1
Section 1: Foundation of the Study
Online streaming platforms are now one of the leading disrupters of the music
industry. At the onset of digital technology for music distribution, the music industry saw
a 14-year decline in music sales (Hesmondhalgh, 2020). Dating back to 1999, physical
music sales from music fell by 68% over a decade globally (Guichardaz, et al., 2019). By
2001, music industry sales began to rebound with a rise in global music revenue of $14.3
billion due to music streaming services (Hesmondhalgh, 2020). As a result, those in the
music industry will need to continue restructuring their current business model to
integrate online streaming business strategies to maintain a steady revenue stream.
Background of the Problem
Music artists are one of the many stakeholders within the music industry affected
by advances in technology. On-demand streaming services have disrupted the traditional
business model used by music artists, and some researchers have identified the positive
and negative effects these services have on overall revenue in the music industry (Towse,
2020). The objective of this study was to explore successful strategies used by music
artists to maintain a steady revenue stream.
Problem and Purpose
Music artists are seeing their revenue shares decrease due to online music
streaming technology (Bender et al., 2021). While the online music streaming platform
Spotify earns an average annual revenue of $4.99 billion, music artists receive a fraction
of a penny, $0.00437, for each song streamed on the platform (Dahrooge, 2021). The
general business problem is that music artists lack business strategies to create a steady
2
revenue stream when faced with the disruptive innovation of online music streaming
technology. The specific business problem is that some music artists lack online
streaming business strategies to maintain a steady revenue stream.
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the online
streaming business strategies that music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream.
The target population consisted of six music artists in the New York City area, who have
maintained a steady revenue stream in the past 5 years by distributing their original music
on online streaming platforms. The findings of this study have potential implications for
positive social change by improving the financial sustainability of music artists, which in
turn improves the quality of life for working musicians and allows them the opportunity
to use their musical talents to benefit citizens of their communities. Music can be used as
a form of medicine and therapy. Health care professionals use music medicine by having
a patient listen to their favorite music to treat various ailments such as anxiety and stress
reduction (Monsalve-Duarte et al., 2021). Music therapy has been credited with
improving the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of life. For example, physical
therapy that uses music has been shown to improve balance and mobility in Parkinson’s
disease patients (Sotomayor et al., 2021).
Population and Sampling
The population for this study consisted of six music artists in the New York City
area who have successfully published and independently distributed their original music
using online streaming, along with other revenue streams, within the past 5 years. A
combination of four managers, engineers, and producers in the music industry, who had
3
at least 5 years of experience in helping music artists generate revenue with their music
via online streaming platforms, living in the New York City area participated in a focus
group. All participants had to be 18 years of age or older. Purposeful sampling was used
to select participants who were found through internet and social media searches and
colleagues who had direct access to potential participants. I used semistructured
interviews, a focus group, and document review for this study.
Nature of the Study
The qualitative research method was best suited for this study to explore online
streaming business strategies that music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream.
Qualitative researchers explore the textural aspects of participants’ responses rather than
specific measurable behavior (Aspers & Corte, 2019). Researchers use quantitative
research methods to analyze data using statistics to objectively examine variable
characteristics and relationships (Sawatsky et al., 2019). I explored the experiences of
participants pertaining to online streaming business strategies that music artists use to
maintain a steady revenue stream; therefore, a quantitative research method was not
appropriate to use for my study. Researchers use the mixed method to combine both
qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance research results (Hou, 2021). Mixed-
method research was not appropriate for my study because it includes the quantitative
research method, which was also not appropriate for my study for reasons stated
previously.
I considered three research designs to use for researching music artists’ strategies:
(a) phenomenology, (b) ethnography, and (c) multiple case study. The subject and object
4
in phenomenology are one in the same, wherein an individual’s conscious mind shapes
the outcome and not the circumstances of their environment (Sundler et al., 2019). A
phenomenological study focuses on how reality is perceived in the individual
consciousness (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). I did not use phenomenology because my
study was focused on the outcomes of the efforts as opposed to how participants felt
about or consciously influenced their personal experiences. My intent was to explore
online streaming business strategies that music artists use to maintain a steady revenue
stream. The ethnography design is used to explore groups’ culture and values through
exploring and observing participant behavior (Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994; White &
Devitt, 2021). The ethnography design was not the best fit because my study was not
focused on the culture and values of the participants’ organizations, but on the business
strategies music artists use to generate revenue.
I used a multiple case study design to explore online streaming business strategies
that music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream when faced with the disruptive
innovation of music streaming technology. Using a case study design allows for the study
of a phenomenon within real-world circumstances (Tsang, 2022). Furthermore, by using
a multiple case study design, a researcher can use evidence from several areas such as
field study, archived records, and observation to compare and strengthen conclusions
(Sawatsky et al., 2019).
Research Question
What online streaming business strategies do music artists use to maintain a
steady revenue stream?
5
Interview Questions
1. What business strategies do you use to generate sales for your music?
2. What business strategies did you find most effective to generate sales of your
music?
3. How did your strategies assist you to meet the challenge of disruptive innovation
with online music streaming technology?
4. How did your business strategies help you to maintain a steady revenue stream by
using online music streaming?
5. What were the principal components of online music streaming platforms that
helped you generate sales?
6. What additional information can you offer on the business strategies you use to
generate a steady revenue stream by using online music streaming technology?
Conceptual Framework
The theory of disruptive innovation was the conceptual framework for this
qualitative study. Authored by Clayton Christensen in 1995, disruptive innovation can
occur in a circumstance in which the value of a market is changed by a new technology
introduced into a market that typically supersedes an older technology (Christensen,
1997; Rakic 2020). Disruptive innovation is a competitive response theory in which a
newcomer in an industry provides the same, or an enhanced, service at a lower rate than
its competitor (Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019). Christensen identified affordability,
accessibility, profitability, and efficiency as the main drivers of disruption (Alberti-
Alhtaybat et al., 2019).
6
Disruptive innovation brought on by new incumbents creates a transparent
immersive experience for consumers to think about the services they wish to access and
receive (Jari & Lauraeus, 2019). Online streaming technology companies have created
affordable and convenient ways for music consumers to access a large music database for
a flat fee (Li et al., 2020). I anticipated that using the lens of Christensen’s disruptive
innovation theory could assist me in understanding the findings from my study, exploring
the online streaming business strategies that music artists use to maintain a steady
revenue stream.
Operational Definitions
Crowdfunding: A way that people and companies can raise money by receiving
small donations from individuals in exchange for small rewards as an alternate way of
financing a venture (Simpson et al., 2021).
Do-it-yourself (DIY) business model: A four-step process of self-producing, self-
distribution, leveraging fame, and capitalization followed by independent business
owners (Heins, 2018).
Streaming: Media received concurrently by a user from a provider (Colbjornsen,
2020).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
A challenge of qualitative research is in establishing credibility, which attests to
the accuracy of data (Nassaji, 2020). Challenges to qualitative research could be
attributed to a lack of structures or practices customarily adhered to when conducting
research (Scalcau, 2021). Establishing validity or credibility of the findings depends on
7
how well a researcher represents the findings from the data collected (Hayashi, 2019). In
the design phase of a study, to establish the credibility of the research, assumptions,
limitations, and delimitations are important to identify and address (Pathiranage, 2021).
Assumptions can be articulated or unarticulated beliefs that affect every step of
the research process (Morrow & Nkwake, 2016). Assumptions are statements viewed as
true by a researcher without proof (McGregor, 2018). The first assumption in this
research was that participants chosen for this study would have adequate knowledge
about online streaming technology to provide data to answer the research question. The
second assumption was that participants in the study would be open and honest with their
interview responses. The third assumption was that participants would possess a strong
knowledge of the business model used in the music industry.
Limitations of a study are defined as foreseeable weaknesses beyond the control
of the researcher (McGregor, 2018). The research question focused on strategies used to
generate online sales of music for the artist. The research was limited in that there may be
other ways artists benefit from using online streaming platforms other than streaming
their music to generate income. Also, using a small sample size of six music artists may
not be representative of all artists who use online music streaming.
Delimitations are intentional boundaries set by a researcher to narrow the scope of
a study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Due to the music industry being a massive global
industry, focusing on music artists in New York City downsized the margin of the
research and allowed me to focus on a city known as a major entertainment servicer. The
8
participants were limited to six music artists who had experience using online music
streaming technology to generate a revenue stream.
Significance of the Study
My primary objective was to conduct research on the online business strategies
that music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream. Kessler (2018) indicated that
the loss of revenue by both major and independent record labels led to artists opting to
handle their business matters out of a need to generate more income. Research results on
resolving this issue could help music artists understand and develop strategies for
working within the online streaming industry to generate revenues through both existing
and new business channels.
Potential implications for positive social change from this research are improving
the financial sustainability of music artists, which enables artists to develop and distribute
music that could lead to artists contributing more to their communities. Music can be
used to engage the mind and body (Lamont, 2021). Human beings are influenced by
sound, which has a direct impact on how people think and function (Radzinska et al.,
2018). Using music as a healing mechanism can strengthen social bonds, stimulate
cognitive and motor skills, and relieve stress (Rana, 2018).
A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature
For this literature review, I expanded on the research of Bender et al. (2021), in
which they examined the effects of streaming services on music industry revenue.
Similarly, my research was focused on the music industry between 2015 and 2019 when
online streaming platforms continued to influence how consumers accessed music. The
9
methods that consumers use to access music impact the way music artists present their
goods to the public, ultimately affecting their ability to generate revenue online. The
literature review consists of five major categories: (a) disruptive innovation applied to the
music industry, (b) business model of the music industry, (c) governance of the music
industry, (d) generating revenue in the music industry, and (e) social construct of the
music industry.
For the conceptual framework, I used disruptive innovation theory. Disruptive
innovation theory illustrates how demand for a new entrant into an already existing
industry can cause incumbents and consumers to respond differently based on product
characteristics (Jari & Lauraeus, 2019). There were 201 references used for this study. Of
the references used, 90% were peer reviewed and 80% were published between 2018 and
2022. There were 110 references used in the literature review, 99 of which were peer
reviewed. I used an Excel spreadsheet to organize the information obtained from
documents for the literature review.
The purpose of this literature review was to provide an analysis of disruptive
innovation and disruptive technology as it pertained to music artists, the evolution of the
music industry, and micro factors that have shaped its current state and strategies that
music artists use to generate revenue. I researched the business strategies and ideas that
music artists use to generate revenue and the factors that contribute to their gain or loss of
revenue due to the disruptive innovation of online streaming platforms. In exploring the
literature, I used various academic databases, including Business Source Complete,
Emerald Management Journals, Gale Academic One File, Lexis Nexis, ProQuest, SAGE,
10
Academic Search Complete, and Science Direct. My keyword search included digital
music, music streaming, music piracy, disruptive innovation, business strategy, creative
arts, music law, streaming platforms, disintermediation, music industry, disruptive
technology, streaming technology, and cocreation.
Disruptive Innovation Applied to the Music Industry
Disruptive Innovation
Christensen’s concept of disruptive innovation focuses on low-end users within an
industry often overlooked who may prefer low-end replicas of a product that offers close
to or the same service as a popular incumbent (McDowell, 2018). At the time that
Christensen coined the theory of disruptive innovation, Christensen was trying to gain
insight into why companies were threatened by new entrants that had less technological
sophistication (Kawamoto & Spers, 2019). McDowell (2018) pointed out that
overlooking an untapped market could cause the potential decline of the incumbent. The
scenario applies to any failure in an industry. A company paying attention to innovations
within the market can help in sustaining their current users as well as becoming engaged
with new ones (McDowell, 2018).
Millar et al. (2018) argued against disruptive innovation calling the concept one
sided. Confusion has remained around what disruptive innovation is because there are
varying definitions and understandings of how disruptive innovation occurs (Martinez-
Vergara & Valls-Pasola, 2020). Montoya and Kita (2018) noted that Christensen’s idea of
sustainable innovation focused on improvement to an existing product, whereas for a
product to be considered a disruptive innovation, a technology would only need to be
11
something that lowers product performance (at least temporarily). Christensen explained
that the absence of concise boundaries was due to critics not understanding that the
concept of disruptive innovation initially focused on disruptive technology (Martinez-
Vergara & Valls-Pasola, 2020). Christensen enhanced the concept of disruptive
technology to include business models, replacing the term disruptive technologies to
disruptive innovations in 2003 (Martinez-Vergara & Valls-Pasola, 2020). Alberti-
Alhtaybet et al. (2019) agreed that despite the disruptive innovation concept being
defined by critics in various ways, the concept is still characteristically sound. While in
many studies into disruptive innovation, researchers have focused on a singular
perspective, Guo et al. (2019) provided a measurement framework for assessing how
innovations disrupt a market through the specific measurement indicators of technical
features, marketplace dynamics, and external environment.
A business can become competitive in a changing market by understanding how
innovation evolves. For a business to be competitive in a changing market, business
leaders must be able to successfully generate new ideas, validate those ideas in the
market, and reallocate assets to support the new ideas (O’Reilly & Binns, 2019). An
innovation that has the potential to disrupt the norm begins with a few people adopting
the idea, and as it becomes widespread, it attracts a larger group of users (Martinez-
Vergara & Valls-Pasola, 2020). Innovation does not become disruptive until it begins to
cause an imbalance within a market (Martinez-Vergara & Valls-Pasola, 2020). An
example of this type of disruption is online streaming replacing music artifacts such as
CDs and vinyl. Many companies have opted to exist and collaborate with newcomers,
12
separating good ideas from bad ones by testing the market, rapidly boosting customer
numbers, and product capability and capacity (O’Reilly & Binns, 2019).
Conceptual Framework Applied to Music
Innovation does not become disruptive in an instant but does so over time.
Disruptive innovation becomes apparent when the demand for performance from the
incumbent does not happen at a rapid pace and the incoming innovation performance
gains momentum (Reinhardt & Gurtner, 2018). Disruption within the music industry
became apparent when online streaming platforms became the preferred method of music
consumption by consumers as evidenced by the growth of music streaming platforms.
With the entrances of peer-to-peer file-sharing platforms and Napster in 1999, consumers
adopted new ways to listen to their favorite music (Galuszka, 2015), which aided in the
disruption of the traditional music business model.
Christensen believed that for an innovation to be disruptive, an entirely new
market is created because of its entry. The theory of disruptive innovation was expanded
on by Millar et al. (2018) who outlined the factors that lead to changes in an industry
because of innovation. Disruption is driven by cost, quality, customers, regulation, and
available resources in which disruption can happen at any of these levels (Millar et al.,
2018). An example would be the costs for music production leveling out because artists
have easier access to software and resources online.
Roy (2018) and Ozgur et al. (2017) agreed that a cyclical effect occurs in the
adoption of innovation with the innovation underperforming and keeping offerings to a
niche market with a relevant lead user before emerging into a mainstream market. Roy’s
13
(2018) and Ozgur et al.’s (2017) findings implied that trial and error occur with the
adoption of a new market. Some consumers have opted out of buying CDs that contain
one artist’s music catalogue for unlimited access to a wide range of music catalogues
online, where they can listen to music for a fixed monthly fee (Im et al., 2020). This type
of comparison would imply that disruptive innovation happens in stages with a slow rise
and slow fall or the trial-and-error effect (Millar et al., 2018).
Business Model of the Music Industry
Music Business Model
The traditional music business model has been restructured continuously since
Tin Pan Alley sheet music and the invention of the phonograph, which was disrupted by
recorded tapes and eventually by digitization (Kiresci, 2021). Kiresci (2021) provided an
exploratory study and discussed the evolution of the standard music business model and
how it changed over time due to rapid technological innovations that enabled the
consumer to listen to music. At the beginning of the technological age, changing the
music business model to include the bundling of branded merchandise such as the
phonograph in conjunction with music was thought to be the most effective way to create
value. As technology advanced to include devices that changed the way the public
communicated with one another, record industry innovators thought it best to explore
their options. Record industry innovators exploited music production to create value
through the integration of the internet and the MP3 player to dominate music marketing
and promotion (Kiresci, 2021). Throughout these changes to the traditional music
14
business model, the artistic, technological, and marketing aspects have been the deciding
factors in creating the most value in the music industry.
More emphasis was placed on the business models that focused on pricing, which
enabled the executives of record labels to maximize profits for their companies (Ko &
Lau, 2015). Ko and Lau (2015) found that since the disruption of the music industry in
2000, individuals working in the music industry have been looking for ways to stabilize
the revenue generated from music sales. Depending on the pricing model used, an artist
can gain or lose profit.
Based on Ko and Lau’s (2015) study, record companies could offer different
product bundles to customers leading to higher profit margins. Record labels are the
controlling factor in how an artist and fan relationship is established. Ko and Lau (2015)
suggested that the more fame an artist has and the higher position an artist holds in the
public eye, the higher the price for their goods and the more their records gain in revenue.
Rethinking Business Strategy
The behavior of technological development has dictated the financial
advancement of artists within the music industry. These shifts have caused music artists
to rethink how they present their services to the public. Pointing out the factors that led to
the rapid growth of streaming music, Sharakhina et al. (2020) emphasized the efforts of
streaming platforms to find business models that both please the consumer and the
independent artist, linking the right listeners to the right songs uploaded by the artists. By
understanding the results of the attempts of streaming markets to compensate artists,
revamping business strategies could be achieved for better rates of return for the
15
independent artist when it comes to DIY production compared to the rate of return
received from record companies. Independent artists are opting out of signing with major
labels and dealing directly with music streaming platforms, which has increased the
music share for streaming platforms (Sharakhina et al., 2020).
The opportunity for independent artists has improved due to changes in business
strategy and advancement in technology (Walzer, 2017). The changes in technology have
enabled artists to take on multiple roles as artists, producers, and engineers of their
ventures. One way this has happened is through the advancement of software in
technology. The key to independent music artists doing well in a digital market is
contingent on their accessibility to the latest production software and tools to produce
music in a global market (Walzer, 2017). Research done within educational institutions
could allow people to look internally at the processes of independent artists and access
their business needs for generating revenue and access to resources (Walzer, 2017).
Artist Online Streaming Business Strategies
The music industry’s business structure began to change with the emergence of
online streaming platforms. In response to the entrance of online music streaming, in
2015, singer Taylor Swift paved the way for artists who were displeased with artist
compensation from online music streaming platforms and pulled her music from Spotify
(Kronenberg, 2018). Although being exclusive to one streaming platform may be suitable
for the artist, customers are burdened financially with obtaining subscriptions to more
than one music streaming platform to find their favorite artist (Kronenberg, 2018).
16
Rapper Jay-Z responded to the influx of online music streaming platforms by
purchasing a music streaming platform that allowed artists to interact directly with
customers, collect a larger royalty rate, and offer exclusive music not provided on
mainstream online music streaming platforms (Tribulski, 2020). In 2017, music artist
Taylor Swift rereleased music with Spotify under an exclusive rights deal (Shaw, 2017).
Jay-Z later followed suit and negotiated an exclusive rights deal with Spotify after
speculation that the streaming platform Tidal was under investigation in 2019 for
exaggerating streaming numbers (Mejia, 2019).
The actions of Taylor Swift and Jay-Z encouraged many mainstream artists to
follow suit. Still, independent artists were not so fortunate to negotiate lucrative exclusive
deals with online music streaming platforms efficiently. Despite the inability to negotiate
lucrative exclusive deals with online music streaming platforms, independent artists have
seen online music streaming success. For example, UK pop artist Anne-Marie was the
76th most streamed artist on Spotify in 2016 (Robinson, 2016). Artist and repertoire
Chris Anokute emphasized the importance of using the analytical data that Spotify
provides to identify who the loyal fan base is for an artist, which translated into markets
where Anokute’s artists were able to sell out live shows (Robinson, 2016).
While artists have used the analytics and streaming power to convert online music
customers into live fans, other independent music artists have embraced streaming in
different ways. Loosely mimicking what major music artists have done, Indy record label
owners, like those at SubPop Records, established exclusive artists deals with Drip.fm, a
subscription and download service that connects the artist directly to a fan, focusing on
17
the excessive music fan culture (Bromwich, 2014). With the release of their album In
Rainbows, the rock band Radiohead used the approach of allowing the consumer to pay
what they wanted for the album, leading to their largest revenue share from record sales
in their career (Kiresci, 2021).
The artist entrepreneur is an individual who is passionate, talented, self-confident,
opportunistic, efficient, and focused on making a financial profit (Szostak & Sulkowski,
2021). Diversification and the musician taking on the role of an entrepreneur allows the
artist to have control over their music, events, merchandising, and image, which enables
them to create more opportunity to receive a higher percentage of revenue from the
consumer (Everts & Haynes, 2021). Bandcamp is a digital marketplace, not a streaming
platform, where artists directly engage with the selling and marketing of music and
merchandise to customers. Bandcamp is set up to perform like an extension of a social
media platform where music artists control and generate all content offered on the
platform to create their own digital storefront (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2019). In return,
customers can freely express their views about their favorite artists through the
Bandcamp blog (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2019).
Other independent artists have chosen not to embrace online music streaming
platforms. Those artists have decided to create streaming platforms for generating
revenue for independent artists. Musician Peter Harris formed a co-op streaming platform
in 2015 in which both artists and customers are involved in artist compensation, and
artists can view estimated profits using a sliding scale available on the website (Mejia,
2019).
18
Another example of an artists-controlled platform is Patreon. On Patreon,
customers have access to exclusive creative artists’ works for a fee, allowing customers
access to exclusive rewards for their patronage and engagement from artists (Hair, 2021).
Patreon offers a way for artists to supplement their income by offering their fans access
to works that include, but are not limited, to music, artwork, games, writings, and other
unique creative works (Hair, 2021). Artists who use Patreon receive a monthly
membership fee from each consumer, creating a direct-to-consumer interaction that
allows artists to develop sustainable careers (Hair, 2021).
DistroKid is a music distribution platform that acts in the capacity of an
aggregator for independent music artists who own the rights to their music catalogs (Hu,
2019). Distribution platforms like DistroKid claim to be better for the artists because
there is no limit placed on how much content an artist can upload. The artist keeps 100%
of their earnings, and DistroKid owners have embedded multiple marketing tools into the
platform (DistroKid.com, 2021). As the sister company of another aggregator, CD Baby,
DistroKid piqued the interest of investors who envisioned buying digital distribution
companies as a prospective positive investment (Hu, 2019). According to Hu (2019), this
type of distribution platform helps artists save on distribution, but costs more on the
backend for the investor due to the costs associated with artist development.
Governance of the Music Industry
Copyright Law and the Modernization Act
As a disruptive innovator, online streaming platforms could usurp the concept of
music ownership. In a report done by Bazinet et al. (2018), it is suggested that the music
19
industry is a business of music publishing and recorded music, making up 1/5 of the
record music business. Items considered essential to understanding how the music artist
is paid are licensing and copyright law. According to the 2015 Nielsen Music consumer
report, audio streams were down by 83.1% and physical album sales by 6.1% (Demos,
2016). Demos (2016) accredited this drop in sales to the rapid advances in technology.
By 2017 12% of music revenue was captured by artists across several distribution
platforms, i.e., radio, satellite radio, and internet distributors (Bazinet et al., 2018). Most
revenue gains were driven by live concerts (Bazinet et al., 2018). As the world shut down
due to Covid 19 in 2020, audio streams rose by 16.2% while physical album sales fell by
23.3% (Nielson Music Mid-Year Report, 2020).
Lawmakers have attempted to keep up with the rapid changes in technology by
amending copyright laws. Those in government made changes to the law mainly to
secure the financial interest of the musician. The world’s first copyright law was the
Statute of Anne implemented in Britain in 1710, which protected English publishers.
Those in U.S. Congress included the copyright patent clause from the Statute of Anne in
the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to secure the exclusive rights writers have
to their work for a limited time (Bazinet et al., 2018).
Those in the United States government realized the importance of copyrighting as
early as 1790 (Heins, 2018). In the case of Buck vs. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. and
Twentieth Century Music Corp vs. Aiken, lawmakers established rules concerning what
constituted a public performance as pivotal points of change in copyright law (Heins,
2018). In the case of Buck vs. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., it was argued that playing music
20
through a radio signal in hotels could be deemed performance of a copywritten work, and
the U.S. Supreme Court found that the hotel violated the law (McGraw, 2018). In
Twentieth Century Music Corp vs. Aiken, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aiken
and determined that the restaurant was not in violation of copyright law by playing music
on a personal device that could be found in a home (McGraw, 2018).
As found in section 115b of the Copyright Act, a compulsory license gives an
individual the right to reproduce copies of nondramatic musical works (Larson et al.,
2018). A compulsory license is a type of mechanical license that is generally secured by
those wanting to use songwriter’s or publisher’s material for their music projects that are
physically or digitally distributed. In 1831, copyright protection was given to music
publishers but sound recordings had not been had not addressed (Bazinet et al., 2018).
According to the Citi Music Industry Report, copyrights were not given to songwriters
whose work was performed publicly until 1897 (Bazinet et al., 2018). Mechanical
licensing of musical compositions has been in place since 1831, with the first significant
need for mechanical licensing measures to be implemented, with the invention of the
record player and the pianola (Victor, 2020).
Due to the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in White-Smith Music
Publishing Co. vs. Apollo Music Co., Congress extended copyright to exclude parts of an
instrument mechanically used to reproduce a work with the condition of applying a fixed
royalty rate to the copyright protection of music in 1909 known as the 115 License in the
Copyright Act (Victor, 2020). Apollo Music Co. manufactured perforated cylinders that
enabled pianos to play music automatically. Executives at White-Smith Music Publishing
21
Co challenged this type of free playing instrument by arguing that using a play roll in a
pianola to play compositions infringed on their copywritten material. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in favor of Apollo Music Co., citing that Apollo Music Co. was not making
copies of the music and therefore there was no copyright infringement (Bazinet et al.,
2018). In 1910 the U.S. Congress reformed the copyright to include copyright holders
having the right to control the mechanical reproduction of their work, along with a
compulsory license that allowed for the right of pianola makers to play composer’s
music, which was later made more complicated with the emergence of the digital
downloads.
The Music Modernization Act was brought forth in the U.S. Congress to
strengthen laws on compensation through mechanical licensing, creating a balance
between the value of music to the customer and the value of the work to artists (Huffman,
2019). According to research done by Huffman (2019), the act failed to address how
royalties would be paid out to artists and producers to regulate streaming platforms.
Spotify is an example of a company that has benefited from infringing upon copyright
laws by failing to obtain proper mechanical licensing for the music they stream by opting
to negotiate and pay out later (Huffman, 2019).
In 2018 the Music Modernization Act was overhauled by the U.S. government,
which consolidated three bills governing music licensing into one (Larson et al., 2018). A
new bill named the Orrin G. Hatch Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act
encompassed the Modernization Act, Classics Protection and Access Act, and the
Allocation for Music Producers Act into one (Larson et al., 2018). Section 115 of the
22
U.S. Copyright Act was revised by the U.S. government with the establishment of The
New Modernization Act. The language in the New Modernization Act included
improving royalty payouts for music producers and engineers, artist compensation for
pre-1972 recordings, and the streamlining of the music licensing process to include
compensation from music streaming platforms (Buiey, 2019).
Also, U.S. Congress voted on The Music Modernization Act of 2018 to amend
title 17 of the U. S. code to establish fairness on how musical works get reproduced and
distributed for digital use (Loren, 2019). Lawmakers moved to create a blanket
mechanical license that covered the activities of digital music providers and established
standard rates for licensing through a copyright royalty board (Larson et al., 2018). The
blanket license proved to be more beneficial to major record companies who have the
advantage of negotiating rates at a higher level than independent songwriters and
publishers (Lawrence, 2019). Songwriters collect mechanical royalties which as of 2016
was at a rate of $0.091 for songs of five minutes or less in duration. In 2016, interactive
digital rates for streaming platforms like Spotify were broken down to around 6%
mechanical royalty of about $210 million generated per year in which the per-stream
royalty is $0.0007 (Bazinet et al., 2018).
The misinterpretation of the law occurs when specifics of interactive streaming
platforms are governed differently from non-interactive platforms. Section 114 of The
Copyright Act stipulates that noninteractive streaming platforms to acquire a compulsory
license to stream music. Interactives such as Spotify and Apple Music have on-demand
23
streaming rights allowing people to play music any time without consumer ownership
(Chandler, 2019).
Musicians were approaching business strategies to make money inaccurately
when they concentrated on copyright law (Davis, 2017). Davis (2017) argued that
copyright law was one issue that musicians faced, which would drive intermediaries to
invest in musicians. Record companies and musicians alike missed out on capitalizing on
the innovation of streaming platforms early in a market that now has a DIY atmosphere
because the focus was placed on copyright infringement. Davis (2017) noted that along
with the decline in revenue, song creation by artists who are directly affected could
decline.
360 Deal
Artists have sought to generate revenue using multiple streams of income, musical
and nonmusical (Huffman, 2019). To counteract this, record companies have turned to
360 contract deals. With the implementation of the 360 deal, artists are considered brands
in the current music industry (Klein et al., 2017). Guichardaz et al. (2019) credited the
rise of 360 deals by record companies that exploits sources of revenue for an artist as a
result of a decline in record sales and advancement in technology. The 360 deals within
the music industry allow for record labels to be involved in the revenue of artists beyond
sound recordings (Kessler, 2018). Artists enter into 360 deals with record company
owners who can oversee every aspect of their careers, maximizing profit for the label,
taking up to 35% of all non-musical artist revenue (Huffman, 2019). According to
Kessler (2018), this meant that record companies could collect on revenue on the artist’s
24
behalf for live performances, music publishing, and merchandising. Due to this provision,
record labels could offset their losses from record sales with the ancillary activities of
their artists (Kessler, 2018).
Performance Rights Organizations
Performance rights organizations (PROs) act as centralized clearinghouses, acting
on behalf of their members to collect royalties and ensure that copyright and licensing
laws are adhered to by music users, which includes songwriters, performers, and music
rights owners (Sukenik, 2019). PROs represent approximately 1.4 million composers and
about 22 million musical works that generate around $2.6 billion a year with a song
generating on average $114 a year across all musical platforms. Of that $2.6 billion,
PROs retained 12 % to cover the overhead expenses (Bazinet et al., 2018).
The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) is the
first nonprofit owned by composer members in the U.S. in which members are allowed to
self-report their performances (Jackson, 2021). The Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI)
is a non-profit PRO founded by broadcasters that provides licensing for public venues
representing songwriters and composers in the United States. (Jackson, 2021). The
Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC) is a for-profit PRO that
offers invitation-only membership to composers (Jackson, 2021). A newer PRO is Global
Music Rights (GMR), which is a boutique PRO focused on negotiating music licensing
rights directly with songwriters and musicians (Lenard & White, 2018). The main
difference among ASCAP BMI, SESAC, and GMR is that BMI and ASCAP are required
25
to abide by consent decrees and are non-profit organizations acting on behalf of their
artists (Bazinet et al., 2018).
Deciphering who owns the rights to a song prompted the U.S. Congress to create
an exclusive PRO for artists called SoundExchange. SoundExchange is a PRO that
monitors royalty distribution for both artists and copyright holders, with 50% distributed
to copyright holders, 45% going to featured artists, and 5% going to back to musicians
(Bazinet et al., 2018). SoundExchange executives collect digital royalties from
noninteractive streaming platforms such as SiriusXM, Pandora, and iHeart Radio.
SoundExchange executives used about 8% of the $700 million in royalties collected by
SoundExchange for overhead fees. PROs are involved in constant legal battles over
performance rights. According to Business Wire (2019), in 2019, GMR won a lawsuit
against the Radio Music Licensing Committee regarding fixed pricing for playing artists
music.
Over the years other PROs have aggressively sought royalty payments for those
they represent. ASCAP pursued the Meadowlark Bar in Colorado regarding the
establishment profiting from playing music works without permission and argued that
music creators should also reap the benefits (Wenzel, 2019). In the United States of
America v American Society of Composers, authors and publishers licensing fees for
wireless transmissions were contested which resulted in a $ 1.5 million-fee for blanket
licensing being acceptable for the telecommunication company AT&T to pay for the use
of music for ringtone previews (US v. ASCAP, 2009). SESAC settled a lawsuit with the
26
Television Music License Committee for $58.5 million regarding anti-trust claims of
SESAC overcharging for licensing fees (Sisario, 2015).
As Spotify went public and other companies such as Apple Music maintained a
constant presence online, lawsuits continued to arise regarding these platforms obtaining
proper licensing for the songs that are offered. Lenard and White (2018) suggested that
due to licensing issues, creators of music have become unmotivated to create new works
as they are not able to recoup the costs of making the music initially. According to
Lenard and White (2018), since the digital age, laws have been emerging to expand on
copyright laws, leaving artists to debate on how important it is to establish their rights for
leverage in a digital marketplace.
As of 2020 an artist on average receives $26,468 a year with a small projected rise
to $26,888 by 2026 from all music related endeavors, even with the consistent annual
financial growth of digital streaming platforms (Paolucci, 2021). Fairness in royalty
payments has been a concern for artists before the inception of digital streaming
(Kronenberg, 2018). With Apple Music reportedly paying 71.5% of incoming revenue to
royalties and Spotify paying 70%, Kronenberg (2018) proposed a uniform royalty rate
that would satisfy the discontent of artists over royalty payments. Davis (2017) noted that
Spotify pays between $ .006 and $ .0084 in streaming royalties to artists. For example,
singer/producer Pharrell earned between $2,700 and $25,000 in royalties, after
accumulating about 43 million streams from fans.
27
Digital Piracy
Piracy is credited by researchers for the decline of revenue and recorded music in
the music industry (Savelkoul, 2020; Papies & Van Heerde, 2017). Digital piracy was
made possible by the advances in modern technology to the point that legal debates and
lawsuits have occurred as to whether piracy has helped or hurt the upward financial
movement of music artists. Aversa et al. (2019) concluded that access to large music
catalogs and the global reach has attracted customers to digital pirating, with the onset of
Spotify and other online streaming platforms. The digitization of information has led to
the creation of digital music files that evolved into digital piracy (Papies & Van Heerde,
2017).
According to the research findings of Hampton-Sosa (2019), as digital piracy
increased by 1%, music sales decreased by .6% in 2009. In addition to disrupting record
sales, the emergence of piracy has left record companies no choice but to rethink the
traditional business model and consider the change in the business relationship with
music streaming systems (Hampton-Sosa, 2019). Although modifying the business model
from both online streaming platforms and those in the music industry is ideal, addressing
issues with governance and proper compensation remain at the forefront of the debate.
Many strategies used in the music industry have been used to counteract the effects of
piracy on music distribution and revenue. From adjusting pricing to legal ramifications,
piracy has proven to be challenging for the music industry (Hampton-Sosa, 2017).
According to Mitchell et al. (2018) the Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) reported 30 billion songs were illegally shared and downloaded, leading
28
to the litigation of copyright infringement. The phenomenon of piracy began to reach
global heights with the music sharing platform, Napster in 1999 (Aversa et al., 2019).
Virtual private networks and remote file-sharing has made it easy for piracy to continue
to thrive. Aversa et al. (2019) found that recent studies support the claim that digital
piracy has led to a significant decline in physical album sales. Those in the music
industry have tried to counteract the use of these methods by using digital management
protections for music distributed (Husin & Hidayanto, 2018). According to Husin and
Hidayanto (2018), by using digital management protections, limitations can be placed on
how the consumer obtains music.
Generating Revenue in the Music Industry
DIY Entrepreneurship
The changes in the digital industry caused record executives and artists to rethink
their business models and reevaluate the relationships that existed between the two
entities. Part of the issue lied in how cost-effective the digital market was for artists who
are not contracted by record companies to acquire the same resources and benefits from
online streaming platforms. As a result of this change for artists, record companies are
viewed as influential intermediaries between the artist and online streaming platforms.
However, record companies have a certain amount of influence with online streaming
platforms and can offer an abundance of products which artists on their own cannot to
these online streaming companies. This dilemma leaves the artist to choose sides which
includes the decision to handle their careers on their own or to continue to collaborate
with major record labels.
29
Originating from the home improvement industry, DIY concepts have extended to
include music and the arts consisting of in-home studios and makeshift venues (Jones,
2021). Instead of being mistreated by players in the music industry, artists can conduct
their business affairs on their own behaves. The current music industry evolved from
various innovations in technology such as the cassette tape, CD, and MP3 players. As
technological innovation continued to happen, music became more accessible to the
consumer. Davis (2017) suggested that artists and record companies integrate themselves
within the fabric of platforms to advance their careers, taking on entrepreneurial
marketing statuses.
Music artists like Chance the Rapper have made the decision to not rely on record
companies and copyright laws and adopt a DIY entrepreneurial method for getting their
music out to consumers, while turning a profit (Heins, 2018). Therefore, it has been
argued that placing a significant amount of emphasis on reforming copyright laws is an
unnecessary focus. When record labels were the dominant gatekeeper of artists being
successful, copyright laws were one of the most important aspects to have for music. As
hardware and technology have shifted, artists’ means to record and distribute their music
without spending thousands of dollars has helped them become self-sufficient. The DIY
business model for artists consists of an artist being able to self-produce, become popular
through directly submitting to intermediaries, touring, and capitalizing off a perceived
persona (Heins, 2018).
Many independent artists who take a DIY approach to their careers may
supplement their careers by maintaining secondary career paths. In a study done by
30
Haenfler (2018), some punk rock artists hold positions in writing, social work, or careers
indirectly related to their music. Artists managing multiple positions requires maintaining
flexible schedules to concentrate on their music careers. Music artists handle booking,
revenue-generating strategies, organizing, contacting agents, promotions, and sales,
suggesting that entrepreneurial skills go hand in hand with creative aspects of being a
music artist (Haynes & Marshall, 2018a). In the vane of DIY behavior music
commentator, Dave Kusek views artists as being their own company and as such offers
advice on how to generate income from multiple streams within the music industry
(Haynes & Marshall, 2018a).
Disintermediation
The service of an incumbent can become obsolete due to disintermediation.
Disintermediation is the elimination of a middle participant within a supply chain, which
leads to direct contact between two parties (Haynes & Marshall, 2018b). Haynes and
Marshall (2018b) pointed out that disintermediation involved the changing of the social
and behavioral habits of the consumer within an industry. This process involved the
service of an incumbent becoming obsolete, due to being overtaken by innovation or a
different way of operating. Disintermediation influences the economic labor structure
because independent music artists now have the means to create independent of
intermediaries (Walzer, 2021).
Galuszka (2015) suggested that disintermediation may not only occur as a direct
result of the disruptive innovation of online streaming but also from adapting to other
intermediaries and the restructuring of the music industry. Reducing the production of
31
CDs and long play (LP) albums, artists could consider online streaming as a new business
standard in the restructuring of the old music industry business model. Online music
streaming platforms can therefore be viewed as internal disrupters that profit from music
that caused the unbundling of a previously grouped product (Lee et al., 2020).
Online streaming platforms have unbundled the LP album and the CD by making
music available in a single format for consumption. The unbundling of music via online
streaming platforms turned music into a commodity shared across online streaming
platforms. The unbundling concept makes the idea of buying bundled music obsolete.
When a company unbundles products, it affects the standard ritual of a customer having
to physically go into a store and purchase a CD and makes it easy for consumers to listen
to and obtain music instantly. The end-user of the music has more control over how they
listen to their music (Lee et al., 2020).
Essling et al. (2017) sought to understand the effects of bundling. Over 20 years,
data was collected on the revenue generated by releasing single songs as opposed to
albums. Essling et al. (2017) discovered a gradual decline in physical sales as technology
advanced. When a record company decides to release a single song, the intention is to
give the public a sampling of what a record company can offer the consumer. However, a
rapidly growing digital market and the ability of a consumer to buy singles could add to
the decaying effect of music released into the market. The emphasis on product decay
gives rise to how record companies decide to release a single song or album into the
market. Unbundling music into a single sale instead of an album has immediate effects on
revenue in the music industry because music companies no longer have exclusive control
32
over how artists choose to release singles into the market, which the market is now in part
controlled by consumer behavior (Essling et al., 2017).
Because of shifts in the music industry caused by intermediation and
disintermediation, both record executives and artists alike are forced to adapt and change
with the innovations. Haynes and Marshall (2018b) pointed out that it was a hope that the
emergence of digital technology would give an artist the freedom to be independent of
major record labels. The main hope was that this disintermediation would lead to
formulating a better relationship between the artist and the consumer (Galuszka, 2015).
However, direct contact with the consumer may require the artist to know how to
monetize online music streaming platforms. Haynes and Marshall (2018a) argued that
rather than digital technology being exclusively disruptive to production, creativity, and
consumer value creation, new technology integrates with the existing practices of the
music industry.
Finding ways to create value in the music industry when faced with technological
advances and digitization has led those within the music industry to restructure their
business models continuously (Ko & Lau, 2015). Ko and Lau (2015) pointed out that
culture and socioeconomics have also contributed to determining the approaches used by
record companies. As technology continues to advance, there is a need to determine the
best methods to adapt, to create, and sustain the value within the music industry. In their
research, Ko and Lau (2015) determined that how customers perceive the product they
are receiving has an impact on music industry profitability.
33
Intermediation
Creators of online streaming platforms have been able to sustain due in part to the
intervention of intermediaries that have enabled easy access to music with the invention
of MP3 players in 1979 and other devices (Sharakhina, 2020). Companies can consider
intermediaries niche players within the value chain, creating an innovation ecosystem.
The innovation ecosystem involved the integration of several technologies, which created
an ease of use for the end-user (Ozgur et al., 2017). The disruptive nature of online music
streaming platforms can be expanded to include technology such as MP3 players and
mobile devices as intermediaries.
Digital streaming music platforms serve as intermediaries between the music
artists and the consumer. In this manner, artists using online streaming platforms face
obstacles in financially generating and sustaining income. However, new intermediaries
have slowly started emerging that seek to disrupt the digital market. The creation of the
1- day Part of the issue lied in how cost-effective the digital market was for artists who
are not contracted by record companies to acquire the same resources and benefits from
online streaming platforms. celebration called Record Store Day identified a gap that
existed between technology and personal customer engagement. Celebrating Record
Store Day emphasized retailers reestablishing vinyl records to physically engage the
listener in small record stores to music enhancing the idea of vinyl having a collector’s
item appeal (Harvey, 2017; Bates, 2020).
Bates (2020) suggested that consumers’ direct interaction with music products is a
benefit to brick-and-mortar companies. Online music streaming platforms can be viewed
34
as direct distribution portals with streaming executives having the capability of
exclusively controlling what goods consumers are able to access at any given time
(Maaso & Hagen, 2020). Therefore, the in-person interaction has helped retailers fill in
the gap of cultivating customer relationships for sustainable growth in the music industry.
Online music streaming has forced music stakeholders to redirect how they digitally
distribute music and holistically engage with their customers by monitoring listening
behavior through datafication methods obtained from the streaming platforms (Maaso &
Hagen, 2020). While getting a boost after the decline of CD sales, record store owners
redirected their efforts toward creating face-to-face interaction with the customer’s
relationship with music thereby connecting it to other lifestyle experiences of consumers
(Bates, 2020).
The revival of the vinyl record, in the face of the online streaming revolution, has
managed to create a unique connection between the customer and the artist (Harvey,
2017). While vinyl records sold in small retail settings act as an intermediary between
customers and artists, as do popular digital platforms, the creating of experiences such as
Record Store Day had a direct influence on the economics of small communities (Harvey,
2017). The resurgence of the vinyl record has been able to find a middle playing ground
in the face of digital monopolization. Retailers have been able to redirect the focus on
music consumption by creating a unique customer experience (Harvey, 2017). Fleischer
(2017) pointed out that music as a branded experience was becoming a dominant fixture
within the landscape of the music industry, with a focus on introducing customers to
35
music that caters to customers’ life moments, making it easier for them to access music
through playlists.
There are a variety of streaming music services that generate revenue through
subscription-based membership and paid advertising, yet artists have not been
appropriately compensated for their music due to lack of visibility and consumer
accessibility on these platforms (O’Dair & Fry, 2020). The customer to artist exchange
and the currency system of blockchain technology is an example of an intermediary that
could potentially disrupt the innovation of online music streaming platforms and their
subscription pricing strategy. Owen and O’Dair (2020) explored blockchain technology
as an alternative to music streaming platforms, which could solve the issues of
documenting music ownership, slow return on investment, and inaccurate royalty
distribution. Blockchain technology, as a form of intermediation, creates a networking
industry among key industry players that will create a direct interactive experience
between artists and consumers.
The evolution of streaming platforms has introduced a new form of
commodification or value-exchange into the music industry (Fleischer, 2017). As an
intermediary step, subscription-based listening, peer to peer file sharing, and advertised
listening contribute to a commodity-based economy. Using the aggregator, Spotify, as an
example of a commodifier, Fleischer’s (2017) research opens up the conversation about
music as a commodity that provides a gateway to other commodities.
36
Supply Chain Collaboration
Working from the inside out could prove useful in establishing positive business-
to-business relationships. Research showed that the focus for companies has shifted to
making sure that the functions of the supply chain are aligned with the value created for
stakeholders (McLoughlin et al., 2021). This phenomenon could prove beneficial within
an online streaming market with an emphasis on online platforms working in conjunction
with artists towards a common goal.
Kang and Moon (2016) focused on how to improve supply chain performance
through supply chain collaboration. Combining a resource-based view and dynamic
capability theory, Kang and Moon (2016) found IT competency to be a contributing
factor to supply chain performance regarding collaboration. Research demonstrated that
supply chain competency in IT can lead to an increase in supply chain-to-supply chain
exchange of information. Kang and Moon’s (2016) findings could expand research into
the causal relationship within supply chain collaborations.
Naveed et al. (2017) pointed out that revenue within the music industry has
declined since the emergence of the online streaming of music. Naveed et al. (2017)
suggested that the internet gives customers access to music, providing free and unpaid
services. While revenue increased for streaming platforms and record companies, distrust
grew from artists who did not feel that they were being paid enough for their products.
The break down in revenue caused a shift in focus, and artists started to rely on live
concerts to generate income (Naveed et al., 2017). Live events provide the artist an
opportunity to be more visible in an oversaturated market (Danielsen & Kjus, 2019).
37
Seen as a new part of the music artist business model, live streaming is a way for artists
to stay connected to fans and generate revenue (Breese et al., 2020). More prominent
during Covid artists live streaming their performances has introduced a wider range of
opportunities and audience connection in conjunction with live in person concerts
(Rendell, 2020).
Artists doing live concerts did not, however, replace the digital streaming market.
Through their research, Naveed et al. (2017) suggested that live concerts co-evolved with
digital streaming and complimented live concert sales. Naveed et al. (2017) tested the
theory that artists are promoting their live concerts through digital streaming sites, which
would lead to a better rate of return for the artists. Naveed et al. (2017) tested this theory
by analyzing streaming platform services and concert events side by side after the
economic recession of 2008.
The findings were that the loss of revenue could be counteracted by live shows
that engaged the consumers as co-creators of their own experience. By working hand in
hand, owners of online streaming platforms and artists could establish business
relationships to create better value and generate revenue. Similarly, leading executives
from companies such as Live Nation, AEG, and OCESA/CIE recognized the connection
between live concerts and online streaming platforms and they established exclusive
deals with artists in direct competition with record companies (Simon, 2019). From 2003
to 2007, to help music artists, The O.C. Effect was created on the TV drama The O.C. by
the music supervisors to specifically include and license the music of independent music
artists, drawing attention to the music artist’s brand. These efforts to license music made
38
it an acceptable way to distribute music for artists providing them with exposure and
revenue (Nelson, 2018).
Value Cocreation
Cocreation involves analyzing customer involvement at all levels of product
evolution. Research shows that customer involvement and the behavior of a customer
within a company’s product evolution process has influenced purchase decisions on both
sides. The customer involvement in cocreation also extends to how customers interact
with each other and the circumstances surrounding customer engagement when chosen
for a multi-dimensional study. Interaction and the experience that consumers have with
companies creates value. Value cocreation can impact the existing relationship between a
company and the consumer. In analyzing the whole experience through online consumer
engagement, Zhang et al. (2018) found that taking the feedback and comfortability of
customers into account in relation to their services would enable them to improve their
services.
The shift from consumer electronics (CE) and information technology (IT)
companies has contributed to how people consume music. Corporate interest in music
consumption is dominated by CE companies such as Siemens and Sony merging with
record companies such as Columbia and Polygram Records. These mergers connected
products with personal consumption. The evolution from CE to IT signaled the instant
personalized virtual consumption of music through streamed-based companies like
Spotify (Hesmondhalgh & Meier, 2018). Hesmondhalgh and Meier (2018) suggested that
these rapid changes in technology have caused the devaluation of music by the consumer.
39
Klein et al. (2017) explored the nuance of how music artists are compromising
value in their work to gain economic independence. This goal of creating value leads
musicians to partner with companies for profit, which once was deemed hazardous to
remaining in control of original works. While technology has offered more exposure to
music artists, it has also paved the way for increased intense competition from major
record labels and a decline in record sales (Kiresci, 2021). In their research, Sanchez-
Olmos and Castello-Martinez (2020) concluded that multiple alternative sources of
generating revenue have emerged, and that selling single songs and albums is no longer
effective.
Brand placement is viewed by artists as a way to counteract the disruptive
innovation of streaming platforms for increasing their sales (Sanchez-Olmos & Castello-
Martinez, 2020). Cobranding can strengthen the influence of the collaboration between
two entities through positive association (Ordanini et al., 2018). It is suggested that brand
alliance can strengthen the quality perceived by the consumer of two brands working
together (Kupfer, 2018). For example, music artist Patti LaBelle was able to expand on
her career by cross-branding with cookbooks, hosting a cooking show, and becoming a
spokesperson for reputable brands, increasing visibility and brand value (Vesey, 2018).
The Sharing Economy
Sharing economies are a form of disruptive innovation that changed how
customers pay for and receive their product, with the projected profit gain of $300 billion
by 2025 (Munoz & Cohen, 2017). Munoz and Cohen (2017) suggested that the lack of
knowledge about how these economies are structured has caused tension between
40
protecting businesses and the consumer. By researching the different business models
that exist, Munoz and Cohen (2017) discovered that there is no concrete way to define
what constitutes a sharing economy.
Because of the advancement of technology, online streaming economies have
evolved, causing more attention to be placed on the significance of creating value for the
customer. Zhang et al. (2018) found that this phenomenon leads to a shift in how a
company creates a loyal customer following. Creating value requires both supplier and
customer participation through direct interaction. Through this type of interaction, the
customer perception of a service offered can stimulate them to invest in a product or
service (Zhang et al., 2018).
The sharing economy has provided a more convenient and less expensive way for
customers to obtain services and goods while creating trust and value. Kathan et al.
(2016) pointed out that due to the rapidly growing pace of modern technology,
regulations that would support fairness within a sharing economy are not always
followed. Although establishing a sharing economy could aid in an individual generating
extra income, it may not offer financially sustainable means of income. Further research
could indicate how sharing economies can create a balancing effect to satisfy both the
customer and the company in building a positive and progressive business relationship
(Kathan et al., 2016).
Crowdfunding
Small and medium-sized businesses are intricate in introducing new ideas and
products to a market. Crowdfunding has become an alternative for small and medium-
41
sized enterprises (SME) to obtain their financial resources and pay off debt (Kit, 2021).
However, compared to larger companies, SMEs are at a disadvantage when it comes to
obtaining funds from larger entities. According to Kit (2021), by gaining access to funds
through crowdfunding instead of large financial corporations, SME oweners gain a
financial advantage, increase market visibility, and establish close business relationships.
The music artist can be viewed as an SME in this capacity as it pertains to generating
revenue for the creation and development of music independently.
Crowdfunding has eliminated the need for artists to look to record companies as
intermediaries, because of fans becoming more involved in their music listening
experience. The elimination of barriers between artists and fans became evident with the
rise of the internet in the 1990s and the lack of marketing research done by record
companies (Galuszka & Brzozowska, 2017). Although crowdfunding is a way to engage
the consumer, Galuszka and Brzozowska (2017) pointed out that it has yet to increase the
sale of albums and status for the artists.
Social Construct of the Music Industry
Emails and Websites
Sending emails is a direct marketing approach that helps strengthen the loyalty of
customers. Distributing emails to consumers is a part of the social construct of business.
Email marketing helps to effectively build customer engagement (Bismo & Sukma,
2019). The one-way communication of emails used by business executives aids in
businesses building relationships with clients to inspire them to view a company’s
website (Civelek et al., 2020). Developing a website helps executives engage with and
42
inform clients of what their company offers in a detailed manner and encourages people
to perform an action which is an effective marketing strategy (Vasiliu, 2020).
Social Media
One of the most widely used digital marketing tools in business is social media
(Bismo & Sukma, 2019). Burrati et al., (2018) pointed out that social media markets
helped executives participate more in direct communication with consumers. From a
business perspective, social media makes it possible for business owners to overcome
their lack of resources and create collaborative opportunities. The same approach could
apply to artists who use these platforms to engage their fans as a second avenue to bring
awareness to their music. Social media outlets have changed the way people
communicate with one another. Venciute (2018) posited that the internet and social
media have made it faster for people to communicate with one another, building
consumer loyalty over time. Not only are social media platforms used as an engagement
tool, but the outreach to the consumer is on a larger scale, and aids company leaders in
understanding their markets. As suggested by Venciute’s (2018) research, social media
could be considered part of a company’s overall marketing strategy.
Social media has allowed consumers to engage directly with companies. In their
study Bismo and Sukma (2019) found that social media provided a convenience to
consumers to find information they needed, making the consumer intent to purchase from
a business greater. Researchers have suggested that there is a connection between the
increase in sales for artists and consumers engaging an artist’s social media content
(Kupfer et al., 2018). In addition, participating in social media marketing is seen as a key
43
factor in building relationships beyond a financial transaction (Shabbir et al., 2020).
When interacting on social media, the artist becomes the company in which consumers
are seeking to engage. This type of outreach enables an artist to develop an emotional
bond with consumers.
According to Saboo et al. (2016), musicians ranked in the top ten of people most
followed on social media. Visually pleasing content can be created to capitalize on the
awareness of the average social media user. Ramadanty et al. (2020) found that coupling
creative visuals with text in social media posts and the timing of the posts is received at a
higher intensity than using text in a post alone. Social media platforms act as both a tool
to raise awareness and a tool for professional development.
Musicians, as well as those in other careers, can increase marketing opportunities
by creating ecosystems of like-minded individuals and engage more people through their
social media circles (Tribulski, 2020). The addition of followers could serve as guidance
for artists as they navigate their roles as DIY entrepreneurs. Shabbir et al. (2020)
concluded that social media marketing coupled with relationships with customers leads to
an increase in customer engagement which leads to more potential for sales. The
interaction between artists and consumers could shift the products offered by artists
which are rooted in consumer feedback. According to Tribulski (2020), the observation
of the new music industry’s social media interaction enhanced other traditional media
activity, bringing more awareness to an artists’ personal and professional lives.
44
Music Streaming Platforms
Spotify and similar streaming platforms claimed that their interactions with both
their customers and their business-to-business relationships with record companies and
artists worked in the artist’s favor. With limited research conducted to measure how
profitable the relationship with the artist had been, researchers turned their focus to
dissecting the process of how music is obtained and distributed to maximize customer
behavior and artists’ satisfaction. Popular online music streaming platforms like Spotify
aligned with social media in the sharing of information to connect with consumers, which
increased a customer’s network with each other.
The leveraging of social media platforms has allowed artists a direct-to-fan
interaction. Haynes and Marshall (2018a) suggested that the direct-to-fan interaction
brought on by social media platforms enabled artists to sell directly to their fan bases.
The ability to connect with consumers has dismantled the traditional music business
model which focused on industry led interactions minus the artist. Hagen and Luders
(2016) tested the theory of music acting as a social construct to bring people together in a
broader supportive community and concluded that streaming enables consumers to
influence each other.
Online streaming platforms can vary from geographical location, making it
difficult to determine if these platforms are achieving connectedness (Hagen & Luders,
2016). Hagen and Luders’s (2016) concluded that file sharing for customers depended on
what they perceived as private or public when it comes to their information. These factors
ultimately shaped how a customer related to others and provided a look into how they
45
interacted on online streaming platforms. Hagen and Luders (2016) suggested that
customers are in control of their music streaming and sharing experiences.
Spotify offers a diverse range of music for customers to choose from. Through
acquiring the music intelligence company, The Echo Nest, executives at Spotify sought to
expand their global reach in hopes of regenerating money back into the music industry,
based on reshaping the customer experience. However, the creators of Spotify received
criticism for having too many repetitive music looping cycles that took away from the
consumer listening experience (Snickars, 2017). Through reverse engineering, Snickars
(2017) conducted a study using bots as dummy customers on Spotify, to gain an
understanding of the platform algorithms and how music is chosen for replay and
looping. Snickars (2017) concluded that the repetitive nature of Spotify algorithms failed
to create a personalized customer experience.
Streaming Platforms Advantage and Disadvantage
Online music streaming platforms offer an alternative selling method to record
companies and artists. A study by Lee et al. (2016) focused on the effects of legal music
streaming on artists’ revenue and the contrast between digital and physical products.
According to Reinhardt and Gurtner (2018), record companies failed to see the potential
of online streaming as being disruptive or beneficial and failed to prepare for the possible
change within the business structure. Lee’s et al.’s (2016) research showed that online
sales have a positive impact on overall records sales, prompting a customer to seek out
music products (i.e., CDs and LPs) offline. The study done by Lee et al. (2016) did not
46
consider the legal ramifications that record labels and specifically independent artists
faced.
Record companies have an advantage over independent artists because they have
control over a wide range of music. This control gives the record company the ability to
negotiate prices with the online streaming platforms on their terms leaving independent
artist limited negotiation power. Major record label executives are afforded the power to
negotiate for exclusive content, company shares, and lower royalty rates with online
music streaming companies (Huffman, 2019). The unpaid consumption of music by
customers causes a reduction in revenue for the artist. It is suggested that the decline in
revenue for the artist started occurring when consumers engaged in file sharing, with
revenue slipping by 75% (Aguiar & Waldfogel, 2016). This free consumption affected
not only what the artists was paid but impacted the way that producers and other creatives
were paid (Aguiar & Waldfogel, 2016). If the creative entities behind a music project do
not get paid, it creates a scarcity within production.
Haynes and Marshall (2018a) pointed out that there are benefits for artists that
engage with online music streaming platforms, which could offer them global exposure,
direct engagement with their fan base, and an opportunity to sell more than music. It is
suggested that artists embrace streaming platforms as an ally and include them in their
online streaming strategies (Reinhardt & Gurtner, 2018). The inclusion of online
streaming into an artist’s business strategy could draw more attention to an artist’s brand
and prompt the consumer to invest more in the artists’ brand. While easy access to these
platforms is great for the artist, the streaming platforms are oversaturated with music,
47
thus hindering revenue to support the endeavors of the artists (Haynes & Marshall,
2018b). However, Hesmondhalgh (2020) pointed out that the inclusion of streaming
platforms in an artists’ overall business model has increased revenue by 25% which is
slightly higher than the rate of 5% to 10% from record sales in the 1900s and early2000s.
Oversaturation could prompt an artist to find other methods of generating income.
Playlists
Playlists have become a popular way for consumers to discover new music on
streaming platforms and an artist standard because consumers may not favor full albums
over listening to single songs. Some artists address playlists as being a body of work, that
if following the most recent addendum to the Copyright Act, would be deemed a body of
work that could be protected (Misrok, 2019). Playlisting is used by digital music
streaming platforms to assist in the discovery of new music by artists and to administer
pay per stream accordingly (Morgan, 2020). Zhang and Negus (2021) pointed out that
playlisting helps record companies specifically in their attempts to direct the listening
habits of the consumer. Playlists can be separated into curated and noncurated playlist.
Unlike third party noncurated playlists, both Spotify and Apple Music have playlists that
are curated by consumers who create a unique marketing experience for songs that are
chosen for featured playlists on those platforms (Morgan, 2020).
When placed into the broader scope of rights for all individuals involved with
online streaming platforms, some hurdles remain to be worked out within the online
streaming business structure. For example, in 2015 recording artist Cari Fletcher credited
her financial success as an independent artist to being discovered through the New Music
48
Fridays playlist on Spotify, which helped them create a global fanbase (Hackett, 2019).
New Music Fridays is structured as a day that Spotify features 50 new songs in each
country that Spotify does business in, with the possibility of additional visibility for
music artists (Aguiar & Waldfogel, 2021).
Transition and Summary
Section 1 of this study consisted of an introduction to the study, problem
statement, and nature of the study that supported using a multiple case study design.
Included in Section 1 were the research questions, interview questions, conceptual
framework, and the significance of the study, as pertinent aspects of the study. The scope
of my study was to explore business strategies music artists used to create a steady
revenue stream in a music streaming environment. As changes have occurred rapidly in
how companies distribute music to consumers through streaming music platforms, music
artists need to understand how to navigate through the changes.
A thorough literature review of research that reflects the past and current state of
the music industry was developed. A breakdown of the role of the researcher,
participants, research methods and design, population and sampling, ethical research, data
analysis, reliability, and validity will be detailed in Section 2. Section 3 will include the
findings of the study, applications of professional practice, implication of social change,
recommendations for action and further research, reflections, and conclusions.
49
Section 2: The Project
In Section 2, I discuss (a) my role as the researcher, (b) qualification criteria for
those who participated in the study, (c) rationale for selecting and using the research
method and design, (d) population definition and sampling procedures, (e) employed
ethical standards, (f) data collection instruments used, (g) data collection and
organization, (h) data analysis process and steps, and (i) means for assuring the study’s
reliability and validity.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the online
streaming business strategies that music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream.
The target population consisted of six music artists in the New York City area who have
maintained a steady revenue stream by distributing their original music on online
streaming platforms in the past 5 years. The implications for positive social change
include improving the financial sustainability of music artists, which in turn improves the
quality of life for working musicians and allows them the opportunity to use their musical
talents to benefit citizens of their communities. Music can be used as a form of medicine
and therapy. Health care professionals use music by having a patient listen to their
favorite music to treat various ailments such as anxiety and stress (Monsalve-Duarte et
al., 2021). Music therapy has been credited with improving the physical, mental, and
spiritual aspects of life. For example, physical therapy that uses music is known to
improve balance and mobility in Parkinson’s disease patients (Sotomayor et al., 2021).
50
Role of the Researcher
My role as the researcher was to collect and analyze data in an unbiased and.
objective way. The role of a researcher in the data collection process is one of
detachment, being a part of the research as an instrument for collecting and analyzing
data (Clark & Veale, 2018). Coming from a family of entertainers, I watched the slow
decline of artists’ revenue firsthand through family members and friends. Artists I knew
were either released from their agreements with record companies or chose to become
independent artists free of being controlled by record label owners, both of which had an
effect on their revenue.
Not all biases can be eliminated from research, but as Wadams and Park (2018)
pointed out, biases should be recognized and addressed by a researcher. As a researcher, I
needed to be aware of my personal biases when conducting research. Because of my
familiarity with the business problem, I remained mindful of not imposing my personal
beliefs on my participants, and I used multiple sources of data to confirm the findings in
my study. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), people are a good instrument for data
collection because they can deconstruct thought and gather understanding of participants.
When conducting this study, I followed the ethical standards of the Belmont
Report. The Belmont Report is the ethical guide that protects the rights of human
participants involved in the research process, with emphasis on respect of persons,
beneficence, and justice (Redman & Caplan, 2021). The respect of persons, as described
in the report, is recognized as participants having the right to participate in a study or not
and to make proper allowances for participants who are vulnerable in a process (Fox et
51
al., 2021). To ensure voluntary participation, all participants gave consent beforehand by
responding to the invitation/consent letter with the words I consent. By engaging in
beneficence, I as the researcher vowed to do no harm by making participants aware of
any events during the research process that may have been a potential risk to them, which
leads to the third principle of justice or treating each participant fairly throughout the
process (Fox et al., 2021).
To mitigate potential research bias, I used member checking, which allows
participants to correct data and the researcher the chance to obtain additional information
to reach data saturation (Motulsky, 2021). I also engaged with participants I did not have
a personal or professional relationship. However, I established a rapport with participants
so there were no limitations on the depth of the data collected (Thurairajah, 2019).
An interview protocol is vital to gain useful qualitative data (Yeong et al., 2018).
Establishing an interview protocol framework helped to refine the semistructured
interviews I conducted. Developing a plan of action for an interview ensures a researcher
fully informs the participant about the nature of the study (Castillo-Montoya, 2016).
Furthermore, Yeong et al. (2018) pointed out that by developing an interview protocol, a
researcher can develop their interview process.
Participants
Participants for this study consisted of six music artists in the New York City area
who maintained a steady revenue stream by distributing their original music on online
streaming platforms in the past 5 years. Social platforms and the use of technology is
unreliable if not for the user (Jordan, 2018). In the case of music artists for this study, the
52
artists were the users of internet technology for purposes of generating income through
their music; the artists and their business strategies were the primary focus of the study.
For participants to be eligible for this study, they had to be 18 years of age with at least 5
years of experience in generating revenue with their music via online streaming
platforms, online aggregators, and other revenue streams to establish consistency of the
music artist within a digital industry. These criteria helped to build the validity and
reliability of the study findings. Creating validity and reliability increases the
transparency of research while decreasing researcher bias (Fusch et al., 2018).
The search for participants began with researching successful music artists whose
home base was in the New York City area. I gathered a list of profiles of independent
music artists by conducting a Google search, social media search, access to colleagues
directly connected to potential participants, and direct access to independent music
artists. I initiated contact with participants through introductory emails, phone calls, and
personal visits to public events where the artists were participating. I needed to establish
a level of comfortability with the participants and find common ground as the researcher.
Achieving comfortability and rapport helps to establish mutual trust and respect, leading
to voluntary communication (Sivasubramaniam, 2021). Also building rapport with
participants in the form of a question that shows interest in the participant can help a
researcher establish a sense of comfort with the participant (McGrath, 2019).
53
Research Method and Design
Research Method
A methodology is used to develop new knowledge about a research topic and lay
the foundation of how a researcher will conduct their research to achieve desired results
(Abutabenjeh & Jaradat, 2018). Researchers use qualitative methods to conduct in-depth
studies of a phenomenon by collecting rich narratives through people’s real-life
experiences and the meanings attached to them (Moser & Korstjens, 2018). Unlike
quantitative research, which uses a structured approach, qualitative research uses an
unstructured approach that allows researchers to use tailored methods in research
(Cypress, 2018). A qualitative method was appropriate for this study to explore business
strategies used to generate revenue from online streaming platforms.
Both quantitative and qualitative research focuses on data and segmenting of a
phenomenon as an object of interest (Park & Park, 2016). Park and Park (2016) suggested
that qualitative research methods focus on a field study in natural settings, and the
researcher often looks for patterns within the data. The research methods differ in that
quantitative research functions in a controlled environment in which researchers make
predictions, measure their findings, and seek to justify the research (Park & Park, 2016).
In answering the what and how of research, using a quantitative research method will
only answer and expose trends in research but does not answer the why of how
phenomena came to be (Bush & Amechi, 2019). Although there were similarities in the
experiences of the music artists observed for this study, there were also unique
differences in each artist’s experience, which would have made it challenging to use a
54
structured quantitative method to capture the complete experience of the music artists’
interactions with online streaming platforms.
Music artists can be viewed as entrepreneurs, and as such, each artist has a unique
set of experiences and business practices in mind. Quantitative statistics can vary, causing
a broad range of data collection that could take an unmeasurable amount of time to get
concise research results. Because qualitative and quantitative research methods are used
to seek opposite outcomes, one in a controlled environment and the other in a natural
environment, using a mixed research method would have proven challenging. Mixed-
method research relies on using both quantitative and qualitative variances, which could
become costly and similarly time consuming (Dawadi et al., 2021).
Research Design
The multiple case study served as the appropriate design for this research. A case
study can answer the how and why of a phenomenon, emphasizing data collection
through interviews, archives, and observation (Zahle, 2019). As an extension of a single
case study, multiple case studies can deliver more robust results that either illustrate
replications or significant contrasts between cases (Yin, 2017) and increases the
understanding of a phenomenon (Zahle, 2019). I used the interview process to achieve
data saturation. Bansal et al. (2018) suggested that drawing on the data found through
participant experience can move theory into new directions, especially when the research
in each area is understudied.
In contrast to case studies, other strategies such as phenomenology and
ethnography are specifically rooted in the direct observation that goes beyond the surface
55
to gain an in-depth understanding, which requires an extensive amount of field study and
is the key component in those types of studies (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). A researcher
can think of ethnography as describing and observing culture (Magnat, 2018).
Ethnography is focused on studying a group over a long period and involves participation
and observation to interpret data (Mohajan, 2018). The business of music consists of
skilled practitioners who unless already involved in that industry would make it difficult
to grasp. Therefore, ethnography was not ideal for this study.
Population and Sampling
The population for this qualitative multiple case study consisted of six music
artists in the New York City area who, within the past 5 years, had successfully published
and independently distributed their original music using online streaming along with
other revenue streams. A researcher determines the sample size of a study by a
predetermined purpose, time, and resources that illustrate transferability and discovery
(Bush & Amechi, 2019). Purposeful sampling involves selecting participants based on
who would be the most informative, contingent on the researcher’s judgment (Korstjens
& Moser, 2018).
To be eligible to participate in this study, participants had to be music recording
artists who use online streaming business strategies to maintain a steady revenue stream.
A researcher reaches data saturation when they can emphasize depth and quality, and
there are no new themes and no new data discovered within the interview process (Fusch
& Ness, 2015). Data saturation is intricate in assessing validity in research, which is
determined by how many interviews will be enough to achieve saturation and other
56
factors such as the scope of the study, research method and design, nature of the study,
and information obtained from the participant (Aldiabat & LeNavenec, 2018).
Eligibility requirements for participants included being 18 years or older and
being an independent music artist in New York City for a minimum of 5 years. Each
participant had to have revenue means that may have included but were not limited to
digital music sales, publishing royalties, merchandising, and live performances. I
conducted each interview via a secured video conferencing link and asked participants to
select a private open environment, to ensure participant comfortability. Research done by
Hoogesteyn et al. (2019) showed that providing a spacious open environment for a
participant makes a participant comfortable with disclosing information. Also, choosing a
private place free of distraction helps in achieving a quality recording of the interview
(McGrath et al., 2019).
Ethical Research
Those who participated in my study did so voluntarily and did not receive
compensation for their participation. Because there were human subjects involved in this
research study, I sought approval by the Walden University Institutional Review Board.
Osborne and Luoma (2018) pointed out that research conducted under the IRB
jurisdiction follows the standard rule of research, which is the rule of ethics for all
government-funded human subject research in the United States. Upon approval from
Walden University’s IRB, each participant was contacted and sent an invitation/consent
letter to participate via email.
57
In the invitation/consent letter, I disclosed the purpose of my study, the nature of
participation, participant confidentiality, and all other ethical matters. Participants who
were invited to participate in the study responded with the words I consent if they chose
to participate. Participants had the option of withdrawing from the study at any time by
sending an email expressing their desire to withdraw from the study without
consequence.
I also detailed the purpose of the research study in the invitation/consent letter,
including participant expectations and the safe storage of the data. I addressed the
purpose and significance of my research study, the measures of confidentiality, and the
intended audience who would benefit from my study in the invitation/consent letter.
According to McMillan and Schumacher (2006) and Nomazulu (2018), the identity of
participants should not appear anywhere in the research. To ensure the privacy of
participants and that participants’ identities were not compromised, I used alphanumeric
identifier codes, assigning the letter A to identify artists (A1, A2, A3). Kamanzi and
Romania (2019) suggested that confidentiality entails not revealing who participates in a
study with only the primary researcher being privy to that information. I provided
participants a copy of the outcome of the study results for general distribution.
As per the requirements established by the IRB, I secured all data used and
collected in the research process in a locked file cabinet, which will remain there for 5
years from the date of this completed study. After 5 years, I will permanently delete all
digital data and shred all transcripts related to the study. The identity of each participant
will remain confidential within, during, and after the research process, ensuring that no
58
identifying factors between the participant and their response will be in the published
study (e.g., names, physical location, business relations). I obtained approval from
Walden University’s IRB before any data were collected. The IRB approval number for
this study is 09-10-20-0668175.
Data Collection Instruments
As a researcher, I acted as the sole data collection instrument. I used
semistructured interviews, which Brown and Danaher (2019) described as having a list of
specific questions that participants can answer freely. I used semistructured interviews to
explore the online streaming business strategies that music artists use to maintain a steady
revenue stream. Each interview conducted was for approximately one hour, with the
primary goal being to collect as much data as possible from each participant. I took notes
and recorded participant responses using a digital recording device designated solely for
use with my study.
An interview protocol (Appendix A) was my guide for conducting a successful
interview with each participant. Researchers use interview protocols to ensure that the
interview process remains systematic and for achieving relevant and comprehensive data
in the specified time allotted for the interview (Yeong, et al., 2018). To ensure that
answers were relevant, I asked the same questions of each participant, which consisted of
six open-ended questions (Appendix A) used to explore business strategies of music
artists, to generate revenue when using online streaming platforms.
To check the accuracy of the data collected through the interview process, I used
member checking. Member checking involves validation from participants who can
59
check the intended meanings of their responses (Smith & McGannon, 2018). I gave
participants a chance to review my interpretation of the information they provided, and to
make any changes needed for assuring accuracy via the member checking follow-up
interviews.
Data Collection Technique
Once Walden University IRB approved my study, I collected data. The primary
data collection technique for my study was semistructured interviews. Interviewing is a
way to receive first-hand information that a researcher may not have obtained through
other methods (Kaliber, 2019). Kaliber (2019) pointed out that semistructured interviews
involve social interaction between participant and interviewer. During the interview
process for my study, I took notes and recorded all responses from participants’ using a
digital voice recorder. Note taking alone can result in key points being missed in the
interview. Recording interviews can help maintain the interviewer’s focus on the content
of the interview so data can be captured more effectively (Brown & Danaher, 2019).
Triangulation is a concept based on the intertwining of either methodology,
theory, investigative collaboration, or data collection (Fusch et al., 2018). Triangulation
requires using multiple external sources of data to assure the reliability of data and to
reach data saturation (Fusch et al., 2018). Data triangulation is essential to gain a rich and
detailed view of the study by obtaining data from different sources, places, and times
(Abdalla et al., 2018).
Therefore, for the triangulation process and in addition to the semistructured
interviews, I conducted a focus group and document reviews. Conducting a focus group
60
gives participants the opportunity to speak on a particular topic for gathering data for
participants’ interactions (Mozhgan et al., 2019). The participants for the focus group
consisted of a combination of four managers, engineers, or producers in the music
industry lived in the New York City area and had at least 5 years of experience in helping
music artists generate revenue with their music via online streaming platforms.
Document review can help the researcher find reason and meaning in resources
that are related to the topic being studied (Bathmanathan et al., 2018). According to
Bathmanathan et al. (2018), a broad source of fixed background information that can be
used to textualize the research being conducted are found in documents. I reviewed
documents and reports from notable reporting sites such as Nielson Soundscan and the
Recording Industry Association of America. In addition, I reviewed profit records from
online music streaming platforms and reports on artists profits that were available from
public records.
I selected all participants for both the interviews and the focus group via
purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is defined as a process of selecting people or
groups that are experienced with the study topic (Stratton et al., 2019). The interviews
took place virtually via Zoom and each participant was asked to find a comfortable
environment, free of distraction, that would give them the freedom to be open and honest
with their answers. Before interviewing participants, they received an invitation/consent
letter to decide if they wished to participate in the study. Each participant was informed
to save or print a copy of the agreed upon invitation/consent letter for their records.
61
Using semistructured interviews entails being systematic in approach with a
predetermined number of interview questions, which helps to maintain focus on the
research topic at hand (Brown & Danaher, 2019). To ensure that I represented
participants’ responses to the interview questions accurately, I held follow-up interviews
to conduct member checking of primary interview responses and interpretations with
each participant. Each secondary interview was also recorded, and all data collected were
included with the primary data.
Data Organization Technique
Data organization techniques are used in research to sort raw data to make the
data understandable (Hartson & Pyla, 2021). Mobile devices make it convenient for those
trying to get work done on the road to gather a large amount of data at one time (Boase &
Humphreys, 2018). The main concern was in the vulnerability of using devices such as
tablets and mobile phone technology to store research. To take extra precautions
regarding the confidentiality of data gathered during the interview process, I used a
digital recording device that I specifically designated for this study and I took notes by
hand. I kept a research journal to keep track of things that I observed during the
interviews and to ensure validity. Notes taken by research journaling during the interview
process can be viewed as raw data which helps in establishing neutrality and
trustworthiness (Amankwaa, 2016). Furthermore, keeping field notes or a research
journal in combination with recorded interviews increases transparency and is less
intrusive to the participant than recording (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018).
62
After collecting all data, I manually transcribed the participant responses and
manually identified common themes and patterns using tables and categories in Microsoft
Excel, along with the completion of data triangulation. I relied on NVivo 11 as a support
software to help identify themes and commonalities that I may have missed initially. I
removed all information that identified the participants by assigning each participant an
alphanumeric label indicated as A1, A2, A3. Data anonymization provides confidentiality
and privacy for the participant throughout different stages of the research process (Frank
et al., 2018). I stored my data electronically by transferring it to a USB flash drive. All
data from interviews, including written notes and the designated digital recording device
was stored in a locked file cabinet, as required by the Walden University IRB, for 5
years. I am the only one to have access to the data collection instruments and will delete
and shred all documents upon the 5-year expiration.
Data Analysis
I used the seven-step process developed by Marshall et al. (2021) for data
analysis. The seven steps were (a) interpreting the data (b) organizing the data (c) data
immersion (d) identifying common themes and patterns (e) categorizing the data (f)
finding alternative understandings, and (g) writing the analysis. After conducting
interviews with music artists in New York City area, I member checked by conducting a
follow-up interview in which each participant was given an opportunity to add to, correct,
or validate their previous responses. I also used focus group data collected and document
review to reach data saturation. Member checking allows participants to correct their
responses that may have been interpreted wrong by the interviewer, strengthening the
63
data (Moser & Korstjens, 2018). The conceptual framework of disruptive innovation was
the guide to interpreting and comparing the findings. According to Smith and Firth
(2011), using the framework approach can help in explicitly describing and increasing the
credibility and transparency of the data. I stopped the interview process once I reached
data saturation, and no new information could be found from the process.
It is essential to use triangulation in research because of the participants’ and
researcher’s world view and biases intentionally or unintentionally present during the
research process (Fusch et al., 2018). Fusch et al. (2018) described triangulation as a
concept based on the intertwining of either methodology, theory, investigative
collaboration, or data collection. There are four types of triangulations used for data
analysis: (a) data triangulation, (b) investigator triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, and
(d) methodological triangulation. Triangulation requires using multiple external sources
of data to improve the reliability of data and reach data saturation (Fusch et al., 2018).
Data triangulation is essential to gain a rich and detailed view of the study by obtaining
data from different sources, places, and times (Abdalla et al., 2018). I used
methodological triangulation for this study. Fusch et al. (2018) describe applying
methodological triangulation as using multiple external data collection methods, aiding in
the researcher reaching data saturation.
To ensure that all steps of data analysis were covered, I transcribed all data
collected from the participants during the interview process verbatim in Microsoft Word.
In duality with traditional coding using paper and colored schemes to differentiate
between themes and patterns, I placed all transcribed data into the data analysis program,
64
NVivo 11, to identify additional patterns and similarities in data that may have been
missed during manual analysis. Using dual methods for identifying themes and patterns
encourages reflection and more significant researcher interaction with the data (Maher et
al., 2018). Also, using the literature review to correlate key themes found while analyzing
data will help in deciphering between what was done before and gaps that may exist in
the research (Xiao & Watson, 2019).
Reliability and Validity
Trustworthiness in qualitative research helps to establish reliability and validity
(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). The information obtained from the participants must be of
value, be able to be used in other settings, be consistent, and be able to be confirmed by
other researchers’ conclusions about the study, to establish trustworthiness (Johnson et
al., 2020). Glenna et al. (2018) pointed out that conventional research wherein the same
researcher collects and analyzes the data makes the research linearly strong and central to
establishing validity, opposed to conducting a large qualitative study that would involve
multiple locations which would bring the quality of a study into question. Based on this
knowledge, I chose to use a small sample size of six participants.
Reliability
Establishing reliability in research entails using legitimate research methods that
are accepted in the research community for collecting and analyzing data and producing
apt descriptions of a phenomenon (Collinridge & Gantt, 2019). For this study I used
methodological triangulation to collect and analyze data and establish reliability. Using
methodological triangulation aids in mitigating bias by using multiple data collection
65
methods for the study (Fusch et al., 2018). According to Collinridge and Gantt (2019),
reliability in qualitative research focuses on finding consistent similarities in results.
Additionally, establishing reliability in the study minimizes bias and error (Yin, 2017).
Credibility and Dependability
Research validity requires ensuring the credibility and dependability of the study
(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Credibility requires enough prolonged engagement with
participants to build trust and produce rich data (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Korstjens &
Moser, 2018). Dependability deals with the findings in a study being consistent and in
line with the standard of research design (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). For this study I
established validity by conducting follow up interviews with each participant. Credibility
and dependability can be established through following up with participants through
member checking, which will allow the participants to give their input on whether the
data collected in the initial interview is accurately reflecting their experiences (Korstjens
& Moser, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018).
Validity
Validity involves producing legitimate results from adequate interviewing,
observation, experience, culture, and theory (Collinridge & Gantt, 2019). Collinridge and
Gantt (2019) stated that validity requires the application of an appropriate method and
applying the method to the research. Validity in research deals with the accuracy of the
findings being investigated for the study (Noble & Heale, 2019).
66
Confirmability and Transferability
Confirmability is the level to which findings are shaped by participants rather than
the interest and bias of the researcher (Amankwaa, 2016). In establishing confirmability,
research findings are derived from the data (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). I ensured
confirmability by using methodological triangulation to see the data in multiple ways
without personal bias. Also, I used transparency in describing the research steps
throughout the research process (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Transferability is the extent
to which findings in one study are useful or can be reproduced in another study (Nassaji,
2020). Transferability can be achieved in research by providing thick description to the
point that external validity can be achieved (Amankwaa, 2016).
Transition and Summary
In Section 2, I explained the role of the researcher, participants, the rationale for
the selected research method and design, population definition and sampling procedure,
methods employed for conducting ethical research, data collection instruments, data
collection technique, data organization technique, data analysis, and processes for
reliability and validity assurance. Section 3 will include the outcome and interpretation of
the research, which identifies key themes and patterns assessed from the data gathering
and analysis process. Section 3 will include potential applications to professional
practice, implications for social change, and recommendations for action and further
research.
67
Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change
Introduction
The purpose of this multiple case study was to explore the online streaming
business strategies that music artists have used to maintain a steady revenue stream.
Information was collected from six music artists who have maintained a steady revenue
stream in the past 5 years by distributing their original music on online streaming
platforms. Information was also collected from one focus group and from streaming
income reports from music artists. The findings from this research will assist music artists
in developing strategies that will consistently help them generate revenue by using online
streaming platforms.
Presentation of the Findings
The overall research question for this study was: What online streaming business
strategies do music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream? I conducted
semistructured interviews and reviewed documents to thoroughly understand the online
streaming business strategies music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream. Four
themes emerged from the data analysis process: (a) marketing, (b) music distribution
channels, (c) cocreation, and (d) live music events.
Theme 1: Marketing
The six subthemes, as summarized in Table 1, for marketing are (a) engaging
customers through social media, (b) creating visual content to post on digital platforms
and social media, (c) selling merchandise to generate extra income, (d) keeping fans
68
updated about products and events through email blasts, (e) seeking out bloggers and
magazines to get music reviews, and (f) maintaining an updated website.
Table 1
Participant Response Percentages of Subthemes for Marketing
Subthemes
%
Engaging customers through social media
100
Creating visual content to post on digital platforms and social media
100
Selling merchandise to generate extra income
71
Keeping fans updated about products and events through email blasts
57
Seeking out bloggers and magazines to get music reviews
57
Maintaining an updated website
43
Note. Percentage is the total occurrence of the subthemes from participants overall.
Social media engagement with fans was something that participants saw as the
most important aspect of their business strategies. Participants agreed that all marketing
should work hand in hand as a calling card to promote their music and make people
aware of their brands. The responses made by the participants aligned with Shabbir et
al.’s (2020) findings on social media marketing and the development of customer
relationships. Participants mentioned that remaining consistent in posting engaging
visuals to social media was important to keep fans interested in what music artists offer.
P1 said:
I do find that making advertisements that either have some kind of video content
that matches up with your song, it doesn’t have to be a full music video, but some
kind of teaser video of some sort garnered me the most views and interest when I
am posting about new releases that I have.
P5, P4, P6, and focus group participant F4 placed emphasis on artists frequently posting
about their latest projects. F4 said, “People like visuals. So, music videos or just videos
69
you create on social media in general—it’s a way to help people connect more to the
music and connect to streaming.”
Due to the disruptive changes to the music business model, music artists have
diversified their offerings outside of music to generate revenue. This change came in the
form of merchandising or selling more than music to fans. P2, P5, P6, and all participants
from the focus group agreed that selling merchandise is an effective alternative way to
generate revenue and build brand awareness, in addition to selling music, which aligns
with research conducted by Everts and Haynes (2021) regarding a musician diversifying
their offerings to generate revenue. P2 explained:
I can start my e-commerce store and design my sweaters and my hats that are the
same theme as my music and then start to sell it on Spotify. Spotify has a feature
where you can turn your page into a store.
Similarly, F4 added that if you have merchandise, you can sell it through
Bandcamp stated, “If you have cassettes, vinyl, shirts or anything, you can sell that.” P5
mentioned that at the festivals they perform at, they sell merchandise related to their
brand more than physical CDs, stating, “Recently when I did a festival, I sold 12 CDs and
$500 worth of t-shirts.” P6 emphasized that being on the streaming platforms may lead to
fans seeking out how they could access and buy their merchandise: “I believe streaming
platforms are advertisement for your brand and for other things. It could lead to other
things that you sell.”
Participants expressed the importance of email blasts, working in conjunction
with other marketing elements to continue to inform fans of what they are offering. P1
70
mentioned collaborating with an artist who has a bigger following and is willing to share
their lists to help an artist spread the word about their latest project. Regarding music
artists distributing information to the fans about their projects, P6 stated, “I did a
newsletter every week. Every single Monday, I put out a newsletter so people knew
where to find me. and I could promote my stuff.” Music reviews were viewed by
participants as being a good promotional tool to have handy for the creation of unique
posts for social media that could be used for the engagement. P4 said, “The best business
strategy for me it’s been a combination of getting some prereleased reviews that I can
share. Some nice pull quotes which are just eye-catching review statements made about
you by writers.”
In alignment with Ramandanty’s (2020) research on the increase in engagement
brought on by creating visual content to post, P1 emphasized keeping an up-to-date
website: “Make sure you have a website that serves as a home base for your artistry, your
merch, people to join your mailing list and you have to really keep it up to date.” In
alignment with P1, P6 stated that his strategy included housing information about music,
tour dates, and other promotional material on a central website. P4 mentioned using other
marketing platforms has allowed them to encourage people to explore their website:
I have been able to steer traffic and customers straight to my website because of
Bandcamp because Bandcamp has allowed me to build up a following of people
who are going to be interested in hearing what I’m putting out.
71
Theme 2: Music Distribution Channels
As summarized in Table 2, the three subthemes for music distribution were (a)
playlisting, (b) distributing directly through standalone distribution platforms, and (c)
using third-party aggregators for distributing music.
Table 2
Participant Response Percentages of Subthemes for Music Distribution
Subthemes
%
Playlisting
71
Distributing directly through standalone distribution platforms
57
Using third-party aggregators for distributing music
57
Note. Percentage is the total occurrence of the subthemes from participants overall.
Some participants felt that playlisting was a tried-and-true method to generate
sales from music streaming platforms. Other participants felt that playlisting was a small
way to bring awareness to their brands. Seen as a collaborative tool, P1 stated, “If you
have someone that is known for making playlists and has a lot of followers on Spotify
that listens to their playlists, those are good to get on as well.” A strategy used by P2 is
contacting playlists curators to be placed on the playlists directly: “That’s how you get a
multitude of people listening to your music and if they stream it and play it—then I get
paid for those plays.” P3 expressed that playlisting was a way that artists could generate
revenue from Spotify: “Getting on playlists will help generate sells from Spotify, but
otherwise Spotify and iTunes do not seem to be big moneymakers for me.” F1
emphasized, “Playlisting is the new radio.”
Some music artists have chosen to either distribute music using a standalone
digital platform such as Bandcamp, whereas others have chosen to distribute through
72
platforms such as DistroKid that send their music out to multiple streaming platforms.
Other artists have chosen to use both standalone digital platforms and digital distributors.
Bandcamp is viewed as both an artist- and customer-controlled platform. P2 uses the
distribution of the digital distributor and emphasized that they like the convenience of a
fast turnaround for distributing their music quickly to music streaming platforms.
P3, P4, P5, P6, and F4 agreed that Bandcamp is the most effective way to
generate revenue from their music. P3 stated, “Bandcamp, which is where you see the
most money as an artist—I can see every time someone buys my album on Bandcamp. It
immediately writes me an email, and I get a high percentage of it for the album.” P4
stated, “Bandcamp, it gives the highest revenue share to the artist.” P5 mentioned that the
Bandcamp feature of direct-to-fan interaction allows them to see who buys their product
and in turn they can personally say thank their fans. P6 mentioned that Bandcamp is free
to artists and offers a variety of sound file types when music is downloaded from the site.
F4 stated, “They have this thing called Bandcamp Fridays where you can sell any music
that you have and get all of your money. That goes straight to you.”
Theme 3: Co-Creation
As summarized in Table 3, the four co-creation themes are (a) online music
streaming, (b) collaborating with other music artists, (c) cross promoting with other
brands, and (d) creating music for film and television.
73
Table 3
Participant Response Percentage of Subthemes for Co-Creation
Subthemes
%
Online music streaming
71
Creating music for film and television
43
Collaborating with other music artists
43
Cross promoting with other brands
43
Note. Percentage is the total occurrence of the subthemes from participants overall.
A small number of participants in the study expressed that streaming does not
make any money; others suggested that streaming platforms help them generate revenue
and provide a gateway to other money-making opportunities in music creation. In
reviewing participant records of artists’ revenue, the income was inconsistent, varying
from making less than $5 to more than $29,000 in revenue per project in a fiscal quarter,
which is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
Revenue From Song Streaming Report Payouts and From Music Licensing
Distribution method
Organization
Payout
Streaming (26,071)
ASCAP
$3.81
Streaming (15,204)
BMI
$1.30
Streaming (14,227)
BMI
$19.39
Streaming (6,751)
TuneCore
$29.24
Streaming (4,294,362)
TuneCore
$5,077.87
Licensing
AFM
$29,106.24
Note. Numbers are based on reports from artists from one fiscal quarter within a 5-year
period.
P3 and P6 credit music licensing as either part of what financially sustains them
or the main source of music revenue. P3 stated, “So I get a license every time I score for
film. That amount of money has nothing to do with the amount of time that it’s played on
74
Netflix or on HBO or whatever it is.” P5 credits streaming platforms and online presence
for their licensing deals:
Somebody stumbled across some of my music and said hey I’m going to use this
in this film. I want to give you this much money. I write jingles and I do film
scoring. Somebody paid me $15 grand to write a 2-minute piece.
P6 suggested seeking out licensing opportunities, as artists begin to mature in their
career: “Streaming is just one piece of the pie. I would never make streaming the whole
pie. As you progress in the industry hopefully you can start making money from licensing
your work.”
Collaborating and cross promotion for participants was seen as a contributing
factor in increasing overall revenue. P2 stated, “Collaborating with artists that are bigger
than me and have a bigger brand will also bring plays to those streaming services and
those plays will monetize. So, I’ll get paid for those too.” P4 emphasized how
collaborating with other artists who are more popular can also create awareness around
an artist’s brand:
I’ve done a lot of collaborating with people just remotely, and the best-case
scenario in those situations is that everybody involved tells their people about it
when it’s finished and it’s available. It’s an opportunity to maybe bring fans of
other people who aren’t aware of me, and it also allows me to a get a little bit
more coverage with reviews and stuff.
F2 emphasized that working on multiple projects is beneficial:
75
Your revenue comes in more when you have your hands in other things that make
sense. So, it is not just a 9 to 5. You got like 4 or 5. You must look at it even in
the streaming services. You have to have multiple outlets.
Theme 4: Live Music Performance
The subthemes for music events were (a) touring and (b) hosting live events.
When the option to tour is not available, artists have turned to performing via streaming
platforms and social media. P1 and P2 emphasized that touring was their main source of
income where they could sell merchandise after their concerts. P3, P5, P6, and F4 shared
that the biggest money maker for most artists is touring. P3 saw touring as a way to
establish a relationship with fans who they would be able to steer toward interacting with
them online: “If I go on a tour and I’m face to face with my audience, then I’m going to
leave the room with a physical copy of something, and then they’re going to remember to
follow me on live.” P5 also answered similarly: “It’s worked backwards for me. Someone
has an experience at my live show and then they start following me online.”
In addition to live shows, P3 performed shows online to generate revenue: “Once
a week, I did an online show that goes on for hours for my fans, and I said you can just
donate what you want, and they’ve been doing that, and it’s helped support me.” Breese
et al. (2020) noted that streaming concerts are a way to connect to fans even if the shows
are live or prerecorded. P5 used prerecorded material to show on their Bandcamp
platform to generate revenue and segue into other sources of income.
76
Applications to Professional Practice
Based on participant interviews, data analysis, and other data sources researched,
music artists could apply the findings in this study to their business practices through
marketing, music distribution, value co-creation, and live music performances. Music
artists can reach more people by creating material with other artists and marketing that
material to a targeted consumer base and include consumers in the creative process.
Furthermore it could be beneficial for music artists to consider developing an
entrepreneurial attitude that encompasses expanding their outreach beyond traditional
online music streaming business strategies. Music artists could also extend their music
offerings to be licensed for television and film projects and brand placement. Partnering
with the right brands can give artists the exposure to develop beneficial relationships for
all stakeholders involved (Rittenhouse, 2019).
Music artists could use various marketing strategies, processes, and tools that
bring about awareness to their brands, leading to the cultivation of client relationships.
By using a proper marketing strategy, artists could identify and focus on a consumer base
that is willing to pay, regardless of the market’s current state (Sheth, 2021). The benefits
created by small business owners building relationships with the consumer are an
increase in revenue and competitive advantage. Sheth (2021) noted that because of
digitalization, consumer behavior has shifted from preferring physical interaction to
online interaction as the primary means for product consumption, with a focus on the
consumer both being the buyer and the user, looking for value in performance and price
consecutively.
77
According to Saragih (2019), cocreation applies to all stages of the music
business value system through the development, promotion, production, and distribution
phases. Music artists could cultivate relationships with other artists who may have a more
substantial consumer focus on engaging and involving the consumer in the music creation
and delivery process. By concentrating on collaborating with other artists to gain a more
extensive consumer base to market to and for selling their music and by engaging the
consumer, artists could create increased value. Artists collaborating with stakeholders and
consumers could create a more robust experience for all stakeholders involved (Saragih,
2019).
According to Nakano (2019), using a digital market supports downloads and
streaming. Based on the findings in this study, artists could use a variety of distribution
outlets, that suits their needs. Knowing this information, the music artist could analyze
what types of digital platforms would be more beneficial, based off operational needs, to
lead to an increase in profits.
Implications for Social Change
Currently, most music artists receive little to no revenue from streaming platforms
unless supported by a team that can assist with those efforts. An artist’s short-term and
long-term goals are usually determined by their team, consisting of agents, lawyers,
producers, and managers. Within the decision-making process, these team members can
make decisions that will either be successful or end an artist’s career, including handling
an artist’s finances (Brabec & Brabec, 2018). As participants in this study have
expressed, music artists have often had to find other ways to generate money from their
78
music, which does not exclusively depend on streaming their music on digital music
streaming platforms.
The cultivating of small businesses could catalyze job creation, adaptability to
social change, and the rapid consumer response in a market (Seisenbayeva et al., 2020).
Walzer (2017) indicated that successful artists are known for working with a team of
creatives to bring attention to their brands collectively and meet their goals. Based on the
findings in this study, the potential contributions to social change include creating
sustainable income for independent music artists in a small business owner capacity and
job creation for key players who aid in music creation and marketability. In such cases,
those that contribute to an artist’s music career, including musicians, producers,
engineers, designers, writers, and more, can benefit from the success of an artist
generating revenue from online music streaming. Job creation could come from these key
players within the music industry cultivating communities or networks that work together
to bring projects to fruition.
Recommendations for Action
Music artists are small business owners who offer a creative service to their
consumers. As such, I recommend music artists develop a business strategy that
emphasizes consumer and brand value. A marketing strategy could be put into place that
creates a shared value between the artist and the consumer. Artists could achieve this by
having a mission and vision to determine their position in servicing their communities
(Grzegorczyk, 2020). I recommend music artists pay attention to where and how they
distribute their music. A benefit of artists strategically distributing their music is that
79
supply chain costs could decrease and value would be created for all stakeholders (Dubel,
2020). I recommend music artists consider collaborating with both brands and other
music artists to increase and bring attention to their brand’s value. Businesses getting
involved in cocreation helps businesses leverage their brand equity and creates a positive
image (Omar et al., 2020). The results of this study can be disseminated to music artists
through music conferences, seminars, and publishing the findings and recommendations
in music and scholarly media.
Recommendations for Further Research
The recommendations for further research include researching team building and
business strategies for music artists, focusing on improving small business structure and
development. This study was restricted to six participants and a focus group of four
participants in the New York area. Therefore, I recommend that researchers expand on
the findings in this study by including a broader demographic of music artists on a
national or international scale. Additionally, when choosing another population to focus
on, I recommend that researchers refine the population to music artists who create a
specific genre of music. The knowledge base on generating revenue from digital music
platforms should also be expanded to include more research on the internal structure of
specific music streaming platforms as it pertains to artist relations with online music
streaming platforms.
Reflections
I focused my study on exploring the online streaming business strategies that
music artists use to maintain a steady revenue stream. I chose this topic because I have
80
watched creatives in the performing arts struggle to reach the goal of financial stability
without taking on secondary employment unrelated to their industry. Instead of staying in
a career with several uncertain outcomes, I chose to exit the music industry in its current
state several years ago and focused on helping small business owners reach their
maximum financial potential. I watched the colleagues I left behind struggle to become
stable because of the emergence of online music streaming platforms.
I wanted to identify and define the gap between the music artist and the ability to
reach financial stability in a rapidly changing industry. Although the participants had
similar techniques for using digital music streaming platforms, it became clear that there
is no definitive and universal standard online streaming business strategy that music
artists follow to generate a steady revenue stream. I did find that the participants were
willing to share their experiences and approaches to generating revenue without
inhibition and were eager to be thorough about how they became successful in their
industry. It was vital for me to seek out artists with whom I did not have any direct
relation because their experiences provided the diverse research that I sought, to address
my research question.
By conducting this study, I understood the importance of strategic business
planning to become a successful small business entrepreneur. Furthermore, these findings
revealed several ways music artists could develop a strategy to increase financially
sustainable opportunities within their industry. By conducting this study, I have been
educated on how important small business entrepreneurship connects to today’s music
artists’ success in a digitally dominated industry. I hope that the findings and
81
recommendations from this study will encourage music artists to rethink their current
online streaming business strategies. Additionally, I hope that by using or adapting the
recommendations in this study, artists could balance being creatives and view themselves
as small business owners, enabling them to obtain success through online streaming
platforms and successfully working with disruptive innovation.
Conclusion
The online streaming business strategies music artists use to maintain a steady
revenue stream are part of a larger business strategy. This business strategy includes the
four themes of (a) marketing, (b) music distribution channels, (c) co-creation, and (d) live
music performances, which were discovered through the data collection and analysis
process. The findings directly related to the disruptive innovation conceptual framework
by identifying ways that music artists use their resources to leverage online streaming
platforms and generate revenue despite changing how music is distributed to consumers.
The collective information gathered from the participants indicated that online
music streaming was used as a specific marketing tool that contributed to generating
revenue in conjunction with alternate means such as music licensing and live events.
Participants discussed the importance of continuing to engage consumers in their creative
processes by consistently presenting engaging material. Using a combination of the four
themes that emerged, the participating music artists successfully generated revenue from
online music streaming platforms.
82
References
Abdalla, M. M., Oliveira, L. G. L., Azevedo, C. E. F., & Gonzalez, R. K. (2018). Quality
in qualitative organizational research: Types of triangulation as a methodological
alternative. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 19(1), 66–98.
https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2018.v19n1.578
Abutabenjeh, S., & Jaradat, R. (2018). Clarification of research design, research methods,
and research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and
practitioners. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 237–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739418775787
Aguiar, L., & Waldfogal, J. (2021). Platforms, power, and promotion: Evidence from
Spotify playlists. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 69(3), 653–691.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12263
Aguiar, L., & Waldfogel, J. (2016). Even the losers get lucky sometimes: New products
and the evolution of music quality since Napster. Information Economics and
Policy, 34(C), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.12.003
Alberti-Alhtaybat, L., Al-Htaybat, K., & Hutaibat, K. (2019). A knowledge management
and sharing business model for dealing with disruption: The case of Aramex.
Journal of Business Research, 94, 400–407.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.037
Aldiabat, K. M., & Le Navenec, C. (2018). Data saturation: The mysterious step in
grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 245–261.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.2994
83
Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research.
Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(3), 121–127.
Arnould, E. J., & Wallendorf, M. (1994). Market-oriented ethnography: Interpretation
building and marketing strategy formulation. Journal of Marketing Research,
31(4), 484–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151878
Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Quality
Sociology, 42, 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
Aversa, P., Hervas-Drane, A., & Evenou, M. (2019). Business model responses to digital
piracy. California Management Review, 61(2), 30–58.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618818841
Bansal, P., Smith, W., & Vaara, E. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative
research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004
Bates, E. (2020). Vinyl as event: Record Store Day and the value-vibrant matter nexus.
Journal of Cultural Economy, 13(6), 690–708.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2019.1668822
Bathmanathan, V., Rajadurai, J., & Sohail, M. S. (2018). Generational consumer patterns:
A document analysis method. Global Business and Management Research: An
International Journal, 10(3), 958–970.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329736689_Generational_Consumer_Pa
tterns_A_document_Analysis_Method
Bazinet, J. B., May, M., Ezaua, K., Singhurst, T. A., Suva. J., Yap, A., Breithaupt, J.,
84
Brown, K., & Niclas, B. (2018). Putting the band back together, remastering the
world of music. Global Perspectives & Solutions, Citi Velocity.
https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps/music-industry/
Bender, M., Gal-Or, E., & Tansev, G. (2021). Attracting artists to music streaming
platforms. European Journal of Operational Research, 290(3), 1083–1097.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.08.049
Bismo, A., & Sukma, P. (2019, August 19–20). Application of digital marketing social
media and marketing and its impact on customer engagement in purchase
interaction: A case study at P.T. Soltius Indonesia [Conference Session].
International Conference on Information Management and Technology,
Jakarta/Bali, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech.2019.8843763
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your dissertation: A road map from
beginning to end (4th ed.). Sage.
Boase, J., & Humphreys, L. (2018). Mobile methods: Explorations, innovations, and
reflections. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(2), 153–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918764215
Brabec, J., & Brabec, T. (2018). Music money and success: The insider’s guide to making
money in the music business (8th ed.). Schirmer Trade Books.
Breese, J. L., Fox, M. A., & Vaidyanathan, G. (2020). Live music performances and the
internet of things. Issues in Information Systems, 21(3), 179–188.
https://doi.org/10.48009/3_iis_2020_179-188
Bromwich, J. E. (2014, July 7). Independent music labels and young artists offer
85
streaming on their terms. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/technology/independent-music-labels-and-
young-artists-embrace-streaming-on-their-own-terms.html
Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2019). CHE Principles: Facilitating authentic and
dialogical semi-structured interviews in educational research. International
Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(1), 76–90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.1379987
Buiey, O. A., Jr. (2019). Copyright’s facelift: An analysis of the new look of copyright
following the music modernization act and the United States-Mexico-Canada
agreement. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 51(1), 217–248.
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2586&context=umia
lr
Buratti, N., Parola, F., & Satta, G. (2018). Insights on the adoption of social media
marketing in B2B services. TQM Journal, 30(5), 490–529.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2017-0136
Business Wire. (2019). U.S. department of justice sides with Global Music Rights.
Business Wire.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191206005449/en/U.S.Department-
Justice-Sides-Global-Music-Rightshttps://tinyurl.com/62t8zadw
Bush, A. A., & Amechi, M. H. (2019). Conducting and presenting qualitative research in
pharmacy education. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 11(6), 638–
650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.02.030
86
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol
refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Chandler, K. (2019). The times they are a changin’: The Music Modernization Act and
the future of music copyright law. Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual
Property, 21, 53–69. https://journals.tulane.edu/TIP/article/view/2691
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great
firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Civelek, M., Gajdka, K., Světlík, J., & Vavrečka, V. (2020). Differences in the usage of
online marketing and social media tools: Evidence from Czech, Slovakian and
Hungarian SMEs. Equilibrium, 15(3), 537–563.
https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.024
Clark, K. R., & Veale, B. L. (2018). Strategies to enhance data collection and analysis in
qualitative research. Radiologic Technology, 89(5), 482CT–485CT.
http://www.radiologictechnology.org/content/89/5/482CT.extract
Colbjornsen, T. (2020). The streaming network: Conceptualizing distribution economy,
technology, and power in streaming media services. Convergence: The Journal of
Research into New Media Technologies, 27(5), 1264–1287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520966911
Collinridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. E. (2019). The quality of qualitative research. American
Journal of Medical Quality. 34(5), 439–445.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860619873187
87
Cypress, B. (2018). Qualitative research methods: A phenomenological focus.
Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 37(6), 302–309.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000322
Dahrooge, J. J. (2021). The real Slim Shady: How Spotify and other music streaming
services are taking advantage of the loopholes within the Music Modernization
Act. The Journal of High Technology Law, 21(1), 199–241. https://cpb-us-
e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/5/1153/files/2021/01/Dahrooge.pdf
Danielsen, A., & Kjus, Y. (2019). The mediated festival: Live music as trigger of
streaming and social media engagement. The Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, 25(4), 714–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517721808
Davis, G. (2017). When copyright is not enough: Deconstructing why, as the modern
music industry takes, musicians continue to make. Chicago-Kent Journal of
Intellectual Property, 16(2), 373–406.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol16/iss2/7
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R.A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on
its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education,
2(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20
Demos, S. E. (2016). The Fair Pay Fair Play Act of 2015: Does Congress Spot-ify a
solution for the music market? Journal of Business & Technology Law, 12(1), 73–
95. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl/vol12/iss1/5
DistroKid. (2021, March). Frequently asked questions. https://www.distrokid.com
Dubel, M. (2020). Transformation of the distribution field under the digitalization
88
process. Business Management / Biznes Upravlenie, 32(1), 86–100.
http://hdl.handle.net/10610/4238
Essling, C., Koenen, J., & Peukert, C. (2017). Competition for attention in the digital age:
The case of single releases in the recorded music industry. Information Economics
and Policy, 40, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2017.05.002
Everts, R. & Haynes, J. (2021). Taking care of business: The routines and rationales of
early-career musicians in the Dutch and British music industries. International
Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(5), 731–748.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368779211004610
Fleischer, R. (2017). If the song has no price, is it still a commodity? Rethinking the
commodification of digital music. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural
Research, 9(2), 146–162., https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1792146
Fox, J., Pearce, K. E., Massanari, A. L., Riles, J. M., Szulc, L., Ranjit, Y. S., Trevisan, F.,
Soriano, C. R. R., Vitak, J., Arora, P., Ahn, S. J., Alper, M., Gambino, A.,
Gonzalez, C., Lynch, T., Williamson, L. D., Gonzales, A. L. (2021). Open science
closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive
research in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 764–784.
https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab029
Frank, R. D., Tyler, A. R. B., Gault. A., Suzuka, K., & Yakel, E. (2018). Privacy
concerns in qualitative video data reuse. International Journal of Digital
Curation, 13(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.492
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative
89
research. Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/3/
Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2018). Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting
triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02
Galuszka, P. (2015). Music aggregators and intermediation of the digital music market.
International Journal of Communication, 9, 254–273.
https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/3113/1298
Galuszka, P., & Brzozowska, B. (2017). Crowdfunding and the democratization of the
music market. Media, Culture & Society, 39(6), 833–849.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716674364
Glenna, L., Hesse, A., Hossain, N., & Scott-Villiers, P. (2018). Ethical and
methodological issues in large qualitative participatory studies. America
Behavioral Scientist, 63(5), 584–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218775782
Grzegorczyk, W. (2020). Links between the creating shared value concept and a
company’s marketing strategy. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 19(4),
51–58. https://doi-org/10.22630/ASPE.2020.19.4.40
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Epistemological and methodological bases of
naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4),
233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765185
Guichardaz, R., Bach, L., & Penin, J. (2019). Music industry intermediation in the digital
era and the resilience of the majors’ oliglopy: The role of transactional capability.
90
Industry and Innovation, 26(7), 843–869.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2018.1561357
Guo, J., Pan, J., Guo, J., Gu, F., Kuusisto, J. (2019). Measurement framework for
assessing disruptive innovations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
139, 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.015
Hackett, R. (2019, July 15). About Fletcher: How Spotify playlisting turned an unknown
into a star. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2019/07/15/cari-fletcher-music-spotify-
playlist/
Haenfler, R. (2018). The entrepreneurial straight edge: How participation in DIY music
cultures translates to work and careers. Cultural Sociology, 12(2), 174–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975517700774
Hagen, A. N., & Luders, M. (2016). Social streaming? Navigating music as personal and
social. Convergence the International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, 23(6), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856516673298
Hair, L. (2021). Friends not ATMs: Parasocial relational work and the construction of
intimacy by artists on Patreon. Sociological Spectrum, 41(2), 196–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2021.1875090
Hampton-Sosa, W. (2017). The impact of creativity and community facilitation on music
streaming adoption and digital piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 69(2017),
444–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.055
Hampton-Sosa, W. (2019). The access model for music and the effect of modification,
trial, and sharing usage rights on streaming adoption and piracy. Journal of
91
Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 14(3), 126–155.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762019000300108
Hartson, R., & Pyla, P. (2021). Theœ UX book (2nd ed.). MK, Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers. https://www.amazon.com/UX-Book-Design-Quality-
Experience/dp/0128053429
Harvey, E. (2017). Siding with vinyl: Record Store Day and the branding of independent
music. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(6), 585–602.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877915582105
Hayashi, P., Abib, G., & Hoppen, N. (2019). Validity in qualitative research: A
processual approach. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 98–112.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3443
Haynes, J., & Marshall, L. (2018a). Beats and tweets: Social media in the careers of
independent musicians. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1973–1993.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817711404
Haynes, J., & Marshall, L. (2018b). Reluctant entrepreneurs: Musicians and
entrepreneurship in the new music industry. British Journal of Sociology, 69(2),
459–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12286
Heins, M. (2018). Going viral: How popular musicians have adapted to the delayed
benefits of copyright protection. Houston Law Review, 55(3), 821–846.
https://houstonlawreview.org/article/3882-going-viral-how-popular-musicians-
have-adapted-to-the-delayed-benefits-of-copyright-protection
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2020). Is music streaming bad for musicians? Problems of evidence
92
and argument. New Media & Society, 23(12), 3593–3615.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820953541
Hesmondhalgh, D., & Meier, L. M. (2018). What the digitalization of music tells us
about capitalism, culture, and the power of the information technology sector.
Information Communication & Society, 21(11), 1555–1570.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1340498
Hesmondhalgh, D., Jones, E., & Rauh, A. (2019). SoundCloud and Bandcamp as
alternative music platforms. Social Media & Society, 5(4), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119883429
Hoogesteyn, K., Meijer, E., & Vrij, A. (2019). The influence of room spaciousness on
investigative interviews. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 215–228.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12156
Hou, S. I. (2021). A mixed methods process evaluation of an integrated course design on
teaching mixed methods research. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching & Learning, 15(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2021.150208
Hu, C. (2019, April 20). The big distro gamble: As streaming continues to fuel recorded-
music growth, investors see companies that get songs onto services as gold mines.
But how much money is there? Billboard, 131(10), 33–34.
Huffman, A. S. (2019). What the Music Modernization Act missed, and why Taylor
Swift has the answer: Payments in streaming companies’ stock should be
dispersed among all the artists at the label. The Journal of Corporation Law,
45(2), 537–556. https://jcl.law.uiowa.edu/sites/jcl.law.uiowa.edu/files/2021-
93
08/Huffman_Final_Web.pdf
Husin, N., & Hidayanto, A. (2018, July 24-26). Impact of piracy on music sales in digital
music transformation - a systematic literature review. [Conference session]. 2018
10th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical
Engineering, Bali, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITEED.2018.8534868
Im, H., Song, H., & Jung, J. (2020). The effect of streaming services on the concentration
of digital music consumption. Information Technology & People, 33(1), 160-179.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2017-0420
Jackson, N. (2021). Payin’ the price to grab a slice of music! A guide to music licensing
for businesses. Cybaris, 12(1), 108–140.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol12/iss1/4
Jari, K., & Lauraeus, T. (2019). Analysis of 2017 Gartner’s three megatrends to thrive the
disruptive business technology trends 2008-2016 dynamic capabilities of VUCA
and foresight leadership tools. Advances in Technology Innovation, 4(2), 105–
115. https://doaj.org/article/dc430f15c9c84476b8ec3961df487346
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of
rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
84(1), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
Jones, E. (2021). DIY and popular music: Mapping an ambivalent relationship across
three historical case studies. Popular Music & Society, 44(1), 60–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2019.1671112
Jordan, K. (2018). Validity, reliability, and the case for participant centered research:
94
Reflections on a multi-platform social media study. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 34(10), 913–921.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1471570
Kaliber, A. (2019). Reflecting on the reflectivist approach to qualitative interviewing. All
Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy & Peace, 8(2), 339–357.
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/750321
Kamanzi, A., & Romania, M. (2019). Rethinking confidentiality in qualitative research in
the era of big data. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(6), 743–758.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219826222
Kang, S., & Moon, T. (2016, January 5-8). Supply chain integration and collaboration
for improving supply chain performance: A dynamic capability theory perspective
[Conference session].49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Koloa, HI, Unites States. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.45
Kathan, W., Matzler, K., & Veider, V. (2016). The sharing economy: Your business
model’s friend or foe. Business Horizons, 59(6), 663–672.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.06.006
Kawamoto, C. T., & Spers, R. G. (2019). A systematic review of the debate and the
researchers of disruptive innovation. Journal of Technology Management and
Innovation, 14(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242019000100073
Kessler, S. (2018). The non-recording, non-artist recording artist: Expanding the
recording artist’s brand into non-music arenas. Vanderbilt Journal of
Entertainment and Technology Law, 20(2), 515–565.
95
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol20/iss2/3/
Kiresci, A. (2021). The impact of innovative technologies on small players in the
recorded music sector: A chronological overview. Creative Industries Journal, 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2021.1939545
Kit, T. W. (2021). Crowdfunding as an alternative financing for SMES and start-ups in
Malaysia: An introductory note from the legal perspective. IIUM Law Journal,
29(2), 221–269. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v29i2.614
Klein, B., Meier, L. M., & Powers, D. (2017). Selling out: Musicians, autonomy, and
compromise in the digital age. Popular Music & Society, 40(2), 222–238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2015.1120101
Ko, T. H., & Lau, H. Y. K. (2015). A brand premium pricing model for digital music
market. International Journal of Trade, Economics, and Finance, 6(2), 117–124.
https://doi.org/10.7763/IJTEF.2015.V6.454
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research part
4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1),
120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Kronenberg, S. (2018). Royalty rates and exclusive releases threaten music streaming.
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 27(3), 633–656.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/scid27&div=23&i
d=&page=
Kupfer, A. K., vor der Holte, N. P., Kubler, R. V., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2018). The role
of the partner brand’s social media power in brand alliances. Journal of
96
Marketing, 82(3), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0536
Lamont, A. (2021). Making a difference with music psychology research: Strategy,
serendipity, and surviving a global pandemic. Music & Science, 4, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043211050018
Larson, T., Cain, J. C., & Auster, J. P. (2018). Music licensing overhaul signed into law.
Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 30(12), 7–10.
https://careers.weil.com/~/media/mailings/2018/q3/ip_media_alert_18_10_11_01.
pdf
Lawrence, D. L. (2021). Addressing the value gap in the age of digital music streaming.
Vanderbilt Law Review, 52(2), 511–543.
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol52/iss2/5
Lee, M., Choi, H., Cho, D., & Lee, H. (2016). Cannibalizing or complementing: The
impact of online streaming services on music record sales. Procedia Computer
Science, 91, 662–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.166
Lee, M., Choi, H. S., Cho, D., & Lee, H. (2020). Can digital consumption boost physical
consumption? The effect of online music streaming on record sales. Decision
Support Systems, 135, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113337
Lenard, T. M., & White, L. J. (2018). The same old song: Instead of yet another
regulation-heavy music copyright law, congress should change its tune and
empower market forces. Regulation, 41(2), 30–35.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2018/6/regulation-
v41n2-6.pdf
97
Li, S., Luo, Q., Qiu, L., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2020). Optimal pricing model of digital
music: Subscription, ownership or mixed? Production & Operations
Management, 29(3), 688–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13131
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Loren, L. P. (2019). Copyright jumps the shark: The Music Modernization Act. Boston
University Law Review, 99(6), 2519–2550. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3481413
Magnat, V. (2018). A traveling ethnography of voice in qualitative research. Cultural
Studies/Critical Methodologies, 18(6), 430–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617742407
Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & de Eyto, A. (2018). Ensuring rigor in
qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786362
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B., & Blanco, G. (2021). Designing Qualitative Research (6th
ed.). Sage.
Martínez-Vergara, S. J., & Valls-Pasola, J. (2020). Clarifying the disruptive innovation
puzzle: A critical review. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3),
893–918. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2019-0198
Maaso, A., & Hagen A. N. (2020). Metrics and decision-making in music streaming.
Popular Communication, 18(1), 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2019.1701675
McDowell, W. (2018). Disruptive innovation and energy transitions: Is Christensen’s
theory helpful? Energy Research and Social Science, 37, 243–246.
98
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.049
McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2019). Twelve tips for conducting
qualitative research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 1002–1006.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149
McGraw, T. (2018). Music streaming: Where interactive & non-interactive services fit
under the Homestyle Exemption. William & Mary Business Law Review, 10(1),
261–293. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr/vol10/iss1/6
McGregor, S.L.T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide.
SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
McLoughlin, K., Lewis, K., Lascelles, D., & Nudurupati, S. (2021). Sustainability in
supply chains: Reappraising business process management. Production Planning
& Control, Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1884764
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence Based
Inquiry (6th ed.) Pearson.
Mejia, P. (2019, July 22). The success of streaming has been great for some but is there a
better way. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743775196/the-success-of-
streaming-has-been-great-for-some-but-is-there-a-better-way
Millar, C., Lockett, M., & Ladd, T. (2018). Disruption: Technology, innovation and
society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 254–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.020
Misrok, T. (2019). How playlists broke the internet: An analysis of copyright in playlist
99
ownership. Cardozo Law Review, 40(3), 1411–1449.
http://cardozolawreview.com/issues/
Mitchell, D. M., Scott, C. P., & Brown, K. H. (2018). Did the RIAA’s prosecution of
music piracy impact music sales? Atlantic Economic Journal, 46(1), 59–71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-017-9567-1
Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related
subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment, and People, 7(1), 23–
48. https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v7i1.571
Monsalve-Duarte, S., Betancourt-Zapata, W., Suarez-Cañon, N., Maya, R., Salgado-
Vasco, A., Prieto-Garces, S., Marín-Sánchez, J., Gómez-Ortega, V., Valderrama,
M., & Ettenberger, M. (2021). Music therapy and music medicine interventions
with adult burn patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Burns, Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2021.11.002
Montoya, J. S., & Kita, T. (2018). Exponential growth in product performance and its
implications for disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Business
and Information, 13(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.6702/ijbi.201803_13(1).0001
Morgan, B. A. (2020). Revenue, access, and engagement via the in-house curated Spotify
playlist in Australia. The International Journal of Media and Culture. 18(1), 32–
47. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2019.1649678
Morrow, N., & Nkwake, A. M. (2016). Assumption-aware tools and agency; An
interrogation of the primary artifacts of the program evaluation and design
profession in working with complex evaluands and complex contexts. Evaluation
100
and Program Planning, 59, 141–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.011
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research part
3: Sampling, data collection, and analysis. The European Journal of General
Practice, 24(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
Motulsky, S. L. (2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative
research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389–406.
https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215
Mozhgan, R., Shokonollahi, P., Edabi, A. (2019). Online focus group discussions: An
alternative approach to data collection for qualitative health research. Nursing
Practice Today, 6(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.18502/npt.v6i1.386
Munoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational
approach to sharing business modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 125, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035
Nakano, D. (2019). Digital music, online outlets and their business models. Brazilian
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(4), 581–591.
https://doi.org./10.14488/BJOPM.2019.v16.n4.a4
Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427–
431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820941288
Naveed, K., Watanabe, C., & Neittaanmaki, P. (2017). Issues and opinions: Co-evolution
between streaming and live music leads a way to the sustainable growth of music
industry: Lessons from the US experiences. Technology in Society, 50, 1–19.
101
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.03.005
Nelson, E. H. (2018). From selling out to savvy strategy: How the O.C. helped change
the stigma licensing indie music. Creative Industries Journal, 11(1), 54–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2017.1419051
Nielson Music Mid-Year Report (2020). [Nielson Music MRC Data Midyear Report U.S.
2020]. Retrieved January 29, 2022 from https://pmc-billboard.go-vip.net/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/NielsenMID-YEAR-2020-us-1594300786.pdf
Noble, H., & Heale, R. (2019). Triangulation in research, with examples. Evidence-Based
Nursing, 22(3), 67–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103145
Nomazulu, N. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research methodology:
Researcher’s reflections. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(1),
19–28. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.1.19
O’Dair, M. & Fry, A. (2020). Beyond the black box in music streaming: The impact of
recommendation systems upon artists. Popular Communication, 18(1), 65–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2019.1627548
O’Reilly, C., & Binns, J. M. (2019). The three stages of disruptive innovation: Idea
generation incubation and scaling. California Management Review, 61(3), 49–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841878
Omar, N. A., Kassim, A. S., Shah, N. U., Alam, S. S., & Wel, C. A. C. (2020). The
influence of customer value co-creation behavior on some brand equity: An
empirical analysis. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 13(2), 165–196.
https://doi.org/10.22059/ijms.2019.280005.673611
102
Ordanini, A., Nunes., J. C., & Nanni, A. (2018). The featuring phenomenon in music:
How combining artists of different genres increases a song’s popularity.
Marketing Letters, 29(4), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9476-3
Osborne, T. L., & Luoma, J. B. (2018). Overcoming a primary barrier to practice-based
research: Access to an institutional review board (IRB) for independent ethics
review. Psychotherapy, 55(3), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000166.supp
Owen, R., & O’Dair, M. (2020). How blockchain technology can monetize new music
ventures: An examination of new business models. Journal of Risk Finance,
21(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRF-03-2020-0053
Ozgur, D., Ortt, J. R., & Seppanen, M. (2017). Disruptive change and the reconfiguration
of innovation ecosystems. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation,
12(3), 9–20. https://doi.org//10.4067/S0718-27242017000300002
Paolucci, M. G. (2021). Developing a forward-thinking strategy for the music industry
[Honors Thesis, University of New Hampshire]. Business Commons.
https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/589/
Papies, D., & Van Heerde, H. J. (2017). The dynamic interplay between recorded music
and live concerts: The role of piracy, unbundling, and artist characteristics.
Journal of Marketing, 81(4), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0473
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus quantitative research methods: Discovery
or justification. Journal of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1
Pathiranage, Y. L., Jayatilake, L. V. K. & Abeysekera, R. (2021). Exploring strategies to
103
establish an effective organizational culture to enhance corporate performance: A
concept paper. Wayamba Journal of Management, 12(2), pp.189–203.
https://doi.org/10.4038/wjm.v12i2
Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research:
Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381–388.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102
Radzinska, M., Podhorecka, M., Zukow, W., & Kedziora-Kornatowska, K. (2018). Use
of music in occupational therapy dedicated to the people in their older years.
Journal of Education Health and Sport, 8(9), 398–404.
https://doaj.org/article/a07bd4d3715a49cdb2a755fe9491b156
Rakic, K. (2020). Breakthrough and disruptive innovation: A theoretical reflection.
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 15(4), 93–03.
https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242020000400093
Ramadanty, S., Safitri, Y., & Suhendra, H. (2020, August 13–14). Social Media Content
Strategy for Higher Education, Indonesia [Conference session]. International
Conference on Information Management and Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech50083.2020.9211216
Rana, M. (2018). Role of music in the development of psychological well-being. Indian
Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 155–158.
https://doi.org/10.15614/ijpp.v9i01.11763
Redman, B. K., & Caplan, A. L. (2021). Should the regulation of research misconduct be
integrated with the ethics framework promulgated in The Belmont Report? Ethics
104
& Human Research, 43(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500078
Reinhardt, R., & Gurtner, S. (2018). The overlooked role of embeddedness in disruptive
innovation theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 268–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.011
Rendell, J. (2020). Staying in, rockoing out: Online live music portal shows during
coronavirus pandemic. Convergence, 27(4), 1092–1111.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520976451
Rittenhouse, L. (2019, March 4). Want your brand to be a hit with consumers? Try
partnering with a musician. Adweek. Rittenhouse, L. (2019, March 4). Want your
brand to be a hit with consumers? Try partnering with a musician. Adweek.
https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/brands-can-unlock-unique-
opportunities-in-making-deals-with-music-artists-if-done-right/
Robinson, P. (2016, December 1). Streams ahead: The artists who made it huge without
radio support. The Guardian.com. https://www.mmor.org/2016/12/streams-ahead-
the-artists-who-made-it-huge-without-radio-support/
Roy, R. (2018). Role of relevant lead users of mainstream product in the emergence of
disruptive 2018. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 314–322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.036
Saboo, A. R., Kumar, V., & Ramani, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of social media
activities on human brand sales. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
33(3), 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.02.007
Sanchez-Olmos, C., & Castello-Martinez, A. (2020). Brand placement in music videos:
105
Artists, brands and products appearances in the Billboard Hot 100 from 2003 to
2016. Journal of Promotion Management, 26(6), 874–892.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1745986
Saragih, H. (2019). Co-creation experiences in the music business: A systematic literature
review. Journal of Management Development, 38(6), 464–483.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2018-0339
Savelkoul, R. (2020). Superstars vs the long tail: How does music piracy affect digital
song sales for different segments of the industry? Information Economics &
Policy, 50, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2019.100847
Sawatsky, A. P., Ratelle, J. T., & Beckman, T. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods in
medical education. Anesthesiology, 131(1), 14–22.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002728
Scalcau, A. (2021). Research methods in discourse analysis: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed-methods approaches. PCTS Proceedings (Professional Communication &
Translation Studies), 14, 114–122. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-
detail?id=992549
Seisenbayeva, A., Gumar, N., Imramziyeva, M., Lapbayeva, S., & Shmanova, N. (2020).
Towards sustainable development via enhancing viability of small businesses
through lending: A case study. Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues, 9(3),
943–950. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2020.9.3(19)
Shabbir, R., Bashir, M., Batool, A., & Abrar, M. (2020). Building business customer
engagement through social media marketing factors. Abasyn Journal of Social
106
Sciences, 13(1), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.34091/AJSS.13.1.29
Sharakhina, L. V., Mikhailov, N. V., Selyankina, K. D., & Semkina, A. S. (2020).
January 27–30). Digital technologies in development of modern music industry
[Conference Session]. 2020 IEEE Conference of Russian Young Researchers in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EIConRus), Russian Young Researchers in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EIConRus), Moscow, Russia.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EIConRus49466.2020.9039328
Shaw, L. (2017, June 8). Taylor Swift returns to Spotify after three-year boycott.
Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/taylor-
swift-returns-to-spotify-after-almost-three-year-boycott
Sheth, J. (2021). New areas of research in marketing strategy, consumer behavior, and
marketing analytics: The future is bright. Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice, 23(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1860679
Simon, J. P. (2019). New players in the music industry: Lifeboats or killer whales? The
role of streaming platforms. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(6),
525–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-06-2019-0041
Simpson, B., Schreier, M., Bitterl, S., & White, K. (2021). Making the world a better
place: How crowdfunding increases consumer demand for social-good products.
Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 58(2), 363–376.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720970445
Sisario, B. (2015, July 15). Business briefing; SESAC settles antitrust lawsuit over
royalty fees for stations. The New York Times.
107
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/business/media/sesac-settles-antitrust-
lawsuit-over-royalty-rates.html
Sivasubramaniam, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2021). International consensus on
effective and ineffective interviewing strategies: A survey of experienced
practitioners. Police Practice & Research, 22(1), 921–937.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2019.1628756
Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research:
Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: The framework approach. Nursing
Standard, 18(2), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.52.c8284
Snickars, P. (2017). More of the same: On Spotify radio. Culture Unbound: Journal of
Current-Cultural Research, 9(2), 184–211.
https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1792184
Sotomayor, M. J. M, Arufe-Giráldez, V., Ruíz-Rico, G., & Navarro-Patón, R. (2021).
Music therapy and Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review from 2015-2020.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111618
Stratton, S. J. (2019). Data sampling strategies for disaster and emergency health
research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34(3), 227–229.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19004412
108
Sukenik, P. H. (2019). The earth belongs to the living, or at least it should: The troubling
difficulty of modifying antitrust consent decrees. North Carolina Law Review,
97(3), 734–772. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol97/iss3/6
Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic
analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6(3), 733–739.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275
Szostak, M., & Sułkowski, L. (2021). Artist, creator, manager, entrepreneur, leader: How
society perceive these identities? Economics & Sociology, 14(2), 209–221.
https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-2/11
Thurairajah, K. (2019). Uncloaking the researcher: Boundaries in qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology Review, 15(1), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-
8077.15.1.06
Tomaszewski, L. E., Zarestky, J., & Gonzalez, E. (2020). Planning qualitative research:
Design and decision making for new researchers. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920967174
Towse, R. (2020). Dealing with digital: The economic organisation of streamed music.
Media, Culture & Society, 42(7–8), 1461–1478.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720919376
Tribulski, E. (2020). Look what you made her do: How Swift, streaming, and social
media can increase artists’ bargaining power. Duke Law & Technology Review,
19 (1), 91–121.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1366&context=dltr
109
Tsang, E. W. K. (2022). Alternative typologies of case study theorizing: Causal
explanation versus theory development as a classification dimension. Journal of
International Business Studies, 53, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-
00477-4
US v. ASCAP, 599 F. Supp. 2d 415 (SDNY 2009). US v. ASCAP, 599 F. Supp. 2d 415
(SDNY 2009). https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/629-music-digital-media-
spring-2019/resources/4.8.10-us-v-ascap-in-re-att-wireless-fka-cingular-wireless-
599-fsupp2d-415-sdny-2009/
Vasiliu, E. (2020). Website design for effective digital audience engagement: A
conceptual framework. Journal of Media Research, 13(3), 70–94.
https://doi.org/10.24193/jmr.38.5
Venciute, D. (2018). Social media marketing from tool to capability. Organizacijų
Vadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai, 79(1),131–145. https://doi.org/10.1515/mosr-2018-
0009
Vesey, A. (2018). Four-octave range and five-star cuisine: Patti LaBelle in the kitchen
and the gender politics of music merchandising. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4),
773–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1478691
Victor, J. (2020). Reconceptualizing compulsory copyright licenses. Stanford Law
Review, 72(4), 915–994. https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/Victor-72-Stan.-L.-Rev.-915.pdf
Wadams, M., & Park, T. (2018). Qualitative research in correctional settings: Researcher
bias, western ideological influences, and social justice. Journal of Forensic
110
Nursing, 14(2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000199
Walzer, D. A. (2017). Independent music production: How individuality, technology and
creative entrepreneurship influence contemporary music industry practices.
Creative Industries Journal, 10(1), 21–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2016.1247626
Walzer, D. (2021). Towards an understanding of creativity in independent music
production. Creative Industries Journal, Advanced online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2021.1960705
Wenzel, J. (2019, November 1). ASCAP goes after Meadowlark bar for $27,000 in music
copyright lawsuit. University Wire.
https://theknow.denverpost.com/2019/11/01/meadowlark-bar-ascap-
copyright/227843/
White, P. J., & Devitt, F. (2021). Creating personas from design ethnography and
grounded theory. Journal of Usability Studies, 16(3), 156–178.
https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/White_JUS_May2021.pdf
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review.
Journal of Planning Education & Research, 39(1), 93–112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Yeong, M. L., Ismail, R., Ismail, N. H., & Hamzah, M. I. (2018). Interview protocol
refinement: Fine-tuning qualitative research interview questions for multi-racial
populations in Malaysia. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2700–2713.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3412
111
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research: Design and method (6th ed.). Sage.
Zahle, J. (2019). Data, epistemic values, and multiple methods in case study research.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 78, 32–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.11.005
Zhang, T. C., Jahromi, M. F., & Kizildag, M. (2018). Value co-creation in a sharing
economy: The end of price wars. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 71, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.11.010
Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., & Chen, P. J. (2018). Engaging customers in value co-
creation or co-destruction online. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1), 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2017-0027
Zhang, Q., & Negus, K. (2021). Stages, platforms, streams: The economics and industries
of live music after digitization. Popular Music Society, 44(5), 539–557.
https://doi.org/10.108003007766.2021.1921909
