Does Psy get a cut of the proceeds or will Google pocket the lot of it?
'Op! Op! Op!' Gangnam Style earns Google $8m
Google has pulled in $8m from the over one billion YouTube views of Korean rapper – or K-pop entertainer, your call – Psy's Gangnam Style (강남스타일) video. That stunning figure was revealed by Google senior VP and chief business officer Nikesh Arora during Tuesday's conference call with analysts and reporters after Google …
-
-
-
Sunday 27th January 2013 15:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
> "50% of the revenue? Sounds pretty fair to me, frankly. I'd take that deal over what the record companies are offering these days."
Remember, unlike a record label, Youtube has done no marketing or promotion, hasn't paid the artists an advance to live on while they write songs and record, hasn't fronted the recording costs, arranged for producers, engineers, mastering, licensing, artwork, and so forth. The labels are fronting the costs and taking the financial risks, hence why they take a much bigger cut of the profits - whereas Youtube take 50% for doing nothing other than hosting. The same might be said of iTunes, but they do only take 30% and also handle the payment processing and have better auditing. Youtube also pay less than other music streaming services like Spotify and Deezer - which are hardly generous themselves. In short, if you have a novelty video or a gimmick that might go viral, then Youtube may be your ticket to fame and riches; but the poster who likened it to a lottery win as opposed to a business model was spot on.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 18:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
That proves it (IMO)
You can make money in music by giving away your product for free.
Although IMO that has been proven way before this news; the fact that a lot of people want to see Psy live is enough prove as well.
So; anyone of the anti-piracy groups care to explain to me how this is possible, while we can all simply download Psy's hit song for free right from Youtube and put it onto our mobile music players?
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 20:27 GMT ThomH
Re: That proves it (IMO)
You can make money by entering the lottery but it's still not a healthy strategy for running a business. There is, as you say, quite a lot of leeway for redefining what your product is — if your product is radio licensing, touring and appearances then the recorded versions you give away for free are just viral advertisements — but it'd be disingenuous to argue a whole business model based on a tiny subset of available data points.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 21:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: That proves it (IMO)
but it'd be disingenuous to argue a whole business model based on a tiny subset of available data points.
Although I agree with you on that subject this is still how the anti piracy agencies are treating us as a whole. When it comes to (digital) media like blank CDR's, tapes and such we even have to pay extra taxes in order to support the "protection of the rights of artists" (at least here in Holland).
And although radio stations broadcast music they surely don't want people to use media and actually record all of that, when you buy a CD and want to make a copy for your own usage (or to put it on your media player) then even that gets blocked sometimes.
Even though, in general, the most income is generated by live performances.
There's a very good reason why Psy is touring like crazy right now; one moment he's in the US, then back in Korea, then all of sudden somewhere in Japan or China.
And quite frankly; I don't think he would have been were it not for sharing his Gangnam Style video.
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 08:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: That proves it (IMO)
the most income is generated by live performances.
That's the genesis of Eardish, a venture set up by David Kershenbaum. He's got quite a budget for it, but it hasn't made much of an impact yet. I wonder who he has for marketing because they appear to suck..
-
-
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 16:51 GMT Turtle
Re: That proves it (IMO)
" That proves it (IMO) You can make money in music by giving away your product for free."
Right. Provided it becomes the most popular YouTube video ever, with over 1.2 billion views. Because 1.2 billion views (or listens) is so typical of both YouTube videos and recorded music in general.
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 18:54 GMT HollyHopDrive
music companies.....
....Could learn a lot here. Essentially they gave it away for free to the fans and still make 4m from one track. (And I bet a huge number of people also bought it even though they could watch for free) And they are worried about piracy. It strikes me they have taken their eye of the ball to some extent and missed this easy revenue making opportunity. Granted they won't make this of every track but if they stopped pushing out so much garbage surely they could make a good income stream from it, enough not to worry themselves about piracy.
For the record I could live without ever hearing the track ever again but my kids love it so what do I know :-)
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 19:37 GMT Robert Helpmann??
Re: music companies.....
...if they stopped pushing out so much garbage surely they could make a good income stream from it...
I think that this is actually an argument for pushing out more rather than less, but it comes down to personal taste (or lack thereof). Either way, expect more of the same.
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 23:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bat Chain Puller....
Ah, and remember those wise words to live by: the dust blows forward, and the dust blows back.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 23:31 GMT Rik Myslewski
Re: Bat Chain Puller....
Ah, yes ... brings back memories. Back in my acting days I once auditioned for the Colorado Shakespeare Festival, for which we were required to perform one Shakespearean and one contemporary monologue. I did a speech from a production of Midsummer Night's Dream in which had been most likely the only 6'3" Puck in history, along with Beefheart's "The Dust Blows Forward 'n The Dust Blows Back". I didn't get the gig...
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 11:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Why this video works...
"Americans love an easy dance craze (usually so they can do something at weddings). Gangnam Style's simple dance moves can be easily copied (see also The Electric Side, All the Single Ladies, and the Chicken Dance- otherwise known as the Birdie Song to us over here)."
It ain't just the 'cains that love easy dance crazes. Dads have to have something to attempt to dance to.
You know your a pleb when you enjoy this shite.
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 08:04 GMT Jan Hargreaves
65 cents per play? Is this guy for real? I work for a company that has a large catalogue in YouTube and from the last month of sales figures available, our highest earning track on YouTube earned $3.84 with 19,997 plays = 0.000192 cents per play.
Must be the same propaganda machine that Spotify uses...?
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 15:07 GMT Lee Dowling
You're maths is off.
ZERO POINT 69 cents per play.
That's only 3500 times as much as your highest-earning track on YouTube. Which I don't see as unreasonable if what you put up isn't worldwide top-10 "hits" that start social trends, but something smaller.
But, anyway - if it was that bad, you wouldn't do it. Or you're doing deliberately knowing it's a loss-leader in order to get actual revenue elsewhere.
And, to be honest, even on the largest of sites I've run, you'll make more money from just having decent, relevant content - and Google ads - than you'll make any other way from the same content. My brother runs a Scouting site that - until he gave up Scouting just recently - pulled in enough from Google ads each year to fund the site hosting, etc. and a couple of trips for the kids (it still pays for its own hosting, but he doesn't really "work" on it as much any more). It's been running since 1997, at least, and that's always been the case. Hell, when tent suppliers and camping companies phone him up, they could never offer more for even a huge, direct advert splat on the front-page than Google were giving him for random ads anyway. The money he got wouldn't have provided a wage, but he did a damn sight better than the 0.000192 cents per click you were getting in terms of revenue per visitor.
It makes me wonder what you're doing, why you bother, and why you think Google should give you "free" money for whatever it is you're doing.
-
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 09:26 GMT JesterMedia
Jan Hargreaves said: "65 cents per play? Is this guy for real? I work for a company that has a large catalogue in YouTube and from the last month of sales figures available, our highest earning track on YouTube earned $3.84 with 19,997 plays = 0.000192 cents per play."
No. It's not 65 cents per play. It's .65 cents per play. Granted that's still 3385 times more than your figures but is there the tiniest, weeniest possibility that there's some multipliers and 'publicity' involved....?
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 10:54 GMT Jan Hargreaves
Whoops, you got me. 0.65 cents per play it is.
As you said, though, even then... this is way more than they actually pay. I was also wondering whether they sold the branding of his song's page for an extortionate amount. Still don't believe the final figure. It's propaganda.
Regardless... it's still misleading, to paint a picture that Google is helping artists. They are worse than the record companies.
Now... if the label/artist did receive 0.65 cents per play... that would really help the music industry. Anyone have any idea how much Google charges the advertister for each play? You know.. they only made $50 BEEELION last year.
-
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 10:54 GMT Tom 7
Wow
A company handing over 1/2 the revenue of 'sales' to the producer of the same! No wonder the music industry is shitting itself - that's over 5* the rate it returns money to the ones it hasn't conned^H^H^H^H^H^H talked out of rights!
I bet even the Columbian cartels are considering restructuring too!
-