Spend is a stupid metric in isolation. My spend in 2023 to date on stadium gigs is 20% of my total 2023 gig spend to date but only represents 6% of gigs by volume. My average non-stadium ticket spend is 30% of my average stadium ticket spend, my minimum spend (at a GMV obviously) is 8.5% of my average stadium ticket or 28% of my average non-stadium ticket spend. One ticket for Taylor Swift massively skews everything.
"NB: If anyone wants a very long explanation of how the data set came to be this inaccurate, and why it hasn’t yet been corrected, I’ll be happy to provide one in the comments."
The question of how many tickets were being sold to see live music events in the UK was one of the first issues tackled by UK Music when it was brought together by Feargal Sharkey in 2008. A data set was established by one of the most significant Board members, PRS for Music, who effectively bankrolled the creation of the organisation.
UK Music began issuing reports on the health of the UK live music industry shortly after this, those reports being entirely based on data derived from PRS for Music licensing. As an accurate measure of live music activity within a certain level of the live sector at which Tariff LP is carefully monitored and assessed, those reports formed the basis of accepted scholastic study of the subject, creating a baseline of data which is still relied on today.
The problem with that data is that in its first iteration, privately understanding the limitations of information below the Tariff LP compliant level, PRS for Music and UK Music agreed that live music activity would be classified as 'that taking place above 1500 capacity'. Retrospectively, now there is much more knowledge of the activity at medium and grassroots level, this decision may seem very odd. At the time, however, before the existence of Music Venue Trust, there was nobody around these discussions to point out the huge amount of transactions between live music fans and artists not covered within that scope.
From 2015, Music Venue Trust began the process of trying to nudge these reports to include the activity so far left out of scope, working first with then CEO of UK Music Jo Dipple and then her successor Michael Dugher to try to amend the data and thereby amend the reports. The 2016 report contained a specific section on Grassroots Music Venues which acknowledged that the activity in this sector was not part of the data, and detailing why that was. Subsequent years contained similar acknowledgement, but that's as far it went.
The reason why it hasn't gone any further, despite MVT now being able to accurately track tickets sold, number of performances and total income via its Annual Survey and Annual Report analysis, is that the inclusion of this data would significantly deviate from the existing narrative. By deviating, it risks undermining the validity of the reports as a whole within the academic community.
We are therefore in the difficult position that whenever PRS for Music deliver data to UK Music ion which to base a report, everyone in that loop understands that this data doesn't accurately reflect the totality of live music activity in the UK, that a separate set of data, derived by a differing, but equally valid process, exists, but is not being included. The result is a UK Music report which states that 30 million tickets were sold to see live music, based on the data they feel they can use from their own Board member, and a separate, equally valid report, from MVT that says the grassroots sector sold 22 million tickets. Plainly no one believes GMVs sols 2 out of every 3 tickets, but no one knows quite what to do about it.
We don't actually know how many of the 22 million tickets sold by GMVs might be included in the scope of any UK Music authored report stating there were 30 million ticket sales, since we cannot compare the two sets of data to eliminate duplicates. But if assume that perhaps PRS for Music might have located and included half the sales, it would suggest that the UK Music figure should be increased to 41 million sales.
The arguments about what to do about this centre around the perceived accuracy of PRS for Music licensing reports - somebody paid the licensing fee so therefore that event must exist with that many people at it - as opposed to the self reporting nature of the MVT Annual Survey approach - venues directly reporting their ticket sales. In reality, there is a lot to be said for the point that promoters are highly likely to understate the attendance to reduce their PRS liability whereas venues are quite likely to overstate their sales to MVT to look more successful than they actually are; or in other words there is an equally strong potentially for bad data on each part.
Despite this, PRS for Music have proven very reluctant to accept that they do not licence all live music activity in the UK via a method that would enable them to track every single ticket sale. The organisation insists on this point despite the fact that large amounts of live music activity happen under a Pubs and Bars Tariff which does not require any reporting at all for sales, income or attendance. Where Tariff LP is used by the grassroots, full reporting of sales, income and attendance hovers around 20% compliance. PRS for Music regard this as a reason to exclude GMVs from the data, we think it highlights why the dataset is inaccurate.
And that's the reason we aren't very comfortable with Will Page's dataset, even though we admire the analytical work that arises from it.
I think that this highlights a way in which the Music Industry is different from other commercial sectors.
Large areas of activity are under-reported, insufficiently acknowledged or just plain ignored by regulatory, oversight and analytical bodies, such as BPI, PRS, PPL, UK Music etc.
The obvious reason for this that suggests itself is that there's not enough money in the grassroots to make it worth anyone's while paying that much attention - especially seen by event, rather than in totality. Surveys and analysis cost money after all.
This is where the Music Industry differs from other sectors like manufacturing, construction, services etc - a lot of the activity in the grassroots Music Industry is not motivated by money but by other considerations. Like people's need to connect and create, for instance. So it will be under-reported by organisations which primarily measure commercial impact.
But it is this grassroots, non-commercially motivated activity which traditionally has sustained the whole sector - not financially but creatively. The industry ignores it at it's own peril.
Spend is a stupid metric in isolation. My spend in 2023 to date on stadium gigs is 20% of my total 2023 gig spend to date but only represents 6% of gigs by volume. My average non-stadium ticket spend is 30% of my average stadium ticket spend, my minimum spend (at a GMV obviously) is 8.5% of my average stadium ticket or 28% of my average non-stadium ticket spend. One ticket for Taylor Swift massively skews everything.
"NB: If anyone wants a very long explanation of how the data set came to be this inaccurate, and why it hasn’t yet been corrected, I’ll be happy to provide one in the comments."
Yes please!
If you can spare the time!
Get a cup of coffee.....
The question of how many tickets were being sold to see live music events in the UK was one of the first issues tackled by UK Music when it was brought together by Feargal Sharkey in 2008. A data set was established by one of the most significant Board members, PRS for Music, who effectively bankrolled the creation of the organisation.
UK Music began issuing reports on the health of the UK live music industry shortly after this, those reports being entirely based on data derived from PRS for Music licensing. As an accurate measure of live music activity within a certain level of the live sector at which Tariff LP is carefully monitored and assessed, those reports formed the basis of accepted scholastic study of the subject, creating a baseline of data which is still relied on today.
The problem with that data is that in its first iteration, privately understanding the limitations of information below the Tariff LP compliant level, PRS for Music and UK Music agreed that live music activity would be classified as 'that taking place above 1500 capacity'. Retrospectively, now there is much more knowledge of the activity at medium and grassroots level, this decision may seem very odd. At the time, however, before the existence of Music Venue Trust, there was nobody around these discussions to point out the huge amount of transactions between live music fans and artists not covered within that scope.
From 2015, Music Venue Trust began the process of trying to nudge these reports to include the activity so far left out of scope, working first with then CEO of UK Music Jo Dipple and then her successor Michael Dugher to try to amend the data and thereby amend the reports. The 2016 report contained a specific section on Grassroots Music Venues which acknowledged that the activity in this sector was not part of the data, and detailing why that was. Subsequent years contained similar acknowledgement, but that's as far it went.
The reason why it hasn't gone any further, despite MVT now being able to accurately track tickets sold, number of performances and total income via its Annual Survey and Annual Report analysis, is that the inclusion of this data would significantly deviate from the existing narrative. By deviating, it risks undermining the validity of the reports as a whole within the academic community.
We are therefore in the difficult position that whenever PRS for Music deliver data to UK Music ion which to base a report, everyone in that loop understands that this data doesn't accurately reflect the totality of live music activity in the UK, that a separate set of data, derived by a differing, but equally valid process, exists, but is not being included. The result is a UK Music report which states that 30 million tickets were sold to see live music, based on the data they feel they can use from their own Board member, and a separate, equally valid report, from MVT that says the grassroots sector sold 22 million tickets. Plainly no one believes GMVs sols 2 out of every 3 tickets, but no one knows quite what to do about it.
We don't actually know how many of the 22 million tickets sold by GMVs might be included in the scope of any UK Music authored report stating there were 30 million ticket sales, since we cannot compare the two sets of data to eliminate duplicates. But if assume that perhaps PRS for Music might have located and included half the sales, it would suggest that the UK Music figure should be increased to 41 million sales.
The arguments about what to do about this centre around the perceived accuracy of PRS for Music licensing reports - somebody paid the licensing fee so therefore that event must exist with that many people at it - as opposed to the self reporting nature of the MVT Annual Survey approach - venues directly reporting their ticket sales. In reality, there is a lot to be said for the point that promoters are highly likely to understate the attendance to reduce their PRS liability whereas venues are quite likely to overstate their sales to MVT to look more successful than they actually are; or in other words there is an equally strong potentially for bad data on each part.
Despite this, PRS for Music have proven very reluctant to accept that they do not licence all live music activity in the UK via a method that would enable them to track every single ticket sale. The organisation insists on this point despite the fact that large amounts of live music activity happen under a Pubs and Bars Tariff which does not require any reporting at all for sales, income or attendance. Where Tariff LP is used by the grassroots, full reporting of sales, income and attendance hovers around 20% compliance. PRS for Music regard this as a reason to exclude GMVs from the data, we think it highlights why the dataset is inaccurate.
And that's the reason we aren't very comfortable with Will Page's dataset, even though we admire the analytical work that arises from it.
Thanks Mark!
I think that this highlights a way in which the Music Industry is different from other commercial sectors.
Large areas of activity are under-reported, insufficiently acknowledged or just plain ignored by regulatory, oversight and analytical bodies, such as BPI, PRS, PPL, UK Music etc.
The obvious reason for this that suggests itself is that there's not enough money in the grassroots to make it worth anyone's while paying that much attention - especially seen by event, rather than in totality. Surveys and analysis cost money after all.
This is where the Music Industry differs from other sectors like manufacturing, construction, services etc - a lot of the activity in the grassroots Music Industry is not motivated by money but by other considerations. Like people's need to connect and create, for instance. So it will be under-reported by organisations which primarily measure commercial impact.
But it is this grassroots, non-commercially motivated activity which traditionally has sustained the whole sector - not financially but creatively. The industry ignores it at it's own peril.