Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
I attended an art exhibition hosted by a friend, featuring another friend’s work. Before the event, I visited the artist, played with her cat, and helped hammer a few nails into her artwork. Afterward, I assisted the curator in removing nails from the exhibition boards.
I really enjoy this kind of hands-on involvement, as I’m deeply curious about the behind-the-scenes—how things are actually accomplished. Even small tasks offer a window into the immersive process of creation.
This exhibition stood apart from traditional galleries, being truly community-oriented.
The artists found by the curator are all very young artists. They have very straightforward or rough expressions, which are unique to this age and this stage of creation.
Even the venue is quite interesting, and the activities they usually undertake are of various themes.
After the exhibition, the lessee needs to fill the nail holes on the exhibition board with putty. Everything is done by yourself as much as possible, so the price is not expensive.
Perhaps one rule is that the cultural industry really needs a large number of cheap venues and supporting facilities to conduct experiments.
At the exhibition, I was talking to a friend about the local comedy club. He said that occasionally there would be actors with a net worth of hundreds of millions to speak in the basement of the bar for an open mic with a ticket price of two or three pounds.
I also talked to another dancing girl about a dance company in Manchester, which has been providing free workshops and free rehearsal space and commercialization platform for early artists.
There must be a small but complete place for artists and creators to try out all their ideas and receive all the feedback.
When it comes to lean entrepreneurship, it is natural to bring in commercial companies. In fact, cultural creation may need the logic of lean entrepreneurship more than any other industry.
A five-minute talk show is polished in a theater for a month, and a one-hour special show can be produced in a year.
A hundred art exhibitions with audiences and feedback may produce a few artists who are better at expression and communication.
It is a great thing to grow flowers, and it is also a great thing to cultivate soil.
Visiting Liverpool Cathedral, I encountered a guide who shared so much valuable insight, which helped me understand Christianity in a way I hadn’t before.
In the past, I participated in Christian activities back home, but I always found it difficult to grasp the rationale behind faith. However, through this cathedral, it became much easier to comprehend.
The cathedral truly serves as the heart of the city, preserving its history and connecting the community.
Liverpool is primarily known for its identity as a “port city” and its significance in both World Wars, and these city characteristics are deeply embedded in this cathedral.
In the 1920s, the cathedral compiled a record of every soldier from Liverpool who died in World War I, with over 40,000 names and related details. The entire archive is displayed in a glass case, and the cathedral flips a page every few days—taking many years to complete the cycle.
Wealthy locals contributed directly by donating stained-glass windows, and beneath each window is the name of the donor (I even saw that the captain of the Titanic had donated one).
The guide explained it as a form of competition among the wealthy elite to donate, and I thought of it as similar to the modern “fan voting” phenomenon, where people compete for the top spot.
Many sculptures inside the cathedral are unconventional, featuring sailors, naval officers, the air force, and dockworkers.
There is even a spotlight on a Titanic-related sculpture.
In sum, the cathedral is an incredibly direct community project. It is a religious, political, and cultural project all rolled into one.
The cathedral was constructed from 1904 and completed in 1978, enduring two world wars, with generations of people raising funds to bring it to life. It is the largest cathedral in Europe, and had the public not recognized its value over time, the project would have failed.
In some ways, it represents the “Good Old Times,” a period with less division and a shared sense of honor. It’s hard to imagine any organization today raising such large sums of money for a similar project (it’s said to have cost nearly 1 million pounds at the time, which would be equivalent to about 200 million pounds today).
Additionally, the guide shared something rather amusing: the cathedral removed all traces of Judas. His figure was left out of sculptures, and his image was excluded from paintings.
He said he didn’t understand why, as those stories no longer make sense today. I replied that I understood now—this was essentially an early form of cancel culture.
It made me reflect on how, compared to that era, we now have much more powerful tools to enforce “narrow-mindedness and hatred” on a larger, more complete, and ruthless scale. In comparison to their time, we modern people have far less leeway to make mistakes, and the space for forgiveness has greatly diminished.
Attending this comic convention in the UK has left me very optimistic about the global growth of the Japanese and Korean anime industry over the next decade.
One clear indicator of this trend is the age distribution of cosplayers here. Those cosplaying classic Western IPs are mostly over 30, while those cosplaying Japanese IPs—Dragon Ball being an exception—are primarily Gen Z.
I have to say, Western creators are truly lacking in creativity and quality when it comes to merchandise. It’s shocking how bad it is! The standard offerings are limited to keychains, metal pins, T-shirts, and posters—some of which I’m almost certain are pirated, yet the organizers don’t seem to care.
The prices are outrageously high. A plastic kunai from Naruto sells for £10, but its quality is so poor that no one would pay 10 yuan for it in China.
POP figures are priced at 3–5 times what you’d find on Taobao, so many individual sellers here are flipping official and limited-edition merch for profit.
This whole merchandise market feels like it’s stuck in the last century, completely undeveloped.
As I walked around, a puzzling question kept coming to mind: What have the brilliant creators of recent years been up to?
Looking at this convention, there hasn’t been much in the way of significant global hits in the past decade.
The two most popular guests at the event were Sebastian Stan, who rose to fame 10 years ago through Marvel, and Ralph Fiennes, who gained recognition for this group of audience 20 years ago with Harry Potter.
The most represented fandoms are still Star Trek, with multiple stalls selling lightsabers, and Harry Potter. On the manga side, the most recent standout work is Demon Slayer.
As for Western hits, the newest mentions are Stranger Things and Fleabag or Sherlock, and those came out 7–10 years ago.
Even the music on the main stage included Christina Aguilera.
So, what’s going on here?
Are talented creators unwilling to have their IPs exploited by big corporations, so they just opt out of mainstream projects,?
Or has the abundance of options diluted attention, making it harder for anything to achieve a breakout hit?
Perhaps the film and TV industries have sped up their content pipelines too much, burning through commercial value too quickly?
Or is the economy so bad that people are too exhausted from daily news and arguments to invest energy in cultural consumption?
It’s bizarre that in an entire decade, there hasn’t been a truly influential global masterpiece. It’s even more surreal that kids 10–20 years younger than me are still shipping the same CPs as I did.
Anyway, I have a feeling that when the next big phenomenon does come, it’s going to devour all the pent-up attention from this empty decade. I’m looking forward to it!
On October 25, singer Lily Allen posted several close-up photos of her feet on X, along with a link to her OnlyFans page, which caught the attention of many netizens.
One commenter remarked, “Imagine being one of the biggest pop stars/musicians in Europe and then being reduced to this.”
Lily Allen responded, “Imagine being an artist with nearly 8 million monthly listeners on Spotify but earning more money from having 1,000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
It’s no surprise that this discussion once again turned to Spotify, with a comment receiving over 600 likes stating, “I think this says more about @Spotify and what they pay than anything else.”
This incident sparked my great interest because during a class on Creative Market, while discussing the biggest challenges facing the creative industry today, I jokingly mentioned that it seems OnlyFans is currently the only platform enabling artists to earn reasonable compensation directly from consumers.
When we talked about Spotify in class, my biggest question was: Why has it been losing money for over a decade despite having such a large user base, a strong cultural identity, and significant influence?
Then this news conveniently emerged.
I took a moment to look up some relevant data on Spotify and OnlyFans.
Last year, only 66,000 artists earned $10,000 or more in royalties from Spotify streaming, while the number of creators on the platform has long surpassed 11 million. In contrast, based on Lily Allen’s subscription numbers on OnlyFans, she can earn a stable $10,000 monthly with just 1,000 subscribers—an amount that most musicians would take a year to earn through streaming royalties.
According toOnlyFans’ 2023 financial report, the platform shares a significant portion of its revenue with creators—up to 80%—which far exceeds what a performer might earnworking for a production company or agency. (OnlyFans’ 80% revenue share is feasible only because it does not offer App Store-based billing, which would take 15-30% off the top.)
In simple terms, the essence of the Lily Allen incident is that “a new value distribution mechanism is set to replace the old one.”
A few weeks ago, I was watching Spotify’s Netflix show, Playlist, and after finishing it, I felt that the issue of “exploiting artists,” which has been widely criticized, is essentially unsolvable for Spotify. With 70% of its revenue going to pay for royalties, the responsibility for secondary distribution still lies with the copyright companies, leaving the platform with limited options.
From this incident, it’s clear that the solution is for artists to seek opportunities elsewhere; if they can thrive in other venues, they can afford to walk away from this one.
At its core, the old “record company-centered value chain” needs to die. The previously valuable rights to music have depreciated sharply due to technological advancements and a vast array of choices. Meanwhile, the role of record companies, which previously discovered, packaged, and promoted artists, has diminished significantly as the internet has drastically shortened the distance between consumers and artists. This is a given; the value chain in this industry has long needed a reset.
Spotify should have been the last hope for these record companies, yet it has acted as an intermediary, propping up this outdated value chain for over a decade. However, like all beneficiaries of the status quo, record companies cling tightly to their existing profits.
Now that OnlyFans has emerged and with future advancements in blockchain technology, the redistribution of interests is merely a matter of time. As creators receive less from record companies, those companies will become increasingly irrelevant. After all, who can’t release music on TikTok or OnlyFans nowadays?
In class, I even discussed with the professor why Spotify continues to lose money. He expressed his belief that Spotify would eventually become profitable. I’m now not so sure; opportunity windows are undoubtedly among the most fleeting elements in the business world. Once an alternative system is fully in place, Spotify’s window of opportunity will likely close.
After learning Python for five weeks, I took the liberty of participating in a Edinburgh Festival Hackathon, which required me to do data analysis and come up with insights and business strategies. Although I was confused at first, it turned out to be surprisingly fun.
My main reflections are:
1. I completely overcame the mentality of being embarrassed to copy and paste code.
2. I realized that mastering data analysis involves understanding the underlying thought process and knowing how to leverage existing libraries. The transition from “thinking” to “application” often involves adapting existing solutions.
3. Quantitative analysis is indeed more likely to be replaced by AI than qualitative research.
If you can do quantitative analysis like ChatGPT, you are an adequate quantitative analyst;
But if you do qualitative analysis like ChatGPT, you basically deserve to be unemployed.
Qualitative researchers need comprehensive practice to come up with sharp insight. There are many skills that need to be internalised throughout the research process, such as aligning research questions with business challenges, collecting accurate qualitative data with effective method, and taking into account the systematic nature of explanations and the possibility of commercial applications when generating insights.
It should not be difficult to convert these skills to quantitative analysis, but the reverse is not necessarily true. I have seen many analysis charts that are so fancy that they dazzle my eyes, but the insights and applications that come out in the end are basically nonsense.
I also find it hard to believe that any purely quantitative conclusion can guide business strategy. All Killer Insights must always return to human, and then there can be strategies, applications, and implementation.
In our school, half of the conversations are always about technology and AI. However, I’m increasingly feeling that as these technologies become foundational and their potential surpasses majority of human capabilities, fields where human evolution and progress are slower will become increasingly important. Fields without correct answers or standard solutions, where personal insight, experience, exploration, interpretation, and creativity are key, will become more irreplaceable.
Last week, at an event at the EFI, I saw a more advanced version of AI robot Fiona from “Silicon Valley”—Amecca. It was fascinating and quite demystifying.
FIRST is that, So far, the robots presented by AI generally exhibit traits such as being “polite, open-minded, friendly, and devoid of any vices,” while lacking a sense of warmth. When we compare them to AI, many of the human qualities that are often criticized—such as sluggishness, selfishness, impulsiveness, arrogance, and hesitation—may start to be appreciated more. These flaws, in contrast to the absolute positive descriptors like “polite,” “correct,” and “friendly,” seem to better capture the dynamic and diverse contours of humanity.
SECOND is that, the moderator conversed with Amecca for about 20 minutes, and it could respond to nearly any question; however, it struggled to handle silence. Any pause lasting more than a second would prompt it to start speaking immediately. I found this quite amusing; “dealing with silence” is indeed one of humanity’s most advanced skills. Reading the atmosphere in silence, sensing unspoken words, and understanding the meaning of “the moon is beautiful tonight” can be challenging, even for me.
This gave me further insight into why “domestic AI in China is so difficult to develop.” While “garbage in, garbage out” is certainly one reason, understanding the essence of East Asian culture, which values “leaving space,” presents a next-level challenge for AI trained on logical reasoning. However, on the flip side, if one day AI truly learns to navigate and even utilize silence, grasping the nuances of East Asian culture, it could signify that AI technology has reached a significant milestone.
During the process of the Spotify case study, the class examined the rising trend of global music artists resisting the platform, alongside the prevailing sentiment that Spotify offers insufficient compensation to music creators. According to Business Insider, artists on Spotify earn between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream, which translates to needing 2 million streams to generate a mere $10,000. This data, at first glance, appears to substantiate the criticism directed at Spotify.
However, I question whether Spotify should be held primarily accountable for the increasing challenges musicians face in monetizing their work. When Spotify appeared, the substitution of pirated copies in the consumer market and the supply surge in the legitimate market have brought tremendous changes the music market. It is possible that the changes happened in the macro environment have already brought inevitable disruption in music industry.
Accessibility and Devaluation of Music
One of the primary reasons musicians earn less today is that music is more accessible than ever before, and this accessibility has led to a devaluation of the product itself. The emergence and widespread availability of pirated music platforms, such as The Pirate Bay, fundamentally shifted how consumers accessed music. With piracy, music became virtually free for anyone with internet access, pressuring the entire industry to lower its prices. Even legitimate streaming services like Spotify offer millions of tracks at an affordable monthly subscription, making individual tracks or albums far less valuable. The consumer’s willingness to pay for music has decreased, pushing down overall industry earnings despite increased access.
Over-supply of musical works
The barrier to entry in the music industry has been lowered significantly due to advances in technology. Musicians can now create, produce, and distribute their music with relative ease, using tools like digital audio workstations (DAWs) and platforms such as SoundCloud and Bandcamp.
In 1970, the global music catalog was estimated to comprise approximately 2 million songs. Over the subsequent 30 years, the number of tracks increased by a factor of 2.5, resulting in around 5 million officially released songs by the year 2000. However, it was in the following 20 years that the catalog experienced explosive growth, with the total number of songs skyrocketing eightfold to reach an astonishing 40 million by 2020.
While this democratization of music creation is positive in some respects, it has led to market oversaturation. The saturation of music available in the digital age has led to a significant decline in the perceived value of individual tracks and artists. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the increased interchangeability of songs, as consumers can easily access a vast library of alternatives at their fingertips. This commodification has made it more challenging for musicians to command higher prices for their work.
Redistribution of the Industry’s Value Chain
The music industry has become more commercialized and monetized at every stage—from production to distribution to marketing. Previously, many stages, such as distribution through physical stores or marketing through word-of-mouth, were relatively inexpensive. Now, digital distribution platforms, marketing campaigns, and streaming services all take significant portions of revenue.
BTS exemplifies the economic dynamics of the modern music industry, particularly the disparity between artist income and total revenue. Despite the group’s global success, BTS members’ earnings represent only a fraction of their total generated revenue. HYBE, BTS’s management company, earned over $1.37 billion in 2022, with a significant portion from album sales and concert revenues. However, the group members, while well-compensated, earned around ₩21.0 billion KRW each for renewing their contracts in 2023. To make the math clear, that was $15.8 million USD per member, and it was only about 1% of what the company is making in 2022. This figure underscores the significant role HYBE plays in BTS’s financial success, given its investment in the members’ extensive training, marketing, and production. For instance, BTS members like RM and J-Hope trained for approximately six years before their debut.
This example reflects how modern musicians receive a smaller share of industry profits as the value chain includes more stakeholders, such as streaming platforms and production companies, even though the industry continues to grow.
Competition with Other Forms of Entertainment
Music is no longer the dominant form of entertainment it once was. In the 1950s and 1960s, music held a larger share of the entertainment industry, with a high cultural impact. However, in today’s media landscape, music must compete with a variety of entertainment formats, including social media, streaming video, and short-form content like TikTok.
In 2000, the global entertainment industry was estimated to generate revenue of approximately $1.2 trillion, with the music industry specifically accounting for around $30 billion, representing a share of approximately 2.5%. However, by 2023, the global entertainment industry experienced significant growth, reaching a valuation of $2.8 trillion. In contrast, the music industry generated $28.6 billion, resulting in a decline in its share to roughly 1%. This stark decrease underscores the diminishing proportion of the music industry’s revenue within the broader entertainment landscape.
Short-form content provides a large amount of entertainment value for free, reducing the relative appeal and value of music. Consumers can spend hours on platforms like YouTube or TikTok, consuming free content that directly competes for the time and attention that might have been previously devoted to music.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the financial challenges faced by musicians today can be traced to several interconnected factors: the increased accessibility of music, the simplification of music production and distribution, the redistribution of value within the music industry’s supply chain, and the intensified competition from other entertainment sectors. In light of these factors, while Spotify’s market pricing may not be entirely equitable, it nonetheless aligns more closely with contemporary market demands and conditions than traditional music industry business models and pricing strategies.
To address these issues, we must delve deeper into how to establish a more equitable value distribution system. Given the growing prevalence of intermediaries and the rising proportion of revenue shared among them, it may be worthwhile to explore the potential of technologies such as blockchain to eliminate intermediaries, thereby enabling music creators to receive compensation in a more direct manner. Such innovations could pave the way for a more sustainable and fair economic framework for artists in the evolving music landscape.
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). (2023). Global music report. Retrieved October 17, 2024, from https://globalmusicreport.ifpi.org
During Edinburgh’s Doors Open Day, I visited a century-old theatre that doesn’t even have a restroom, and a three-story Adam Smith residence with a total area of less than 300 square meters. Surprisingly, both of these places have served as venues for the Edinburgh International Festival. It gave me a glimpse of how scarce venues are in this city.
I also started to understand why cultural industries here often lean towards the non-profit sector. First, there are indeed a significant number of people and organizations with substantial funds ready to donate (probably benefit from the taxation policy here). Second, even as a non-profit, government grants can be sufficient to sustain a small team.
Take the theatre I visited, for instance. Despite being too old for serious activities and constantly requiring maintenance, it still receives £1 million in government funding, which is enough to maintain the building and support four full-time staff. Occasionally, the theatre rents out its space for live shoots by companies like Netflix or Amazon, which helps it stay afloat, even if only at a survival level. It’s still somewhat productive.
Similarly, the restoration of Adam Smith’s Panmure House has been an ongoing project for over a decade, supported by more than ten different donors and organizations. This kind of non-profit fundraising is typical of the creative industries here, and as long as you keep telling your story and highlighting your importance, even the most inconspicuous project can potentially attract attention from wealthy individuals or foundations.
To put it bluntly, it’s almost like they’ve “achieved a certain level of communism” here. While private ownership exists, there’s a sense of distribution based on need. I realize that my difficulty in understanding NPOs might stem from my inability to fully grasp an economic logic that lies outside the capitalist framework.
