I wouldn't consider Publishing to be the most "productive", I think that term is misleading. Productive - at least to me - is a term that suggests making things.

Publishing doesn't really make anything. They take a product that has already been made and then they control it.

I'm not suggesting that the figures you posted are skewed - I'm suggesting that the description in itself is misleading.

Publishing has been the most revenue-turning side of the business for a long time now, this isn't really anything new. Those involved in that side of the biz placed themselves into the most lucrative side of the business, which was first invented back when sheet music for popular music was all the rage. They knew that this part of the business turned the most revenue for the least amount of work.

The true productivity lives with the artists, musicians, songwriter - and the producers and studios - who make those songs and recordings happen in the first place. They make the product. They produce.

In my book, that means that they are the most productive. But, they also make the least amount of the revenue created by the product, in the grand scheme of things... which is why I have such a problem with the chart you posted. Because it suggests that the publishers are the ones who are the most productive. Productivity and Revenue are two very different things. All you need to do is to look at the music business to see this. It's the perfect example of why productivity does not always equal success - if we consider the amount of revenue made to be the indicator for success, as most people do.

I totally agree with you on that Donny, think the graphic makes that point too.

The chart shows that those who don't 'produce' in the traditional sense (make a product) are the ones who take the most revenue per head and that those who make the basic industry product take a lot less in revenue.
(this is a Marxist analysis!)

But in economic terms, when a country calculates its productivity in GVA (which informs GDP) it will look at these revenue figures to calculate productivity.

How can musicians and producers etc. fight to get higher per capita productivity is the question?

This is data for the UK music business, does anyone know of any comparable data for US?

Any publishers on the forum?!

I'm not sure where this thread is going but at first glance, as usual, this looks to be more of an ad wanting to suck money from starving musicians stranded in a digital world emulating us all. As long as we have computers and 2 fingers replacing people, I have no hope for this as a business for musicians, at least while I'm on this planet. I do have hope for the AV industry though, which really has a lot to do with $ and profit and little to do with real musicians.

So many songs, so little time:

This is next:
http://recording.org/index.php?threads/calgary-radio-station-cuts-songs-in-half-to-appeal-to-short-attention-spans.57449/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/jann-arden-boycotts-radio-station-for-shortening-songs-1.2731163