|Title:||Creator’s Income Situation in the Digital Age|
|Citation:||Cuntz, A. (, 2018). Creator’s Income Situation in the Digital Age. LIS Working Papers 755, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.|
|Link(s):||Definitive , Open Access|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||The data from this study are comprised from a series of secondary datasets being:
1. A dataset during 2002 -2014 from Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) database covering Brazil, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Mexico, Russia and the United States. 2. Microdata in 1999-2001 and 2008 -2010, from the European Value Survey (EVS) waves covering monthly gross household income, job satisfaction levels and sociodemographic information covering EU member and accession states. 3. Data during 2010 to 2015 from Large Scale surveys among alumni from US music and art schools, commissioned by SNAAP, including gross income bands and job satisfaction. 4. Data during 2002-2017 from “Kuenstlersozialversicherungskasse” (KSK) including individual-level annual income/net revenue averages.
|Data Type:||Secondary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||Yes|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
“The digital transformation imposes both opportunities and risks for creativity and for creative employment, with implications for trends in income levels and the distribution of income. First, we consider skill-biased technological change as a determinant of income and labor market outcomes in the arts. Arguably, the IT revolution has changed the demand for certain skills, with creative occupations being more in demand than general employment. Second, we consider declines in the costs of generating new works and artistic experimentation due to digital technologies, and their effect on the barriers to entry in labor markets. Third, we touch upon the rise of online contract labor in certain creative professions as a determinant of income. Here, online platforms can change creators’ access to work opportunities and it may alter the way income is distributed. We find that wage trends for creative workers in the digital age outperform general trends in the population: based on various data sources and various ways to identify creators, we see creators losing less or even gaining a better income position in relative terms. From a policy perspective, results do not lend support to the idea that creators’ income situation has systematically worsened with the rise of the internet and its intermediaries. Evidence on changing distributions of income is ambiguous as trends differ from one country to the next.”
Main Results of the Study
1. Creators’ income situation tends to be better, in relative terms, than the general population’s income in the digital age. Creative workers wage trends are better than those in other occupations. 2. Relative to the total workforce, the net supply of creative occupations labour has increased over time in most countries (LIS data), with the exception that new creators entering artists’ labor markets in Germany is decreasing (KSK data). 3. Income distribution (the income dispersion) is highly country-specific. Some interesting findings include: (1) the income dispersion is more pronounced among self-employed creators than regularly-employed creators. (2) income in creative occupations is less concentrated than in most other occupations. 4. New graduates or creators in early stages of their careers tend to be those more affected by new technologies. However, for them, it is often easier to reinsert themselves in the market than creators in their later career stages.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
1. From a policy perspective, the author claims that the research findings do not corroborate with the belief that creator’s income has systematically worsened with the rise of the Internet and its intermediaries, as it is usually mentioned in the “value gap” debate on stakeholders’ revenue sharing. 2. Therefore, the author argues that policymakers should not focus only on income issues but should also consider non-monetary sources of artists’ motivations when building incentive schemes, implied by the finding that creator’s income has not worsened (surprisingly inconsistent with the belief that the creator’s income has reduced). 3. The author claims that “one-size-fits-all” approach across different creators’ career stages might be insufficient, considering that, first, creators’ in later stage in their careers might find more difficult to re-insert themselves in the market, if they decide to change their career path. Second, the property right system (including copyright) might not work well, facing the increasing dominance of well-established and bourgeoisie artists which might chill the new creators and new content creativity.
Coverage of Study