I’m an Indie Artist. And This Is Exactly What Streaming Services Are Paying Me In 2013…

This extremely detailed royalty breakdown comes from cellist Zoe Keating, specifically for two releases.  All songs are distributed through CD Baby, and all subtotals calculated after CD Baby’s 9% cut.

Updated: There’s also a little bit on YouTube and SoundExchange, which represents recording revenue from Pandora.

Update 2: Please note that the SoundExchange line items also include non-interactive streams from Sirius XM Radio, iHeartRadio, etc., but Zoe indicated that 97% of her SoundExchange money is coming from Pandora.

87 Responses

    • David

      There’s actually more on YouTube and SoundExchange (which represents recording income from Pandora). It just doesn’t have per-play data attached, but I’ll add it as ‘Exhibit B’… hang on.

      • Visitor

        Sweet, but maybe for clarity you should note that the SX revenue includes more than just Pandora? I’ve seen plenty of SX statements where XM plays are the majority of the revenue, significantly higher than the Pandora $$.

        • Casey

          Is her music played on XM? If it is, I wouldn’t imagine it would be terribly often. Pandora and Slacker probably make up the bulk of the sound exchange revenues.

          • Paul Resnikoff

            Right, of course, Zoe may be on Sirius, hadn’t thought of that. Then, of course, all non-interactive streaming sources like radio station internet simulcasts, competitors like iHeartRadio, etc. I’ll note all of that.

          • Paul Resnikoff

            Actually, just saw that Zoe noted that 97% of SE revs for her are from Pandora.

      • Paul Resnikoff

        I’m not sure where the SoundExchange and YT data are from, as they are not on the spreadsheet Zoe Keating tweeted yesterday. Did you get them directly from Zoe?
        If the figures are correct, they are interesting, as both the SX and YT revenue are higher than all other streaming! I’m surprised by the YT figures, which would come to about $2000 over a full year. That would suggest about 1 million streams per year. None of Zoe’s tracks seems to have individually very high viewing figures (the highest are cumulatively in the low 100 thousands), but there are quite a lot of them so maybe it mounts up.

        • Visitor

          “both the SX and YT revenue are higher than all other streaming! I’m surprised by the YT figures, which would come to about $2000 over a full year.”
          I just checked her on YT and the interesting part is that she has very few views.
          The most streamed vid had 352,609 clicks during a period of 4 years — and it’s not even on her own channel (it’s on Wired’s) so it may not appear in the statistics.
          It’s a small wonder that she makes anything from YT at all.

          • Zoe herself

            Youtube: I don’t have very many videos of my own, no classic music videos to speak of, and I don’t monetize my videos. The Youtube revenue is almost entirely from soundtracks on 3rd party videos found automatically by Content ID.
            SoundExchange: I don’t know how it is for other artists, but for me plays from Pandora make up 97% or my SoundExchange payments.

          • Visitor

            “The Youtube revenue is almost entirely from soundtracks on 3rd party videos found automatically by Content ID.”
            Hullo Zoe herself, that’s interesting — you’re landing right in the middle of a pretty heated Content ID discussion:
            Would you care to tell us if you use a Multi Channel Network or something like Audiam, or if you’re doing it all by yourself?
            At any rate, thanks for bringing facts and numbers to the table, it’s much appreciated.

          • Zoe herself

            Ah, that is interesting. I wasn’t aware of that discussion!
            I have a direct account with Youtube CMS.
            It has a few systemic problems which I keep meaning to write up in a blog but haven’t had time. The system was so clearly not made for users like me and how the revenue is calcuated is is a black box. Maybe I’ll write that up sooner rather than later.

          • Visitor

            “I have a direct account with Youtube CMS.”
            Thank you, that’s seriously interesting!
            As you may have noticed, a number of companies keep explaining why we need them to monetize the exact kind of user generated content that you are very capable of monetizing without their assistance.
            Now, I think I once read somewhere that you’d rather be known for your work than for silly royalty discussions — surprise, surprise — so I won’t ask you to participate in the current Content ID war thread (though I’m tempted).
            But I can assure that your words will be used and abused to no end. 🙂
            And I’m sure you’ll be welcome as a DMN guest writer if you should wish to elaborate on the problems you mentioned one day.

          • Adam

            Zoe, Thanks for sharing your data with everyone. And for chiming in on DMN. It’s good to see people providing facts not just from one company or another, but from the very people at the base of what we discuss every day on this site.

      • Musefan

        There are tabs at the bottom of the public spreadsheet, look there

  1. Visitor

    Per stream average for Spotify well above the per stream average from overall streaming, interesting

    • Visitor

      No, that’s not interesting at all!
      What’s interesting is that Ms. Keating made $84,385.86 during six months.
      Less than $300 came from Spotify.
      More than $45,000 came from iTunes.

    • Visitor

      “Keating made 97% of her revenue through people just buying her music, whether through physical sales or digital download.
      Less than $300 from Spotify. More than $45,000 from iTunes”
      The only interesting question left is this:
      How many sales did Ms. Keating lose in order to earn her $300 from Spotify?
      Let’s say her music were streamed 60,000 times, and at least one out of ten streamers would have bought her song, had it not been available on Spotify.
      That means she lost more than $4,000 from iTunes — in order to earn $300.
      No wonder artists are leaving Spotify.

      • GGG

        Until you can show data where an artist has a record up, then takes it down, like Thom should do with Eraser, this is pure conjecture, and passing it off as anything close to fact is pretty childish, in terms of debating.

        • Visitor

          Yeah yeah, I know you’re like “hm, let’s see, I can listen to this song for free on Spotify — so I’ll buy it from iTunes”.
          But that’s not the way most people think.
          When people can get something for free, they don’t go out and buy it.

          • GGG

            Not what I’m saying at all. Just saying that until you show data that shows Spotify is legitimately taking away sales, you’re just spouting bullshit. And I’ll gladly say you were right, if so. But until then, you should probably have data to back up your claims.

    • HansH

      You have to take in account that not all of her albums are available at Spotify.
      That makes it hard to compare sales and streams.
      Also the number of streams is very low when you compare this to the sales.

  2. Yves Villeneuve

    Rhapsody and MediaNet are definitely interesting, pays around market rate in all instances. Xbox seems to significantly overpay artists meaning there are a lot of inactive subscribers possibly conned into a Premium or paid subscription, or they have little problem spending on frivolous stuff they never use because of their huge wealth.

    • Casey

      I don’t think Xbox music has a very strong mobile presence, so the amount of listening per user is probably a bit lower which would create a higher payout per stream.

  3. Visitor

    Are the commenters bringing up 18-24 month old data willing to acknowledge that things are in the process of changing, and that 18-24 month old data may have little-to-no relevance for what to expect in the future?

  4. thieves

    Here’s a letter from Spotify in response to Grayzone’s request on behalf of Panegyric to remove King Crimson and Robert Fripp related items from their servers.

    Dear Douglas:
    We are responding to your takedown notice, in which you identified the following content:

”A Man, A City” (Live at the Fillmore)

Please note: All references to “King Crimson Radio” must be removed. This is misleading as there is no “KingCrimson Radio” or any authorized service by this name.

Please note: All references to “Robert Fripp Radio” must be removed. This is misleading as there is no “KingCrimson Radio” or any authorized service by this name.

    Spotify respects the rights of copyright owners and for that reason we only use content where we have been authorized to do so. While we continue to investigate your claims, however, be advised that we will remove access to “A Man, A City” from the Spotify.

    As for the other two claimed unauthorized links – “KING CRIMSON RADIO” and “ROBERT FRIPP RADIO” – a review of our in-bound licenses indicates that sound recordings that include performances by King Crimson and Robert Fripp are licensed to Spotify by, among others, Universal Music Enterprises, Virgin Records and A&M Records. These licenses grant us the right to display the name of the performers associated with the sound recordings on the Spotify service.

    Once sound recordings are licensed for use on Spotify, our service enables a user to build a radio station based upon one or more sound recordings, including based on the performers associated with such sound recordings. This means that a user who likes music performed by King Crimson can have the Spotify service deliver, through the use of an algorithm, a radio station based upon music by King Crimson – as well as from artists that may be similar to King Crimson or whose music is liked by fans of King Crimson. The name “King Crimson” is merely used for identification purposes, does not imply any endorsement by King Crimson, and is clearly a fair use. There is nothing misleading about identifying a station based upon an initial seed artist of King Crimson – or Rihanna, Bruce Springsteen, The Who, or any other artist.

    As sound recordings featuring performances by King Crimson and Robert Fripp have been licensed for use on Spotify, we will continue to use the names of those performers as seeds for radio stations selected by Spotify users and therefore will not remove the second and third links referenced above while such licenses remain in effect.

    Which prompted this response from Panegyric:

    Dear Spotify legal,

    This quote comes from an email sent by Robert Fripp, legal owner of ALL King Crimson copyrights to Spotify on August 21st 2009:

    so, please be informed: any king crimson content on your site at all is unauthorised & illegal; and you are formally notified of such by both declan, as my agent, and myself, as rights owner / controller.

    This was sent to Spotify’s content director at the time. It was true then. It was true in January of that year when Spotify first went live with a variety of King Crimson/Robert Fripp material, music which, as it was on the DGM label directly operated by Robert Fripp & David Singleton, could only have been delivered by DGM. DGM never delivered music to Spotify or authorised any third party to do so.

    It has been true at all points since & remains true to this day.

    Let me reiterate as Spotify’s legal department’s grasp of copyright ownership appears to be somewhat challenged:

    The copyright owner of ALL King Crimson material has refused permission for ANY King Crimson material to feature on Spotify.

    We asked Spotify in 2009 to tell us who had delivered this music that Spotify was giving away in breach of Robert Fripp’s copyrights, but Spotify never answered.

    Spotify has, since then, featured King Crimson music on its services on more than one occasion.

    The copyright owner has, to date, never been paid for any of this usage.

    Spotify states in its email response to Grayzone, the company requesting urgent takedowns of King Crimson material on our behalf (several requests have been necessary to draw even this inadequate response):

    “a review of our in-bound licenses indicates that sound recordings that include performances by King Crimson and Robert Fripp are licensed to Spotify by, among others, Universal Music Enterprises, Virgin Records and A&M Records.”

    None of these companies has EVER held a legitimate license for the sale or distribution of King Crimson material in digital form.

    Any King Crimson material delivered by UME has been in breach of Robert Fripp’s copyrights.

    Any King Crimson material delivered by Virgin Records has been in breach of Robert Fripp’s copyrights.

    There is no King Crimson material on any of the above labels that can or should have been delivered by these companies.

    Senior lawyers at both Virgin & UMG (now the same company) are copied on this email.

    If either of them can show a single instance where their respective labels or companies have had the rights to deliver King Crimson material to Spotify, then let them do so.

    They won’t, as no such license exists.

    At this point, Spotify will, doubtless, fall back on the usual “but it was delivered to/uploaded us so it’s not our fault if we made it available..” – otherwise known as the ‘ignorance is always an adequate defence’ line used by Grooveshark, Last.FM & other copyright thieves….

    But, even this doesn’t work for Spotify as the company was clearly told, in 2009, by the copyright owner, leaving no room whatsoever for any interpretation, that no King Crimson material should appear on the service.

    Spotify has no rights whatsoever to any music by King Crimson.

    So Spotify’s willingness to repeatedly make King Crimson music available on its service – from whatever source – having been told unequivocally by the copyright owner of all King Crimson music four years ago that no such music should be made available on Spotify, can only be viewed in terms of copyright theft.

    Indeed your opening statement to Grayzone is directly contradicted by your actions with regard to King Crimson music:

    “Spotify respects the rights of copyright owners and for that reason we only use content where we have been authorized to do so.”

    The situation with Robert Fripp material may be slightly more complex due to collaborations with other artists.

    However, I will address separately once I have had an opportunity to look at what’s currently available on Spotify.

    Any instances of Robert Fripp music where the artist did not grant a specific right to make available digitally will be the subject of immediate takedown notices.

    Irrespective of this & specifically with regard to “King Crimson Radio” & “Robert Fripp Radio”, “King Crimson” & “Robert Fripp” are subject to trademark protection operated by DGM on behalf of the artists.

    Neither consent to having their name used in this manner & both would regard the usage of the name in association with such a “radio” as a form of endorsement/Passing Off, involving a breach of the protection offered by the respective trademarks.

    As it is possible that a user of the service would regard “Robert Fripp Radio” or “King Crimson Radio” as having an association with, or recommendation from, the named artists, these services must be discontinued immediately & permanently.

    Kind regards,

    Declan Colgan
    on behalf of DGM

    Robert Fripp also sent this letter to Spotify’s legal team

    dear spotify legal,

    On 14/08/2013 19:26, Spotify Legal:
    Spotify respects the rights of copyright owners and for that reason we only use content where we have been authorized to do so.

    how dare you! you do not, and have not, respected the rights of this copyright owner.

    please note that declan’s comments are accurate, represent my view of your continuing infringements, and have my full authority.

    sincerely, rf.

    More details as things develop.

    • Visitor

      “Robert Fripp also sent this letter to Spotify’s legal team”
      Oh dear…
      Just when you thought things couldn’t possibly get any worse for Spotify…

  5. JTV Digital

    Thanks to Zoe for sharing real figures.
    At least it gives some solid starting point for discussion.

    JTV Digital | Digital Music Distribution

  6. Dae Bogan

    I think it’s important to point out that Zoe’s revenue does not represent what the average indie artist would generate from earning the same quantity of streams and downloads.
    #1. Zoe owns 100% of her publishing (both writer’s share (50%) and publisher’s share (50%))
    #2. Zoe owns 100% of her (c) song and (p) sound recording copyrights and therefore receives both the performer share (45%) and sound recording owner share (50%) of SoundExchange payouts. (95% total)
    #3. Zoe does not rev-share with an MCN; but rather does direct Content ID deal with YouTube.
    These facts are important for an indie artist reading this thread who may assume that by generating a similar quantity of streams and downloads, his/her revenue would be in the same ballpark as Zoe. That is not the case. Zoe has a unique genre-based case in terms of an indie artist of her popularity without a publishing deal nor a record deal; completely self-contained.
    An indie rock band with a decent fan base and less than half the streams/downloads Zoe has earned may still have a publishing deal and/or record deal with an independent label.
    In that case, you have reduced iTune & Amazon Physical income (due to the label significant share of the revenue as well as a reductions fro controlled compositions). You have reduced SoundExchange income (since the label would receive the rights owner share of 50%); and you have reduced publishing income from ASCAP since a publisher would get the publisher’s share of 50%. In addition, a rock band has to split the writer’s share (as would a Country, Pop, or R&B artists splitting between songwriter and producer).
    So, although I’m not challenging the numbers, it’s important when articles like this is syndicated from blog to blog and becomes “truth,” that the indie artist community (most of whom are not as knowledgeable as the commenters) doesn’t read yet another article and “run with it” as a fact sheet or guideline.

    • Visitor

      Also, the difference between her and most indies is that her music is pretty damn awesome.
      Most “indie” stuff is garbage made by no talent amateurs who have no business participating in the music business.

      • Visitor

        “Most “indie” stuff is garbage made by no talent amateurs who have no business participating in the music business.”
        Most ridiculous comment this week…

      • Dae Boganb

        Sad, but true. However, I am speaking about indies who have great music.
        Less than 1 in 100 US indie artists actually make great music. Of that 1%, less than half are making enough money to have the pursuit of music as their primary source of income. And of that .5% (of 100% of all indie artists) even fewer are actually capturing the percentage of their earnings that Zoe is capturing.
        So with that being said, I just think it’s important that when we have these discussions, we do not point to the exceptions to the rule as the template.
        This notion is what prompted the following statement in my article, “10 Steps To Building A Single Release Campaign”:
        The music industry is full of mystery. From the complexities of royalty calculations to the fundamental theory behind algorithmic music discovery, there is so much we simply don’t understand or can’t put our finger on. And the so-called experts often speak in anecdotes–highlighting success stories that are often exceptions to the rule–leaving curious indie artists more speculative than before their inquiry.

        • Visitor

          “Less than 1 in 100 US indie artists actually make great music”
          Oops, you forgot documentation.

          • Dae Bogan (ChazBo Music)

            This statistic is based on a sample size which consists of the thousands of music and video subsmissions we receive regularly for distribution consideration to our network of video music channels that play inside retail stores in the US. We stream over 40,000 hours of music every month and were founded as 100% independent (although as of last month, we now include major releases).
            We accept content from unsigned artists as well as independent labels with decent roster. In the ecosystem, this is all “indie content”. Most of the content we receive is rejected due to the poor quality of the music (content or production); so therefore it’s not “great music.”

          • Visitor

            “Most of the content we receive is rejected due to the poor quality of the music (content or production); so therefore it’s not “great music.””
            So the ‘statistic’ you provided was just your opinion.
            Thanks for clearing that up.

          • Dae Bogan (ChazBo Music)

            You can choose to call it what you want, but essentially, a statistic is an evaluation of data based on a reasonable survey of a relevant sample size.

        • Visitor

          No one would claim being a music superstar is commonplace for either unsigned, indie or major label artists. I noticed you left out the music success rate of major label signings, my guess is probably less than 1%-2% when advances based on unproven results are removed from the equation. You have your chance to redeem yourself here by giving us a balanced “opinion”.
          Moreover, how many major label artists actually get videos produced unless their music is a proven success. Probably less than 1%-2% of the entire major label roster, is my guess.
          Let’s be real and honest when expressing a so-called statistic meant to disparage the indie/unsigned sector but not effectively comparing it with the major label market.

          • Dae Bogan (ChazBo Music)

            Good points. I did not address the major labels/major artists because my initial comment was about indie artists. Specially, my comment was about validating the numbers in Zoe’s reports. I wanted to address the fact that she’s not like “most” indie artists so other indie artists reading this thread should not automatically expect to see the results she has achieved (especially her YouTube income from Content ID!!!!!).
            Further, my “statistic” was in response to someone saying that most indie artists do not make good music. And I wanted to confirm that statement with the most useful information I have at hand (and probably better than those who do not work in a space where you are accepting/rejecting indie content based on “good” or “bad” (to simply it)).
            Lastly, we work with audio and video; so not only music videos but also music stills.

          • Zoe herself

            It’s interesting….all the successful artists I personally know are not like anyone else either. I’ve started wondering if in our era success is anomalous by nature.
            I do hope other indie artists get the message that there are many models and they have options. Why not own all your copyrights and license to a label, for example?
            But yes, I’m just one data point and I encourage other artists to speak up.

          • Dae Bogan (ChazBo Music)

            Thank you for sharing your POV as an artist and your royalty data.

  7. Blob Lefshitz

    Who’s Zoe again? Am I supposed to know her as an artist?

    • Lob Befsetz

      She’s never going to MAKE it so she cries in her beer and posts her spreadsheets. But Spotify is the FUTURE.

      • David

        She already has ‘made it’. She earns over $100,000 a year the good old-fashioned way: selling records and synch rights (e.g. her music has been used extensively on the TV series ‘Elementary’). She doesn’t need Spotify, and I guess that if it started seriously eating into her record sales she would quit Spotify pdq.

        • Lob Befsetz

          She did not make music BEFORE 1978, therefore I have never heard of her, therefore NO ONE cares as I will never write a LETTER about her.

  8. Visitor

    A broader question: why the hell is she giving 9% of everything digital to CD Baby?

    • Visitor

      That’s a great question.
      For sales I have direct deals with iTunes, etc.
      CDBaby only manages streaming for old recordings (they used to handle everything before I went direct in 2010).
      TuneCore won’t work with me because my music is Classical, I asked them.
      Merlin won’t work with me directly, I asked them.
      Orchard won’t work with me directly, I asked them.
      Spotify won’t work with me directly, I asked them.
      Anyone know a digital distributor that is 1) ok with handling just streaming, not sales? 2) will let you pick and choose which services you want to be a part of 3) let you control your releases, i.e. add just a single track or a portion of an album, etc?
      Didn’t find anyone last time I looked into it and so my last album is not on any streaming services. I’ll have a new album coming out shortly so I should probably look into it again. There must be a someone now, anyone know?

        • Dae Bogan (ChazBo Music)

          Zoe – I’m interested to know how you were about to achieve a direct licensing deal (Content ID deal) with YouTube. And you please fill us in? Are you able to do the following:
          #1. Identify your rights in other videos
          #2. Send a takedown notice and authorize ads on other videos containing rights
          #3. Recieve 55% ad share on those other videos?
          And if so, how was this possible?

          • Visitor

            I think I just applied?
            I uploaded all my recordings and entered all my composition and publishing info into the Youtube CMS system.
            The Content ID robot finds videos with my music in them. There are about 4600 so far.
            I can set rights ( “track”, “monetize” or “block”) for each territory, either globally for each song, or separately for each video that Content ID finds.
            I don’t think the ad share is as high as 55%, but I have no way of knowing. I don’t know what the gross revenue collected by Youtube is.

          • Visitor

            “The Content ID robot finds videos with my music in them. There are about 4600 so far.”
            No wonder that so many companies want a percentage of that…

          • Visitor

            “I’m interested to know how you were about to achieve a direct licensing deal (Content ID deal) with YouTube. And you please fill us in?”
            I’m not Zoe, but any individual artist have direct access to Content ID — without the need of any middle men — if s/he is an exclusive right holder whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by other users.
            Just follow YouTube’s instructions:

        • Patriq

          Zoë, how great of you going open source with your royalty statements. You are helping a lot of artists (and industry followers) out by sheding some light on the different revenue streams.

          You asked about a pick and mix service. There is at least one, Record Union, based in Sweden, that let you pick and mix among the services. You could go just streaming or download, and choose among the territories. So you could pick Spotify, Deezer, Rdio for streaming. Check it out @ http://www.recordunion.com. I’ve helped a couple of friends getting their music out through this service and it is pretty straight forward.
          Having read this article, I went to check out your web site, listened to a video from an ABC session on Youtube, and have to say it sounds great. Will give the longer videos a shot later tonight after work.

      • Visitor

        “TuneCore won’t work with me because my music is Classical”
        That’s absolutely shocking.
        But good to hear you could get a direct deal with iTunes. Wasn’t that pretty complicated?
        “Anyone know a digital distributor that is 1) ok with handling just streaming, not sales? 2) will let you pick and choose which services you want to be a part of 3) let you control your releases, i.e. add just a single track or a portion of an album, etc?”
        Have you tried nimbit.com? I’ve zero idea if they’ll do what you want, but they seem artist-friendly and they’re recommened by ASCAP. I think their cut is 5%.

      • david@indigoboom

        At Indigoboom we are completely ok with handling streaming only.You are free to pick and choose services, and completely control your releases.
        David G

        • HansH

          Nice, but you keep a 15% handling fee don’t you? That’s rather high compared to other services.

          • david@indigoboom

            Its true that we have a different approach than the others. We think it is a better choice for the artist. I do not want to market Indigoboom in a comments field , so reach out to us and we will explain exactly why we think this is a better approach.

          • Visitor

            “We think it is a better choice for the artist.”
            Hm, we see your free ads here all the time but you won’t provide any real info.
            Why don’t you explain why paying more money to you is the better choice for the artist?

          • david@indigoboom

            Free ads? Just because I post under my full name and disclose the company I work for? Like I said. reach out and we will explain.

          • Visitor

            OK, we get it:
            It’s a secret why giving you more money is the better choice for artists.

          • david@indigoboom

            The only secret I can see is who you are. Anyone can read our T&C´s. Post under your own name if you want a proper response.

      • HansH

        As far as I can tell Zimbalam is the one distributor that has it all:

  9. Zoe herself

    One more thing before I go on my merry way.
    Here is another public spreadsheet with my Soundexchange earnings for Q1 & Q2 2013.
    I get 2 reports per period one as Featured Artist and one as Recording Owner. Tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet for each report.
    This is the data as came to me from SoundExchange, so I don’t know more about it than you. Like don’t know what exactly “SPOTIFY.COM – > CW-CRB > Undeclared (1000011227)” is or what “TRACKS UNDER ONE CENT” refers to .
    I also don’t know how to calculate the number of streams. I guess you could infer it if you knew what admin % SE takes off the top and what rate each broadcaster paid.
    Thanks Paul for posting all these things. I hope my data is useful to other artists finding their way.

    • Visitor

      “I hope my data is useful to other artists finding their way.”
      They are incredibly useful! They are, in fact, nothing short of revolutionary.
      Because they prove that individual indie artists can use YouTube’s Content ID to monetize User Generated Content — without middle men and without paying a single cent to the companies mentioned in these threads:
      Best of luck to you!

      • Visitor

        Open sourcing your data like this is awesome Zoe! I cited you in a college paper in the spring haha

    • Paul Resnikoff

      Are SoundExchange statements really that cryptic? It doesn’t even tell you how many times a track played?

      • Mike Corcoran

        Or how bout all the decimal points….payments are apparently calculated to the billionith of a penny? Can these streaming companies and/or SoundExchange really make or break themselves based on micro-payments that small?

        • Patriq

          I think they are trying to give us the impression that their (SE) statements are really exact and thoroughly compilated. Which they aren’t.

          For better readability I would probably have cut the decimals at 4 or 5 in the overview, but these micronumbers make the statement more absurd.

      • Dae Bogan (ChazBo Music)

        It is interesting that SoundExchange does not tell the artist or label the number of plays since it is required in the monthly reports that webcasters must send to SoundExchange. SoundExchange uses that information for allocating payment funds.

      • Zoe again

        That is all the data I get from SoundExchange. I just put it in a spreadsheet and sorted by company.
        I’d love to know from SE why they don’t list the number of plays. I always assumed it was similar to their metadata problem – that SE has to take what info a broadcaster gives them, and sometimes that metadata is erroneous. Maybe SE themselves don’t know the number of plays?

        • Bandit

          “Maybe SE themselves don’t know the number of plays?”
          They probably prefer to remain ignorant of exact numbers.
          Just like the good old days of record label accounting. you have to sue to get the details and even then you will never get the complete picture…. also minus attorney’s fees of course.

        • JTV Digital

          Hi there,
          This is exactly the same problem for reporting/accounting download or streaming revenue all companies (big or small) dealing with digital retailers face.
          Once your content is delivered to a store, whoever they are (iTunes, Spotify, Amazon…) it’s a bit of a black box.
          Apple offers some transparent / more or less realtime reports with their trending reports, but all other retailers are not giving any real visibility on the sales data.
          Most people don’t realize that digital distributors or labels are completely dependent from the good will of the retailers when it comes to reporting.

  10. Brooke

    Mechanical royalties aren’t the issue as much as performance royalties. This statement would be more than cut in half – the number of theses plays wouldn’t yield any return for an artist that writes their own songs. Mechanical pays way more than performance royalties. That’s where the real issue is!