NME News

File-sharing only makes big acts bigger, study shows

Piracy doesn't seem to give new bands exposure, it is claimed

The era of file-sharing has not increased the exposure of new artists, according to a new study.

According to a study commissioned by royalties body PRS, the most-pirated tracks on the internet tend to be those already at the top of the charts. The organisation claims that this trend only serves to make popular stars even more popular, reports BBC News

The news seemingly strikes a blow to those who believed that file-sharing would democratise music and find a bigger audience for emerging new artists.

Study authors Will Page of PRS and Eric Garland of media tracking firm Big Champagne looked at patterns to find out of the so-called 'Long Tail' theory held water.

As they described it, 'Long Tail' claims that "if you offer people more choice, and help them make that choice, they will take that choice."

But their results found this not to be the case. They wrote: "Much of the volume (sales or swaps) is concentrated amongst a small proportion of available tracks."

They believe this has happened because the internet actually offers too much choice, and concluded: "After taking into account some geographic differences, the top of the many music charts, from licensed and unlicensed venues, are markedly similar."

Share this story:
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Reddit
Bebo

Follow NME on Twitter

More News:

PREVIOUS Lily Allen: 'I'll still vote for Gordon Brown'

Arctic Monkeys, Flaming Lips, Jack White – NME Video News

NEXT Arctic Monkeys, Flaming Lips, Jack White –...

Buy NME Magazine right now

Subscribe here or get this week's issue delivered to your door

Comments (13)

Add a comment

ebony-i

May 15, 2009

Wow, there's a surprise, a study commissioned by the people who don't want file sharing seemed to come up with just the result they wanted...

shityourlegoff

May 15, 2009

Anything that encourages Lady Duuh-Duuh must be stopped.

Jerd42mod

May 16, 2009

Errrr... two words.Arctic Monkeys?

ed2005

May 16, 2009

Not coonvinced at all. As someone who runs a small record label, I know that I have to accept some people will download without buying, but they may also go and see shows, or buy the music later on. In the early 90s, I recorded a lot of music, that I subsequently bought on vinyl or CD, in some cases both! the major labels will do anythin g to keep their heads in the sand like ostriches. Whatever people think of Coldplay, their releasing an album as a free download is quite a bold step for a successful band still signed to a major.

scottmmmm

May 16, 2009

I can only speak for myself but I would rather buy smaller acts music and download the bigger acts stuff...they don't need to money as much as the smaller bands. I think that the people who are willing to seek out and find new music are the kind that would do the same as me.

djaniquinn

May 17, 2009

Study is probably true. All it says is people are spending AND swapping more on popular artists. Quote: "Much of the volume (sales or swaps) is concentrated amongst a small proportion of available tracks."

djaniquinn

May 17, 2009

Study is probably true. All it says is people are spending AND swapping more on popular artists. Quote: "Much of the volume (sales or swaps) is concentrated amongst a small proportion of available tracks."

HellBez

May 17, 2009

Who has made this conclusion from this evidence? Doesn't make any logical sense.shityourlegoff - is your name a chris morris reference or am i just missing a leg?

djaniquinn

May 17, 2009

This study is probably true. People are overwhelmed by all the info available to them. People have not evolved in the past 50 years to suddenly be compelled to listen to multitudes of different artists. That's why there's always a few different Mega pop artists at any given time. You think the labels don't want you to buy more music? They don't care if it's new artists or artists that have been around for 50+ years. They want the consumer to spend their money. The study doesn't say people aren't spending money. It says they aren't swapping or spending money on new artists. They swap and spend money on Miley Cirus and Justin Timberlake. I see the results of this study in a very real world setting. There are more DJs than ever because everyone uses laptops now and trades files. So 10 years ago a DJ would have had their collections on vinyl. They'd take 1000 records with them to work (that's a lot. 10 crates) now DJs have 15,000 songs available to them on their laptop, yet they are playing the same songs every night. The same 200-300 songs that the crowd at every venue insists on hearing or they won't spend their money. It's a combination of the DJ having too many choices (the good ones switch it up as best they can) And the crowd only wanting to hear what they know, which is limited. Most people want what everyone else is listening to. It's all so human. Our technology is evolving faster than we are. The Terminator will actually be a Jukebox that only plays top 40.

ed2005

May 17, 2009

I think part of the trouble is that for better or worse -worse, I feel - many people are innately conservative, with a small 'c.' Many people don't actively seek out new music, they want to stay within their comfort zones. I've been writing an mp3 blog for three years, and I've had lots of new and established artists featured, as well as PR companies wanting me to feature their bands. However, what I have found is that, generally speaking, it is the older stuff that tends to generate the most comments. The reality of this for bands and record comapnies is that they have to persevere with new bands. I've often enjoyed listening to bands on spec, I know others who do, but I also know many others who will buy stuff only after they have heard it many times. And I suspect whatever formats are being used, or mediums used to sell and promote music, this may well remain the case for a long time to come. Some of the biggest bands have got there through sheer perseverance -whatever you may think of them, bands like U2, The Cure, Red Hot Chili Peppers sell masses of albums, but it took all of them a long time to get to that stage, and many record companies are not prepared to give bands several albums to grow.

jorges

May 17, 2009

oh, so you mean, popular music is popular? Wow, who would 'ave guessed?

chrispaz

May 18, 2009

Totally agree with ed2005. I largely ignore the charts, and get most of my music through friends or Mojo magazine. Much more satisfying. I can't understand why people are happy to be spoon-fed their music. ed2005, i'd be interested in reading your blog. Would you mind providing a link?