- By historic standards, Taylor Swift should be making much more money, Paul Krugman wrote.
- That's as modern technology allows the artist to sing to significantly larger audiences.
- But live performances "serve a smaller niche of demand than they used to," he said in a NY Times op-ed.
Ticket sales for Taylor Swift concerts top $10 million per show — but what stops her from making even more?
It's a question Paul Krugman posed on Tuesday in his most recent New York Times column, which is titled "Is Taylor Swift Underpaid?"
Currently, Swift is out performing on her Eras Tour, touting three-hour performances that outline the many eras of discography. It has led to sold-out concerts across the country, causing speculation on whether Swift may hold the first $1 billion tour.
Krugman noted that the concert business, which pays artists more than record sales do, holds "lessons about the sometimes perverse role technology can play in determining incomes," adding that "the real puzzle here is why Taylor Swift doesn't make even more money."
In fact, lucrative shows are a long-standing industry reality, the Nobel laureate wrote, citing how the 1850s singer Jenny Lind brought in $4.5 million per concert, when adjusted for inflation.
But where Lind would have to limit ticket sales based on the amplitude of her own voice, modern hardware has allowed artists like Swift to sell over 50,000 tickets a concert, Krugman said.
That's as the microphone and advanced sound systems have made it possible for musicians to broadcast their voices across stadiums, considerably larger than the concert halls of the 1850s. It has allowed Swift concerts to book between $11 million-$12 million a night on her current tour.
But after adjusting for today's dollars, that's just over twice the amount Lind made, singing to a smaller audience 170 years ago, Krugman estimated. "As I said, the real question, arguably, is why Swift isn't making even more money."
One reason is that because the venues Swift performs in are so much bigger, the supply of tickets is less scare, he said, though America's larger population today would theoretically offset some of that.
"Another, and I suspect better, answer is that live concerts play a more limited role now than they did 170 years ago," Krugman added.
In Lind's time, concerts were the only way to hear professionally performed music, whereas videos of live performances are ubiquitous today.
"Live concerts are still a special experience; as regular readers know, they're one of my chief pleasures in life. But they serve a smaller niche of demand than they used to," Krugman said.
"In any case, aside from her music, Taylor Swift is giving us food for thought — a reminder both that the effects of technological progress can be more complex than you think, and that the technologies that matter most may also not be the ones you think."