





































 

VOL. 13 
 2024–2025 

 

The Music Industry: An Entrepreneurial 

Ecosystem 

Charlie Wall-Andrews 

Toronto Metropolitan University 

Wendy Cukier 

Toronto Metropolitan University 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT: This paper conceptualizes the Canadian music industry as an entrepreneurial 
ecosystem, applying an ecosystem lens to a creative sector where artists act as entrepreneurs. 
By examining systemic conditions such as finance, networks, leadership, talent, knowledge, and 
intermediary services, it highlights how cultural, economic, and institutional forces interact to 
generate innovation and value. At the same time, benefits are unevenly distributed: women, 
racialized professionals, and other equity-deserving groups face persistent barriers to 
mentorship, leadership, and professional services. The music industry therefore illustrates both 
the potential and the paradox of entrepreneurial ecosystems. It raises a central question: how 
can an entrepreneurial ecosystem be considered productive when systemic exclusion prevents 
full participation? KEYWORDS: entrepreneurial ecosystem, arts entrepreneurship, music 
industry, inclusion. DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.13.1.225 

1. Introduction 
The music industry is more than a cultural field; it is a dynamic and multifaceted economic 

system shaped by creativity, technological disruption, and evolving patterns of 

entrepreneurship. At its core are musicians and songwriters whose creative labor drives 

value creation, but surrounding them is a complex network of intermediaries, institutions, 

and infrastructures that together determine how music is produced, distributed, and 

consumed (Passman, 2021; Wikstro m, 2013). While scholars have long examined these 

dynamics through lenses such as industrial organization (Negus, 1999), cultural 

production (Caves, 2000), and digital transformation (Tschmuck, 2012), no studies have 



ARTIVATE 13 

2 

applied an entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) framework to understand how the music 

industry functions as a system that enables—or constrains—entrepreneurial activity. 

The EE perspective emphasizes the interdependence of actors and conditions that 

foster productive entrepreneurship within a region or sector (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021; 

Wurth, Stam, & Spigel, 2022). Traditionally anchored in regional studies and high-growth 

firm contexts, EE research highlights systemic conditions such as networks, leadership, 

finance, talent, knowledge, culture, institutions, and demand as critical for 

entrepreneurial success (Stam, 2015). Applying this framework to the music industry not 

only enriches our understanding of cultural and creative entrepreneurship (Beckman & 

Essig, 2012; Woronkowicz, 2021) but also exposes the unique ways in which music, as part 

of the cultural and creative industries (CCIs), complicates conventional assumptions 

about entrepreneurship. Unlike sectors where entrepreneurship is often measured in 

terms of firm growth or venture capital, music ecosystems thrive on intangible value 

creation, symbolic goods, and a precarious labour force of self-employed artists (Hill, 

2019). 

Moreover, viewing the music industry through an EE lens underscores critical 

questions about equity and inclusion. Scholars have noted that entrepreneurial 

ecosystems often privilege already-advantaged groups, and it’s unknown if EE’s risk 

reproducing inequality rather than reducing it (Wurth et al., 2022). These critiques 

resonate strongly in the music sector, where systemic barriers—such as gender 

discrimination, racial inequities, and the underrepresentation of marginalized voices—

continue to shape career trajectories (Smith et al., 2021; Strong & Raine, 2019). Addressing 

these inequities is not only a moral imperative but also a necessary condition for fostering 

a resilient and innovative ecosystem capable of sustaining cultural and economic vitality. 

This paper conceptualizes the Canadian music industry as an entrepreneurial 

ecosystem, drawing on Stam and Van de Ven’s (2021) framework to analyze how systemic 

conditions—networks, leadership, finance, talent, knowledge, institutions, culture, 

infrastructure, demand, and intermediary services—shape opportunities for innovation 

and entrepreneurship. By integrating a gender and diversity lens, the study highlights 

both the enabling features and exclusionary practices within the ecosystem. In doing so, 

it offers a novel contribution to both EE scholarship and arts entrepreneurship research 

by demonstrating how a framework developed in the context of high-growth business 

sectors can be adapted to illuminate the distinctive realities of the music industry. 

Ultimately, this analysis argues that the Canadian music industry exemplifies an EE 

whose vibrancy depends not only on creative innovation and digital transformation but 

also on its ability to address systemic inequities. Positioning the music industry within EE 

theory provides a powerful framework for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to 

better understand how entrepreneurial activity in the cultural sector can drive both 

economic growth and inclusive cultural development. 



ARTIVATE 13 

3 

1.1. Music Industry 

The music industry operates as an interconnected system of live performance, recorded 

music, publishing, and intermediaries that enable artists to reach audiences. Rather than 

a linear value chain, it functions as a network of interdependent actors—artists, labels, 

promoters, publishers, venues, platforms—whose collaboration generates both cultural 

and economic value (Caves, 2000; Passman, 2021). This systemic nature parallels 

entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs), which emphasize how networks, institutions, and 

resources collectively shape entrepreneurial outcomes (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). 

The live sector illustrates these interdependencies, as artists rely on booking agents, 

promoters, and venue owners to access audiences and manage financial risk (Brennan & 

Webster, 2011). In recorded music, digital disruption has transformed artist–label 

relationships, with streaming services and 360 deals redefining revenue flows and market 

access (Marshall, 2013; Kjus, 2022). Publishing and copyright frameworks remain 

essential for monetizing creativity, though inequitable access to rights management often 

disadvantages marginalized creators (Towse, 2017; Smith et al., 2021). 

Digitalization further intensifies the entrepreneurial character required of music 

creators: independent artists are now expected to act as marketers, data analysts, and 

business owners alongside their creative practice (Baym, 2018; Haynes & Marshall, 2018). 

These dynamics mirror EEs by showing how innovation depends on resource flows and 

institutional frameworks and also reveal how inequities in access to networks and capital 

risk reproduce systemic exclusions (Wurth, Stam, & Spigel, 2022; Strong & Raine, 2019). 

1.2. Arts Entrepreneurship  

There is growing interest in the linkages between the arts, entrepreneurship, and 

innovation. Nevertheless, the ideas of arts, entrepreneurship, and of the overlaps between 

them have lacked definition, especially in terms of how arts and entrepreneurship 

interact. This article proposes a definition of art entrepreneurship both as a concept and 

as a topic of study.  

The definition scholars can use to anchor the definition is that “arts entrepreneurship 

is about leveraging opportunities and taking risks in the pursuit of new ideas that 

ultimately support activities in the cultural and creative industries” (Woronkowicz, 2021). 

Arts entrepreneurship is a dynamic intersection of the creative impulse and the 

entrepreneurial spirit with the goal of bridging the aesthetic values of art with the 

economic demands of the market (Beckman and Essig, 2012). Unlike traditional business 

ventures, arts entrepreneurship focuses on the development of innovative ideas and 

ventures in the arts sector, which includes music, visual arts, performing arts, literature, 

and other cultural expressions (Chang & Wyszomirski, 2015). Individuals and 

organizations in this field are motivated by a desire to create, promote, and sustain 

economically viable artistic endeavours (Essig, 2015). The growing recognition of arts 



ARTIVATE 13 

4 

entrepreneurship in academic and practical settings emphasizes its critical role in 

fostering cultural enrichment and economic development, demonstrating how artists can 

also be entrepreneurs who make significant contributions to both cultural landscapes and 

economies (Chang & Wyszomirski, 2015). 

Research on arts entrepreneurship frequently emphasizes the unique challenges and 

opportunities that artists and cultural organizations face as they navigate the complexities 

of both the artistic and business worlds. The literature suggests a multifaceted approach 

to arts entrepreneurship, including the development of business acumen among artists, 

the value of networks and collaborations, and the role of innovation in the creation and 

marketing of artistic products and experiences (Bridgstock, 2013). Unlike more 

traditional sectors, arts entrepreneurship requires a delicate balance between artistic 

integrity and financial sustainability, necessitating strategies that are both creative and 

practical. This balance reflects the sector’s inherent tensions between art for art’s sake 

and art as a commodity, which fuels ongoing discussions about value, quality, and 

authenticity within the arts entrepreneurship ecosystem (Ellmeier, 2003). 

Researchers and practitioners do not yet agree upon a common definition of 

entrepreneurial ecosystems (Stam and Van de Ven, 2015). Entrepreneurship is the act of 

identifying, assessing, and taking advantage of chances to develop new products and 

services (Schumpeter 1934; Shane and Venkataraman 2000).The notion of an ecosystem, 

or “ecological system,” is drawn from biology where it refers to “a biotic community, its 

physical environment, and all the interactions possible in the complex of living and 

nonliving components” (Tansley 1935 cited in Stam and Van de Ven, 2015). The 

entrepreneurial ecosystem refers to a set of elements including multiple actors, 

institutions, and resources that interact to form the context in which ventures are created, 

grown and sustained (Stam & Spigel, 2016) Each of these components plays a vital part in 

creating and maintaining an ecosystem that supports entrepreneurship (Stam and Van de 

Ven, 2015). 

Leading EE scholars have acknowledged a theoretical gap in the literature concerning 

the application of the ecosystem model to other industries. In addition, they note the lack 

of attention to equity issues and power relationships. For example, Wurth et al. (2022) 

noted: “[d]ue to the many avenues for exclusion and discrimination in entrepreneurial 

ecosystems it is not at all clear who entrepreneurial ecosystems are for and if they can 

play a role in reducing inequality or if they instead contribute to its reproduction.” Wurth 

et al. (2022) explain that many EE privilege the white, male, mainstream demographic of 

entrepreneurship (Abraham, 2020; Huang et al., 2020). This paper conceptualizes how the 

Canadian music industry functions as an EE and how this ecosystem affects equity, 

diversity and inclusion for musician entrepreneurs. 



ARTIVATE 13 

5 

2. Theory 
EE scholarship emphasizes how entrepreneurship emerges through the interaction of 

multiple actors, institutions, and resources within particular contexts, often urban or 

regional (Stam & Spigel, 2016). Early research in the late 1980s and 1990s marked a shift 

away from viewing entrepreneurship as an individual or personality-based activity 

toward understanding it as a process embedded in broader economic, cultural, and social 

systems (Steyaert & Katz, 2004). This holistic perspective underscored that 

entrepreneurship is not only a matter of individual talent or risk-taking but also depends 

on the enabling conditions and support structures within which actors operate. Bahrami 

and Evans (1995), for instance, highlighted the significance of regional actors and social 

dynamics in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes. 

While the concept of EEs has become central in entrepreneurship studies, it remains 

theoretically fragmented. EEs are often compared to clusters, industrial districts, and 

regional innovation systems, but differ by placing entrepreneurs—rather than firms or 

technologies—at the center of analysis (Cavallo et al., 2019; Acs et al., 2017). Despite the 

proliferation of conceptual models, empirical studies remain limited (Hsu et al., 2017), and 

the field continues to wrestle with definitional clarity and operationalization (Wurth, 

Stam, & Spigel, 2022). One key tension concerns whether EEs are inherently place-based 

or whether they can also be understood as digitally mediated, particularly in the wake of 

the COVID-19 pandemic. The crisis disrupted traditional spatial dynamics and accelerated 

attention to digital ecosystems, where entrepreneurship increasingly depends on online 

platforms, streaming technologies, and social media (Purbasari et al., 2021; Audretsch et 

al., 2024). 

Applying the EE framework to the music industry offers unique insights into how 

systemic conditions shape entrepreneurial opportunities and constraints. The music 

industry can be understood as an ecosystem in which artists, intermediaries (such as 

managers, promoters, and publishers), institutions, and infrastructures interact to 

generate cultural and economic value. Like entrepreneurial ecosystems more broadly, this 

industry depends on the circulation of resources, knowledge, and social capital to foster 

innovation and sustain productivity (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). Yet the sector also 

highlights challenges for EE theory: the “exceptional economy” of the arts (Abbing, 2002) 

complicates traditional metrics of growth and success, while digital disruption and 

platformization have reconfigured how value is created and distributed (Baym, 2018; 

Towse, 2020). 

Another important development in EE theory is the growing attention to equity and 

inclusion. Critics argue that ecosystems often privilege white, male, and elite 

entrepreneurs, raising questions about whether EEs reduce or reproduce inequality 

(Wurth et al., 2022). This critique is particularly relevant to the cultural and creative 

industries (CCIs), where structural inequities limit access to networks, funding, and 

leadership opportunities for marginalized groups (Strong & Raine, 2019; Smith et al., 



ARTIVATE 13 

6 

2021). A critical approach to EE application therefore requires not only identifying 

enabling conditions but also examining barriers to participation. 

By situating the Canadian music industry within an EE framework, this paper 

contributes to both entrepreneurship and arts management scholarship. The framework 

illuminates how ecosystem conditions such as networks, finance, talent, culture, and 

institutions structure opportunities for artists and intermediaries, while also exposing 

how systemic inequities limit inclusion. In doing so, it bridges EE theory—traditionally 

developed in business and regional innovation contexts—with the realities of cultural 

production, offering a more nuanced account of how entrepreneurial ecosystems operate 

in industries where creativity, identity, and equity are as central as capital and growth 

(Catala et al., 2023; Wang, 2023). 

3. Methods 

3.1. Secondary Source and Literatures Analysis 

This study employed a careful and multi-layered methodological approach to analyze how 

the music industry incorporates the components of the EE framework. The research 

design was rooted in secondary data analysis, drawing on a broad range of peer-reviewed 

articles, case studies, policy reports, and industry documents. To ensure rigor, sources 

were identified through systematic searches in academic databases such as Google 

Scholar and JSTOR, as well as specialized journals and publications focused on the music 

industry, entrepreneurship, and the cultural and creative industries. Selection criteria 

emphasized the reliability of the source, the explicit inclusion of entrepreneurial concepts, 

and the relevance of findings to the music sector. 

A thematic analysis technique was applied to organize and interpret the literature. 

Sources were coded and categorized according to recurring themes connected to EE 

conditions, such as resource mobilization, network formation, leadership, institutional 

frameworks, and innovation. Additional emphasis was placed on identifying the role of 

exogenous factors, including technological disruption and the COVID-19 pandemic, which 

significantly altered the spatial and digital characteristics of entrepreneurial activity. This 

thematic process enabled the researchers to synthesize diverse perspectives and highlight 

how systemic conditions shape entrepreneurial opportunities and constraints in the 

music industry. 

The analysis also involved a comparative dimension. Insights from general EE 

scholarship were contrasted with findings specific to the cultural and creative industries, 

allowing for a critical examination of where music industry dynamics converge with, or 

diverge from, established EE frameworks. Special attention was given to issues of equity, 

diversity, and inclusion to ensure the analysis captured both enabling and exclusionary 

mechanisms within the ecosystem. 



ARTIVATE 13 

7 

By triangulating evidence across academic, industry, and policy sources, this 

methodological strategy provided a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the 

music industry as an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The approach ensured that the analysis 

was both theoretically grounded and practically relevant, capturing the complex interplay 

between creativity, entrepreneurship, and systemic conditions in a rapidly evolving 

sector. 

3.2. Primary Data  

This paper conceptualizes the Canadian music industry as an EE by drawing on secondary 

data, including peer-reviewed literature, industry analyses, and policy reports. In 

particular, two recent primary data studies provide an empirical foundation: Advance’s 

Industry Analysis & the Value of Black Music report (Diversity Institute, 2024), which 

surveyed 1,702 respondents, and Enablers and Barriers to Success in Canada’s Music 

Industry (Diversity Institute & Music Canada, 2021), which surveyed approximately 624 

artists entrepreneurs and professionals across the sector. These studies capture lived 

experiences of discrimination, funding access, mentorship, and career sustainability, 

offering large-scale insight into systemic barriers and enabling conditions. While this 

paper uses these reports as secondary sources to situate the music industry within EE 

theory, their original survey data provides a robust empirical base that can inform future, 

more targeted EE research. By synthesizing conceptual EE literature with these primary 

data insights, this paper establishes a theoretical foundation for subsequent empirical 

studies examining the Canadian music industry as a functioning entrepreneurial 

ecosystem. 

4. Results  

4.1. Formal Institutions 

In EE literature, formal institutions refer to the regulatory, legal, and governance 

frameworks that establish the “rules of the game” for entrepreneurship (Stam & van de 

Ven, 2021). These include the quality of governance, rule of law, corruption levels, and 

policy infrastructures that either incentivize or constrain entrepreneurial activity 

(Ceresia & Mendola, 2019). Canada ranks highly in global governance measures, with 

relatively low perceived corruption (Knoema, 2020), suggesting a supportive institutional 

environment for entrepreneurship more broadly. 

Within the Canadian music industry, formal institutions play a pivotal role in shaping 

entrepreneurial opportunities for artists and music businesses. Core examples include 

federal policies such as the Canada Music Fund, which was established to improve access, 

strengthen entrepreneurial capacity, and ensure that Canadian artists are globally 



ARTIVATE 13 

8 

competitive (House of Commons Canada, 2009). Equally important are intellectual 

property regimes and collective rights organizations (e.g., SOCAN, CMRRA, Re:Sound), 

which govern copyright protections and royalty flows that underpin the monetization of 

music. Canadian content (CanCon) requirements and public funding bodies such as 

FACTOR, the Canada Council for the Arts, and Ontario Creates further illustrate how 

government policy and institutional design directly structure the EE for musicians, 

affecting who can access capital, visibility, and career sustainability. 

At the same time, recent studies highlight that the presence of strong institutions does 

not automatically guarantee equitable outcomes. Advance’s Industry Analysis & the Value 

of Black Music report found that Black artists are overrepresented in funding applications 

to FACTOR but experience disproportionately high rejection rates, demonstrating 

inequities in access to institutional supports. Similarly, the Enablers and Barriers report 

documented systemic gaps in mentorship and career development for women and equity-

deserving groups. These findings underscore that while Canada’s formal institutions 

provide a robust foundation for entrepreneurship in music, the distribution of benefits is 

uneven. Thus, applying the EE framework to the music industry requires both 

acknowledging the strength of Canada’s institutional environment and critically 

examining how institutional mechanisms reproduce or mitigate inequities. 

4.2. Culture 

In EE theory, culture refers to the shared values, norms, and beliefs that determine 

whether entrepreneurship is perceived as a desirable and legitimate career path (Stam, 

2015). It can be assessed by rates of self-employment, the prevalence of start-ups, and the 

societal status of entrepreneurs (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor [GEM], 2019). In 

Canada, GEM data suggests that early-stage entrepreneurship is relatively common, but 

the transition from start-up to established business remains difficult (Gregson & 

Saunders, 2020). Within the cultural and creative industries, however, entrepreneurial 

culture manifests differently. Hill (2019) reports that 52% of Canadian artists are self-

employed—compared with only 12% of the general workforce—with musicians and 

singers constituting the largest share. This underscores both the entrepreneurial 

orientation of music work and the sector’s precarity, reflecting what Abbing (2002) terms 

the “exceptional economy” of the arts, where symbolic value often outweighs financial 

stability. 

In the music industry, entrepreneurial culture is not only about risk-taking or firm 

creation but also about how society values music careers. Despite the outsized 

contributions of musicians to Canada’s economy and cultural identity, societal narratives 

often frame artistic work as unstable or secondary, undermining the legitimacy of music 

entrepreneurship as a long-term career path. This perception interacts with systemic 

inequities. Recent studies show that while music is widely consumed—Black music alone 



ARTIVATE 13 

9 

accounts for an estimated 65% of streaming market share in Canada—Black and equity-

deserving artists continue to face barriers in funding access, representation, and 

recognition. Similarly, women and underrepresented groups report exclusion from 

mentorship and leadership pathways, even as they disproportionately pursue 

entrepreneurial routes such as self-employment. These dynamics reveal a paradox: music 

entrepreneurship is culturally celebrated in terms of both output and innovation, yet it is 

structurally undervalued as a legitimate and sustainable career. 

From an EE perspective, Canada’s cultural environment demonstrates strong 

entrepreneurial participation within the arts but limited societal and institutional 

reinforcement of that participation. For the music ecosystem to thrive, cultural attitudes 

must shift toward valuing artistic entrepreneurship as both legitimate and essential to 

Canada’s economic and cultural future, with inclusive recognition of the diverse 

communities driving the industry forward. 

4.3. Finance 

In EEs, finance is a critical condition that enables entrepreneurs to mobilize resources, 

manage risk, and sustain innovation. Access to venture capital, angel investment, and 

institutional funding are consistently cited as determinants of ecosystem vibrancy (Stam 

& van de Ven, 2021; Wurth et al., 2022). Where financial systems are strong, they foster 

productive entrepreneurship; where they are weak or exclusionary, entrepreneurial 

activity is stifled. 

In the Canadian music industry, financing structures operate differently from high-

growth business ecosystems. Rather than relying primarily on venture capital, artists and 

music entrepreneurs typically depend on a patchwork of funding sources: public 

programs such as the Canada Music Fund and FACTOR, provincial agencies like Ontario 

Creates, municipal arts councils, collective rights organizations (e.g., SOCAN royalties), 

and private sponsorships. Labels and publishers also play a central role by providing 

advances, though these often come with contractual trade-offs that limit long-term 

autonomy. In recent years, crowdfunding platforms, micro-grants, and sync licensing have 

emerged as alternative mechanisms for financing music entrepreneurship, reflecting 

broader shifts toward digital and distributed models of support. 

However, recent equity-focused studies highlight persistent disparities in access to 

finance. Advance’s Industry Analysis & the Value of Black Music report shows that Black 

artists submit a disproportionate number of applications to FACTOR but experience 

higher rejection rates, revealing structural barriers within Canada’s most prominent 

funding body. Similarly, women in the Enablers and Barriers report identified mentorship 

and financing as critical obstacles to career advancement, with Black women 

entrepreneurs facing particular difficulty securing loans and investment. These findings 



ARTIVATE 13 

10 

underscore that while formal financing mechanisms for music exist in abundance, 

systemic inequities continue to shape who benefits from them. 

From an EE perspective, Canada’s music industry demonstrates both the strength and 

the limits of finance as an enabling condition. The presence of extensive public support 

reflects a unique policy commitment to cultural entrepreneurship, yet uneven access 

undermines inclusivity and constrains the ecosystem’s potential. Ensuring equitable 

access to finance—through reforms in grantmaking, targeted funds for underrepresented 

groups, and more transparent allocation processes—is essential for a music ecosystem 

that is not only innovative but also sustainable and just. 

4.4. Demand 

Consumer appetite is a defining driver of entrepreneurial ecosystems, and in the case of 

music, demand manifests across streaming, live performance, licensing, and broader 

cultural consumption. Recent industry data underscores this vitality: music consumption 

in Canada has risen at an annual rate of 10.6%, surpassing pre-pandemic levels (MRC Data, 

2021). SOCAN’s Annual Report further confirms robust market growth, with more than 

$348 million in royalties distributed in 2021—marking a 10% year-over-year increase. 

Digital revenues are particularly significant; Canadian creators earned a record $104 

million in digital royalties that year, reflecting a 32% average annual growth rate (SOCAN, 

2021). These trends illustrate a market with expanding domestic demand and growing 

international recognition of Canadian music. 

Evidence from Advance’s study highlights how demand for Black music specifically 

drives Canada’s cultural exports: between 2019 and 2022, Black music accounted for 

approximately 65% of the top Canadian streaming charts, generating an estimated $339 

million CAD in subscription revenues. Yet, despite this disproportionate market share, 

Black music professionals remain underrepresented in leadership roles and face systemic 

barriers in accessing resources to sustain careers. The disjuncture between high 

consumer demand and inequitable institutional recognition suggests that demand alone 

does not translate into equitable opportunity within the ecosystem. 

Live music further illustrates how demand fuels entrepreneurship. Following 

pandemic restrictions, there has been a marked resurgence in audiences for concerts and 

festivals, with many artists noting a heightened appreciation for live performance (Abma, 

2021). Public funding structures also play a role in stimulating demand by subsidizing 

ticket prices and supporting festivals, thereby ensuring access across diverse audiences. 

However, the Enablers and Barriers report indicates that systemic inequities affect which 

artists are booked, showcased, and supported, with women and equity-deserving artists 

often excluded from headline opportunities despite demonstrated audience interest. 

Taken together, these indicators point to a paradox within Canada’s music ecosystem: 

demand for music is strong and growing, particularly for genres rooted in Black creativity, 



ARTIVATE 13 

11 

yet the benefits of this demand are unevenly distributed. From an EE perspective, 

strengthening the connection between consumer appetite and inclusive entrepreneurial 

opportunity is essential for building a resilient and equitable music ecosystem. 

4.5. Networks 

In EE theory, networks capture the density, diversity, and quality of relationships that 

connect entrepreneurs to collaborators, mentors, and resources. Strong networks foster 

knowledge spillovers, resource mobilization, and innovation, while fragmented or 

exclusionary networks constrain entrepreneurial potential (Stam, 2019). In empirical 

research, collaboration rates and cross-sector connections are often used as indicators of 

ecosystem vibrancy. 

The music industry is inherently network-driven. Collaboration between artists, 

engineers, producers, managers, and promoters is essential to the creation and circulation 

of music. Studies of collaboration patterns confirm that artists and engineers serve as 

central nodes in music networks, with recording projects bringing together diverse roles 

in concentrated hubs (Budner & Grahl, 2016). Industry organizations, collectives, and 

informal peer groups further expand these ties, enabling musicians to access 

opportunities, audiences, and professional development. In this sense, the music industry 

exemplifies EE principles: entrepreneurial outcomes depend less on isolated talent than 

on embeddedness within networks that enable creative and commercial activity. 

Yet, critical perspectives show that access to networks is unevenly distributed. Music 

Canada’s Enablers and Barriers report found that 62% of respondents identified 

networking opportunities as a key enabler of success, while 50% overall reported they 

always or often had access to networks. Disaggregated results reveal significant 

inequities: only 33% of Black respondents, 46% of other racialized respondents. Similarly, 

Advance’s study highlights that Black music professionals—despite representing the 

majority of streaming consumption—remain underrepresented in decision-making 

spaces and mentorship networks  

From an EE perspective, these findings highlight the dual role of networks: they are 

the lifeblood of collaboration and innovation in music, yet they also act as gatekeeping 

mechanisms that reproduce systemic exclusion. Building inclusive, accessible networks is 

therefore critical not only to individual career sustainability but also to the vibrancy of the 

music ecosystem as a whole. 

4.6. Leadership 

Within EE theory, leadership refers to the capacity of individuals and organizations to 

provide guidance, coordination, and vision for collective action. Leaders often act as 

convenors, boundary-spanners, and advocates, shaping agendas and mobilizing resources 

to sustain ecosystem vibrancy (Stam, 2016; Stam & van de Ven, 2021). In business 



ARTIVATE 13 

12 

contexts, leadership is commonly measured through the presence of high-profile 

entrepreneurs or coordinating institutions. In the music industry, however, leadership 

extends beyond firm founders to include artists, executives, advocacy organizations, and 

cultural influencers who collectively guide the direction of the sector. 

Leadership in Canada’s music ecosystem operates at multiple levels. At the 

organizational level, entities such as CARAS, CIMA, CAPACOA, Music Canada, and the 

Canadian Federation of Musicians play influential roles by lobbying for policy reforms, 

convening stakeholders, and setting industry standards. This is in addition to formal 

institutions such as SOCAN, CMRRA, and others mentioned above, where leaders of these 

organizations play a crucial role in leading and shaping the Canadian music industry. 

Reports on industry preparedness stress that effective leaders must combine technical 

knowledge of the music business—including revenue models, rights management, and 

digital supply chains—with empathy for artists, literacy in data analytics, and awareness 

of global policy frameworks (LeBoeuf, 2019). At the artistic level, musicians themselves 

often serve as leaders by mobilizing fan communities, advocating for equity, or shaping 

cultural narratives. These distributed forms of leadership illustrate the EE principle that 

ecosystems thrive not on hierarchy alone but on collaborative, multi-level guidance. From 

an EE perspective, leadership structures not only shape industry direction but also mirror 

systemic inequities. 

Critical perspectives, however, highlight persistent inequities in who occupies 

leadership positions. Advance’s Industry Analysis & the Value of Black Music report found 

that Black professionals remain severely underrepresented in senior executive roles, 

despite Black music accounting for the majority of streaming consumption in Canada. 

Similarly, the Enablers and Barriers study revealed that women and equity-deserving 

artists report limited access to mentorship and career development pathways that would 

position them for leadership roles. This disconnect reflects broader concerns in EE 

scholarship: leadership is an enabling condition, but when concentrated among 

homogeneous groups, it risks reproducing systemic exclusions rather than fostering 

collective prosperity. 

From an EE perspective, leadership is thus both an enabling and constraining force in 

Canada’s music industry. The presence of strong advocacy organizations and policy 

leaders demonstrates the sector’s institutional capacity, yet exclusion from leadership 

roles undermines inclusivity and long-term resilience. Strengthening diverse leadership 

pipelines—through mentorship, governance training, and equitable access to decision-

making spaces—is essential for cultivating a music ecosystem that reflects Canada’s 

cultural diversity and fosters sustainable entrepreneurship. 



ARTIVATE 13 

13 

4.7. Talent 

In EE theory, talent is typically measured by the proportion of highly educated adults in a 

population on the assumption that education is a proxy for skills, innovation capacity, and 

entrepreneurial potential (Stam, 2016). While this approach may hold in knowledge-

based industries, it is limited when applied to the arts, which represent what Abbing 

(2002) describes as an “exceptional economy.” In the music industry, artistic excellence 

and creative entrepreneurship often flourish outside of formal educational pathways. 

Many globally successful artists—including Beyonce , Rihanna, Britney Spears, and Celine 

Dion—achieved prominence without completing higher education, illustrating that in 

music, talent and originality outweigh credentialism as drivers of success. 

Within Canada’s music ecosystem, talent remains the bedrock of value creation, yet it 

is cultivated through diverse means. Some artists develop through conservatories, 

universities, or formal training, while many others acquire skills through informal 

networks, community mentorship, or self-directed practice (Lunny, 2019). This 

heterogeneity suggests that the EE framework must be expanded to account for industries 

where talent is assessed less by degrees and more by creative output, entrepreneurial 

adaptability, and the ability to mobilize audiences. 

Equity-focused studies further show that while talent is widely distributed, access to 

opportunities that nurture and showcase it is not. The Enablers and Barriers survey found 

that many respondents—particularly women and equity-deserving groups—identified 

the lack of mentorship and professional development as major obstacles to realizing their 

potential. Advance’s report similarly highlighted that Black artists, despite driving the 

majority of streaming consumption, remain underrepresented in positions that translate 

talent into sustained careers. These findings suggest that the issue is not talent scarcity 

but systemic inequities in how talent is recognized, supported, and rewarded. 

From an EE perspective, the music industry underscores the need to reconceptualize 

talent as a multidimensional resource. Rather than equating talent with formal education, 

indicators must capture creative skill, entrepreneurial orientation, and equitable access 

to career development. Only by broadening the concept of talent can the EE framework 

fully account for the dynamics of the music ecosystem. 

4.8. Knowledge 

A vibrant EE depends on the continuous circulation of knowledge—whether through 

formal education, professional development, or the tacit learning that occurs within 

networks and communities of practice (Stam & van de Ven, 2021). In the music sector, 

knowledge is not limited to academic credentials or research investments; it encompasses 

artistic skill, entrepreneurial literacy, and the ability to adapt to evolving technological 

and cultural landscapes. 



ARTIVATE 13 

14 

Canada has developed a range of infrastructures that support knowledge-sharing for 

music entrepreneurs. Major conferences and showcases such as Canadian Music Week, 

Mutek Montreal, and Breakout West—funded through the FACTOR Collective Initiatives 

Program—serve as hubs for education, mentorship, and industry dialogue. Organizations 

such as the SOCAN Foundation provide professional development grants, while 

accelerators like RBC Launchpad, TD Incubator for Creative Entrepreneurship, the Remix 

Project, and The House cultivate entrepreneurial capacity among emerging artists (Malli 

& Fielding, 2020). These programs demonstrate that knowledge in the music industry is 

multi-dimensional: it spans creative practice, business acumen, rights management, and 

digital strategy. 

Despite these investments, evidence shows that access to knowledge-building 

opportunities is uneven. The Enablers and Barriers report found that mentorship and 

training remain critical gaps: while 62% of respondents identified networking and 61% 

collaboration as enablers of success, many equity-deserving groups reported lacking 

consistent access to such opportunities. Advance’s study similarly revealed that Black 

music professionals—who dominate Canadian streaming consumption—remain 

underrepresented in leadership and mentorship spaces that transmit knowledge essential 

for long-term sustainability. For EE analysis, the lesson is clear: knowledge cannot be 

reduced to research and design  expenditure or university linkages. In cultural sectors like 

music, knowledge is tacit, experiential, and deeply embedded in community and practice. 

To strengthen Canada’s music entrepreneurial ecosystem, equitable access to mentorship, 

professional training, and leadership development must be prioritized alongside 

traditional investments in knowledge infrastructure. 

4.9. Intermediate Services 

A key condition of entrepreneurial ecosystems is the presence of robust intermediary 

services—specialized inputs that allow entrepreneurs to focus on core activities while 

accessing the expertise and infrastructure needed to scale (Stam & van de Ven, 2021). In 

most sectors this includes legal, financial, and marketing services. In music, 

intermediaries span a wide range of functions: artist and repertoire (A&R), publishing, 

management, distribution, legal services, publicity, and promotion. These intermediaries 

bridge the gap between creative talent and the marketplace, helping artists to 

professionalize, reach audiences, and sustain careers. 

Evidence suggests that the music industry invests heavily in such services. The 

Canadian Independent Music Association reported that in 2013 approximately CAD 2.5 

billion was invested in A&R development. Globally, the International Federation of the 

Phonographic Industry (IFPI) reinvests around 15.6% of revenues into A&R, a higher 

proportion than R&D investment in pharmaceuticals (14.4%) or computer services (9.9%) 

(IFPI, 2014). These investments underscore that, within music, intermediaries are not 



ARTIVATE 13 

15 

peripheral but central to innovation and value creation, operating as the R&D engine of 

the cultural economy. 

Yet, as with other ecosystem conditions, access to intermediary services is uneven. 

The Enablers and Barriers report found that artists from equity-deserving groups 

frequently cited difficulties in securing managers, legal representation, and agents—

services that are critical for breaking into professional circuits. Advance’s study likewise 

showed that Black artists, despite their dominance in Canada’s streaming market, often 

struggle to access publishing and management structures that translate popularity into 

sustainable careers. This exclusion highlights a structural imbalance: the industry invests 

heavily in intermediary services, but the benefits are not distributed equitably across all 

creators. 

From an EE perspective, the strength of Canada’s music ecosystem depends not only 

on the scale of investments in intermediary services but also on equitable access to them. 

Ensuring diverse representation among managers, A&R representatives, and 

publishers—and creating transparent pathways for artists to connect with these 

services—is essential to fully realizing the ecosystem’s innovative and entrepreneurial 

potential. 

4.10. Outputs: Productive Entrepreneurship 

Productive entrepreneurship is widely considered the ultimate outcome of an 

entrepreneurial ecosystem, defined as activity that contributes to net economic output or 

enhances the system’s capacity for future value creation (Baumol, 1993; Stam & van de 

Ven, 2021). In a healthy ecosystem, the interaction of resources, networks, and institutions 

results in entrepreneurial outputs that generate innovation, employment, and cultural 

impact. 

The Canadian music industry illustrates this principle clearly. Supported by public 

financing, collective rights organizations, and intermediary services, Canadian artists 

consistently achieve global recognition—Drake, The Weekend, Justin Bieber, Daniel 

Caesar, and Shawn Mendes are among the most prominent examples of music 

entrepreneurs whose creative output has translated into worldwide economic and 

cultural value (Billboard, 2021). Beyond superstar success, productive entrepreneurship 

in music includes a broad range of outputs: recorded works, live performances, streaming 

platforms, sync licensing for film and advertising, merchandise, education, and emerging 

digital business models (Passmore, 2019). Together, these outputs demonstrate how 

music entrepreneurship contributes both directly and indirectly to aggregate value 

creation in Canada and abroad. 

However, critical perspectives show that the benefits of these outputs are not 

distributed evenly across the ecosystem. Advance’s study highlights that Black music—

representing roughly 65% of Canada’s streaming charts between 2019 and 2022—drives 



ARTIVATE 13 

16 

enormous demand, yet Black professionals remain underrepresented in executive and 

leadership positions that shape how this value is captured. Similarly, the Enablers and 

Barriers report found that women and equity-deserving artists face systemic barriers to 

accessing sustainable career opportunities, mentorship, and financial supports. These 

inequities signal that while Canada’s music ecosystem generates significant outputs, it 

does not fully achieve the inclusive, sustainable entrepreneurship envisioned in EE theory. 

From an EE standpoint, the Canadian music industry demonstrates the vibrancy of 

productive entrepreneurship but also underscores the need to address systemic barriers 

to participation and benefit-sharing. Strengthening inclusivity within the ecosystem will 

not only advance equity but also enhance the system’s long-term capacity to innovate and 

generate value. 

While Stam & Van de Ven (2019) purport a general model of an entrepreneurial 

ecosystem, a more focused approach is necessary to understand the underlying 

mechanisms and actors in a music industry entrepreneurial ecosystem. Table 1 utilizes 

the original framework developed by Stam and Van de Ven (2019) and applies it directly 

to the Canadian music industry based on Passmore’s (2019) guide to the music industry, 

as well as our effort to create a description.  

Table 1. Application of Stam and Van de Ven’s EE Elements to Canada’s Music Industry Gender and Diversity 
Lens 

EE Element Application to Music  

Industry 

Equity, Diversity, and  

Inclusion Lens 

Networks Artist collaborations, 

professional associations, 

mentorship structures, and 

cross-sector linkages 

Women, Black, and other 

equity-deserving professionals 

report limited access to 

industry networks; inclusive 

mentorship and association 

reform are needed 

Leadership Executives of labels, 

publishers, industry 

organizations, and advocacy 

bodies 

Leadership roles remain 

dominated by men; women and 

racialized leaders are 

underrepresented despite 

diversity initiatives 

Finance Public grants, royalties, 

venture investment, A&R 

spending, and sponsorships 

Marginalized artists face 

barriers to funding, lower 

success rates in grant 

applications, and limited 

private investment 

opportunities 

Talent Artists, creators, producers, 

and training programs 

(formal and informal) 

Education pipelines exist but 

access is inequitable; 

recognition of non-traditional 



ARTIVATE 13 

17 

career paths and support for 

diverse talent development are 

essential 

Knowledge Research, industry reports, 

conferences, tacit knowledge, 

digital literacy initiatives 

Underrepresentation of equity-

deserving groups in research 

and data; need for equity-

focused industry knowledge-

sharing and capacity building 

Intermediary Services Managers, booking agents, 

publishers, lawyers, 

marketing firms, distributors 

Biases in gatekeeping roles 

(management, A&R, legal) 

restriction of marginalized 

artists’ ability to scale careers; 

inclusive intermediary 

practices are needed 

Formal Institutions Government policy (e.g., 

Canada Music Fund, 

copyright law, CanCon), 

collective rights management 

Strong public investment but 

inequities persist in 

distribution; policies must 

better address systemic racism, 

sexism, and accessibility 

Culture Music festivals, awards, 

industry events, 

representation in media 

Persistent gender and racial 

inequities in recognition 

(awards, festival lineups); 

industry criticized for misogyny 

and exclusionary norms 

Infrastructure Recording studios, live 

venues, digital platforms, 

rehearsal spaces 

Access to venues and recording 

spaces is limited for women and 

racialized professionals; 

minority-owned infrastructure 

is underfunded 

Demand Audiences, streaming 

consumption, global export 

markets 

Market preferences and 

algorithms can reinforce biases; 

greater promotion of 

underrepresented artists is 

needed to expand equitable 

demand 

5. Discussion 
This paper advances the application of EE theory to the music industry by examining three 

interrelated systemic conditions—talent, intermediary services, and knowledge. 

Consistent with Stam’s (2015) framework, ecosystems are sustained not by isolated actors 

but by the interaction of multiple components that enable innovation, entrepreneurial 

entry, and long-term value creation. In the context of music, this interdependence is 

particularly evident: talent provides the creative foundation, intermediary services 



ARTIVATE 13 

18 

connect artists to markets and audiences, and knowledge infrastructures enable 

continuous adaptation in an evolving digital environment. Together, these conditions 

illustrate how the music industry functions as an entrepreneurial ecosystem, where 

artistic and economic outputs are co-produced through collaboration, investment, and 

institutional support. 

The analysis further underscores that a healthy music ecosystem depends on more 

than the presence of resources—it requires equitable access to them. While Canada 

invests heavily in artist development, professional services, and capacity-building 

programs, empirical evidence demonstrates that access to these resources is uneven. As 

highlighted in the Enablers and Barriers study, women and equity-deserving artists report 

significant challenges in accessing mentorship, networking, and intermediary services, 

which are central to entrepreneurial growth. Similarly, Advance’s report reveals that 

although Black music drives the majority of streaming consumption in Canada, Black 

professionals remain underrepresented in leadership and decision-making roles. These 

findings reveal an important limitation of current EE scholarship: while ecosystem models 

often assume that resources and services are broadly accessible, in practice systemic 

inequities shape who benefits from them. 

A second contribution of this analysis lies in reconceptualizing how EE conditions are 

measured in the cultural sector. Standard EE metrics—such as education levels for talent 

or R&D expenditures for knowledge—are insufficient for capturing the dynamics of the 

music industry. Talent in music is often cultivated outside formal educational systems, 

emerging instead through experiential learning, mentorship, and community practice. 

Similarly, knowledge creation is not limited to university-industry partnerships but also 

includes cultural transmission, digital literacy, and the sharing of tacit expertise within 

networks. Intermediary services, typically conceived as professional or financial support 

functions in other sectors, play an outsized role in music as the primary mechanism 

through which talent is discovered, developed, and scaled. These adaptations suggest that 

EE theory must expand to account for the exceptional economy of the arts (Abbing, 2002), 

where value is co-produced through creativity, collaboration, and cultural capital rather 

than solely through conventional business inputs. 

Finally, this discussion emphasizes the centrality of equity and inclusion as ecosystem 

conditions in their own right. Prior research has demonstrated that diversity enhances 

innovation and resilience across industries (Cukier et al., 2014; Hennekam, 2022). Within 

music, inclusive pathways into leadership, mentorship, and professional services not only 

reflect broader social values but also expand the ecosystem’s creative and economic 

potential. By foregrounding issues of access, this paper highlights the need to 

reconceptualize EE health: productive entrepreneurship should not only be measured in 

terms of aggregate economic output but also in terms of equitable participation and 

benefit-sharing across diverse communities. In this sense, the music industry offers a 



ARTIVATE 13 

19 

critical lens for advancing EE theory, demonstrating both the potential and the 

shortcomings of existing frameworks when applied to cultural industries. 

6. Conclusions 
The complex interactions among the systemic conditions of the EE and the Canadian music 

industry reveal how culture, business, and policy coalesce to shape artistic production, 

distribution, and consumption. Financial resources, regulatory frameworks, 

entrepreneurial education, and a culture of creativity all contribute to the ecosystem’s 

capacity to sustain innovation and adapt to technological change. These dynamics have 

enabled Canadian artists to reach global audiences through streaming, digital distribution, 

and new performance formats, illustrating how the music industry thrives within a 

flexible and resilient EE. 

At the same time, this study has shown that the EE framework, when applied to the 

music industry, must be both expanded and interrogated. Traditional indicators—such as 

formal education for talent or R&D expenditure for knowledge—fail to capture the unique 

dynamics of cultural production, where tacit knowledge, artistic skill, and cultural capital 

are central. Moreover, the Canadian music industry underscores that productive 

entrepreneurship, the ultimate output of an EE, remains unevenly distributed. 

Discrimination and systemic barriers hinder equity-deserving groups from accessing 

mentorship, intermediary services, networks, and leadership roles. In practice, this means 

that while the ecosystem produces substantial cultural and economic value, the benefits 

are not equitably shared. 

This observation reveals a deeper theoretical gap. As Wurth et al. (2022) argue, EE 

scholarship has not yet sufficiently examined how ecosystems perpetuate inequality. The 

music industry makes this problem explicit: despite evidence that Black artists dominate 

streaming markets and women constitute a significant share of the workforce, these 

groups remain underrepresented in positions of influence and face barriers to sustainable 

careers. Such exclusion is not peripheral but systemic—it constrains the ecosystem’s 

innovative capacity and limits its aggregate productivity. This raises a central question 

that goes beyond music: How can an ecosystem be considered productive if large 

segments of its participants are set up to fail based on their identity? 

By framing the Canadian music industry as an EE, this paper contributes to both 

entrepreneurship and creative industries research. It demonstrates that entrepreneurial 

ecosystems are not neutral structures of support but socially embedded systems that can 

reproduce inequities as much as they enable innovation. For EE theory, the implication is 

clear: measures of ecosystem “health” must extend beyond aggregate outputs to include 

questions of equity, inclusion, and access. For creative industries, this perspective 

highlights the need to design interventions that dismantle systemic barriers and foster 



ARTIVATE 13 

20 

diverse participation, ensuring that talent is not wasted and opportunities are not 

restricted. 

Future research should continue to explore these intersections. The accelerating 

digital transformation—through artificial intelligence, blockchain, and new modes of 

global circulation—will reshape how music is created, monetized, and governed. Local 

and Indigenous music scenes also require closer attention, as they reveal how cultural 

expression and entrepreneurship interact under conditions of global exchange. 

Investigating these dynamics can deepen understanding of how entrepreneurial 

ecosystems evolve and how they might be restructured to support both innovation and 

justice. 

Overall, the music industry shows that the promise of entrepreneurial ecosystems 

cannot be realized without equity. A system that excludes marginalized voices cannot be 

deemed fully productive, no matter how much value it generates in aggregate. By 

centering inclusion as an essential condition of ecosystem health, this paper calls for a 

reimagining of EE theory and practice—one that recognizes that equitable participation 

is not only a moral imperative but also a driver of innovation, resilience, and long-term 

sustainability. 



ARTIVATE 13 

21 

References 

Abbing, H. (2002). Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy 
of the Arts. Amsterdam University Press 

Abma, S. (2021). Back by popular demand, outdoor concert tickets 
are hot this summer. CBC. 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/live-music-
concerts-outdoor-pandemic-1.6130796 

Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The 
lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small 
Business Economics, 49, 1–10. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8 

Aguilar, L., & Waldfogel, J. (2015). Streaming reaches flood stage: 
does spotify stimulate or depress music sales. NBER Working 
Paper Series, October, 4, 20. 

Ahmed, M. (2020). Digitalization of the Music Industry: Artists as 
Entrepreneurs.  

Andersen, B., & Frenz, M. (2008). The impact of music downloads 
and P2P file-sharing on the purchase of music in Canada 
(Working Paper No. 82). Dynamics of Institutions of Markets in 
Europe. https://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/WP82-
IPR.pdf 

Anyiwo, N., Watkins, D. C., & Rowley, S. J. (2022). “They can’t take 
away the light”: Hip-Hop culture and black youth’s racial 
resistance. Youth & Society, 54(4), 611-634. 

Autio, E. (2017). Digitalization, ecosystems, entrepreneurship and 
policy. Prime Minister’s Office, Government of Finland. 
https://tietokayttoon.fi/documents/1927382/2116852/20_20
17_Digitalisation,+ecosystems,+entrepreneurship+and+policy/
6b383210-70de-491f-b0df-38de52699458 

Avery, T. (2017). Leadership in the music industry [PowerPoint 
slides]. SlideShare. 
https://www.slideshare.net/Teyland/leadership-in-the-music-
industry 

Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1995). Flexible re-cycling and high-
technology entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 
37, 62–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165799 

Baskerville, D., & Baskerville, T. (2019). Music business handbook 
and career guide. Sage Publications. 

Baumol, W. J. (1993). Entrepreneurship, Management and the 
Structure of Payoffs. MIT Press. 

Baym, N. K. (2018). Playing to the Crowd. In Playing to the Crowd. 
New York University Press. 

Bennett, A., & Peterson, R. A. (Eds.). (2004). Music scenes: local, 
translocal and virtual. Vanderbilt University Press. 

Beckman, G. D. (2014). What arts entrepreneurship isn’t. Journal of 
Arts Entrepreneurship Research, 1(1), 1. 

Beckman, G. D., & Essig, L. (2012). Arts entrepreneurship: A 
conversation. Artivate, 1(1), 1-8. 

Bhaduri, M. (2019). Can an artist ever be an entrepreneur? 
Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/328906 

Billboard. (2021). Artist. 100. 
https://www.billboard.com/charts/artist-100. (Accessed Aug 
25, 2021). 

Brennan, M., & Webster, E. (2011). Why concert promoters matter. 
Scottish music review, 2(1), 1-25. 

Bridgstock, R. (2013). Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and 
higher education. Arts and humanities in higher education, 
12(2-3), 122-137. 

Brimstin, C. (2019). Ticketmaster ranks Toronto as the top city in 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/live-music-concerts-outdoor-pandemic-1.6130796
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/live-music-concerts-outdoor-pandemic-1.6130796
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8
https://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/WP82-IPR.pdf
https://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/WP82-IPR.pdf
https://tietokayttoon.fi/documents/1927382/2116852/20_2017_Digitalisation,+ecosystems,+entrepreneurship+and+policy/6b383210-70de-491f-b0df-38de52699458
https://tietokayttoon.fi/documents/1927382/2116852/20_2017_Digitalisation,+ecosystems,+entrepreneurship+and+policy/6b383210-70de-491f-b0df-38de52699458
https://tietokayttoon.fi/documents/1927382/2116852/20_2017_Digitalisation,+ecosystems,+entrepreneurship+and+policy/6b383210-70de-491f-b0df-38de52699458
https://www.slideshare.net/Teyland/leadership-in-the-music-industry
https://www.slideshare.net/Teyland/leadership-in-the-music-industry
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165799
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/328906
https://www.billboard.com/charts/artist-100


ARTIVATE 13 

22 

Canada for live music. Indie88. 
https://indie88.com/ticketmaster-ranks-toronto-as-the-top-
city-in-canada-for-live-music/ 

Brown, N. (2011). Navigating the music business – Mapping out a 
living. Music Think Tank. 
https://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/navigating-the-music-
business-mapping-out-a-living.html 

Budner, P., & Grahl, J. (2016). Collaboration networks in the music 
industry. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00377 

Burgess, Q. (2019). Music Canada Advisory Council members set an 
example for industry leadership and collaboration. Music 
Canada. https://musiccanada.com/news/music-canada-
advisory-council-members-set-an-example-for-industry-
leadership-and-collaboration/ 

Canadian Heritage. (2019). Evaluation of the Canada music fund 
2012–13 to 2017–18. Government of Canada. 
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/corpor
ate/publications/evaluations/canada-music-fund/evaluation-
canada-music-fund.pdf 

Canadian Heritage. (2021). Government of Canada investments of 
$70 million to support Canada’s artists and live music sector 
[Press release]. Cision Canada. 
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-
canada-investments-of-70-million-to-support-canada-s-artists-
and-live-music-sector-813832421.html 

Cavalheiro, S. (2019). The Impact of Digitalization on Creative 
Economy: How Digital Technologies Enable to Increase 
Creativity Value.  

Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial 
ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. 
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15, 
1291–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3 

Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and 
commerce (No. 20). Harvard University Press. 

Cepeda, M. (2016). 10 Things you didn’t know about Celine Dion. 
Woman’s Day. 
https://www.womansday.com/life/entertainment/g2151/celi
ne-dion-facts/ 

Ceresia, F., & Mendola, C. (2019). The effects of corruption in 
entrepreneurial ecosystems on entrepreneurial intentions. 
Administrative Sciences, 9, article 88. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040088 

Chang, W. J., & Wyszomirski, M. (2015). What is arts 
entrepreneurship? Tracking the development of its definition 
in scholarly journals. Artivate, 4(2), 33-31. 

Crabtree, J. (2021). Workplace and sexual harassment in the music 
industry. Australian Women in Music Awards. 
https://womeninmusicawards.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/WORKPLACE-AND-SEXUAL-
HARASSMENT-RESEARCH-REPORT-AWMA-web.pdf 

Cukier, D., Kon, F., & Lyons, T. S. (2016). Software startup 
ecosystems evolution: The New York City case study. In K. 
Kristensen, E. Bierwolf, D. Romero, & P. Abrahamsson (Eds.), 
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and 
Innovation/IEEE international Technol. Manage. Conference. 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC39735.2016.9026150 

Doherty, M. (2022). Production Management in Live Music: 
Managing the Technical Side of Touring in Today’s Music 
Industry. CRC Press. 

Donzelli, C. (2020). Ageism in the music industry: Does success 

https://indie88.com/ticketmaster-ranks-toronto-as-the-top-city-in-canada-for-live-music/
https://indie88.com/ticketmaster-ranks-toronto-as-the-top-city-in-canada-for-live-music/
https://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/navigating-the-music-business-mapping-out-a-living.html
https://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/navigating-the-music-business-mapping-out-a-living.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00377
https://musiccanada.com/news/music-canada-advisory-council-members-set-an-example-for-industry-leadership-and-collaboration/
https://musiccanada.com/news/music-canada-advisory-council-members-set-an-example-for-industry-leadership-and-collaboration/
https://musiccanada.com/news/music-canada-advisory-council-members-set-an-example-for-industry-leadership-and-collaboration/
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/corporate/publications/evaluations/canada-music-fund/evaluation-canada-music-fund.pdf
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/corporate/publications/evaluations/canada-music-fund/evaluation-canada-music-fund.pdf
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/corporate/publications/evaluations/canada-music-fund/evaluation-canada-music-fund.pdf
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-investments-of-70-million-to-support-canada-s-artists-and-live-music-sector-813832421.html
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-investments-of-70-million-to-support-canada-s-artists-and-live-music-sector-813832421.html
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-investments-of-70-million-to-support-canada-s-artists-and-live-music-sector-813832421.html
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3
https://www.womansday.com/life/entertainment/g2151/celine-dion-facts/
https://www.womansday.com/life/entertainment/g2151/celine-dion-facts/
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040088
https://womeninmusicawards.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WORKPLACE-AND-SEXUAL-HARASSMENT-RESEARCH-REPORT-AWMA-web.pdf
https://womeninmusicawards.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WORKPLACE-AND-SEXUAL-HARASSMENT-RESEARCH-REPORT-AWMA-web.pdf
https://womeninmusicawards.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WORKPLACE-AND-SEXUAL-HARASSMENT-RESEARCH-REPORT-AWMA-web.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC39735.2016.9026150


ARTIVATE 13 

23 

have an expiration date? Music Business Journal. 
http://www.thembj.org/2020/03/ageism-in-the-music-
industry-does-success-have-an-expiration-date/ 

Duffy, K., Reid, E., & Finch, J. (2021). Sold out? Reconfiguring 
consumer demand through the secondary digital ticket market. 
In Digitalized Markets (pp. 78-98). Routledge. 

Eiriz, V., & Leite, F. P. (2017). The digital distribution of music and 
its impact on the business models of independent musicians. 
The Service Industries Journal, 37(13-14), 875-895. 

Ellmeier, A. (2003). Cultural entrepreneurialism: on the changing 
relationship between the arts, culture and employment1. The 
international journal of cultural policy, 9(1), 3-16. 

Essig, L. (2015). Means and ends: A theory framework for 
understanding entrepreneurship in the US arts and culture 
sector. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 45(4), 
227-246. 

Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings. (n.d.). Our 
Mandate. https://www.factor.ca/about-the-foundation/our-
mandate/. 

Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings. (2020). 
FACTOR Annual Report. https://www.factor.ca/factors-2019-
2020-annual-report/ 

Fernandez, C., & Chon, M. (2020). 20 mega-successful celebrities 
who never went to college. Oprah Daily. 
https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/work-
money/g25050239/celebrities-who-never-went-to-
college/?slide=2 

Finkel, R., Jones, D., Sang, K., & Stoyanova Russell, D. (2017). 
Diversifying the creative: Creative work, creative industries, 
creative identities. Organization, 24(3), 281–288. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417690167 

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class (Vol. 9). New York: 
Basic books. 

Frith, S. (2007). Live music matters. Scottish music review, 1 (1). 
Gammons, H. (2011). The Art of Music Publishing: An 

entrepreneurial guide to publishing and copyright for the music, 
film, and media industries. CRC Press. 

Gavieta, M. (2020). The intersectionality of blackness and disability 
in hip-hop: The societal impact of changing cultural norms in 
music. International Social Science Review, 96(4), 1A-1A. 

Gauthier, J. F., Penzel, M., Marmer, M. (2017). Global startup 
ecosystem report 2017. Startup Genome. 
https://startupgenome.com/reports/global-startup-
ecosystem-report-2017 

Gervais, D. J., Marcus, K. M., & Kilgore, L. E. (2010). The rise of 360 
deals in the music industry. Landslide, 3, 40. 

Gregson, G., & Saunders, C. (2020). Canada national report 
2019/2020. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 
https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50593 

Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, 
E., & Tourangeau, R. (2011). Survey methodology. John Wiley & 
Sons. 

Hakala, H., O’Shea, G., Farny, S., Luoto, S. (2020). Re-storying the 
business, innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem concepts: 
The model-narrative review method. International Journal of 
Management Reviews, 22, 10–32. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12212 

Hans Hoegh-Guldberg, The Australian Music Industry (1987). 
Hansen, K. A. (2022). Pop masculinities: The politics of gender in 

twenty-first century popular music. Oxford University Press. 
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review 

http://www.thembj.org/2020/03/ageism-in-the-music-industry-does-success-have-an-expiration-date/
http://www.thembj.org/2020/03/ageism-in-the-music-industry-does-success-have-an-expiration-date/
https://www.factor.ca/about-the-foundation/our-mandate/
https://www.factor.ca/about-the-foundation/our-mandate/
https://www.factor.ca/factors-2019-2020-annual-report/
https://www.factor.ca/factors-2019-2020-annual-report/
https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/work-money/g25050239/celebrities-who-never-went-to-college/?slide=2
https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/work-money/g25050239/celebrities-who-never-went-to-college/?slide=2
https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/work-money/g25050239/celebrities-who-never-went-to-college/?slide=2
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417690167
https://startupgenome.com/reports/global-startup-ecosystem-report-2017
https://startupgenome.com/reports/global-startup-ecosystem-report-2017
https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50593
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12212


ARTIVATE 13 

24 

of Psychology, 61, 569–598. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416 

Haynes, J., & Marshall, L. (2018). Beats and tweets: Social media in 
the careers of independent musicians. New Media & Society, 
20(5), 1973-1993. 

Hennekam, S. (2022). 12 Towards More Inclusion in the Music 
Industry. Music as Labour, 190. 

Hill, K. (2019). A Statistical profile of artists in Canada in 2016. Hill 
Strategies Research. https://hillstrategies.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/sia49_artists_canada2016_revised.
pdf 

Hogan, M. (2017). How countries around the world fund music—
And why it matters. Pitchfork. 
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/how-countries-around-
the-world-fund-musicand-why-it-matters/ 

Hracs, B. J. (2012). A creative industry in transition: The rise of 
digitally driven independent music production. Growth and 
Change, 43(3), 442-461. 

House of Commons Canada. (2009). Canadian Musical Diversity 
Component of the Canada Music Fund: Report of the Standing 
Committee on Canadian Heritage. 
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/402/CHPC
/Reports/RP4231835/402_CHPC_Rpt04/402_CHPC_Rpt04-
e.pdf 

Hsu, D. K., Simmons, S. A., & Wieland, A. M. (2017). Designing 
entrepreneurship experiments: A review, typology, and 
research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 379–
412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116685613 

Hull, G. P., Hutchison, T., & Strasser, R. (2011). The Music Business 
and Recording Industry. 

Ingham, T. (2020). *World’s Biggest Record Music Market Is 
Changing – and It’s Good News for Streaming*. Rollingstone. 

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. (n.d). What 
we do. https://www.ifpi.org/about-us/what-we-do/ 

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. (2014). 
Investing in music: How music companies discover, nurture and 
promote talent. https://www.riaa.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/Investing_In_Music.pdf 

Isenberg, D. J. (2010). The big idea: How to start an entrepreneurial 
revolution. Harvard Business Review. 
https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-
entrepreneurial-revolution 

Kjus, Y. (2022). Twists and turns in the 360 deal: Spinning the risks 
and rewards of artist–label relations in the streaming era. 
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(2), 463-478. 

Knoema. (2020). Corruption perception index. 
https://knoema.com/jymopub/corruption-perception-index 

Krasilovsky, M. W., & Schemel, S. (2007). This business of music: The 
definitive guide to the business and legal issues of the music 
industry. Billboard Books. 

LaFevor, K., Khoury, S., & Roberts, C. (2014). Music Touring 
Logistics Managers’ Critical Skill Set Requirements. In 
Proceedings of the 2014 IAJC/ISAM Joint International 
Conference (pp. 1-10). 

Lazecko, B. (2020). Live Music: How digital technology has changed 
the live music experience Along with the coming of the 
coronavirus pandemic. 

LeBoeuf, J. (2019). What are the essential music business topics 
that university students should be exposed to before entering 
the music industry? Real Industry. 
https://realindustry.org/blog/what-the-music-industry-

https://hillstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/sia49_artists_canada2016_revised.pdf
https://hillstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/sia49_artists_canada2016_revised.pdf
https://hillstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/sia49_artists_canada2016_revised.pdf
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/how-countries-around-the-world-fund-musicand-why-it-matters/
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/how-countries-around-the-world-fund-musicand-why-it-matters/
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/402/CHPC/Reports/RP4231835/402_CHPC_Rpt04/402_CHPC_Rpt04-e.pdf
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/402/CHPC/Reports/RP4231835/402_CHPC_Rpt04/402_CHPC_Rpt04-e.pdf
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/402/CHPC/Reports/RP4231835/402_CHPC_Rpt04/402_CHPC_Rpt04-e.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116685613
https://www.ifpi.org/about-us/what-we-do/
https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Investing_In_Music.pdf
https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Investing_In_Music.pdf
https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-entrepreneurial-revolution
https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-entrepreneurial-revolution
https://knoema.com/jymopub/corruption-perception-index
https://realindustry.org/blog/what-the-music-industry-neeeds


ARTIVATE 13 

25 

neeeds 
Leigh, A., & Melwani, S. (2019). #BlackEmployeesMatter: Mega-

threats, identity fusion, and enacting positive deviance in 
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 564–
591. 

Lunny, O. (2019, May 15). Record-breaking revenues in the music 
business, but are musicians getting a raw deal? Forbes. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oisinlunny/2019/05/15/recor
d-breaking-revenues-in-the-music-business-but-are-
musicians-getting-a-raw-deal/?sh=2660e4a07ab4 

Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial 
ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12, article e12359. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359 

Malli, N., & Fielding, S. (2020). A portrait of creative 
entrepreneurship and the creative economy in Canada. 
Brookfield Institute. https://brookfieldinstitute.ca/wp-
content/uploads/Portraits-of-creative-entrepreneurs-FINAL-
1.pdf 

Manners, B., Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2015). Different venues, 
different experiences: evidence from live music performances. 

Mariani, M. M., & Zan, L. (2011). The economy of music programs 
and organizations. A micro analysis and typology. European 
Accounting Review, 20(1), 113-148. 

Marshall, L. (2013). The 360 deal and the ‘new’music industry. 
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(1), 77-99. 

Micocci, T. (2010). Booking performance tours: Marketing and 
acquiring live arts and entertainment. Simon and Schuster. 

MRC Data. (2021). Midyear Report Canada 2021. 
https://static.billboard.com/files/2021/07/MRCData_MIDYEA
R_2021_Canada_FINAL-1626123390.pdf 

Music Ally. (2021). Market profile: Canada. 
https://musically.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/Canada-2021-03-23876.pdf 

Music Canada. (2017). The Value Gap: Its Origins, Impacts and a 
Made-in-Canada Approach. https://musiccanada.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/The-Value-Gap-Its-Origins-
Impacts-and-a-Made-in-Canada-Approach.pdf 

Music Canada. (2013). An Economic Impact Analysis of live Music 
in Ontairo. https://musiccanada.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Live-Music-Measures-Up.pdf 

Music Portland (n.d.). The Music Industry Ecosystem. 
https://musicportland.org/music-ecosystem 

Myggland, A., & Clement, A. (2017). Striking A New A-Chord – 
Recommendations for the Growth and Development of Canada’s 
East Coast Music Industry. Coast Music Association.  
https://www.academia.edu/33082275/Striking_A_New_A_Cho
rd_Recommendations_for_the_Growth_and_Development_of_Ca
nadas_East_Coast_Music_Industry 

Ng, G. (2014). Spotify officially launches in Canada with over 20 
million songs. IPhone in Canada. 
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/spotify-launches-
canada/ 

Negus, K. (2013). Music genres and corporate cultures. Routledge. 
Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., & Thatcher, S. M. 

(2019). Diversity at a critical juncture: New theories for a 
complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 
498–517. 

Nordicity. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on Canadian Independent 
Music. Canadian Independent Music Association. 
https://cimamusic.ca/uploads/ck/files/cima_impact_of_covid_
on_indie_music_final_2020_12_07.pdf 

https://realindustry.org/blog/what-the-music-industry-neeeds
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oisinlunny/2019/05/15/record-breaking-revenues-in-the-music-business-but-are-musicians-getting-a-raw-deal/?sh=2660e4a07ab4
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oisinlunny/2019/05/15/record-breaking-revenues-in-the-music-business-but-are-musicians-getting-a-raw-deal/?sh=2660e4a07ab4
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oisinlunny/2019/05/15/record-breaking-revenues-in-the-music-business-but-are-musicians-getting-a-raw-deal/?sh=2660e4a07ab4
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
https://brookfieldinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/Portraits-of-creative-entrepreneurs-FINAL-1.pdf
https://brookfieldinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/Portraits-of-creative-entrepreneurs-FINAL-1.pdf
https://brookfieldinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/Portraits-of-creative-entrepreneurs-FINAL-1.pdf
https://static.billboard.com/files/2021/07/MRCData_MIDYEAR_2021_Canada_FINAL-1626123390.pdf
https://static.billboard.com/files/2021/07/MRCData_MIDYEAR_2021_Canada_FINAL-1626123390.pdf
https://musically.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Canada-2021-03-23876.pdf
https://musically.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Canada-2021-03-23876.pdf
https://musiccanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Value-Gap-Its-Origins-Impacts-and-a-Made-in-Canada-Approach.pdf
https://musiccanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Value-Gap-Its-Origins-Impacts-and-a-Made-in-Canada-Approach.pdf
https://musiccanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Value-Gap-Its-Origins-Impacts-and-a-Made-in-Canada-Approach.pdf
https://musiccanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Live-Music-Measures-Up.pdf
https://musiccanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Live-Music-Measures-Up.pdf
https://musicportland.org/music-ecosystem
https://www.academia.edu/33082275/Striking_A_New_A_Chord_Recommendations_for_the_Growth_and_Development_of_Canadas_East_Coast_Music_Industry
https://www.academia.edu/33082275/Striking_A_New_A_Chord_Recommendations_for_the_Growth_and_Development_of_Canadas_East_Coast_Music_Industry
https://www.academia.edu/33082275/Striking_A_New_A_Chord_Recommendations_for_the_Growth_and_Development_of_Canadas_East_Coast_Music_Industry
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/spotify-launches-canada/
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/spotify-launches-canada/
https://cimamusic.ca/uploads/ck/files/cima_impact_of_covid_on_indie_music_final_2020_12_07.pdf
https://cimamusic.ca/uploads/ck/files/cima_impact_of_covid_on_indie_music_final_2020_12_07.pdf


ARTIVATE 13 

26 

Ontario Arts Council. (2020). OAC grant statistics. 
https://www.arts.on.ca/research-impact/oac-grant-statistics 

Ontario Government. (2021, August 4). Ontario Makes Historic 
Investment in Safe, Innovative Festivals and Events [Press 
release]. 
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1000650/ontario-makes-
historic-investment-in-safe-innovative-festivals-and-events 

Palm, M. (2019). Keeping what real? Vinyl records and the future of 
independent culture. Convergence, 25(4), 643-656. 

Passman, D. S. (2019). All You Need to Know About the Music 
Business (10th ed.). Simon & Schuster. 

Passman, D. S. (2021). All you need to know about the music 
business. Penguin UK. 

Pastukhov, D. (2019). Music Publishing 101: Copyrights, Publishing 
Royalties, Common Deal Types, & More. Soundcharts Blog. 

Potts, J., & Rennie, E. (2019). Web3 and the creative industries: how 
blockchains are reshaping business models. A research agenda 
for creative industries, 93-111.  

Purbasari, R., Muttaqin, Z., Sari, D. S. (2021). Digital 
entrepreneurship in Pandemic Covid 19 era: The digital 
entrepreneurial ecosystem framework. Review of Integrative 
Business and Economics Research, 10(1), 114–135.  

Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-
analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial 
discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences, 114(41), 10870–10875. 

Rocchi, T. (2020). How data is redefining the role of A&R in the 
music industry today. How Music Charts. 
https://blog.chartmetric.com/what-is-a-and-r-music-industry-
today/ 

Rory, P. Q. (2019). Being an independent artist vs. signing to a 
record label. Icon Collective. 
https://iconcollective.edu/independent-artist-vs-signed-
artist/ 

Royalty Exchange. (2017). A Guide to Music Financing for Artists. 
https://www.royaltyexchange.com/blog/a-guide-to-music-
financing-for-artists 

Shapiro, S. (2020). 10 Simple Steps To Build Back Better Music 
Ecosystems. Medium. https://shainshapiro.medium.com/10-
simple-steps-to-build-back-better-music-ecosystems-
29e29dc6882a 

Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., Pieper, K., Clark, H., Case, A., & Villanueva, 
S. (2018). Inclusion in the recording studio. USC Annenberg, 32. 

Smith, S. L., Pieper, K., Choueiti, M., Hernandez, K., & Yao, K. (2021). 
Inclusion in the recording studio? Gender and race/ethnicity of 
artists, songwriters and producers across 900 popular songs 
from 2012–2020. Annenberg Inclusion Initiative. USC 
Annenberg. 

Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., & Pieper, K. (2016). Inclusion or 
invisibility? Comprehensive Annenberg Report on diversity in 
entertainment. Institute for Diversity and Empowerment at 
Annenberg. 
https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017/04/07/M
DSCI_CARD_Report_FINAL_Exec_Summary.pdf 

Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of 
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship 
Journal, 12(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268 

Sound Diplomacy. (2019). The Music Cities Manual. 
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/648c884f92bc800dc6e
f0670/t/65cbcfa14edd393729f87475/1707855784786/SOUN
D+DIPLOMACY+Music+Cities+Manual+-+Final.pdf 

https://www.arts.on.ca/research-impact/oac-grant-statistics
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1000650/ontario-makes-historic-investment-in-safe-innovative-festivals-and-events
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1000650/ontario-makes-historic-investment-in-safe-innovative-festivals-and-events
https://blog.chartmetric.com/what-is-a-and-r-music-industry-today/
https://blog.chartmetric.com/what-is-a-and-r-music-industry-today/
https://iconcollective.edu/independent-artist-vs-signed-artist/
https://iconcollective.edu/independent-artist-vs-signed-artist/
https://www.royaltyexchange.com/blog/a-guide-to-music-financing-for-artists
https://www.royaltyexchange.com/blog/a-guide-to-music-financing-for-artists
https://shainshapiro.medium.com/10-simple-steps-to-build-back-better-music-ecosystems-29e29dc6882a
https://shainshapiro.medium.com/10-simple-steps-to-build-back-better-music-ecosystems-29e29dc6882a
https://shainshapiro.medium.com/10-simple-steps-to-build-back-better-music-ecosystems-29e29dc6882a
https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017/04/07/MDSCI_CARD_Report_FINAL_Exec_Summary.pdf
https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017/04/07/MDSCI_CARD_Report_FINAL_Exec_Summary.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/648c884f92bc800dc6ef0670/t/65cbcfa14edd393729f87475/1707855784786/SOUND+DIPLOMACY+Music+Cities+Manual+-+Final.pdf
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/648c884f92bc800dc6ef0670/t/65cbcfa14edd393729f87475/1707855784786/SOUND+DIPLOMACY+Music+Cities+Manual+-+Final.pdf
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/648c884f92bc800dc6ef0670/t/65cbcfa14edd393729f87475/1707855784786/SOUND+DIPLOMACY+Music+Cities+Manual+-+Final.pdf


ARTIVATE 13 

27 

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A 
sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–
1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484 

Stam, E. (2016). Theorizing entrepreneurship in context. In F. 
Welter & W. B. Gartner (Eds.), A Research Agenda for 
Entrepreneurship and Context (pp. 93–108). Edward Elgar 
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716844.00012 

Stam, E. (2018). Measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems. In A. 
O’Connor, E. Stam, F. Sussan, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), 
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Place-Based Transformations and 
Transitions (pp. 173–197). Springer. 

Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem 
elements. Small Business Economics, 56, 809–832. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6 

Stam, F. C., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems 
(Working Paper No. 16-13). Utrecht School of Economics. 
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/347982/
16_13.pdf 

Stahl, M., & Meier, L. (2012). The firm foundation of organizational 
flexibility: The 360 contract in the digitalizing music industry. 
Canadian journal of Communication, 37(3), 441–458. 

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. (2014). Review of the 
Canadian music industry. Parliament of Canada, House Of 
Commons. 
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/412/CHPC
/Reports/RP6661036/chpcrp05/chpcrp05-e.pdf 

Stokes, S. (2021). Art and copyright. Bloomsbury Publishing. 
Sussan, F., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial 

ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49, 55–73. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5 

Strong, C., & Raine, S. (2019). Towards gender equality in the music 
industry: an introduction. Towards Gender Equality in the Music 
Industry, 1-12. 

The City of Toronto. (2021). Music Industry Directory. 
https://www.toronto.ca/business-economy/industry-sector-
support/music/directory/music-industry-directory/ 

Toronto Music Advisory Council [TMAC]. (2016). Toronto music 
strategy: Supporting and growing the city’s music sector. City of 
Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/961d-backgroundfile-90615.pdf 

Towse, R. (2020). Dealing with digital: the economic organisation 
of streamed music. Media, Culture & Society, 42(7-8), 1461-
1478. 

Towse, R. (2017). Economics of music publishing: copyright and 
the market. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41, 403-420. 

Tschmuck, P. (2006). Creativity and innovation in the music industry 
(pp. 205-230). Springer Netherlands. 

Vasilkova, N. (2020). Inside the music industry: copyright and 
rights holders. 

Valkokari, K. (2015). Business, innovation, and knowledge 
ecosystems: How they differ and how to survive and thrive 
within them. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5, 17–
24. https://timreview.ca/article/919 

White, J. C. (2015). Toward a theory of arts entrepreneurship. 
Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 5. 

Washabaugh, W. (Ed.). (2020). The passion of music and dance: 
body, gender and sexuality. Routledge. 

Webster, J. (2020). Taste in the platform age: Music streaming 
services and new forms of class distinction. Information, 
Communication & Society, 23(13), 1909-1924. 

Wedge, P. (2005). FACTOR: The history. The Canadian 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716844.00012
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/347982/16_13.pdf
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/347982/16_13.pdf
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/412/CHPC/Reports/RP6661036/chpcrp05/chpcrp05-e.pdf
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/412/CHPC/Reports/RP6661036/chpcrp05/chpcrp05-e.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5
https://www.toronto.ca/business-economy/industry-sector-support/music/directory/music-industry-directory/
https://www.toronto.ca/business-economy/industry-sector-support/music/directory/music-industry-directory/
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/961d-backgroundfile-90615.pdf
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/961d-backgroundfile-90615.pdf
https://timreview.ca/article/919


ARTIVATE 13 

28 

Communications Foundation. https://broadcasting-
history.ca/radio/radio-programming/factor-the-history/ 

Westgate, C. J. (2020). Popular music fans and the value of concert 
tickets. Popular Music and Society, 43(1), 57-77. 

Wikstro m, P. (2020). The music industry: Music in the cloud. John 
Wiley & Sons. 

Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022). Toward an entrepreneurial 
ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory and 
Practice, 46(3), 729–778. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998948 

Yende, S. J. (2022). The quest for new digital skills for opera artists 
and opera companies during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of 
Foreign Language Education and Technology, 7(6), 1-12. 

 
Cover image: photo by maxbelchenko, 

www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/crowd-concert-stage-
lights-hands-air-2585250841?dd_referrer= 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998948

	1. Introduction
	1.1. Music Industry
	1.2. Arts Entrepreneurship

	2. Theory
	3. Methods
	3.1. Secondary Source and Literatures Analysis
	3.2. Primary Data

	4. Results
	4.1. Formal Institutions
	4.2. Culture
	4.3. Finance
	4.4. Demand
	4.5. Networks
	4.6. Leadership
	4.7. Talent
	4.8. Knowledge
	4.9. Intermediate Services
	4.10. Outputs: Productive Entrepreneurship

	5. Discussion
	6. Conclusions

