Are streaming radio (non-interactive) royalties really in the toilet?  Not according to SoundExchange, which is now challenging a report suggesting abysmal artist payouts. 

Earlier this month, Billboard (as syndicated through Reuters) pointed to near-zero payouts on recordings for non-interactive streams in the US, even for superstar artists.  "The results show that of the more than 100 artists examined to compile the Money Makers list, only 10 made more than $2,000 from non-interactive streams in 2009, with Beyonce topping the list with an underwhelming $5,000," the report asserted, while also showing paltry results on the interactive side as well (a separate discussion entirely).  Publishing royalties were not part of the calculation.

But is it really that bad?  In subsequent discussions with Digital Music News, SoundExchange executive director John Simson outlined a much different level of compensation.  "These numbers are quite a bit off," Simson relayed.

How off?  According to SoundExchange tallies, a total of 1,602 artists were paid more than $2,000 in 2009, with 500 of those receiving more than $9,000.  Then, 4 cleared $100,000 last year, and more than 60 artists earned more than $50,000.  The amounts pertain specifically to royalties on recordings for non-interactive (ie, radio) streams in the US.

The reasons for the discrepancies are unclear.  Billboard told Digital Music News that Nielsen Soundscan was sourced for the data, suggesting more current releases and artists.  SoundExchange also engaged the publication, and was unable to determine a methodological explanation for the differences. 

Even stripping out legacy performances does little to explain.  "There is a very robust mix of current artists and legacy artists in our numbers. Webcasting is more current; satellite ... has a larger legacy component; by removing satellite, we've removed that influence."

SoundExchange is currently on-the-ground at SXSW, attempting to match an estimated $1 million in royalties to performing artists.