Technology

YouTube Isn’t the Music Villain Anymore

Spread the love
Advertisement


This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

YouTube has long been the most popular music service in the world. What’s changed is that YouTube isn’t the Darth Vader of the music industry anymore.

For years, some artists and suits at record companies loved the zillions of clicks that music videos got on YouTube, but they complained that the site, owned by Google, didn’t generate enough money for them or didn’t do enough to stop rip-offs.

Those grievances haven’t gone away entirely, but they have mostly gone quiet. Why? A big reason is that YouTube figured out ways to generate enough cash to make many people in the music world happy — or at least content enough for now.

The question is whether YouTube has achieved a lasting peace or a temporary one. If it persists, YouTube might have achieved something that few internet companies have: a relatively healthy relationship with an established industry that it simultaneously helps and disrupts.

Let me step back to the years when YouTube was in the music industry’s doghouse. The industry powers regularly trotted out a public relations shorthand, the “value gap,” for what they said was YouTube’s paltry financial contribution to the music industry relative to the popularity of music on the site. They were fond of pointing to figures showing that vinyl records generated more income for the music business than YouTube did.

Mostly, YouTube made musicians, songwriters and record labels money the Google way: It sold advertisements in or adjacent to music-related videos and split the cash with the people and companies behind the songs. The power brokers in the industry said it was peanuts.

Fast forward to last week, when YouTube disclosed that it paid music companies, musicians and songwriters more than $4 billion in the prior year. That came from advertising money and something that the industry has wanted forever and is now getting — a cut of YouTube’s surprisingly large subscription business. (YouTube subscriptions include an ad-free version of the site and a Spotify-like service to watch music videos without any ads.)

The significance of YouTube’s dollar figure is that it’s not far from the $5 billion that the streaming king Spotify pays to music industry participants from a portion of its subscriptions. (A reminder: The industry mostly loves Spotify’s money, but some musicians say that they’re shortchanged by the payouts.)

Subscriptions will always be a hobby for YouTube, but the numbers show that even a side gig for the company can be huge. And it has bought peace by raining some of those riches on those behind the music. Record labels and other industry powers “still don’t looooove YouTube,” Lucas Shaw, a Bloomberg News reporter, wrote this week. “But they don’t hate it anymore.”

The YouTube turnabout may also show that complaining works. The music industry has a fairly successful track record of picking a public enemy No. 1 — Pandora

Advertisement
for awhile, Spotify, YouTube, and more recently apps like TikTok and Twitch — and publicly browbeating it or playing one rich company against another to get more money or something else they wanted.

It’s not YouTube’s turn in the hot seat anymore, but I don’t know if it’s for good. Mark Mulligan, a music industry analyst and consultant, and my colleague Ben Sisario told me that some of the same old gripes are bubbling below the surface. Music power players still believe that YouTube pays far too little per click compared with other digital music services. And they fear that YouTube devalues songs everywhere because it doesn’t do enough to stop pirated versions.

But just maybe, YouTube has shown that it’s possible for digital companies to both upend an industry and make it stronger. That’s a rarity. Think about the resentment that many news organizations and websites have about Facebook and Google, restaurants’ uneasy reliance on food delivery apps and Netflix’s awkward marriages with entertainment companies. Maybe time and cash can achieve a measure of peace.



  • The end of “too good to be true.” Uber, DoorDash and Airbnb have for years had the cash to subsidize the cost of their convenience services. Now, writes my colleague Kevin Roose, those youngish companies need to turn a profit and this, along with pandemic-related oddities in the economy, is pushing up the prices for Ubers, scooters and Airbnb rentals.

  • A peek into how the richest Americans aren’t like the rest of us: ProPublica got its hands on data on the tax returns for some of America’s richest people, including tech billionaires, and identified those who used legal means to pay income taxes that were a tiny fraction of their growing fortunes. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, for example, paid no federal income taxes in 2007 and 2011, and Tesla’s Elon Musk did the same in 2018, ProPublica reports.

  • It pioneered ways to make a living online: Wired writes about the legacy of Twitch, the livestreaming service that created ways for people to collect money from doing stuff online through tips and subscriptions in return for acknowledgment and connection. For better or worse, without Twitch there may have been no “creator economy” of Substack writers, Instagram influencers or Patreon podcasters.

Happy birthday to good dogs Charlie and Silas, who look adorable in their sparkly crowns.


We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.





Source link

Leave a Reply