Now that I have been a future ex-employee for a month, it is high time to start thinking about plan B. Clear in my mind is the fact that I want to make music and if it's not asking too much, be able to live from it. Which is where the plot thickens. But I have read an interesting article a couple of weeks ago on HYPEBOT which sums up the 3 main ways inedendent musicians can generate revenues:
- YOUTUBE: I keep thinking you need at least a decently interesting video to stand out in the crowd. Turns out I'm probably wrong and I should really make more of YT. "Complain all you want about musicians making YouTube covers and goofy videos instead of being “serious”. The reality is many of them make a good living from this".
-
LIVE TOURING: not the biggest option for me as I do not want to sleep in the back of my car and go from one skihutte to the next to liven up the apres-ski parties. Still according to HYPEBOT "musicians who aggressively work these approaches take in mid-to-high five figures in profit. As tough as touring can be, artists focused on this are clearly leveraging it into a career".
- SYNC PLACEMENT: "Artists who fit the sound requirements and have a certain buzz amongst music supervisors are often rewarded with multiple placement opportunities for their music. Rates can be as lower than $100 but they can also be upwards of $100,000 for a worldwide television spot". I have worked long enough in advertising to know that only the likes of COLDPLAY or JAY-Z can really command such high fees. But certainly getting paied $5,000 to $10,000 is realistic.
The most interesting part of the article is the conclusion though: "There are multiple examples of DIY artists who could fit into each of these buckets, but there are very few that were actually succeeding in multiple buckets."
