The music business is booming!!! The sky is rising.

[Ianb007]

I don't normally read Techdirt but I somehow came across this report from MIDEM

The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Large & Growing... Not Shrinking | Techdirt

Some of the key points:
Entertainment spending as a function of income went up by 15% from 2000 to 2008
Employment in the entertainment sector grew by 20% -- with indie artists seeing 43% growth.
The overall entertainment industry grew 66% from 1998 to 2010.
The amount of content being produced in music, movies, books and video games is growing at an incredible pace.
Of course, some of this is a challenge for many existing players, but it should be seen as an opportunity. In fact, we conclude:

Just by reading it seems that we have nothing to worry about.

It turns out that music concert sales went from 1.5 billions to 4.6 billion from 1999 to 2009 according to their report. They somehow forget to mention music sales decreased about 50% in that same time period.

Torrentfreak took this and ran with it asking it's readers "What Piracy?"
http://torrentfreak.com/what-piracy-...ooming-120130/

Inferring that piracy is not effecting the entertainment business. To me it is really showing the opposite. How can concert sales go up 300%, album releases go up from 38,000 in 2003 to 75,000 in 2010 yet the music sales revenue go down over 50%?

[chrisso]

Concert sales are largely legacy artists - McCartney, Fleetwood Mac, Bon Jovi.
I'm sure the biggest artists are selling lots of records too.
So it's a sink or swim music scene. The artists who made it before piracy, and the most commercial post piracy artists (Beiber, GaGa) are doing well.
Everybody else is sunk.

[aroundtheworld]

Interesting article and infographic.



It really doesn't surprise me a bit that even though entertainment spending has risen massively, music as a percentage share of that entertainment spending is going down. There's so much more competing with it now, especially for the critical younger demographics, whose tastes will shape future investment in entertainment. Music is still awesome and powerful -- not that it needs to be said to anyone here -- but I think it's kind of silly to hope or to pretend that it's as relevant or as important to younger generations than video games are; it's not hard to tell which way the wind is blowing.

Don't misinterpret me, either, as I'd suspect some here would be keen to without this disclaimer: I'm far from proclaiming that music is dead or anything so extremist. I work in the music and sound business. It's not dead. It's not going to die. It's still important in people's lives. It will remain important. But the explosively-growing gaming sector is where youthful attention and currency flow, and I would not expect that flow to reverse.

Originally Posted by chrisso

So it's a sink or swim music scene. The artists who made it before piracy, and the most commercial post piracy artists (Beiber, GaGa) are doing well.
Everybody else is sunk.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting here, but it seems like you're saying that there are old acts that made it big and are doing fabulously well, and there are new acts that made it big and are doing fabulously well. Is that any different than it ever was, or ever could be? Most musicians don't do fabulously well. Most people don't do fabulously well. Most musicians -- most people -- just do as they can to get by. I don't think you are making a very relevant point to this present topic.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Ianb007

How can concert sales go up 300%, album releases go up from 38,000 in 2003 to 75,000 in 2010 yet the music sales revenue go down over 50%?

What's odd to me is that album releases would go up so much...who puts out more expensive product when you're going down the tubes...

But the idea that it matters how much people profit seems beside the point anyway...not that I have any sympathy for the rich and powerful...

If I made 5 bucks yesterday and 10 bucks today it wouldn't mean I'd be alright with someone snatching money out of my pocket...

...who would be alright with that?

[Dean Roddey]

Just goign by the graphic.... I have no problem believing that games are up, given that they have come up with ways to deal with the issues that aren't available to movies and music. Books are books, and they aren't easy to steal either. Theater box office, can't steal that either.

I certainly don't have any problem believing how much stuff is uploaded to Youtube, but that proves the industry is improving how? Pictures of baby having her first upchuck don't really contribute much to the bottom line, though they sure are cute. How much of that had anything to do with an improvement to the industry?

The feature film number? How many movies were at the theaters last year? You think it was anything like 7000+? It doesn't matter how many are made, but how many make money if you are talking about health of the industry.

Artist's share? Of what? If the pie is both shrinking and becoming ever more diffuse, a greater share may or may not be of much value. They say nothing about music sales, but just a vague value number.

Am I cynical for thinking that this happened now due to some recent events of the previous weeks?

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I certainly don't have any problem believing how much stuff is uploaded to Youtube, but that proves the industry is improving how? Pictures of baby having her first upchuck don't really contribute much to the bottom line, though they sure are cute. How much of that had anything to do with an improvement to the industry?

The feature film number? How many movies were at the theaters last year? You think it was anything like 7000+? It doesn't matter how many are made, but how many make money if you are talking about health of the industry.

These are two interesting points that I have some thoughts on, and they're both kind of related.

First, as it concerns Youtube and its relation to industry: I think one could compellingly argue that Youtube itself is a major player in the video entertainment industry. Yeah, cute kids, funny animals, and schadenfreude are some of the things uploaded to Youtube, but they have a huge partner program through which they pay the consistent creators of popular original content. There are so many people uploading awesome and original and informative and compelling videos to Youtube -- and being paid for doing so -- that it's really pretty staggering. Tutorials, news, reviews, music, comedy, e-sports, documentaries, dramas: name any video genre you can think of and I'd wager there are people being paid to create such original works for Youtube. Don't be too hasty to assume that the popular comedic perception of Youtube accounts for all that the site is (similarly, don't be too hasty to assume that it's all infringing content, as is the popular conception around these parts). Plus, I don't think there's enough baby vomit in the world to fill 70,000 hours worth of video content per day. (I'm personally subscribed to a number of popular partnered Youtube channels that create original content and are estimated to make extremely good money for their creators.)

Secondly, as it concerns movies and theatrical releases: the 7,000 feature films/year figure is a purportedly worldwide count, and I think we have to acknowledge that a theatrical release is not the only measure of success for a film, and neither is it the only way for it to make money, and thus not the only relevant factor to determining the health of the film culture. There are so many more ways for a film to reach a wide audience and to make money now than there were in the past. Think Netflix and similar services along with the Louis C.K. model, Kickstarter, and, lest we forget, Youtube movies. Did you know that you can purchase and watch a number of the titles that debuted at this year's Sundance Film Festival directly on Youtube movies? A theatre run is surely no longer an absolute prerequisite to a film's success or reach.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting here, but it seems like you're saying that there are old acts that made it big and are doing fabulously well, and there are new acts that made it big and are doing fabulously well. Is that any different than it ever was, or ever could be?

Yes, it's different. Because the mid to low selling acts used to do ok. Now they are clinging on or just playing locally as part timers.
They key point is it doesn't matter if the music industry overall is doing better if it's only doing better because of the very commercial top40 artists and older artists.
It's the young artists, and the less successful artists that drive innovation.
And we need innovation to keep music fresh and vital.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Just goign by the graphic.... I have no problem believing that games are up, given that they have come up with ways to deal with the issues that aren't available to movies and music. Books are books, and they aren't easy to steal either. Theater box office, can't steal that either.

I certainly don't have any problem believing how much stuff is uploaded to Youtube, but that proves the industry is improving how? Pictures of baby having her first upchuck don't really contribute much to the bottom line, though they sure are cute. How much of that had anything to do with an improvement to the industry?

The feature film number? How many movies were at the theaters last year? You think it was anything like 7000+? It doesn't matter how many are made, but how many make money if you are talking about health of the industry.

Artist's share? Of what? If the pie is both shrinking and becoming ever more diffuse, a greater share may or may not be of much value. They say nothing about music sales, but just a vague value number.

Am I cynical for thinking that this happened now due to some recent events of the previous weeks?

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...eaver-edition/

agreed dean - fascinating how much work can go into creating misleading disinformation. it's amazing just how selective and narrow band the stats are while intentionally avoiding the elephant in the room, which is the revenue from copyrighted works is dropping. it just makes sense the more people can get for for free illegally and without consequence, the more that money would be transferred to other rival goods (concert tickets, etc).

interesting he shows the rise in 99 cent songs (a zero business in 2003 btw) but not the decline in overall sales & revenue

also interesting show's a rise in transactions (# of transactions) and not the revenue on those transactions

very smart way to create a highly distorted view what is actually happening.

the anti-copyright movement essentially has two talking points:

1) piracy is not a problem, because...

2) content is losing money due to failure to innovate new business models

what I always find fascinating about that is, if piracy is such an amazing business model why aren't the pirates and infringers creating content for their own superior distribution channel? why is piracy and infringement (and tech at large) entirely dependent upon stealing the content from the old lame media companies that they hate so much?

here's some other data (record industry only):
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7486839-post1683.html

here's box info for 2011, Down:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/12/30/box-office-2011/

[Darc]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Yes, it's different. Because the mid to low selling acts used to do ok. Now they are clinging on or just playing locally as part timers.
They key point is it doesn't matter if the music industry overall is doing better if it's only doing better because of the very commercial top40 artists and older artists.
It's the young artists, and the less successful artists that drive innovation.
And we need innovation to keep music fresh and vital.

+1 to be honest I´m so sick of all the old hits in the radio, 80% is at least 10yrs old stuff and new artists have a really hard time getting played at all.

[razorboy]

Whether the music biz is up, down, shifting sideways, or doing tailspins, nobody has the right to rip off an artist's product, period. If the artist has a contract with some company the crook pretends to be the Great Satan, that's none of the crook's business either.

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by rack gear

it's amazing just how selective and narrow band the stats are while intentionally avoiding the elephant in the room, which is the revenue from copyrighted works is dropping.

Originally Posted by Floor64

Entertainment spending as a function of income went up by 15% from 2000 to 2008 [4.9% to 5.62%]

Originally Posted by Floor64

The overall entertainment industry grew 66% from 1998 to 2010. [$449 billion to $745 billion]

It looks like you're wrong about that. Entertainment spending as a percentage of income went up. Entertainment spending across all media went up dramatically. No, revenue from copyright works is not dropping. It's rising. And it's not surprising, is it? There's a lot more of it out there.

[Ianb007]

Originally Posted by JP11

What's odd to me is that album releases would go up so much...who puts out more expensive product when you're going down the tubes...

But the idea that it matters how much people profit seems beside the point anyway...not that I have any sympathy for the rich and powerful...

If I made 5 bucks yesterday and 10 bucks today it wouldn't mean I'd be alright with someone snatching money out of my pocket...

...who would be alright with that?

With the advent of CD Baby there are a ton of self recorded and low budget albums ending up on Itunes that probably sell no more than 10 copies each. In the report he seems to infer that it does not include those numbers but anyone with experience in the business can see that it must. They are all on Itunes.

[initialsBB]

Look at the explosions in tracks cataloged, book titles produced, and worldwide film production in that graphic. Overall demand and revenue have risen, but supply has skyrocketed, so each individual creation stands a smaller chance of making money. Predictably that leads to more of a winner-take-all system where there are a few mega big fish and tons of content that languishes in obscurity. Of course there is also room for small niches to flourish on an underground level, sometimes quite profitably.

[charles maynes]

I think there is a lot error in their calculations- Film budgets, and production have not gone up since 2009, at least here in Hollywood.

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

I think there is a lot error in their calculations- Film budgets, and production have not gone up since 2009, at least here in Hollywood.

Isn't that one of the principal points of the piece, though? There are more films being created and more money going to films, but it's not all going to the same places anymore.

Originally Posted by Techdirt

[As] the data shows, there is more money going into the overall market, more content being created, and many new ways to make money. That shows that there is a business model challenge -- and a marketing challenge -- but much more opportunity in the long run. The key challenge for business is in figuring out how to capture more of the greater revenue being generated by the wider entertainment industry.

The culture industries are less centralized now, but they're actually bigger than they ever were before.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

Isn't that one of the principal points of the piece, though? There are more films being created and more money going to films, but it's not all going to the same places anymore.



The culture industries are less centralized now, but they're actually bigger than they ever were before.

it seems that the article is mincing words and data to support a forgone conclusion- people have made films with their credit cards for decades- those are not the same as films which are created for mass audiences. In the same manner- one cant compare an album project done in ones bedroom with one done at Abbey Road- they are two different things and cannot really be measured against.

If they use the metric like, over one million copies of Final Cut and Logic Pro were sold in 2010 it doesnt mean that those are all new commercial content producers, and they they replace a bankrupt film studio or record company.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

I think there is a lot error in their calculations- Film budgets, and production have not gone up since 2009, at least here in Hollywood.

Where do they say that it did? All of their statistics seem to end around 2009 so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I don't see any mention of budgets anywhere either.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Where do they say that it did? All of their statistics seem to end around 2009 so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I don't see any mention of budgets anywhere either.

for one- the main economic crash happened at the end of 2008. and they actually have figures that they state go to 2010- and since they didnt state the source of those figures we have no idea where they came from.

the budget issue also weighs heavily on that as well- because a million YouTube VBlogs doesnt equal one "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".

its playing with numbers, without clear demarcation of what they represent.

which means it is really not worth the electrons used to publish it.

[aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

it seems that the article is mincing words and data to support a forgone conclusion- people have made films with their credit cards for decades- those are not the same as films which are created for mass audiences.

You may have already done so, but if not be sure to see my post earlier in this thread about some of the ways in which the film business is changing. It's not all credit-card-based self-sacrifice. There are legitimate and plausibly sustainable ways through which professional films can be financed and produced.

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

First, as it concerns Youtube and its relation to industry: I think one could compellingly argue that Youtube itself is a major player in the video entertainment industry. ...

Secondly, as it concerns movies and theatrical releases: the 7,000 feature films/year figure is a purportedly worldwide count, and I think we have to acknowledge that a theatrical release is not the only measure of success for a film, and neither is it the only way for it to make money, and thus not the only relevant factor to determining the health of the film culture. There are so many more ways for a film to reach a wide audience and to make money now than there were in the past. Think Netflix and similar services along with the Louis C.K. model, Kickstarter, and, lest we forget, Youtube movies. Did you know that you can purchase and watch a number of the titles that debuted at this year's Sundance Film Festival directly on Youtube movies? A theatre run is surely no longer an absolute prerequisite to a film's success or reach.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

people have made films with their credit cards for decades- those are not the same as films which are created for mass audiences. In the same manner- one cant compare an album project done in ones bedroom with one done at Abbey Road- they are two different things and cannot really be measured against.

If they use the metric like, over one million copies of Final Cut and Logic Pro were sold in 2010 it doesnt mean that those are all new commercial content producers, and they they replace a bankrupt film studio or record company.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. The fact that film production was way up during the '00s isn't exactly controversial. There were about 500 movies theatrically released in the US each year (rated by the MPAA and everything) during the '00s. Up to a peak of 634 in 2008. http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/93bbeb...41c459f9ac.pdf

Those numbers were around the 200 movies per year range in the '70s and '80s. It has nothing to do with credit-card financed indies or the number of FCP copies sold. Of course we might end up around the 200 movie per year or lower number again eventually.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. The fact that film production was way up during the '00s isn't exactly controversial. There were about 500 movies theatrically released in the US each year (rated by the MPAA and everything) during the '00s. Up to a peak of 634 in 2008. http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/93bbeb...41c459f9ac.pdf

Those numbers were around the 200 movies per year range in the '70s and '80s. It has nothing to do with credit-card financed indies or the number of FCP copies sold. Of course we might end up around the 200 movie per year or lower number again eventually.

in the MPAA link you listed, you will also see that ticket sales has fallen in that same reporting period- indeed, we do have 3d which is a new revenue stream, but if we also factor in inflation, we can see that those gains are not so impressive.

As far as International Cinema is concerned- that is a growth area for sure, especially in Asia.

another informative site might be this- which shows revenues gereated by the released films in 2010-

The Numbers - Movies Released in 2010

[Dean Roddey]

Some other 'articles' have made simlar sorts of bogus claims, like including spectator sports in the overall number, which has absolutely nothing to do with IP. And numbers like see how enormously the number of indepdent artists have grown? Well, yeh, everyone with a computer is now an 'independent artist', but if they have any influence on the industry's health it's a negative one, beause they give away all their music and just make it harder to find the good stuff.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

in the MPAA link you listed, you will also see that ticket sales has fallen in that same reporting period

OK, so? That's a totally different subject than what we were just talking about. I get that this report is coming from a source that is seen as being pro-piracy, but I'm not sure how you guys are interpreting it as pro-piracy data. If anything the fact that entertainment is up overall and consumer demand for entertainment products remains strong just proves that music's declining sales are due to piracy.

Personally I think the movie industry is in for a rough decade though. This boom they're showing probably represents a peak like the one the music industry hit in the late '90s. With DVD sales down, competition from streaming, potentially increasing piracy, and 3D possibly wearing out its welcome I'm sure we'll see more of a decline.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by rack gear

what I always find fascinating about that is, if piracy is such an amazing business model why aren't the pirates and infringers creating content for their own superior distribution channel? why is piracy and infringement (and tech at large) entirely dependent upon stealing the content from the old lame media companies that they hate so much?

And of course the 'huge innovation' of the book and game industry is that they deliver in a format that no one would accept for music or movies probably. You can have pay per view only and only from our servers and we can cut you off if you are naughty, or you can buy hard copy only in a form that is a waste of time to try copying, or you can buy a specialized, dedicated player and that's the only thing it can be viewed on.

If the music business did any of those things, people would go ballistic and start screaming how they were robbing people of their human rights.

[narcoman]

as far as I can see they've just plucked a few numbers out of thin air!! The video game industry SMALLER then the music industry!! I think not!!!!

I know of remarkably few music biz people who'd say that concert figures are up. They've remained pretty constant for this decade.....

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

OK, so? That's a totally different subject than what we were just talking about. I get that this report is coming from a source that is seen as being pro-piracy, but I'm not sure how you guys are interpreting it as pro-piracy data. If anything the fact that entertainment is up overall and consumer demand for entertainment products remains strong just proves that music's declining sales are due to piracy.

Personally I think the movie industry is in for a rough decade though. This boom they're showing probably represents a peak like the one the music industry hit in the late '90s. With DVD sales down, competition from streaming, potentially increasing piracy, and 3D possibly wearing out its welcome I'm sure we'll see more of a decline.

I dont think I said anything about piracy- I was talking about it misrepresenting the state of the film industry. In that, I think it was flawed. Streaming shouldn't harm the industry either- it is a revenue source, with very little added expense for finished goods.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

I dont think I said anything about piracy- I was talking about it misrepresenting the state of the film industry. In that, I think it was flawed. Streaming shouldn't harm the industry either- it is a revenue source, with very little added expense for finished goods.

I don't see how it can't ultimately hurt DVD sales or at least bring DVD prices down. It's so much easier than traditional rentals that, at least for me, it really makes me wonder why I have any DVDs taking up space if I can just stream the same thing in HD any time I want. Release windows will help keep some sales alive of course. Just from personal experience I used to do a ton of home entertainment work but that has shrunk dramatically in the past few years.

[initialsBB]

LOL, I've noticed people here complaining about techdirt before but I've never actually looked at it before. I just checked it out for the first time and

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

I don't see how it can't ultimately hurt DVD sales or at least bring DVD prices down. It's so much easier than traditional rentals that, at least for me, it really makes me wonder why I have any DVDs taking up space if I can just stream the same thing in HD any time I want. Release windows will help keep some sales alive of course. Just from personal experience I used to do a ton of home entertainment work but that has shrunk dramatically in the past few years.

a DVD is just a container for the IP like a CD is for music- the issue is if the creator is compensated for the work in the package. Streaming is great, if you have a nice fat path into your playback system- if you have crappy internet though it is actually pretty dreadful. All of that will ultimately be addressed in upgraded technology, but in most cases the technology tends to require relative high performance pipelines. Where it also is burdensome is in the case of you licensing a movie for instance, and you wanting to play it often from the cloud- in essence, as far as bandwidth consumption it is rather costly vs you popping physical media into a local player-

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

Interesting article and infographic.



It really doesn't surprise me a bit that even though entertainment spending has risen massively, music as a percentage share of that entertainment spending is going down. There's so much more competing with it now, especially for the critical younger demographics, whose tastes will shape future investment in entertainment. Music is still awesome and powerful -- not that it needs to be said to anyone here -- but I think it's kind of silly to hope or to pretend that it's as relevant or as important to younger generations than video games are; it's not hard to tell which way the wind is blowing.

There has always been lots of competition for the entertainment dollar. When I was a teenager in the '60s there were plenty of other ways to spend your money. People forget that since there were only 3 TV channels in a given area back then people went to the movies a LOT more. Most teenagers averaged at least two visits to the movies per week. There were also activities like bowling and miniature golf that were wildly popular, pinball arcades, pool halls, etc. Starting in the '70s there were video tapes and in the '80s video and computer games. Yet with all this the income of the music industry continued to rise, sales increasing so rapidly that the industry didn't notice that unit prices were failing to keep pace with inflation - until Napster ushered in the era of rampant internet piracy and IMMEDIATELY revenues began to fall.

Don't misinterpret me, either, as I'd suspect some here would be keen to without this disclaimer: I'm far from proclaiming that music is dead or anything so extremist. I work in the music and sound business. It's not dead. It's not going to die. It's still important in people's lives. It will remain important. But the explosively-growing gaming sector is where youthful attention and currency flow, and I would not expect that flow to reverse.

Only because effective DRM (something physically not possible for music) prevents games from being hit as hard by piracy. Shut down the mass-market pirate sites and reduce piracy rates to 1990 levels and music will regain parity with gaming.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting here, but it seems like you're saying that there are old acts that made it big and are doing fabulously well, and there are new acts that made it big and are doing fabulously well. Is that any different than it ever was, or ever could be?

You're over simplifying. Only a very narrow sector of new acts have the ability to do well now because if your record is likely to be profitable within 6 weeks it probably won't be released because records that don't turn an immediate profit will not turn a profit at all thanks to piracy, which has utterly destroyed long term sales of new acts. No more waiting one or two years for a record to recoup expenses. What that means is that only very narrowly targeted records get released by any but niche labels (and the niche labels don't pay because they don't make any money) - by narrowly targeted I mean pop and commercial hip-hop. So we end up with the same old formulaic crap regurgitated endlessly.

Most musicians don't do fabulously well. Most people don't do fabulously well. Most musicians -- most people -- just do as they can to get by. I don't think you are making a very relevant point to this present topic.

It's not a question of "doing fabulously well". It's a matter of making a decent wage for one's work, which used to be a reasonable expectation if you were any good. Now if a musician wants to earn a decent wage for his work he gets a job driving a cab or tending bar.

CONCERNING THE ARTICLE AND GRAPHIC:

#1 - most of the figures on that graphic are verifiably wrong , some of them wildly so, especially those pertaining to the music industry, which read like whoever came up with the was tripping on some really strong acid.(for example the amount stated as "artist's share" is actually slightly higher than revenue for the entire music business, which was 16.4bil in 2010, approximately 50% of revenue in 1999.)

#2 - the article is on COREY DOCTOROW'S website - Doctorow is a science fiction and tech writer who is well known as an opponent of the music industry and intellectual property rights and a supporter of Lawrence Lessig's anti-copyright crusade and the segment of the tech industry that want to be able to use the work of creatives without giving fair compensation. In both his fiction and non-fiction writing he pushes a neo-anarchist social agenda based on piracy and the idea that personal property is a bad thing. Anything on Doctorow's site should be regarded as anti-industry, anti-artist's right propaganda.