The Economic Advantages of Performing at Festivals

This week, I’m running back an interview I did with Will Page in 2022. It was our most popular episode of 2022 and we talked about a lot of topics that are still timely and still being debated right now in the industry. 

One of the most unique insights into the state of the music business today doesn’t come from a record label exec. Not from an agent. Not from an artist. No, it comes from Scottish economist Will Page, who served that role for Spotify from 2012 to 2019 — a period of explosive growth for the streaming giant. But if you ask Page about streaming’s future, he’s not nearly as optimistic as the rest of the industry. “The party has to come to an end,” as he told me on this episode of Trapital.

Page believes the music industry is transitioning from a “herbivore market” to a “carnivore” one. In other words, future growth will not come from brand-new customers — it’ll come from the streaming services eating into each other’s market share. Not only has subscriber counts possibly tapped out in Page’s opinion, but streaming services have also put a ceiling on revenues by charging only $9.99, a price that hasn’t budged in 20 years despite giant leaps in technology and music catalog size.  

That against-the-grain prediction was one of many Will shared with me during our in-depth interview. But he has plenty more research- and experience-backed thoughts on touring, vinyl records, Web 3.0, and everything in between. Believe me, this is an interview you don’t want to miss. Here’s everything we covered: 

[3:21] The Global Business of Music

[4:15] Vinyl Records $1.5 Billion Recovery

[08:54] Will’s Bearish View About The Future Of Streaming

[14:46] Ongoing Price War Between Streaming Services

[18:33] The Changing Economics Of Music Touring 

[21:44] Performing At Festivals Vs. Tours 

[24:57] The Evolution Of Music Publishing

[28:34] How Music Revenue Gets Distributed To Publishers

[32:41] What Does A “Post-Spotify Economy” Look Like? 

[33:44] The Current Business Landscape Of Hip-Hop 

Listen to Will’s mix right here: https://www.mixcloud.com/willpagesnc/we-aint-done-with-2021/

Check out Will’s Podcast, Bubble Trouble, where he breaks down how financial markets really work.

Read Will’s book, Tarzan Economics: Eight Principles for Pivoting Through Disruption.

Listen: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | SoundCloud | Stitcher | Overcast | Amazon | Google Podcasts | Pocket Casts | RSS

Host: Dan Runcie, @RuncieDan, trapital.co

Guests: Will Page, @willpageauthor 

Trapital is home for the business of hip-hop. Gain the latest insights from hip-hop’s biggest players by reading Trapital’s free weekly memo. 

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00:00] Will Page: When you have 110 million households, and you have more than 110 million subscribers in the United States, then we are in a race to the finishing line before herbivore turn into carnivores.

In oil, we have this expression called peak oil, which is we know that we've extracted more oil in the world than is left to extract an oil that's left is gonna be even more costly to get out the ground. I think we're in peak subscriber territory where at some point soon we're gonna start seeing growth happen through stealing other customers as opposed to finding your own.

[00:00:29] Dan Runcie Intro: Hey, welcome to the Trapital Podcast. I'm your host and the founder of Trapital, Dan Runcie. This podcast is your place to gain insights from executives in music, media, entertainment, and more who are taking hip hop culture to the next level.

[00:01:12] Dan Runcie Guest Intro: For today's episode, let's revisit the most popular episode that we did in 2022. That's the conversation that I had with Will Page. Will Page is the Former Chief Economist for Spotify, the author of Pivot, and Advisor consultant to many of the companies that are leading the music industry today. In this conversation, Will and I talked about a lot of topics that are still timely and still being debated right now in the industry.

The price of streaming. Streaming, especially for Spotify, is still $9.99 in the. Pound and Euro in many markets. But Spotify wants to keep that price for several reasons. They want to continue to grow as much as they can. They also want something in return from the record labels. They want some type of concession if they're going to raise their prices.

But as we've heard, the push has got louder and louder from the record label CEOs that want that price to increase. So we talk about some of the origins of that debate and where that may be. Then we also talk about some of the competition among the digital service providers as well, whether it's Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, and others.

We talk about how it's transitioning from a herbivore market to a carnivore market now that the market's getting saturated. You probably heard that term a bit over the past year that originated from this podcast. So we talk about that a number of other timely things and more we'll eventually have will back on the podcast soon.

But this is a nice precursor to refresh the memory a bit and with some of the topics that are still going on in music today. Here's our episode. Hope you enjoy it.

[00:02:48] Dan Runcie: Some of the work you've done for a company that is very heavily focused on playlist, which is Spotify, and I think more broadly looking at the streaming era we're in right now.

This is a great time to chat because we just saw the IFPI results and streaming as continuing to grow as we've seen. But I feel like you probably spotted a few interesting trends about where things are heading, and I think that's a question mark for a lot of people. Streaming continues to grow, but how far can it grow?

What are we seeing in terms of differences within genres or regions? What are some of the things that stuck out

[00:03:21] Will Page: to you? I'll give you a couple. The first one is the global business. Well, last time I looked at United Nations, I think there's 208 countries in the world. The global yearbook that we're discussing here has, I think 58.

So we have to be careful what we define as global. I think Africa's clubbed together as one continent and where they need to work on that. But I think the global business is growing, but it's also becoming more American. So if you go back to when Spotify launched America, 22, 20 3% of the business round about just over a fifth.

Today it's 37%. So we have seen the business grow and become more American, and that raises questions, you know, economic questions like globalization, questions, should poor countries catch up with rich ones? The theory says yes. The reality often says no. So we're seeing this kind of lopsided growth where the business is growing, but it's growing in favor of an American market.

The biggest country is growing at the fastest. That's a positive problem, but I just wanna flag it, which is, that's not how it was supposed to play out. And then the second thing I'd wanna point to as well is just vinyl. this vinyl recovery is just, well, I don't know how much my bank balance is responsible for this vinyl recovery, but I'm telling you, Is define the laws of gravity.

Now, we're now looking at vinyl being worth one and a half billion dollars, which is more than it's been worth in the past 30 years. It's worth more than CDs, cassettes, and downloads, the three formats that we're supposed to declare that vinyl is dead. But there's two things you can kind of cut out the vinyl recovery, which I think will be of real interest to your audience.

Firstly, on the consumer side. I saw a survey which suggested that the majority, just over half of all vinyl buyers today, don't own a record player. I mean, something's cooking here. So what are we buying it for? I'll extend that as well. the cost of wall frames to frame vinyl on your wall often cost more than the record itself.

So I'm willing to pay more for vinyl to you know, framed on my wall than I am for the record. And by the way, I don't have a record player. There's a lot of people who will tick those bizarre boxes. But on the crater side, something else is interesting. This'll take a little bit of working through.

But if we think about the streaming model, it's monetizing consumption. That's what it does. So if there's an album with 10 songs, three killer and seven filler songs, and an album, and let's say Dan Runcie wrote the Three Killer Tracks and Will Page, he wrote the Seven Duff Filler Tracks. On streaming, Dan might walk away with all the money and I'll walk away from none because we're only streaming the killer tracks and nobody's touching the filler.

As the album model kicks out from vinyl, I would get 70% of the cash. That's crazy because nobody knows what's being consumed and it's a lot of cash. If I just kind of do some rough math here of a million fans streaming your hip hop record on Spotify, and let's say they're stream. 200 times in a month when the album drops, you only need 20,000 of them of that million to make the same amount of money from vinyl than you would do from streams, which is entirely plausible.

But then how do you pay the copyright owners from those songs on an album is very different from how you pay them on a stream. If you go back to the late seventies, the, one of the most successful records of all time was Saturday Night Fever, the Bee Ges and a bunch of other people. It's crazy to think that Ralph McDonald's Calypso strut his record there, which nobody has listened to, got the same royalty as staying alive by the Bee Gees because it was a vinyl record.

So to reiterate, on the consumer, I don't know how many of these vinyl records are being played, and on the crater side, it raises questions about how these craters are gonna get

paid.

[00:06:53] Dan Runcie: That's a good point book that I don't think is being talked about as much about the vinyl search because there's so much like wow, about just how much is being purchased.

I think I even saw the stat that Adele's 30 album sold 8,000 cassettes. Or there was stuff tied from Stat about that, and I think the similar thing that you said, lines up having those people actually still own a watman or whatever type of cassette player that they have. So I do think that that is something that probably there could be a deeper analysis on because.

A lot of the people that write the filler songs, how do they feel? Or whether you're a songwriter, whether you, you know what's behind it, especially when you know that there's so much clear path to be able to determine, okay, this is going to be the lead single, this is what we're gonna push most from this album.

It really shifts things even more to where things are going in terms of a single market. Like the way that people have talked about pop music for a while now, right? And I guess that brings a, brings me back to the streaming trends that you mentioned. Overall, we're in this area, as you mentioned, streaming itself, the US penetration is grown from 22%, I believe you said is now through your 35, 37, somewhere around there.

But where do we go from here because as you've written before, the price of music streaming, at least the monthly subscription hasn't necessarily been increasing. The average revenue per user overall because of the international growth is decreased, and you have plenty of people that are still trying to get there, fair share of what they can.

It's streaming so. It's in like five, 10 years from now. If you could see into the future, where do you think streaming distribution is? I think the good thing is that people have smartphones and there's more and more growth from that perspective. So streaming is going to grow, but on the other hand, the economics of these things do have some theoretical goal point where we've maximized the global penetration of this.

What do you think about, where that is going?

[00:08:54] Will Page: Let me unpack it in two different lanes. Firstly, I'll deal with the saturation point question, which is, you know, how long can this party keep going for? It's three o'clock in the morning, who's gonna call time on it? And then secondly, I wanna deal with the pricing point on its own lane as well, but on saturation point, you're now in a situation where I put it as in America, we've had herbivores. We've had Spotify growing Apple, growing Amazon, growing YouTube, growing. Everybody's reporting growth, Pandora even is growing. What we are gonna see some point soon is carnivores.

Which is Apple will grow by eating into Spotify's growth, or YouTube will grow by eating into Amazon's growth. So the key question we gotta ask is when do we go from the herbivore market? We're in today to a carnival market of tomorrow, and I output Spotify's US subscriber number around about 45 million, Apple at 49 million. We dump on top YouTube. Amazon, Pandora, you're well past 110-120 million. Now, that's important because I reckon and there's around about 110 million qualifying households in America that has at least one person who could pay for a streaming service. This is crucial because if you look at what Apple One's bundle is doing $30 a month for news, music, television, gaming, fitness, and two turbos of storage per six account holder. It's a household proposition they're saying to the home, I got you convenience. Everyone under this roof is covered with Apple products. So when you have 110 million households, and you have more than 110 million subscribers in the United States, then we are in a race to the finishing line before herbivore turn into carnivores.

In oil, we have this expression called peak oil, which is we know that we've extracted more oil in the world than is left to extract an oil that's left is gonna be even more costly to get out the ground. I think we're in peak subscriber territory where at some point soon we're gonna start seeing growth happen through stealing other customers as opposed to finding your own.

So I just wanna put that warning flag out there. Just now we're partying like it's 1989, fine, but at some point the party has to come to an end and gross is gonna come at the expense of other players that then flips, you know, from the A side to the B side of this record. We flip it over to price and then the pricing debate is interesting.

I published this work called MELD Economics,uh, which we can cite on your, your wonderful website there. Which was to look at 20 year history of the nine 19 price point, and its crazy story back in the 3rd of December, 2001, over 20 years ago. Today Rhapsody got its license for a $9.99 offering, which had 15,000 songs.

First point. The origins of 9 99 bizarrely date back to the Blockbuster rental card. Some coed up label executive would've said, if it cost 9 99 to rent videos from Blockbuster, that's what it should cost to rent music. Secondly, there was only 15,000 songs with limited use case. There was no smartphone back then.

No apps, no algorithms. That was all a weird welded into the future. So you just. 9 99 for 15,000 songs. We are now chatting in early April, 2022, and it's still 9 99 in dollar in Euro and Sterling, but we're offering a hundred million songs. That's the crazy thing. So in the article, Mel Economics, what I do is I strip inflation out in the case of the uk, 9 99 has fallen down to six pounds, 30 pence.

Remember, you know, Family Plan makes music cheaper too. If 2.3 people are paying $40.99, that's six pounds 50. There's way too many numbers in this conversation for Trapital, but still we'll stick with it. Student plan makes it cheaper too. So music in real terms, has fallen to six pound 30, which is less than a medium glass of Malbec wine, so 175 milliliters of Malbec wine costs than a hundred million songs, which is available offline on demand without adverts. That for me, is certified bonkers. I don't understand what we've done. We're offering more and more, and we're charging less and less, and you only have to leave the ears to the eyes on the video streaming to see what they're doing on the other side of the fence.

Netflix has got me from $7.99 to $8.99 to $12.99, to now $14.90. In the space of 15 months, and I haven't blinked Disney plus. The reason I'm paying $4.99 on Disney Plus is because I paid $19.99 to get Cruella live on demand. So they're charging more and more, but only offering part of the wells repertoire set for eyeball content.

We are charging less and less and offering more and more of the wells. Ear hole content, so it's like two ships passing each other in the night. It's a very interesting dilemma.

It's intriguing because when you look at the way that video is structured, as you mentioned, you have all these price increases, and I think Netflix for some plans is, you know, $18.99, it's approaching that level, but in music, It's this thing where, yeah, there's some price differences where I think I saw today that Amazon music is increasing a dollar, but that's from $7.99 for prime subscribers to that being $8.99. So we still have to cross that.

I wonder if I won't cost that.

[00:13:57] Dan Runcie: I mean, honestly, I feel like there's something here because when I think about this, I think about a few things.

Obviously you do have this fight where the artists wanna get more and the labels wanna get more, you know, not just for the artists, but for themselves. And obviously Spotify wants to earn more logically. You would think, okay, if you increase the price and people just understated the economics of what's likely.

If Spotify increased up to 1299 a month for the standard base rate, how many folks would boing. But to your point earlier, I have to imagine that the fear is looking at the trends and where that penetration is. If they jump up to $12.99, then they're going to lose those customers to the other streaming services that haven't jumped there yet because of that thought of, you know, shifting to that carnivore mentality of competing with each other. So because for roughly 80% of the content that they do offer, it is roughly the same between each of these services. It's led it to be more of a price war then in video streaming, where most of them do have some differentiated content.

[00:15:02] Will Page: A hundred percent. And two things to bolt onto your very eloquent points there. And firstly, let's just remind ourselves that Apple launched superior sound quality. You may remember the, commercial of Lossless audio. You buy your AirPods, which cost two years of Apple Music or Spotify to put in your ears and you get superior sound quality, the subtext underneath it said at no extra cost. That was the actual marketing message. So there again, we are improving the offer we're supplying more but we're charging less in real terms. And that's a really interesting kind of point kind of cut into. And the second thing, and we should get balance into this discussion cause it's delicates, we have to remind ourselves that, you know, there's 120 million subscribers in America.

There's still another 120 million to go, but we know they're not that interested in paying for music because they haven't paid yet. Now the best way to attract them is not necessarily to raise price. So we gotta remember that there's still, you know, oil to extract. It's not gonna be easy oil to extract, but the best way to get to it might not be to raise price, but there's a catch to this.

I can remember in the early nineties, right up to 2010 piracy, ripping the asset out of this business and concept promoters were saying. We love piracy because the kids are getting music for free so they can pay more on concert tickets. I wonder if now they're saying we love Spotify because they don't raise prices, which means we can raise ours.

This is not a discussion of how to rip off the customer. This is a discussion about value exchange and I just wonder whether recorded music is leaving value on the table. That's the key point

to hammer on.

[00:16:32] Dan Runcie: That's a good point. And I think that also made me think too, could there be some notion of maintaining the perception of Spotify as something that still has high pricing power and still has high consumer surplus, because then that helps the stock price.

And then seeing that the major labels are all invested in Spotify itself. It's about like having that perception of, you know, the future growth and whatever it is. So what you just said made me think about that being a factor potentially too.

[00:17:02] Will Page: A hundred percent. And of course, you've gotta distinguish the Spotify Apple music cost structure from that of the video streaming companies in that they have a kind of variable cost.

You double your business, you double your cost base. Whereas Netflix, you jump up costs and you have, you jump up your revenue, you know, you raise me from 7 99 to 14 point 99, the cost of that content was fixed. And I'm still consuming the Fresh Prince of Bel Air on Netflix to this day. That was a fixed cost deal that he did to get that content and that's margin to Netflix.

So, you know, the cost structure matters to this one as well.

[00:17:33] Dan Runcie: Definitely. And you mentioned live music there, and I think there's a lot to think about from that perspective. I Feel like we're in this post pandemic. I mean, we're still not out of it, but we're in this post quarantine era, more artists than ever are trying to tour and get out there trying to capture what's there, but also from an economic perspective from that.

Most people are only gonna go to a certain number of live events per year, and we have this 18 to 24 month run coming up where everyone wants to make up for what they couldn't do in the past two years. How will that shift, not just who then goes on tour together, and then how they may split those profits, what the availability looks like?

And if they're not able to do what they may have done on tour in the late 2010s, how does that affect future touring? I think that's a piece of it that, you know, we still haven't necessarily seen the impact of, but it just feels inevitable based on where things are heading. You did it.

[00:18:33] Will Page: Absolutely. Now on touring, I was lucky and I gotta do some great work on the UK live industry, and I can only speak for the UK here.

I know a lot of your audience in the US but I think these points will carry. The first one was to work out how much is spent on concert tickets in Britain during the, the normal year of 2019, and the answer was 1.7 billion pounds. That's more than was spent on recorded music a lot more than was spent on recorded music, which makes sense, you know, you pay 120 pounds on the Spotify account, you're paying 240 pounds to go to Redding Festival. Two days in the muddy field in Redding, cost more than 365 days of all the wells. But what I noticed there was the industry is changing in its growth. I showed that between 2012, the year of the London Olympics and 2019, The live music industry in this country had exploded and grow, but it was lopsided.

All the gro came from stadiums, festivals, and to lesser extent arenas. The theaters, the 2000, 3000 capacity theaters like the Philmore West over where you are, they were getting crushed. They were actually shrinking in size. So we have this lopsided live music industry, which is going right in the direction of the head as opposed to the long tail, the stadiums, the festivals, the arenas, as opposed to the theaters, the clubs, the university venues.

And that's interesting cuz that's gonna change the dynamics of how you make money from live. Do you go from doing your tour of an album to doing a tour of your festivals for that record? And what does that mean? The cost structure for the insurance and all those things that bands have to consider when they're hitting the road.

I mean, credit to capital. You've had some great podcasts recently on this topic, but as, a big rethink coming along in this live music market, it's not the same as we had back in 2019. It's changed fundamentally, and it is the breadwinner for most artists' income. I think it makes up about 70% of what an artist has to live for comes from the road that vanished.

How do we get it back?

[00:20:22] Dan Runcie: I feel like Cardi B has been a good. Case study on this specific point here, right? It's been four years now since she released an album, and she's yet to go on a true proper tour in that time. That said, she's done plenty of festivals where she's earned more on those festival guarantees that she likely would on tour.

She's also done many private events where she's likely earned that save amount, if not more. So there's a whole economic argument to be made, and I think there's also some risk involved too, right? I think that festivals do give you the opportunity to. Get that major bag, you get the high number, the revenue that comes through, but maybe your fans will be a little bit more forgiving if your set piece at your festival isn't the most extravagant thing, especially if you're not the headliner at it.

But on a tour, I think it changes. It's a little bit more pressure, everyone wants to see that Instagramable or talkable moment to then sell future tickets and just the production cost and everything with travel. It still is something that is very worthwhile, but I think we've just started to see some of that segmentation there.

Especially for someone like her. I would add residencies too. I know she's done a few different things in Vegas here and there, but yeah. Still yet to do that 30 city worldwide tour.

[00:21:44] Will Page: Yeah, I think you gotta think with your head and your heart. Your head says like you point out the economics favors festival.

Your back line's there, your insurance is covered. Travel's already covered. I have numerous hip hop bands perform at festivals in Europe, and that's one of the big advantages. The costs are all taken care of by the festival, but your heart says, what does that do to intimate relationships with your fans?

[00:22:05] Dan Runcie: Right?

[00:22:05] Will Page: I mean, you're staring at 50,000 strangers in the muddy field. That's different from staring at 2000 friends in the Fillmore West. So the head and the heart's gotta come into play here. What I would add though is that there are rumors, I would say here in the UK at least, that the promoters are saying, I'll pay you a ton of money to perform at the festival to make sure that you don't go on tour.

And that's an interesting situation. If you build one too many houses, you collapse a property market. If you have one too many tours or one too many festivals, you collapse live music industry. So there's ways in which people are trying to restrain the market to festival. At the expense of the theaters.

That certainly is coming through in the data. We're seeing the theater business take a kick in while festivals go on a roll.

[00:22:45] Dan Runcie: Yeah, because I think about, you look at the artists that are touring stadiums now, whether it's your Taylor Swift's or Beyonce's, they wouldn't be able to do that if they didn't have the individual tours at smaller venues when they were starting out. Being able to build that intimate fan base, like you said, like you get to that point, right? And I do think that as good as festivals can be, it is much more of a lucrative cash grab that is, I don't wanna say necessarily short-term thinking, but I think you ideally wanna have some type of balance there, right?

Get the big bag that you can get from something else. It's almost no different. I think running a business, right? Okay, sure. You may be able to do a speaking fee or do some type of, you know, thing here or there, but hey, you can't do that all the time, especially if it's not an audience you're tapped into.

You still need to do some of the things that could set you up for the long game.

[00:23:37] Will Page: Yeah, and there's an infographic that I'll share with you to pass onto your audience here. I wrote an article in The Economist called Smells like Middle-Aged Spirit as opposed to Teen. Nice play on Words hat to Dave Gro and Kurt Cobain.

But what I was looking at was the average age of festival headliners over time. This is a du pessimistic Scottish economist. This is what you do with your spare time. Okay, so in the nineties when radio head to Glastonbury, the average age of a festival headliner is 25, 26 years old. all these hot bands were coming through the Brit Pop era.

You know, there was so much development of new talent. By 2012, I think it had got up to 58 and I got a lot of criticism for that article. But then Glastonbury that year had the WHO and Lionel Richie headlining, which I think was 17 and 73 years old apart. And then you can see the conveyor belt problem, which is okay, it's a quick cash grab.

It makes sense. But that's not the conveyor belt of how we developed talent for tomorrow. That's just how we cash in our chips at the casino today. So it does raise questions, I'm not saying it's like the doomsday scenario here, but we just need a healthy balance of, you know, a seeded for future growth and then the big stage for exploiting that moment today, which could be the pyramid stage at Glastonbury, the headlights stage at Monterey over in the States.

So I just think we're getting a little bit lopsided here. We're a bit short termist and how this business needs to develop.

[00:24:57] Dan Runcie: Agreed on that. Switching gears a bit. One thing that you wrote recently that stuck out to me, you did this deep dive on music publishing, and I think this is another area that kind of has some of that short-term, long-term perspective on it, because you look at the people who get the share of the copyright pie, at least today, and from music streaming perspective, a lot of that has been much more in the favor of, the recorded side and then the people getting compensated on the recording side. But with that, the songwriters and the publishers, a lot of them necessarily in that timeframe, didn't get a lot of that. But I think in this wave now where we're seeing more catalog deals and we're seeing people understand the value of that, things may be starting to shift and there's likely other things as well.

But what do you think about the way that the publishing side has been seen in what the future opportunities are for that side of the business?

[00:25:54] Will Page: Well, the way that labels and publishing were taught to me in terms of what makes them distinct from one another goes back to my Aunt Dorian Loader, who worked in the music business from 1959 at Deca Records, right the way through to 2012.

She ran Enzyme records with Nigel Grange, Lucian's Half-Brother. They were responsible for Shead O'Connor, who sold 11 million albums based on the Prince cover. And she once said to me, will, this is how the music industry works. The record label pays for your drugs and the publishing pays for your pension. I just kind of, that's a nice succinct way of summarizing how the business works.

That was then, this is now clearly times have changed, I think, but it reminds us about, you know, what makes the business different. And then that piece of work that you cite is something called global value of copyright, where I'm really keen to educate this. Regardless of whether you're coming from a label perspective, a manager, an artist, a songwriter, there's a C with a circle on it called copyright.

We get that, and it involves record labels. It involves sound exchange. It involves artists. It involves ascap, BMI, GMR, Czek. It involves publishers, David Israeli, and the great folks at the NNPA. It Put the whole thing together for me, all this spaghetti and strain it out. And what I was able to show was that in 2020, copyright was worth 32.5 billion, way bigger than what you've just heard from IFPI way bigger than what Czek would say.

This is the entire thing. And the split was about 65% labels, 35% to the publishers. Now, if you go way back to 2001, when we used to sell CDs by weight of pate. In the cocaine capitalism days, you know, record labels back then. The split was much more in favor of labels, you know, more than three quarter labels, less than a quarter to the publishers.

And what we've seen happen in the years in between is quite an interesting story. Labels went from boom time with CDs to bust with piracy, and now they're booming again with streaming. And the inverse, the opposite happened. Publishers as labels went bust. ASCAP, BMI kept on reporting record breaking collections, so you have a hair tore toys analogy here of labels going really fast and falling off a cliff.

Publishers just trundled along with record breaking, not massive record breaking collections, but it kept on growing their bases. So, the questions these throw up is what type of industry are we moving towards? Are we going back to a business model which paid labels over three quarters of the pie and publishes less than a quarter, and is that a good or a bad thing?

Or in this post Spotify economy where we're seeing companies like Peloton, Twitch, TikTok, come to the business, is that gonna have a completely different balance? Now why this matters to your audience is not just on the crater side, but also on the investment side. You pointed out catalog valuations. We can dig into that if you want, but just a high level point is, let's say that in a few years time, I go into my back cave again, calculate the global value of copyright, and instead of 32 and a half billion, it's 40 billion.

I'll come on Trapital show, I'll make an exclusive announcement. Copyright today is worth 40 billion, seven and a half billion new dollars. Have come into this business, I want the audience to start thinking about who gets what share of that marginal new dollar. Is that gonna split publishing side or is that gonna split label side?

And if you're investing in catalogs, be the master rights, be the author rights that really bears, there's a huge educational drive here to understand the balance of this business of copyright.

[00:29:15] Dan Runcie: So there's a few things you've said there that I wanted to dig into. Of course, for streaming Spotify and its competitors around 75%.

Is going to the recorded side a quarter to publishing. But from a breakdown, what does that look like for the TikToks, the Roblox and the Pelotons? What does that share of revenue from those plays look like?

[00:29:38] Will Page: So, The best way I could do this is if I just talk about ratios. There's three Rs in this business.

There's share of revenue, there's ratio in this rights pool. They mean different things. Most experts get confused. With these three Rs, I'm gonna stick to ratios. That is, if I give the label a dollar, how much do I give the publisher, the songwriter, this collective management organization. So we stick to the conventional streaming model Today, I would say that if you give the record label a dollar, you're giving the publishing side of the.

24 cents, you know, a decent chunk of change. But still the pure cousin of the record label on YouTube, I think it could be as high as 35 cents, 40 cents even. Because there's a sync right? Involved in those deals. And then when you take that observation of imposing the sync right into deal, and you expand it to Peloton or TikTok, potentially even more, and then you can flip it and say, well, what happens if the future of TikTok is karaoke?

Not saying it's gonna happen, but it's not implausible if that was the case. That favors publishers even more. So there's all these weird ways that the business could develop, which could favor one side of the fence. The labels and the artists continue getting three quarters of the cash or the other side of the fence.

Publishers and songwriters start enforcing their rights and getting. A more balanced share and that that's what we need to look out for when we're investing incorporates. That's what we need to look out for. If you're a singer and a songwriter and you're trying to understand your royalty statements

[00:30:57] Dan Runcie: mm-hmm.

Well, like how much higher do you think? I mean, if you had to put a percentage on it for the TOS or the Pelotons, and I guess as well, you made me think of sync deals, right? Like for the folks that are selling, or their song gets placed on one of these hulu series or one of these HBO Max series, like what does that ratio look like, you know, from a ballpark for those.

[00:31:20] Will Page: So I think a 50 50 split would be the upper bend of the goal. If, if a song is placed in a Hulu TV show or you know, an artist I've worked with for many years, Yu Dito Brazilian composer, his songs now in this famous easy Jet commercial over here in Europe. The artists and the publisher would see around a 50 50 split of those revenues.

Now, would that happen in the world of streaming? Unlikely. But I think if you can get to a stage where you're giving the record label a dollar and the publisher 50 cents as a ratio, and I've gotta repeat the word ratio here, you know, that's potentially achievable with this post Spotify economy. I don't think it's gonna happen with the business we're looking at today, but I think that's a potential scenario for the business developing tomorrow.

That's the thing. If I can quote Ralph Simon, a, a longtime mentor to me, he always says, this industry is always about what's happening next. And then he goes on to say, it always has been. It's a great reminder of just, you know, we're restless souls in this business. We've achieved this amazing thing in the past 10 years with streaming.

Got there. Banked there what's coming next, who would've thought Peloton would've had a music licensing department 18 months ago? Now they're like a top 10 account for major labels.

[00:32:30] Dan Runcie: It's impressive. It really is. And I think it's a good reminder because anytime that you get a little bit too bullish and excited about what the current thing is, it's, we always gotta be thinking about what's next.

And you mentioned a few times about a post Spotify economy. What does that look like from your perspective? I think there's likely a number of things that we've already talked about with more of these other B2B platforms or where these other platforms in general, having licensing deals. But when you say, or what do you think about post Spotify economy?

What comes to mind for you?

[00:33:02] Will Page: Let me throw my fist, your words, your jaw, and try and knock you out for a second. We talked about price for a minute, and we talked about streaming. We haven't talked about gaming, but you noticed the Epic Games. It's just acquired band. I learned a fascinating stat about bandcam, which relates to my book Tarzan Economics.

There's a chapter in the book called, "Make or Buy", where I sat down with the management of the band radio head. We went through the entire in Rainbow Story for the first time ever, a real global exclusive. Explain how that deal worked out, what they were really achieving when they did their voluntary tip jar model.

And by the way, can I just put a shout out to one of your listeners and live from the Ben Zion. Best remix of Radiohead I've ever heard in my life is Amplive, Weird Fishez hip hop version of the entire album. But Radiohead tested voluntary tip jar pricing. Now check this out. If you put your album out on Band Cap, could be a vinyl record.

Remember, it's the people who are paying to stream who are also buying vinyl. So if you put a ban, an album, my own banquette, and you say name your own price, no minimum, and there's a guidance there of 10 bucks, the average paid is. People go above 40% asking, and that could be for a super rich blockbuster artist who tries something out in band camp.

That could be for some band who's broken Brooklyn, Robin and coins together, trying to make them breed. People go 40% above asking when you say name your own price. And that's interesting for me. there's a great academic paper by Francesco Cornell from Duke University. She asked, how should you price a museum?

An intuition says Top-down. Museum should set the price. Adults 10 bucks, kids, five bucks, pensioners, some type of discount arrangement. But she said, no, let the visitors set the price because that way rich people will give you even more and poor people can attend and you'll see more cash overall. And I would like to see a little bit more of that experimentation around pricing compared to the past 20 years where we've had a ceiling on price, where if you really love a band, all you can give a platform is $9.99 and not a penny more.

I think that's, we're suffocating love. We're putting a ceiling on love and we need to take that ceiling and smash through it and let people express love through different means. But I love that ban camp story. Whatever you suggest, I'll give you 40% above cuz it's art. We're not dealing with commodity, we're dealing with culture and that's why we gotta remind ourselves.

[00:35:13] Dan Runcie: It's like the Met model, right? Where at least the last time I went, it was like $20 was the recommendation. But to your point, it at least had some vary of a threshold. But the people, a lot of the people that go there that have a lot of money end up giving much more. So I hear you on that. That's a great note to end on. Will, thanks again. Thank you so much.

[00:35:33] Dan Runcie Outro:

If you enjoyed this podcast, go ahead and share it with a friend. Copy the link, text it to a friend, post it in your group chat. Post it in your Slack groups. Wherever you and your people talk, spread the word. That's how capital continues to grow and continues to reach the right people. And while you're at it, if you use Apple Podcast, Go ahead.

Rate the podcast, give it a high rating, and leave a review. Tell people why you like the podcast. That helps more people discover the show. Thank you in advance. Talk to you next week.