Yosha Wijngaarden

Studies of the music industry have traditionally prioritized its creative dimensions, especially musicians’ activities. When ‘non-creative’ aspects of music creation are examined, they are typically approached through musicians’ own ‘non-creative’ activities. Despite the insistence of scholars to consider both art worlds and ‘humdrum inputs’, less is known about music managers. As a result, their working lives and experiences remain underexplored. Therefore, we ask: what are the routes, routines and rewards that typify contemporary music management in Europe? Based on a mixed-methods approach, we show that music managers are similar to other DIY professionals. Their careers are often informal and self-directed, shaped by learning-by-doing and mentorship rather than formalized training. Their everyday work demands a combination of business acumen and emotional labour, as they mediate between artistic aspirations and market constraints. While financial stability is precarious, participants describe intrinsic rewards as central motivations for remaining in the field.

In arts and culture, funding depends on a wide range of stakeholders forming a complex ecosystem, including the artists themselves, market agents, politicians, policymakers, and, more recently, online platforms. Co-funding mechanisms offer alternatives to fund-seekers needing extra revenue sources, additional donations or ways to share the costs of cultural production among different parties. One type of co-funding mechanism is called “matchfunding”, in which different partners or donors match each other’s contributions. More recently, matchfunding has integrated crowdfunding platforms where the crowd’s contributions are matched with an institutional (public or private) donor. This chapter explores different matchfunding arrangements, provides examples for each type, and discusses the benefits and constraints of channelling public and private funding through (mainly online) matchfunding schemes.

Purpose: This study examines the impact of matchfunding from public and/or private funders on the success of online crowdfunding campaigns. We explore the signaling effects and crowding-in potential of institutional funding in the cultural and creative industries. Study Design: Using a unique dataset of 2,032 arts-related projects from a Dutch crowdfunding platform, we employ stepwise multilinear regression analyses, including moderation and mediation models, to test our hypotheses. Findings: Matchfunding significantly increases the total funding raised and ensures campaign success. Contributions from public partners and early-stage funding demonstrate stronger positive effects compared to private partners and later contributions. While matchfunding may not increase the number of backers, it boosts the average donation size. Contributions: This study advances the literature on alternative finance and cultural funding by providing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of matchfunding via crowdfunding platforms. We introduce new independent variables related to institutional funding, addressing a gap in the context of alternative financing. Implications: Demonstrating that ‘matchfunding matters’ can encourage institutional partners, campaigners, platforms, and backers to leverage online matchfunding. It offers a cost-effective method of pooling resources to support arts, culture, and creativity through crowdfunding platforms.

Recently, developments in blockchain technology have shaken up the creative industries. Especially in the visual arts, NFT trade gained traction. Yet, musicians have also experimented with implementing blockchain technology. Most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, the sales of NFTs were thought to compensate for some of the income loss caused by restrictions on live music. This paper explores why musicians engaged with blockchain technology, specifically by selling their music as NFTs, and how they perceive this affected their income, work practices and business models. Building upon 14 interviews with musicians who have sold their songs as NFTs, we highlight two main motivations for selling music NFTs: commercial autonomy from gatekeepers and platforms, and artistic autonomy. Financial gains were less prevalent and often remained obscured in respondents’ discourses. Above all, this research shows that pursuing autonomy and authenticity remains key for musicians, regardless of their appetite for new financial-technological innovations.

Despite its ubiquity in arts and culture, crowdfunding has limitedly been instrumentalized in policy settings. Yet, with joint contributions by friends, fans, governments, and quasi-public institutions, match-funding of arts and culture through crowdfunding platforms may have benefits: increased revenues for makers and cultural fields, transparency in funding allocation, and stronger community engagement. Drawing upon interviews with regional and local match-funding entities in the Netherlands, we explain how and why they engage in match-funding and what is needed for the collaborative funding mechanism to thrive. Funders are attracted by match-funding’s potential to support relatively large numbers of hitherto underserved makers with relatively small amounts of money, complementary to other funding instruments. Aspects largely overlooked are match-funding’s capacity to leverage resources and install co-decisive processes of public funding allocation. Situated at the juncture of funding, policy, and technology, match-funding requires learning and experimentation with other than reward-based formats to unleash its democratizing potential.

Self-organisation and co-location share a long history in the creative industries. In many of these industries, workers seek to work together and alongside each other in shared workspaces of various kinds. Yet, in the music industries, this practice is less established. This chapter discusses two (partly) self-organised initiatives of musicians in the Netherlands, examining the promises and challenges before, during, and potentially after the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings indicate that despite the potential for knowledge exchange and mutual support, most musicians valued their workspace mainly because it offered facilities (space and time to practise and perform). This was especially important during the pandemic, as it provided a daily goal and structure. As an organisational form in a post-pandemic world, this model could serve as a means to foster resilience especially for early career musicians, providing low-threshold access to essential resources (social, spatial, and symbolic), even during periods of drought.