Don't Bet on Those Online Royalties

I've argued in the past that riding the long tail to success would likely be a myth because the numbers don't add up. Now it seems that riding a massively popular online wave doesn't mean you're going to get any further. A British song writer with many hits and a reputed £47 million to his name had co-written a song that became part of a YouTube craze. After 154 million viewings, his take was less than stellar:

At a press conference to mark the launch of a website campaigning for a fairer deal for songwriters whose work is featured on YouTube - which is owned by Google - Waterman said local radio was more profitable for him than the internet.

"There was I sitting at Christmas thinking, 'I must have made a few bob this year with the old Rickrolling'," he said.

"I rang my publisher and they said 'You'll be all right', until I saw the royalty statement. £11.

"If 154 million plays means £11, I get more from Radio Stoke playing Never Gonna Give You Up than I do from YouTube."

Yup, 154 million plays, and about $20 or so to one of the writers. Those who are still letting dreaming of the big online killing had better realize whose head can end up on the chopping block. Now, maybe his royalty agreement was bad. Maybe there were no ads tied to the viewing. But this seems wrong in a big way, particularly since you can be sure that someone was making money on this.