There is a new paper on that topic by Daniel Winkler, Nils Wlömert, and Jura Liaukonyte. Here is the abstract:
This paper investigates how the use of an artist’s artwork is affected when there is a movement to “cancel” an artist on social media due to their misconduct. Unlike product brands, personal brands are more vulnerable to reputational risks, yet how misconduct affects their use remains poorly understood. We use the R issue. Kelly, we’re exploring the demand for her music following the associated public shock and platform punishments—specifically, the removal of her songs from major playlists on the world’s largest streaming platform. Simply examining the consumption of music after these scandals can lead to the erroneous conclusion that consumers are deliberately boycotting the disgraced artist. We propose an identification strategy to disentangle the processing of the platform and the effects of deliberate listening, the functional variation of the song removal condition and the spatial demand. Our findings indicate that the decline in music consumption is primarily due to supply factors due to the removal of playlists rather than changes in listening intent. Media coverage and calls for boycotts have promotional effects, suggesting that social media boycotts may inadvertently increase demand for music. Analysis of other cancellation cases involving Morgan Wallen and Rammstein shows no long-term decline in music demand, reinforcing the potential promotional effects of scandals due to the absence of supply-side penalties.
Here’s a very useful tweet storm on paper.
The post How do musicians end up being withdrawn? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
Source link