Posts by Ian Jorgensen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's incredible how few acts reach any sales momentum at all, and how many self released acts sell almost nothing.
haha, i'd agree with you there, but thats not what the graph is about. Its not about the amounts artists are selling, but how much they would have to sell to achieve a certain level of income.
its totally irrelevant for the sake of the graph wether or not an artist could sell that number...ie, its not challenging whether it is more difficult or not to sell 156 copies of a physical CD vs 116 of a digital download...
it is just simply showing the options available to the artist and how they compare with each other, the chart is flawed as it misses one of the most relevant income streams of an artist - direct to public online sales, and going by the fact that the number of unsigned artists selling direct to public FAR FAR FAR outweighs the number of artists on major labels - then that info i feel is very relevant - regardless of whether or not you believe artists can sell that number.
i probably have it totally wrong.
-
But thats not what the graph is representing. Its showing how much of certain elements it takes to attaint that particular wage. If they had shown that it would only take 116 sales of an album online (@$10USD) per month (on own label) to attain that wage than the whole chart would be different... and i am SURE that there are many artists selling 100 odd mp3 downloads of an album through their own sites/bandcamp per month.
If they bother showing a self pressed CD...i'm not sure why they would bother not to show a self released mp3 download unless they purposefully left it out to skew results in the favour their skew of the results.
but hey, still interesting to see a graphical interpretation of these relatively incomplete figures.
-
thankfully it seems there is no way that APRA can do a similar deal as they are efectively owned by the singwriters who are members...so at least some royalties will be collected...but yeah, pretty dissapointed at PPNZs stance, seems kinda hypocritical
-
I am freaking out about this. Juice and C4 are basically the only avenues the artists I work with actually get any royalties from as commercial radio won't touch them.
With C42 starting it means C4 have carte blanche to take anything they deem slightly alternative and relegate it to the less (obviously will be) watched C42.
Where do APRA stand on this? At the moment, any alternative artist in this country stands to lose 50% of their possible income from video play, will they lose 100% if APRA have signed the same backdoor deal?
I really don't understand the whole thing. PPNZ get all up in arms over downloading and file sharing between individuals online, saying they are working on behalf on artists, but in this circumstance they decide to cut a COMMERCIAL Australian company a huge break and allow them access to tons of videos at bargain basement prices, taking artist revenues away a minimum of 50% in excahnge for a couple of free ads? Really, who gives a fuck about getting advertising?
This whole deal confuses the heck out of me.
To me it appears to be a similar deal to Kiwifm...basically Mediaworks creating a system in which they appear to be supporting local music, but actually relegating local artists to smaller and less important networks, so they can pump more international mainstream content into their main money earners
I'm sure C42 will be a great station, hell Kiwi is actually pretty decent, but really, does it help local artists who once had the chance to be played to a large audience to now, the best they can aim for is to be played to a small audience?
PS. Russel, that online money earning graph is total bollocks, it neglects to show oncome earnt through sales of entire albums/eps in mp3 formats through bands own websites or sites like bandcamp etc... as that figure would skew the results in totally the other direction, ie, it would be the very top figure.