theguardian.com
UK Recorded Music Revenue Hits 20-Year High Despite Inflation
UK recorded music revenue reached £2,389 million in 2024, exceeding the 2001 peak of £2,221 million (though £4,080 million when adjusted for inflation), with streaming dominating at 85% of the market.
- What percentage of the total recorded music market was comprised of streaming versus physical sales in 2024?
- Streaming comprised 85% of the market, while physical sales were 13%, highlighting the dominance of streaming despite the industry's continued focus on album equivalents.
- What was the total revenue of the UK recorded music market in 2024, and how does it compare to the peak of the CD era after adjusting for inflation?
- In 2024, UK recorded music revenue hit £2,389 million, exceeding the 2001 peak. However, adjusting for inflation, the 2001 revenue would be £4,080 million in 2024.
- How does the current industry's focus on album-equivalent units reflect the modern music consumption reality, and what alternative metrics might better represent market success?
- The industry's reliance on album-equivalent units is outdated, particularly given Spotify's prioritization of tracks and artists over albums. A more appropriate metric would reflect the reality of modern music consumption.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the record industry's financial success in a positive light, emphasizing the record-breaking revenue figures reported by the ERA. The headline and introductory paragraphs highlight the industry's recovery and '20-year high,' using celebratory language. However, the article later critiques the methodology used to calculate these figures, revealing a less optimistic picture. This creates a framing bias that initially presents a positive spin on the situation, which is then subtly challenged later in the piece. The use of phrases like 'Let joy be unconfined. Bonuses all round' adds to this celebratory framing.
Language Bias
The article uses charged language to describe the industry's use of album equivalents to measure success, referring to it as 'complex numeric alchemy' and 'fusty scent of anachronism.' The author also uses phrases like 'buckled abacus of yesterday' to portray the old methods as outdated and inadequate. While these terms are effective in conveying the author's point of view, they are not strictly neutral and could be replaced with more objective descriptions, such as 'inconsistent measurement' or 'outdated calculation method'.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the industry's reporting of its own success, neglecting the artist's perspective on royalty payments from streaming versus CD sales. The article mentions that royalties from streaming are significantly lower for artists than those from CD sales, but does not delve into the specifics of these discrepancies or offer concrete examples. Furthermore, the article omits discussion of the impact of streaming services' algorithms and playlist curation on artists' success and compensation. While acknowledging the limitations of comparing past and present market conditions, the article's omission of crucial factors affecting artists weakens its overall analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between streaming and physical sales, framing them as mutually exclusive rather than acknowledging their coexistence and complex interplay within the music industry. The narrative implicitly suggests that the success of the industry relies solely on either one or the other, neglecting the fact that many listeners consume music through both formats. This is further emphasized by the critique of using 'album' as a unit of measurement, implying that only one system can be correct rather than considering the potential for a more nuanced approach.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a recovery and regrowth in the recorded music business, indicating positive economic growth within the industry. Increased revenues suggest job creation and economic opportunities for artists and related professionals. However, the article also points out disparities in royalty payments, which negatively impacts artists' income despite overall industry growth.