Research and analysis

Executive summary

Published 23 September 2021

Introduction

Context, research, questions and methods

In recent years, hundreds of online sources, in mainstream and independent outlets, blogs and social media have debated issues concerning the earnings of musicians in ‘the digital era’.

As we show in this report, a particularly controversial issue has been the level of earnings that musicians can achieve in a new music system where audio streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music, and video streaming services that provide access to music, most notably YouTube, are increasingly central. But as we also show, many contributions to public debate on these and other matters reveal important misunderstandings of the system by which musicians earn money from royalties for copyrighted works.

It is widely agreed, across the music industries as a whole, that there is a lack of publicly available evidence regarding these matters, and a lack of clarity surrounding the complex processes involved in music revenue streams. The overall aim of this research is to collate and provide objective evidence to facilitate constructive and informed debate about music creators’ earnings. In this, the research team were able to draw upon input and advice from an Industry Steering Group consisting of representatives of the following organisations: The Association for Independent Music (AIM), British Phonographic Industry Ltd. (BPI), The Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), The Ivors Academy, The Musicians’ Union (MU), The Music Publishers’ Association (MPA), and PRS for Music.

The following research questions were developed, in dialogue with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the Industry Steering Group, who also provided feedback on the first two drafts of the report, prior to peer review.

• how have changes in the digital music marketplace impacted upon the earnings of music creators?
• how do different stakeholders understand current issues regarding music creators’ earnings?
• how is revenue from streaming distributed to music creators?
• how have the levels, distributions and patterns of earnings changed over time?
• how concentrated, or otherwise, is the distribution of earnings?

In addressing these questions in what follows, we draw upon a number of methods and sources, including the following:

• 30 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (most of whom chose to be anonymous)
• a set of four focus groups with 25 musicians from a range of musical occupations and genres
• a survey of UK musicians commissioned from the market research company AudienceNet which received over 700 valid responses
• streaming data purchased from the Official Charts Company (OCC) covering the years 2014-2020
• a set of anonymised music publishing and record contracts provided to us by the Musicians’ Union covering the years 1991-2019
• anonymised sales and royalty information from a UK independent record company
• data provided by the Performing Rights Society (PRS) and Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society on royalties paid to musicians
• analysis of a vast range of publicly available sources from the last 50 years concerning the music industries
• a literature review of international research on music creators’ earnings and other related issues

As we were undertaking the research underpinning this report, the controversies mentioned above only seemed to intensify. In particular, a number of highly visible public campaigns, in the UK and overseas, argued that the musical eco-system based around streaming needed to be reformed so that more musicians could earn more from recorded music. Partly in response to these campaigns and the media coverage that ensued, the UK House of Commons Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) select committee launched an inquiry in 2020 into The economics of music streaming. The inquiry ended in February 2021 and reported in July 2021.

The holding of this inquiry was a fortunate development for the research team. It provided us with a vast range of views and information that would not otherwise have been publicly available - though absorbing the copious evidence and perspectives has been challenging. We draw on this evidence to a considerable degree in what follows. The select committee’s report was published on 15 July 2021, just as the final draft of our own report was submitted for peer review.

The publication of the DCMS select committee’s report received widespread and prominent media coverage, in the UK and beyond. We make no attempt in the following pages to respond to that earlier report, but as should be obvious, we deal with closely related matters.

Our central aims were to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders in the music industries about the fundamental issues, and to locate as much evidence as possible, within the constraints of our budget and research time, that would cast light on debates about them.

Why do we use the term ‘music creators’ rather than just ‘musicians’? The controversies that led the IPO to commission our research have tended to concern a particular set of musicians, those integrally involved in the creation of recordings or songs that are therefore eligible for protection under copyright law. The main categories of music creators are those involved in performing for recordings (commonly called ‘performers’ in the music industries), or composing music and songs intended to be recorded (usually called ‘songwriters’ and/or ‘composers’). We also pay attention to studio producers, sometimes called record producers. The glossary provided at the beginning of this report summarises the way we have used these and other key terms and abbreviations.

In our view, all music creators are musicians. But not all musicians are music creators in the sense we are using the term here: some play music but do not fix their music in copyrightable form. And just as importantly, many music creators make money from sources other than via copyrighted music to which they have contributed: for example, from being paid to perform live music by promoters and venues, busking and music teaching, as well as from non-musical sources.

Even among those musicians who do make their performances and compositions available beyond live contexts, as part of recorded works (and who are therefore ‘music creators’ in the way we are using the term here) there is considerable variation in the degree to which musicians and music creators aspire to make a living, or significant earnings, out of their music. Some seem happy to receive occasional payment from recorded music - and few would deny that the new digital system makes that more possible than before.

Yet many people, it seems, aspire to make a living from music, but struggle to do so. This situation obviously predates the rise of streaming but in recent years, and partly in response to controversies about music streaming as a new system for distributing music, there seems to have been a growing sense among some commentators and among some musicians that musicians as a whole, including music creators, deserve to earn more money than they currently do.

Some music industry stakeholders express scepticism about such views. Some say that success is determined mainly by talent and hard work. Others, including some musicians, would emphasise the role of luck and/or a lack of access to the right resources to make it. Some would say that only fans and audiences decide success. Others claim that powerful intermediaries determine what music fans and audiences are exposed to, and on what terms. Music is an attractive pursuit for many people, and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which everyone who wanted to make a living from music would be able to do so. But some believe that, given what appears to be a large amount of money in the system, more musicians should benefit.

We offer no judgements in the following report about these and other related matters of efficiency, fairness, justice and equality. Nor do we offer solutions for perceived problems. We do however try to summarise conflicting viewpoints in order to better understand the concerns underlying the debates (in Chapters 1 and 3). There are no predictions or projections here. There is a sub-sector of industry analysis devoted to such tasks but we are not engaged in futurology.

Instead, to reiterate, our main objective is to provide evidence that might contribute to a more informed debate about matters of public concern concerning music creators’ earnings. This includes a comprehensive explanation and analysis (in Chapters 2 and 4) of how the complex system of music rights shapes music creators’ earnings. Our commissioners agreed with us that it was vital to map stakeholder understandings of this contested terrain via qualitative research (Chapter 3). We provide information and context about UK music creators and their earnings via a survey (Chapter 5). We also look at important evidence concerning concentrations of popularity, and examine how they in turn determine concentrations and levels of earnings (Chapter 6).

First, though, we present a summary of our findings about UK music creators’ income, followed by recommendations for further research and an outline of the contents of the report. The inevitable limitations of methods and data in this complex and challenging area are reflected upon in each chapter.

Executive summary of main findings

Chapters where evidence is provided to support the following findings are indicated in parentheses. We ask that the findings in this Executive Summary are considered in relation to the evidence and caveats provided in the Report as a whole. See the glossary provided above for terms.

The growth of on-demand streaming and changes in music industry revenues

1. In a short time, on-demand streaming has grown rapidly to become a major source of revenue, in the UK and across much of the world, for UK rights-holders and music creators (Chapter 1)

2. On-demand streaming now provides the main source of revenue for recorded music in the UK, but the market for recorded music has not returned to pre-digital levels. In 2019, the combined UK revenues from on-demand streaming, downloading, physical sales, synchronization licensing, and public performance and broadcast rights were worth approximately £1.69 billion. Adjusted for inflation, UK revenues from sales of ‘physical’ music artefacts (CDs, cassettes, vinyl) in 2000 were £1,171m but this was £1.99 billion at 2019 prices (Chapter 4).

3. Increases in earnings from other rights (notably broadcast, public performance and synchronization licensing) have not compensated for the diminution in revenues from recorded music in the UK or globally (Chapter 4).

4. Whereas streaming is now by far the biggest source of UK recorded music revenue for recording rights holders (58% in 2020 and growing), the sources of recorded music revenue for UK music publishing rights holders are more evenly spread, with streaming, broadcasting and public performance rights generating roughly equal amounts (30, 30 and 28% respectively in 2019, though the percentage of streaming looks certain to increase) (Chapters 1 and 4).

5. By contrast with the situation in the early 2000s, it seems likely that revenues from recorded music will continue to grow in the next few years.

Differing views

6. Many rights-holders in the music recording and music publishing industries take the view that they ought to be receiving greater amounts from music streaming platforms, especially from those streaming platforms that benefit from ‘safe harbour’ provisions in copyright law. Digital service providers (DSPs) argue in response that they represent an extremely important source of revenues for rights-holders (and therefore for music creators).

7. There is considerable controversy about music creators’ earnings. There is a sense among some music creators, confirmed by our focus groups, that they should be receiving greater rewards from the system, especially now that rights-holders revenues are increasing. A number of recent campaigns claim that the proportion of revenues being paid to music creators should increase. Many music creators believe that the rise of on-demand music streaming has caused their situation to worsen, not improve. These critical views of music streaming are shared by many online and media commentators and some industry stakeholders (Chapters 1 and 3).

8. Some music creators and industry stakeholders attribute the perceived problems of music creators to rights-holders rather than streaming platforms, pointing out that such platforms do not pay music creators directly, instead they pay recording and publishing rights-holders who then pay music creators according to contractual terms (Chapters 1, 2 and 3).

9. Confusion and misunderstanding characterise much of the public debate about the matters in the preceding three points, partly because of the very complex way in which the music industries operate, including complexities surrounding recording, publishing and other rights (Chapters 1, 2 and 3).

10. Many stakeholders express concern about how revenues from streaming are currently distributed, particularly the approximately 52 per cent of total streaming revenues (after VAT) that currently goes to recording rights-holders. The music recording sector argues in response that the current share is justified because of its high level of spending on A&R and marketing, and the economic risks involved in signing new artists (Chapter 3).

Effects on music creators and rights-holders in the new digital musical system

11. The new music system centred on streaming now makes it possible for vast numbers of music creators to make their work available to national and international audiences, and to gain income from their recordings and compositions in a way that was not possible before the advent of music streaming. Our survey found that just over half (52%) of musicians usually self-release their recordings. 18% go through record companies for releases while 23% report a mix of the two (Chapters 4, 5 and 6).

12. This means that, compared with the ‘pre-digital era’, more and more rights holders and music creators are now competing for the diminished (though recently growing) revenue indicated above in points 2 and 3.

13. In order to achieve a sustainable income from music in this highly competitive and ‘over-supplied’ labour market, many music creators face considerable challenges, and increasingly feel compelled to spend significant time, energy and resources on marketing and promotion and other activities that are not ‘directly’ musical (Chapters 1, 3 and 5).

14. Revenues for on-demand streaming, physical sales, downloading, and from sync, public performance and broadcast rights have risen since the onset of music streaming as we know it in 2008, but this increase has had different effects on music creators and rights holders in the recording and publishing sectors (all findings from points 14 to 23 are substantiated in Chapter 4, unless stated otherwise).

15. Based on the average royalty rates outlined in this report, the earnings that featured performers, non-featured performers and studio producers have made from recording rights revenues have remained relatively stable. They amounted to £220m in 2008 (£300m in 2019 terms), reached a low point in 2012 of approximately £200m (£238m in 2019 terms) and in 2019, was £296m – back to 2008 levels.

16. In the same period, the remainder that went to record companies from recording rights revenues declined by 19%, from inflation-adjusted figures of approximately £950m in 2008 to approximately £765m in 2019.

17. Based on the average royalty rates and calculations outlined in this report, the earnings that composers and lyricists gained from music publishing rights increased somewhat by 11% between 2008 and 2019 from £265m in 2008 (£356m in 2019 terms), to £395m (an 11% increase on the inflation-adjusted 2008 figure), after reaching a low point in 2010.

18. In the same period, the remainder that went to music publishers from publishing rights revenues increased by 8%, from inflation-adjusted figures of approximately £125m in 2008 to £135m in 2019.

19. Revenues for physical sales, downloading and on-demand streaming in 2019 are lower than those for physical sales in 2000, but this had different effects on music creators and rights holders in the recording and publishing sectors (see points 20 and 21).

20. Based on the average royalty rates outlined in this report, the revenue that featured artists and studio producers receive has declined markedly. In 2000, they gained approximately £205m from physical sales (£348m in 2019 terms). In 2019, their revenue from physical sales, downloading and on-demand streaming equalled the same pre-inflation adjusted figure of 2000: £205m, representing a 41% decline in revenue in real terms. In the same period, record company revenues for these sources declined from inflation-adjusted figures of approximately £1,360m in 2000 to approximately £670m in 2019 (a 51% decline).

21. Based on the average royalty rates and calculations outlined in this report, the revenue that composers and lyricists receive has declined, from physical sales amounted to £110m in 2000 (£187m in 2019 terms) to £150m from physical sales, downloading and on-demand streaming in 2019, a 20% decline on the inflation-adjusted 2000 figure. In the same period, music publisher revenues for these sources declined from inflation-adjusted figures of approximately £60m in 2000 to approximately £50m in 2019 (a 17% decline).

22. Any change in the recording rights’ division of revenue and the revenue retained by record companies needs to be set against costs and risks:

• there is evidence that the record companies’ costs of manufacture and physical distribution have declined and that this decline has not been matched by any new associated costs with digital distribution
• as a proportion of revenue, record company A&R costs have shown some increase in recent years, while the costs of marketing have fluctuated. There is less evidence that either of these costs have increased markedly since the pre-digital era
• there is evidence in previous research that music creators are providing or sourcing more of the up-front financing for their careers, and that there is an increasing tendency for featured artists to become reasonably established before they are contracted by a record company (Chapter 1)

23. Total revenue figures for music creators need to be set against what is happening at an individual level:

• royalties for top hit songs are being shared among an increasing number of composers and lyricists per work; in contrast, the revenues for top hit recordings are being shared among a declining number of featured artists per recording
• featured artists have more capacity than composers and lyricists to gain higher royalty rates as they are starting from a lower average rate. However, they might not be able to do so if they are tied to an older ‘legacy’ contract
• studio producers’ royalties are generally tied to overall rights-holder revenues and will therefore rise and fall along with the market
• non-featured performers revenues from PPL are tied to the fortunes of public performance and broadcasting and are therefore liable to decline if on-demand streaming replaces radio as a medium of choice
• the revenue that non-featured performers are gaining from session fees warrants separate research
• all creators are affected by the fact that the total number of recordings and works has increased considerably, as has the number of ‘active’ recordings and works, given the increased popularity and availability of back catalogue occasioned by streaming

24. We calculate, based on published UK trade revenues, that average per-stream rates for the years 2012-2019 have fallen, but revenues have risen. The average per-stream revenue is stable at around £0.011 (just over a penny). Around £0.006 (just over half a penny) per stream goes to recording rights-holders, and around £0.002 (around a fifth of a penny) per stream goes to music publishing rights-holders, with around £0.004 retained by the DSPs (Chapter 4).

25. This would equate to around £6,000 per million streams going to recording rights-holders, but industry sources estimate the figure to be between £4,000 and £5,000 and one musician’s account we examined suggest something more like £3,500. How much of this money goes to artists/creators would depend on their contracts with labels and/or distributors (Chapter 6).

Music creators’ earnings in general (from streaming and from all other sources)

26. Our survey provides evidence that revenues from recorded music (including streaming, downloads and physical sales) constitute only a small proportion of UK music creators’ earnings. It also confirms previous findings that many musicians combine musical work with other forms of work. Live music and teaching are the main ways in which music creators make a living from music. Of those musicians for whom music was their only source of income, 67% spent all of their working time on music (Chapter 5).

27. More than a third of musicians (37%) reported earnings of £5,000 or less from music in 2019 and nearly half (47%) earned less than £10,000. 62% earned £20,000 or less from music in 2019. Of musicians whose income is entirely based on music, 43% reported earnings of £20,000 or less, and 64% reported £30,000 or less. Female music creators earn less than male music creators. Median reported income for women in 2019 was £13,057, whereas for men it was £20,160 (Chapter 5).

28. Of those musicians who were earning money from music before 2015, 40% said their overall income had increased since that time, 32% that it had decreased and 28% that it had stayed the same. 17% said their income had decreased significantly, while 15% said it had increased significantly (Chapter 5).

29. Median reported income for those currently signed to major record companies (£51,816 in 2019) is very considerably higher than for all other groups of artists, with those previously signed to major record companies next (£25,500). Median reported income for those signed to independent record companies is £20,250 and for self-releasing artists it is £12,944 (Chapter 5).

30. The above findings need to be placed in historical context. We have found no evidence that there was ever a time when recorded music was the basis of substantial income for large numbers of musicians, even when total revenues were higher, in the 1990s (Chapter 1). There is some evidence that, even in the early 2000s, before the effects of digitalisation took effect, relatively few UK artists were making substantial income from recorded music though it is difficult to compare the number of musicians who can earn a living from recorded music in the streaming era with the ‘download’ and ‘CD’ eras, because of the difficulties in accessing comparable data from those earlier periods (Chapter 6).

Concentrations of popularity and earnings

Findings in this section are all derived from Chapter 6.

31. A relatively stable pattern of concentration of streaming popularity has been established. Based on a sample of data concerning each October from 2014 to 2020, the top 0.1% most popular tracks achieved more than 40 per cent of all streams in all years and the top 0.4 per cent of tracks accounted for more than 65% of all streams from 2016 onwards. The top 1 per cent of tracks account for between 75 and 80% and the top 10 per cent for between 95 and 97%, in all years from 2016 to 2020.

32. The top 1% of artists have consistently gained 63-65% of all streams over the years for which data is available. The top 1% of artists account for 78-80% of streams, and the top 10 per cent for 98 per cent. The top 0.1% tier of artists achieve between 39% and 43% of all streams in all years, but there has been a modest decline since 2016.

33. On the basis of the average per-stream rates we have calculated, we suggest that a sustained achievement of around one million UK streams per month may be some kind of guide to a minimum threshold for making a sustainable living out of music, at least in cases where UK streams are complemented by non-UK streams and other sources of income. For solo performers and songwriters and for those with significant access to other revenue streams, that minimum threshold figure will be lower.

34. The number of artists achieving one million UK streams or more in October 2020 was 1723. We estimate that this 1723 UK figure may translate into around 720 UK artists achieving this level of success in 2020, but the number of variables makes this only a very rough guide.

35. Catalogue music (i.e. music more than 12 months old) has become increasingly significant across all tiers of popularity. In 2015 the shares of new and catalogue music in the top 0.1% tier of popularity were more or less equal (i.e. close to a 1:1 ratio). The relative share of new music to catalogue music has declined particularly sharply since 2018, so that this ratio is now around 0.45:1 (i.e. new music now accounts for less than one half of the streams achieved by catalogue tracks). There has also been a significant narrowing in the range of ratios across all four tiers of popularity. All this may mean that as streaming has developed, newer artists creating new music may be doing less well, relative to older tracks and the artists who created them.

36. The top 0.1% tier of tracks by popularity contain nine times as many tracks that are owned by major record companies as those owned by non-majors. At the top ten per cent level, the ratio is closer to 1:3. There has been no significant change over the period 2014-2020 in the proportion of the most popular output owned by majors.

Research gaps and avenues for further research

• as pointed out above, it is difficult to compare the number of musicians who can earn a living from recorded music in the streaming era with the ‘download’ and ‘CD’ eras, because of the difficulties in accessing comparable data from those earlier periods. Further research might seek to gain access to historical data on sales, prices and royalty rates, and thereby make more systematic historical comparisons than has been possible here (see Chapter 6, which discusses some of the difficulties of comparison)

• a major factor in earnings of UK music creators is the earnings generated by recording and publishing rights from streaming and other rights (e.g. broadcasting, public performance and sync rights) in overseas markets, but we had access only to significant data from the UK. Further research might seek to investigate overseas earnings by UK music creators, by gaining access to international revenue data (Chapter 6)

• it is difficult to gain access to information about how recommendation algorithms work, because of commercial confidentiality. Future research might investigate whether adjustments to recommendation algorithms and other music streaming practices might help to distribute income further down ‘the long tail’ – and whether there is evidence that some streaming services have already been adjusting their practices in this and related ways (Chapter 6)

• further research might investigate the degree to which the advantages gained by musicians signed to larger rights holders can be understood as a result of the levels of investment that these companies are able to make in the careers of music creators (Chapter 4)

• further research might examine the degree to which reduced costs of manufacture and distribution on the part of the recording sector have been offset by a matching increase in other costs, including marketing and A&R, and by risks associated with signing new artists. It might relatedly examine changes in artist advances (Chapters 3 and 4)

Future research might also build upon the analysis developed here to investigate a variety of industry proposals aimed at improving the circumstances of music creators via redistribution of revenues, these might include mapping the consequences and practical challenges concerning implementation of the following measures:

-a shift to ‘user-centric‘, ‘the artist growth model’, and other methods of streaming service payment to rights-holders and music creators, instead of the current ‘pro-rata’ system (see Chapter 3)

-applying ‘equitable remuneration’ (ER) to the ‘making available’ right and/or whether streaming should be classified under the broadcast right instead (thus gaining ER via that route) (Chapters 3 and 4)

-revision of contracts

• future research might also aim to collate surveys of UK musicians as a whole, along the lines of our survey, reported in chapter 5, but repeated regularly in order to track changes of time

• further research might also investigate the relationship between the earnings of UK music creators from streams in the UK and from overseas markets, building on the suggestions and discussion in Chapter 6

Structure of the report

In Chapter 1, on the basis of our literature review, we identify and discuss existing evidence on musicians’ earnings and conditions of work.

• we outline controversies, and some of the misunderstandings and evidence gaps apparent in recent commentary on musicians’ earnings, especially the issue of payments from recorded music in an era when streaming services are increasingly important
• we examine evidence suggesting that there is more revenue coming into the recorded and publishing industries than for many years and that the number of active music creators has increased greatly in recent years
• we show there is little robust evidence about what music creators actually earn in this evolving situation, and argue that surveys are the ‘least worst’ method available for gaining a broad picture of such earnings
• we assess the main publicly-available survey data, explaining its contributions and limitations
• we address the issue of how revenue might be concentrated or not among the most successful music creators, and explain the distinctive ways in which popularity determines earnings in the cultural and music industries, explaining and justifying our focus on patterns of concentration in later chapters
• we discuss the lack of publicly available research and information about the important issue of contracts between music creators and rights-holders

In Chapter 2, we summarise the main factors that affect music creators’ earnings from recorded music. This provides essential background to understand the debates about streaming - and may also serve to correct some of the misunderstandings apparent in the public debate discussed in Chapter 1.

• we explain the music creator’s role and the ways in which sound recordings generate revenue for rights-holders and music creators, including the rights embodied in copyright law, who owns rights and who oversees their use
• we then explain how revenue is distributed and analyse the opportunities and constraints afforded by the revenue stream, issues that are at the heart of debates about music creators’ earnings in the digital era
• we also address various complexities surrounding revenues

In Chapter 3, we summarise the diverse range of views and perceptions, amongst different stakeholders, of the issues surrounding music creators’ earnings in the digital era. We provide indications of the evidence that stakeholders draw upon to justify their opinions and highlight some of the most contested areas of debate and discussion by comparing views and perspectives, focusing on views of

• the overall changes in the music industries that have been brought about by music streaming
• the split in revenues between DSPs and rights-holders
• the amount going to rights-holders, and the split between recording and publishing rights
• the proportion of revenues going to music creators

We also provide some detail on competing perspectives on the range of ‘deals’ available to music creators in the new musical system centred on streaming, and the increasing availability of distribution deals, including ‘DIY’ arrangements. We discuss competing overall views of the fundamental issue of music creators’ earnings. Finally, we discuss some significant proposed solutions to some of the problems identified regarding music creators’ earnings, and different views about these proposed solutions.

Chapter 4 examines existing data on revenues for on-demand streaming, and contextualizes it in relation to music creators’ other revenue streams. It aims, where possible, to provide data in relation to these revenues, as well as to indicate where there is currently a lack of information. It guides the reader through a series of stages, including the collection of revenue by music streaming services, the division of revenue between streaming services and rights holders and administrators, the division of revenue between rights holders and administrators, on the one hand, and music creators on the other, and the division of music creators’ revenues among music creators themselves. It does all this by drawing upon data on costs and profits (including data supplied by a UK independent record company), anonymised contracts supplied by the Musicians Union, plus data on song-writing credits from PRS and MCPS.

Chapter 5 places the findings about revenue streams from recorded music, addressed in Chapter 4, in the wider context of what music creators earn, using a survey that we commissioned from the market research company, AudienceNet, which gained over 700 valid responses. It analyses the earnings reported by musicians from a number of sources. We also provide information about the relationship of earnings to dimensions of gender, ethnicity and education.

Chapter 6 discusses factors that cast light on some key issues that influence music creators’ income, including the concentration of popularity among the most successful tracks and artists, based on data that we purchased from the Official Charts Company, outlining all streams in a sample ‘month’ corresponding more or less to October in each of the years from 2014 to 2020. Using calculations from Chapter 4, we discuss the potential earnings of performers at certain key thresholds of popularity. We also draw on some PRS and MCPS data about the overall earnings of songwriters and composers.