new music, be that rock or any other genre that they might want to, and are well and truly, allowed to listen to.

Alongside astoundingly degrading comments such as these during 2015, there have been a worrying number of other cases of sexism highlighted across different sectors in the industry. Let’s take live – the formation Girls Against is making a public stand against groping and other sexual assault that women face at gigs. The response that Girls Against is getting shows the terrifying regularity that these incidents happen. The creation of the group is picking up a lot of support from media and bands, with bands going on to publicly raise awareness of incidents that they are sadly hearing of at their own shows. Take this example from Slaves who posted an incident of sexual harassment occurring at one of their gigs, stating that any male looking to make moves such as these were not welcome at their shows.

Raising awareness of issues such as this I think we all would agree is of huge importance – a live show is a place where music lovers congregate together, a place where boundaries are non-existent and definitely a place where everyone should feel safe while collectively enjoying music.

How about cases of misogyny? Inspired by Jess Hooper’s tweet asking women for examples of when they have faced cases of being marginalised in the industry (which received a phenomenal number of replies, retweets and favourites) Lizzy Goodman wrote an article for Noisey looking at sexism in the music industry. Lizzy, included her own telling incident of being asked to leave a band’s dressing room as the band in question needed to get ready for an interview with NME. Lizzy herself just happened to be that reporter from NME. I’m sure any female executive you know in the industry can sadly provide you with a similar anecdote to that…

On top of issues such as these we also have to bare in mind a whole host of other concerns for women in the industry. For example, the point that women are still a minority on panels at music industry events and that how in 2015, there can be so very few bands on festival line-ups including at least one female member. How can female musicians still be so few and far between?

All of the above occurrences only emphasize the importance of why, even in, 2015 events such as Music Week's Women in Music awards, awarding female executives who are making an impact in the industry today and AIM's Women in Music event are vital. They emphasise that womens’ roles and achievements need that extra amplification: they are a source of motivation and encouragement to other women in the industry, particularly younger females just starting out.

In a recent editorial for Music Week (16/11/2015), CEO of UK Music Jo Dipple: “Women work high on the slopes of the music industry. But there aren't many holding Union Jacks at the summit”. These events provide a platform for female ‘flag-bearers’ and shows that women are able and are at, senior levels in the industry, although, yes, there is still a significant employment gap between the sexes in the industry.

2015 has been a hugely interesting year for the music industry, and who are the biggest selling musicians this year? Two women: Taylor Swift and Adele. Adele who is currently obliterating every sales record in sight with ‘25’ and Taylor who is renowned for being incredibly hands-on across all of her business decisions. Remember that open letter she sent to Apple Music that had the entire Industry clapping her for standing up for all artists? Let's congratulate every man and woman who has worked and is working together on campaigns from for example, Adele and Taylor Swift and celebrate that they are breaking sales records and bringing issues that the industry faces to the headlines of mainstream media.

This isn't a case of needing or wanting a female uprising in the industry, it's a call to arms - simply for equality for all, across all sectors. It's a call to arms so that we don't have to be faced with degrading, naive and sexist statements across the media. It's a call to arms against having to state what sex a person is ahead of their success.

Alison Lamb - Product Manager, SO Recordings

Creators Rights Infographic Event Summary

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:45:00 +0000

This is a complex topic with many perspectives… Despite operating under international Treaties in a global market (Wipo Performances and Phonogram Treaty (WPPT) and Wipo Copyright Treaty (WCT)), and moving towards a single digital market in Europe, the reproduction and performing rights at the heart of this discussion vary from country to country. As a result, the lack of harmonisation of performers' rights across the EU remains one of the biggest issues.

Reproduction rights generated the industry a lot of money in the 1980s/ 90s. But with streaming increasingly set to dominate over sales, reproduction rights have become less important than performing rights…

The law doesn’t spell out what performance rights look like, except to say that it should “…be a fair, direct payment to performers…” - both featured artists and session musicians - whenever a public performance or communication to the public occurs.

Performer Equitable Remunertion (ER) was introduced “to correct perceived market failure for equity rather than efficiency reasons”; to ensure performers always received for uses of their work regardless (for example) as to whether or not they have recouped on their contract. ER sits outside of label contracts and is unassignable.

Whereas webcasing (live streaming) is covered under the Communication to The Public and derives performers a 50% share of royalties, digital downloads became subject to a new right - Making Available – as these didn’t constitute a broadcast, but there was an element of transmission to the act of downloading a digital copy of music.

Streaming has on numerous occasions been compared to both sales and broadcasts. Because of the interactivity in on-demand streaming it was given the exclusive Making Available right rather than qualifying for the Communication right of a broadcast, meaning labels treated royalties in the same way as a sale of music, despite many elements of streaming being very similar to traditional broadcast. Indeed, the view from the performer community is that the Making Available right was introduced in order to deal with sales of downloads.

It could be said that it’s inevitable that the direct income generated from communication and public performance is probably on its way down… that all music played in shops and to some extent, traditional radio is likely to be replaced at some point by a form of interactive streaming?

Given that Performer ER does not apply to these forms of consumption at all, it is therefore likely that stable income for session musicians and featured artists who haven’t recouped on their contracts is at risk of all but disappearing.

Horace Trubridge: "ER is the jewel in the crown of performers rights. We have to make sure streaming and whatever follows it provides ER or it will only be those with independent incomes who continue [to record]. This is essential - if we don’t solve this now, we have a very bleak future."

"Pre-digital, hertitage artist contracts were signed at a time when there was no such thing as the Making Available right – would any court consider it reasonable labels to have assumed ownership of a right not in existence at the time the contract was signed?"

Alexander Ross: "The principles of these rights may be simple, but the position is one of an embedded outlook on rights on the Continent, which is different to the UK... we now suffer from a copyright Act related by its regime on the Continent that is directly opposite to how the UK itself thinks about copyright."

"Most labels do a 50/ 50 net profit deal with their artists. Labels couldn’t survive on sharing 50/ 50 of gross. It’s not possible, to survive on that basis, whether as majors or independents. So the idea of an ER right within MA across the board is a non-starter from the commercial perspective."

The whole concept of downloads and streaming was far way in the formulation of the WIPO Treaties; there was then no concept of it. They were underpinned by DRM (digital rights management), particularly TPM (technical protection measures) to protect digital content. Labels embraced this, but without consulting consumers who absolutely hated them, due to the restrictions on use.

TPM was an anti-piracy measure in the Treaty, the other was MA. At the time, MA was conceived as an anti-piracy measure, with no concept of streaming or downloads at the time. It was an additional tool to stem piracy. The public tired of it (inability to share, copy, play on multiple devices etc.), opting for pirate sites, then moved onto YouTube, dramatically reducing label income over the last 15 years.

Labels were needing to make more money out of a declining sales – the soft target was the artist, by paying the same royalty rate on digital as they did on physical.

Alexander Ross: Nobody else offers investment in the way a label does, but it needs to be fair on results. In terms of winning the new types of deals, you either get a synch or brand deal or you don’t. That’s different from a record deal whereby you may sell a few or a lot… If you do want to look for that you need a manager to sell personality to get those deals.

Artists are becomming increasingly aware of the need to be savvy and educated about the business of music. There are other options to a traditoinal label deal; label service deals are more equitable and artsist managers are key, leaving creators to focus on their work rather than be expected to understand the minutiae of detail in unfathomable royalty statements from streaming services. International pressure is mounting from artist and performers who are calling for a recalibration of artist and performer digital rights in a world increasingly dominated by big tech.

Horace Trubridge: There has to be a truth and reconciliation process between labels and performers, in order to make us all feel we can take ownership of something we need to protect from tech companies.

READ FREE INSIGHT PAPER: Making Available, Communication To The Public & User Interactivity
READ FREE INSIGHT PAPER: It's Just A Click Away: How Copyright Law Is Failing Musicians

Newsletter Editorial #122 - The Digital Rights Divide: Making Available & Equitable Remuneration

Jenny Tyler — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:35:00 +0100

It’s been a good year for streaming.

The first half of 2015 saw more than 1 trillion songs, movies and TV series streamed online - more than double the amount in 2014 – already making it a tipping-point year in the growth of streaming services.

Recently published SoundScan figures similarly paint an encouraging picture of US consumer uptake in streaming, with results for the first three quarters of 2015 revealing a near 100% increase in the number of streams served.

And closer to home, in its 2015 Digital Report, the IFPI draws a similarly encouraging conclusion, confirming that revenues from digital formats are on a par with those from physical, declaring that “streaming [is] at the heart of the music portfolio business”.

So far, so good.

But this isn’t such good news for the majority of artists and performers, however, who currently reap significantly lower royalty payments from an increasing number of licensed streams compared to royalties they derive elsewhere, such as from broadcasts and sales of recordings.

With any number of (at times inaccurate) headlines from disgruntled artists so moved to publish (often) pitiful royalty statements from streaming services, many would argue that the overwhelming majority of creators on whom these services depend for content get a seriously bum deal; seemingly benign accessories to what amounts to a race dominated by ‘big tech’ to dominate in an era that looks set to see access models win over ownership.

Of course the issue of creators’ share of remuneration from streaming isn’t new – concern has been mounting over a number of years and MusicTank has been at fore of debate concerning artists’ share of streaming revenue, previously digging deep on this topic, in the process becoming part of those headlines, too.

2015 has seen the debate widen further still, with increasingly vocal calls for greater transparency and fairness in the digital marketplace coming from the likes of the MMF, FAC, IAO, FIM and CIMA with campaigns such as #FairInternet.

Berklee’s Fair Music report and the French Government’s Agreement For A Fair Development Of Online Music - a voluntary code of conduct, between artists, labels and digital platforms - have also added heat to the debate, in the wake of a well-documented leaked streaming contract, that shed light on a model renowned for its fondness for NDAs, serving to highlight the inequality of bargaining power between creators and rightsholders.

Absent from all this has been an accessible, definitive explanation of the complex model that operates behind streaming services and last week’s publication of the MMF’s Dissecting The Digital Dollar report provides much needed clarity over a range of issues that determine precisely how these services are licensed, and the challenges this presents to artists

Today, MusicTank weighs in to the debate with the publication of two free papers to further educate all in a complex area of digital rights licensing:

1) Making Available, Communication To The Public and User Interactivity by Fiona McGugan (MMF & FAC) considers the evolution of communication rights that overshadow conventional distribution and reproduction rights as music consumption increasingly shifts away a model based on sales, towards access-based streaming services.

As such it represents a unique and necessarily detailed study of a basket of rights conceived to enable creators’ to benefit from emerging digital platforms, and is an essential read in order to understand fully how the rights of authors and performers have changed and how they make money from online distribution.

Crucially, the paper explains the technicalities of both the Making Available and Equitable Remuneration right, which ultimately determine the creators’ share of digital royalty payments.

2) Perfectly complementing this paper, It’s Just Click Away: How Copyright Law Is Failing Musicians by the MMF’s Jon Webster and Fiona McGugan very clearly demonstrates the legal mechanisms that occur behind each consumer 'click' on streaming platforms and how the payment structure to labels, publishers and artists can change with each one.

Out of very real concern that in the face of declining sales of music, fewer artists and performers will be able to make a sustainable living from their work, it is increasingly being argued that there’s an urgent need to re-calibrate artist and performer rights in a digital world that sees the speed of development of new ‘access’ consumption models highlighting huge gaps in legislative solutions in the application of intellectual property rights.

Understanding how this right is applied, territorial variations in the application of rights, and how licensing structures are determined according to the levels of user-interactivity of digital services lie-at the heart of our forthcoming think tank debate – Creators’ Rights In The Digital Landscape, Tues 10^th Nov (full details here) – and which will address possibly the single biggest issue facing the music industry in recent times - how much artists and performers get paid.

Editorial by Jonathan Robinson

READ FULL NEWSLETTER HERE...

Paul Pacifico: Is Compulsory Licensing The New Next Big Thing (Again?)

Jonathan Robinson — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:25:00 +0100

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the music industry that is behind much of its perceived dysfunction in the face of what should be the most tremendous opportunity; the internet.

This long-running misunderstanding goes a long way to explain why artists and labels have often publicly expressed such different positions on the streaming model. It may also give an insight into why, when some parts of the music industry talk about the ‘transfer of value’ from music to tech, it is in some respects seen by artists as artificial.

Essentially, it comes down to the deals artists sign with labels and their different perceptions of what those deals actually mean.

Artists sign deals with labels that comprise two core revenue streams; an advance and a royalty rate which are normally given to the artist in exchange for the ownership of the copyrights in their recordings.

The artist usually believes that the record company’s job is to do its best to commercialise their recordings and that the artist’s royalty will reflect their shared benefit from that endeavour.

Assignment of copyright gave a long-term interest to the label that was deemed appropriate consideration for the sometimes considerable risk a label would take in supporting an artist who, once signed, could devote themselves to recording and have their lifestyle supported whilst doing so. However, any deal for the life of copyright is a long-term transaction that can be very difficult to unpick if the parties fall out for any number of reasons at any stage in an artist’s career.

It is important to note that the label normally retains the right to recoup advances before starting to pay out royalties to the artist and that any advances are recouped only against the artist’s royalty cashflow rather than the total cashflow from a recording, so a recording could in theory be very profitable to a label whilst remaining unrecouped from an artists’ point of view.

However, as Sony Music recently explained in how artist royalties are treated in deals with streaming services filed in Court in New York City, “The implied covenant [in an Artist-Label recording contract] does not require SME [The Label] to structure its affairs in whatever way yields the greatest royalties for 19 [i.e. The Artist].”

In other words, the label has no obligation to protect the artist’s income stream in the deal. There is no duty of care from the label to its artists beyond the precise wording in the individual recording contract and, as Sony indicates in their defence, their responsibility is to their own profits. This could clearly be problematic in situations where the label and the artists have divergent interests.

To further compound the issue, the majority of contracts in the music industry were signed before the advent of streaming and the labels feel under no obligation to renegotiate terms as a result of these new business models and modes of exploitation as the deals they did were for life of copyright, which in Europe is currently 70 years.

Labels take the position that they are not obliged to renegotiate with artists even in the face of the staggering changes to the rights environment and business models now applied to the music industry, although a recent Court ruling in Finland goes some way to starting to challenge this assumption. Certainly many artists do try to instigate discussions around the application of legacy contracts to services like streaming, but any changes would usually be felt to be to the detriment of the label and therefore only the most powerful artists succeed.

It is interesting to note that Major labels tend to invest later in the development of an artist these days. An artist would be expected to have recorded and self-released some music, built a social media following and toured before even being considered for a deal. In which case the old world approach of justifying copyright assignment over advances should be challenged if the label is investing later and at an arguably less risky stage.

Pre-streaming contracts still represent a significant proportion of contracts in the music industry and the experience of most artists with pre-digital, so called ‘Legacy’ contracts is that their analogue deal is applied directly to the digital market. Royalty rates due on physical sales are paid on downloads and streams and subject to the same deductions for items such as ‘packaging’ which clearly have no place in the digital economy. These deductions can have severe consequences to artist income.

Take for example the following illustration based on a real-world contract from the 1990s with a headline royalty rate for CD Singles of 16% on “Dealer” (i.e. ‘wholesale’) price. Deductions occur as follows:

Analogue Discounts	Discount Rate	Royalty Rate After Discount (%)
Headline Royalty Rate		16
Packaging Deduction (whether or not it exists)	25%	12%
Import Discount (platform servers are overseas)	25%	9%
Breakage Allowance / Returns	10%	8.1%
Net Royalty Rate		8.1%
Divided by 4 band members		2.025%
Average payment of £0.005 per stream in £		0.00010125

Average payment per stream is a hotly debated number with Spotify claiming around £0.007 on their artist information website, but this information may be out of date. Self-releasing artist Zoe Keating claims an average rate from Spotify of USD $0.0032 (around £0.002) on her Spotify revenue. The example calculation here is based on an indicative rate of £0.005 to more or less split the difference.

At £0.005 and based on the contract referenced above, a member of the band would need around 25,000 streams from a streaming service such as Spotify or Deezer to buy a £2.50 cup of coffee (assuming they had already recouped all of the advances, recording costs etc and ignoring all the costs on the artist side such as management commissions and overhead). The equivalent number of physical CD singles would have been more like 125. On this rough calculation, the metric the Official Chart Company use whereby a 100 streams is equivalent to one single sale is off by a considerable factor.

Obviously these numbers are an illustration but they are fairly indicative of the situation many artists face. It is little wonder why confusion ensues when platforms claim to pay vast sums to the industry and yet artists complain about not getting paid.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in the early days of streaming, large, unrecouped advances were paid to the major labels along with other inducements, the most contentious of which remains equity stakes as all three Major labels have now agreed to share advances (although it is not clear on what basis and how far back they will go).

If the major labels were able to leverage their control over the vast majority of the most popular music recordings in history to extract equity for free (or at a discount) from the streaming platforms, then there has not so much been a transfer of value from music to tech, but rather, a delayed monetisation of value from music. If a streaming platform had a capital event such as a sale or IPO, the value derived from the liquidation of an equity position would flow back to the record label - with no certainty at this stage as to what share, if any, would be shared with artists whose work generated that value.

Questions still hang in the air as to whether ‘per stream’ rates which form the basis of royalty calculations (subject to recoupment and deductions) were cannibalised for these equity stakes and other inducements. It is interesting to note that the Independent label community has committed to share with their artists the value derived from any such equity stakes through the World Independent Network Charter (‘WIN Charter’). To its credit, Warner music has been the most forthcoming of the three Majors, stating that it will share the upside of future capital events related to equity holdings in platforms, however it has not committed to a predetermined mechanism to calculate the appropriate apportionment of value.

The opaque and complex transactions between Major labels and streaming platforms have resulted in the trust between artists and labels hitting an all-time low.

So where do we go from here?

Certainly in an ideal world an industry code of practice would help. This is something artists have been arguing for some time, but there is at best muted support and no agreement yet for even the most basic principles of transparency and a fair reflection of the value derived from an artists’ work.

If the internal music industry market is not sufficiently serviced by individual contracts negotiated between counterparties (often with significant disparity of negotiating power) and it cannot agree a voluntary code of practice, we must ask ourselves where we go from here.

There is a process currently underway in France that illustrates the deep divisions that still separate contracting parties within music.

The French government, through the Ministry of Culture has initiated a project to try to reach a voluntary code of practice to govern relationships between digital platforms, record labels and artists.

The project is led by Marc Schwartz, who has form having successfully negotiated the landmark deal between French publishers and Google back in 2013.

Mr Schwartz has an unenviable task on his hands in needing all sides to agree on a joint, voluntary code to be policed by a government appointed ‘Mediator of Music’. He needs the buy-in not just of artists, labels and platforms, but also of the French trade unions and collective management organisations, each with different priorities, interests and levels of transparency.

Whilst there are specific points of detail that are peculiar to the French market, this process in general indicates the broad debate within the industry, affecting every territory in which music is monetised and has access to the internet.

The International Artist Organisation (IAO) has been active in the French process in support of its French member, the ‘Guilde des Artistes de la Musique' (GAM) who are cognisant of the potentially precendential nature of setting the first such code in the industry.

So far, common ground has been hard to find with the Major labels represented by their French trade body, SNEP, stating that things are pretty good for them right now - and no doubt they are. Recent reports by market commentators such as Music Business Worldwide have written in detail on the recently increased profitability of the three so called ‘Major Labels’ (Universal, Sony and Warner). Such results come at the same time as the Sony statements in court confirming the legal right of these labels to maximise profit even at the expense of their own artists.

A recently leaked Sony-Spotify deal from 2011 points to numerous inducements that have allegedly gone straight to these Majors’ bottom lines and not been shared with the artists on whose catalogues the deals have been built. The extent to which this sort of buccaneer capitalism has dominated the labels’ deals with platforms, however is still unclear as all of the deals sit behind the murky world of the non-disclosure agreement (‘NDA’) which, the labels say, prevents them discussing any details of the deals with the artists who rely on them.

These apparently impenetrable NDAs have given fertile ground to knowledgeable critics and scaremongers alike. The resulting crisis of trust between artists and labels is hugely damaging as music, like most industries, relies on an internal market, which like all markets needs confidence to function - a lesson highlighted with some alacrity during the 2008 banking crisis.

Put simply, trust is at an all-time low because the revenues derived from the commercial exploitation of music are going through fundamental shifts as a result of the twofold disruption the industry has experienced in the impact of digital technology: First how it impacts on the delivery of music to consumers but also how technology has rapidly altered consumer expectations in society across the board.

Mr Schwartz thus has a tricky task to accomplish in a very short timeframe - he must report back to the Ministry before the end of this month having got all sides to agree. This presents the participants in the music industry an historic opportunity to come together and work out how all the various pieces should fit together in the digital world.

The cost of not seizing this opportunity with both hands is to send a message that the music industry cannot work together and find a position that is to the best mutual interests of its constituent parts. Regrettably at this point in the process and with only a couple of weeks to go, it is possible to feel that there is very little chance of an agreement being reached and so the question arises - what next?

The French government has made its position clear. If no code of practice is agreed, they will propose legislation for compulsory licensing which would effectively make the licensing environment for streaming much more like radio. This would mean standard rates across the board and no right for the labels (or artists) to prevent platforms using their music. The upside could be a proliferation of new services but the downside is the fear of sub-market rates for commercial music and the cannibalisation of profitable sales revenue in exchange for lower prices and statutory remuneration rights for artists.

To be clear, the artist demands in a code of practice are pretty straightforward - a fair share of revenues generated by the work we create and transparency through the value chain so that we can understand how much our work is worth and see the various deductions being made. As our contracts generally centre around royalty rates, we retain a financial interest in the exploitation of our work throughout the value chain and therefore this transparency is critical.

Without transparency and the confidence of an enhanced duty of care from the labels not to manipulate deals to the prejudice of their artists, we must consider carefully the last remaining option for the music market.

Compulsory Licensing (‘CL’) is an option that has historically been seen as anti-competitive and as closing down a free market in favour of some sort of socialist protectionism for artists, however in the context of digital, CL is not necessarily the music industry’s equivalent of socialist utopia to be feared by the Centre and Right. In actual fact, it may just be the platform the digital market needs to open up competition and foster the innovation in services and business models so desperately needed.

At the moment, Major labels control the vast majority of the music industry’s crown jewels and they have used the power this gives them not only to extract advances and equity stakes, but also to wield significant influence over the business models of streaming platforms and how they interact with their customers. For example we are led to believe that Major labels impose front page promotion of artists according to market share, which prioritises the Majors almost exclusively and inhibits editorial curation and the promotion of niche or independent artists that platforms might want to recommend to their customers.

It would seem to be a missed opportunity if the potential for cultural diversity and niche specificity that digital offers was missed in favour of ever increasing homogeneity based on the market share of a few dominant global players.

It might be argued that labels have been slow to respond to the transformation to a digital market and that their response tends to react to, rather than drive innovation. It might also be argued that they have a vested interest in slowing the pace of change, even if this is to the detriment of their artists and indeed to consumers.

If music is to blossom in the digital age, we must ask where innovation will occur and give support where it is needed. CL could give platforms security on pricing and the confidence that they have the right to access the world’s music catalogue on both the master rights and publishing sides, so long as they pay their dues. They would also know that they would not be beholden to a handful of global corporations to know whether or not they have a business from one day to the next.

A world freed to experiment and explore, a digital music market open to niche players, be it genre based or by geography gives perhaps real potential for music to blossom in the digital world.

Pricing mechanisms would be needed without doubt and there is much work to be done, but it worked back in the ‘60s for radio - why not now for streaming, which at least in terms of consumer behaviour is converging so rapidly with radio usage?

CL however does not need to be stuck in the expensive and laborious administration constructs of the 1960s. This could equally be an opportunity to improve the architecture of Collective Management Organisations and finally solve the industry’s other major problem; that rather incredibly in this digital age, it has no definitive database of who actually owns what copyrights.

The implementation of CL could be inspired by ideas from newer technologies such as blockchain, on which cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are built to keep track of all the ensuing micro payments and give everyone instant access to the information they need and should be entitled to.

Crazy? Perhaps. But high street bank Barclays announced just last week that it was set launch Bitcoin services for consumers later this year and London law firm Sheridans are already the first in the world to accept payment in Bitcoin. Artist Imogen Heap has been leading some very interesting work in this area for the music industry and these ideas have received support from respected academic institutions like the Berklee School in Boston. The UK Government’s own Digital Catapault team and the Copyright Hub are also starting to explore some of the potential solutions blockchain suggests.

Perhaps to resist the tide of change is to stand like chalk cliffs in a storm - strong for a while but destined to crumble. Maybe instead it is time to dive in to the sea of opportunity ahead of us and allow innovators to innovate. If we can’t find our own way of working together, perhaps CL will force the changes the music industry so desperately needs before it is too late.

Editorial by Paul Pacifico, President, IAO & CEO, FAC

iaomusic.org | thefac.org

Newsletter Editorial #121 - Mind The Gap: Digital Service Licensing, Innovation & IP

Jenny Tyler — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:20:00 +0100

Everybody seems to be saying the same thing – 2015 is turning out to be a transformational year for the music industry with a near endless supply of headline news around all things ‘digital’.

New(ish) services such as TIDAL and Apple Music already seem like old news, and now somewhat eclipsed in significance by the BBC’s announcement that it too is set to join the streaming race, albeit in a nuanced guise that might help grow the subscription market more generally. Apple’s entrance was expected - a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’ - the BBC’s felt like the best-kept insider secret.

This development comes at an interesting time in the face of ongoing Charter Review. Its planned streaming service is just the sort of innovative positioning befitting of the world’s most coveted state broadcaster, and on whose shoulders sits a large swathe of British music talent, the support of whom the industry can’t afford to loose, if only it can sort the licensing out… MusicTank is pleased to add its weight to UK Music’s #LETITBEEB campaign, with the future of music radio set to become part of our programme of activity announced in this newsletter.

Meanwhile, it is no coincidence that the tipping point seemingly reached in the viability of streaming models is accompanied by the increasingly vocal campaign by the artist, performer and publisher community demanding a more equitable share of streaming revenue, examples being #FairInternet4Performers, and closer to home, PRS for Music’s Streamfair campaign, which seeks legislative reform to protect music creators’ rights in the music streaming market.

In what amounts to a Gordian knot of complexity, the issue of communication rights which determine how streaming services are licensed takes centre stage this autumn, with MusicTank publishing a critical analysis of the communication rights applied to licensed music streaming services and the subsequent impact on performers (mid-October), followed by a November think tank debate - Creators’ Rights In The Digital Landscape - details as below.

We welcome back FAC’s Paul Pacifico whose guest editorial breathes new life into the notion that compulsory licensing might stimulate digital innovation. It is necessarily long and highly readable, drawing on the current situation in France, whose government has pulled no punches in the licensing debate, giving the French music industry a deadline by which it either reaches a voluntary code of practice to govern relationships between digital platforms, record labels and artists or falls under the hammer of government-legislated compulsory licensing.

The speed of development of innovative new models in the digital marketplace highlights huge gaps in legislative solutions for the application of IP rights and the urgent need for bold imaginative reform.

As Paul concludes, “If we can’t find our own way of working together, perhaps compulsory licensing will force the changes the music industry so desperately needs before it is too late… and allow innovators to innovate.”

Editorial by Jonathan Robinson

READ FULL NEWSLETTER HERE...

Keith Harris - Inconsistencies In Government Arts Policy...

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:20:00 +0100

I’ve spent quite a lot of time recently wondering whether anybody is actually in charge of government policy with regards to the Arts or whether ministers just randomly make things up as they go along, depending on their current whim. Two of the things that have caused my current bemusement is the government attitude to the BBC, and the ban on Tyler the Creator being allowed into the UK to perform.

To take Tyler first, the Home Secretary has banned him from performing in Britain on the basis that some of his early lyrics “encourages violence and intolerance of homosexuality” and “fosters hatred.” Quite apart from the very obvious restriction on freedom of speech – we don’t have to like what people say, but Britain has traditionally defended their right to say it. Particularly in an artistic context.

It seems ludicrous that Tyler, the Creator should be unable to perform at Reading Festival and carry out his other engagements, at the same time as the NWA movie Straight Outta Compton is being released to multiplexes around the country. I find it very hard to separate the early views and early lyrics of the members of NWA from the early views and early lyrics of Tyler, the Creator. Does the Home Secretary have any idea what is going on, or has she been told by somebody who was told by somebody?

Moving on to the BBC, there is currently a review of the organisation in progress, apparently the review is being undertaken by a panel of people who have either a vested interest in seeing the BBC dismantled or who have expressed a view that a significant downgrading of the activities of the BBC would be their preferred outcome.

Given that the BBC is widely recognised to be one of the key reasons why Britain has punched above its weight internationally in all areas of the arts for at least the last 50 years, it seems at the very least a little strange that a government which purports to support Britain’s creative communities is behaving in a way which would possibly embarrass a banana republic when assembling “an independent” panel to review what is undoubtedly the British creative communities greatest asset. Make no mistake - once the BBC has been destroyed it cannot be rebuilt.

For many years government policy has been scrutinised and assembled by civil servants who generally take their time and think things through, and in spite of the Yes Minister image of the civil service, I would rather have that method of policy-making rather than the random shooting from the hip of the current batch of politicians.

Keith Harris - Chair, MusicTank

Blog

Newsletter Editorial #126 - It's The Economy, Stupid

The Music Industry & Mental Health: Can Music Make You Sick?

Tidal Forecasts Strong Revenue Increase In 2016

Newsletter Editorial #125: Diversity's Whitewash

Newsletter Editorial #124: Brexit - We Need To Talk About Europe

Keith Harris: Why Are Catalogue Albums Outselling New Releases?

MusicTank: 50% Off January Sale

50% Off MEMBERSHIP Until January 31st:

50% Off 'EASY MONEY?' Until January 31st:

50% Off TRANSCRIPT "Creators' Rights In The Digital Landscape" Until January 31st:

What else would you like to see us doing in 2016?Contact us

Newsletter Editorial #123 - Truth & Reconciliation: Recalibrating Creators' Share From Digital

Women In Music In 2015 - 'Who Run The World'

Women In Music In 2015 - How Far Have We Come?

Creators Rights Infographic Event Summary

Newsletter Editorial #122 - The Digital Rights Divide: Making Available & Equitable Remuneration

Paul Pacifico: Is Compulsory Licensing The New Next Big Thing (Again?)

Newsletter Editorial #121 - Mind The Gap: Digital Service Licensing, Innovation & IP

Keith Harris - Inconsistencies In Government Arts Policy...

What else would you like to see us doing in 2016?
Contact us