Out of a total of more than 115,000 released.
The Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit took place last week and one of the biggest details to emerge was a report that detailed the further decline of the physical album.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the data shows that of the more than 115,000 albums released in 2008 a mere 110 sold more than 250,000 copies, 1,500 sold more than 10,000, and less than 6,000 topped 1,000.
That means that only 5% of the total physical albums released last year sold more than 1,000 copies, providing proof that music fans are switching to an alternative format.
The RIAA requires an album sell 500,000 units to achieve it’s most basic album certification – Gold.
It just goes to show that people like Will Page, Chief Economist for PRS for Music, are right when they say music revenues are growing increasingly diverse as the industry adapts to digital distribution.
Artists will need to focus on other areas where they can make money like concerts, merchandise, or even licensing for commercials like the recent Black Eyed Peas and Target partnership.
In the UK for example, concert ticket sales grew by 13% while physical album sales declined by 10%.
Moreover, music fans still want to consume music it’s just a matter of when, where, and how, and it’s up to artists to best suit their needs if they want stay relevant and earn a living at it.
When was the last time you bought a physical album?
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
This doesn’t tell me anything about the industry. It gives me some information about only 2008 figures.
It would be interesting to see useful data such as total digital + physical album sales vs album releases over the last decade.
The curve looks about normal – in terms of how many records have real sales volume, but overall sales are down. Digital sales are up, but not by much.
T-shirt sales are not up. Concert ticket prices are up.
“Concert ticket prices are up.”
Which concerts are you referring to when you say this? I’ve seen ticket concert prices as low as 5 bucks in my travels. If you’re referring to Madonna and whatever other pop/mainstream “artists” doing world tours, then probably, but otherwise, I don’t see it.
Yeah I’m referring to the big concerts that bring in the money that accounts for the rise in concert revenue.
The implication of the article is that somehow artists are going to make up for the lost revenue from selling their music directly by playing, selling shirts, and licensing. The thing is, everyone was doing all that anyway. So even if there is increaed licensing (the record companies are doing it but artists are just supposed to benefit with ‘publicity’ and the checks are ridiculously small) and jacking up prices and gouging concert goers it still won’t make up for the very real loss of income. And if you are one of those people in the middle there (selling more than a thousand but less than jay z) that is a significant chunk of your income and can make the difference between success and failure as a professional.
Regardless, the real issue is not so much about money, everypme always insists that they believer artists should be ‘compensated’, it’s about rights, and the rights that the group (file sharers) are taking away from the individual (the artist).
Assuming the old business model should be protected. Which I and any other disagree is the case. The industry can’t keep producing the way they used to, changes need to happen, they aren’t and I don’t feel guilty in the least.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything you’d be happy with where someone could actually make enough money to bother puting together the movie. Or the music.
At any rate, it’s not about ‘business models’ or money, it’s about rights, the rights of the individual being taken forcibly by a group. It is not your right to make these decisions.
No, it has always been about the model and the money. Like I stated previously, (moral) rights are completely irrelevant in the matter, as they are not affected in any way. Economic rights are necessarily impossible to take away as well.
As far as I know, the smaller artists signed on to major record labels never really made money off of music sales to begin with. So worst case scenario is that artists aren’t making money off of sales due to crap contracts to not making money because people are downloading for free. At worst, the artist won’t see a difference in income.
No, you make money off publishing. It’s pretty standard boilerplate stuff and the publishing is mandated by law. Even if you never recoup the record companies investment, and that happens a lot, you make money from the publishing, the radio play (also by law) and you get some nickels from any licensing, like for instance modest mouse and the shins had deals early on. All by virtue of being tied into a system that had to be created by people making laws and the FBI going after people who pirated records and played stuff without paying, etc., basically so musicians could be more than homeless minstrels. Otherwise musicians and artists always get dicked over.
The rights of those individuals are protected by the state, not just so we can enjoy the work and they can profit from it, but because it’s their basic right to own and control what they make.
And anyway, you’re wrong – artists have already seen the drop in income. They are making less money and advances are shrinking, and artist who don’t make the gold and platinum every time are getting dropped more quickly from deals, therefore making even less money. Everyone is making less money, which hurts people in a very real sense and hurts their families too. That’s just a fact.
Don’t know about your business sense, but my understanding of business is if its not generating profit you change your business model. Its rare that the business goes to the law to protect its business model, more often than not they work within the new confines of the market to create a system that does generate revenue.
I already gave my suggestions as to some solutions for the music industry. I’m sure an expert in the field could come up with other business models. I just think the industry is thinks its easier to lobby than fix their model. In the end their attempts will fail since there will always be a back door for file sharing.
Well, considering that the whole ‘model’ was legislated and litigated into exostence in the first place in order to protect the rights of authors, composers and performers, it makes perfect sense.
“… in order to protect the rights of …”
Not even close.
Actually, that’s the recession you’re thinking about, malgre.
I wish I could edit my own comments sometimes.
So worst case scenario is that artists aren’t making money off of music sales due to crap contracts to not making money off of music sales because people are downloading for free. At worst, the artist won’t see a difference in income.
What I meant to say for clarification purposes.
see above. That’s not true. People who write their own music (REAL aritsts) always make money from record sales, mandated by law. There is also money when the record gets played and when it gets licensed. Artists are getting screwed by file sharing just like everyone else. You can’t take a chunk of someone’s income away and think that no harm is done – that’s doubly disrespectful to the people who made the stuff in the first place. No only that, you’re taking away something fundamental, the rights to copy the work, which is exactly what the companies tried so hard to do and failed, now the audience has the goose that lays the golden egg and the artist is left just as screwed as if it were a giant corporation – it’s worse, becuase you can sue a company. These are basic rights being violated here, that’s why the law is on the side of the artist.
So you’re trying to refute against a possible worst case scenario?
“People who write their own music (REAL aritsts) …”
Don’t forget performing their own music.
“Artists are getting screwed by file sharing just like everyone else.”
“Just like everyone else”…no, not really.
“[] it’s worse, becuase you can sue a company.”
…if the subpoena is warranted.
“These are basic rights being violated here, that’s why the law is on the side of the artist.”
No, the law has little regard to the side of the artist. This was mentioned some time ago, if you have forgotten.
its been 5 or six years since I bought a CD.I use the Pandora website.