On another post I was added a Buzzocks YouTube video, and it occurred to me that I haven’t given them any money for probably 25 years (though I can sing every word of their first dozen singles, and play mp3s of their CDs.
Got me thinking – if I want to channel (a tiny amount) of money to my favourite struggling artists, what gives them the best return? Should I stream them on (Free) Spotify, Amazon Prime, Googleplay, or YouTube? And on YouTube does it have to be the official channel for them to get money? Any one know?
And here is one of my favourite struggling artists on what I think is his official channel.
https://youtu.be/VnEryrw4-G8?list=PL4S3FyuYt-BHIXTfH1O4CJLgATwr4rQY9
The was a good Guardian piece on this earlier in the year. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube
There’s also a more recent infographic here: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/spotify-apple-music-tidal-music-streaming-services-royalty-rates-compared/
Google pays the highest click rate, YouTube the lowest. However, as the Graun article points out artists are likely to make more money from the likes of YouTube and Spotify because of their higher traffic.
Buy physical product and go to live shows.
Dai, well yes buying more stuff and seeing people live is good, but it just occurs to me that I am listening to stuff I have bought and downloaded/ripped which generates no extra for the artist, whereas streaming does. Not that my few streams make any difference really. but it is the principle.
Yes, I get that now. Didn’t really read your post properly, sorry,
Interested that you chose to post a Cathal Coughlan tune.
I once got as far as writing out a cheque to send him (back in the days when I had a cheque book … and money) – didn’t actually post it though, just as well as he was in the middle of leaving his record co and that was the only address I had.
He is, i think, the only artist who’s physical product I always buy. I wonder how he survives …