Is this a big deal? They can just join 3 months later.
Meanwhile it's the industry to present this in the best light for themselves - during that same time period plays can equal sales, in much the same way that Free-Play on iTunes Radio leads to new album sales. Even Lady Gaga made her whole album available on Free-Play for that reason, trial periods let people make up their own mind towards the music.
Heck, this sort of stuff would come under the marketing budget of an independent anyway, they're not concerned about artists: they could easily pay them projected royalties, it's the label themselves who are worried about not turning as much profit during the same time period.
Apple should simply rewards those artists who participate in the free trial period. Or rather, if you don't participate from the beginning, but then want to join Apple Music once there are tons of paying subscribers, you get 1% less on your royalties than those who had faith from the beginning. It'll still be way more that you earn from Spotify.
Will the 3-month free trial period be only for the 3 months immediately following Apple Music launch or is it 3 months from when the user signs up, like Amazon Prime and Netflix's free trials? If it's the latter, then those rolling three month free trials could definitely be problematic.
For a company that is constantly declaring its love of music, methinks they could do a better job using a trickle of their billions to support musicians.
I understand that a 3 month free trial would affect their revenue if suddenly they stop making money form an existing service. But this is a NEW service, they will still have their deals in place for Spotify, Google Play, Amazon, Pandora, Rdio, iTunes downlads, etc. I do not think people with spotify or any other service will cancel their subscription automatically when the Apple Music hits (I know I won't).
If they stay out for the duration of the three month trial period they will make NO money from Apple Music anyways, and maybe straining their relations with the service. They might have a hard time getting on board the Apple once the free trial ends.
A bit of a hissy fit on the part of the British Indie labels. As if Apple Music alone is going to make them go belly up due to a 3 month free trial period - nonsense!
You're assuming a 1-1 ratio, which it's not. Even with your numbers there are more than 10 people listing to free than paying. So your numbers are wrong there. Also, you're assuming again that people will stay on as a paying customer. This again is wrong. Some will, the majority will not. By your numbers it would only take 10 free Spotify customers to equal 1 paying Apple Music customer. Easy done.
And just how many do you think will stay a paying customer? 5%, 20%, 60%? Some will stay on, the majority will not.
And here I thought, because most people on here were saying it, that Apple was all about and for the artist.
Bingo
My assumptions are arrived at by using industry averages release over the last few days on this and other sites comparing payouts. The issue is that a customer value that is worth so little but has full access to your product is not a sustainable model for anyone. The sale of that song or cd was lost already if they are a free streamer. With Apple Music they have to either join or leave. because of the size of their install base with credit cards, they only have to convert 2% to move the needle and match Spotify because so few stream world wide.
Apple's model is as it always has been, a partnership. They build and support a system they fans love to use and gets them ready to spend money, and Apple pays 70% to the rights holders. Just like when the labels do give aways, they don't pay the artist for them, in fact the bill the artist for the cost out of any owed royalties. In Apples case, there is no revenue during the trial, so 70% of nothing is nothing. Just like free downloads on the App Store or iTunes.
A free trial is fine but it should be on Apple, not the musicians or labels. The reason for this is obvious. It is in Apple's interest to help small independents. For Apple it is 'blip' on the profit graph, for a tiny label it could mean the end. There is no benefit in that.
You missed the part where Apple is paying more royalties. In the end, the musicians will end up with MORE money, not less(compared with spotify, etc).
You're assuming a 1-1 ratio, which it's not. Even with your numbers there are more than 10 people listing to free than paying. So your numbers are wrong there. Also, you're assuming again that people will stay on as a paying customer. This again is wrong. Some will, the majority will not. By your numbers it would only take 10 free Spotify customers to equal 1 paying Apple Music customer. Easy done.
And just how many do you think will stay a paying customer? 5%, 20%, 60%? Some will stay on, the majority will not.
And here I thought, because most people on here were saying it, that Apple was all about and for the artist.
Bingo
Oh, you KNOW the majority will not stay on as a paid customer? Is that what the stars are telling you?
Oh, you KNOW the majority will not stay on as a paid customer? Is that what the stars are telling you?
A majority would be 51% or more. So yes, a majority will not stay a paying customer. If you think for one second that out of all the people that sign up for the free 3 months that the majority will stay on as a paying customer I have a bridge to sell you.
Three month's lost revenues can be painful, especially given the uncertainty about the conversion rate to paid subscriptions. Also, there is no cost in waiting. If the conversion rate is high, the Indies can still join Apple Music, and if it is slow, then they may get a better deal. It's a free option, the best thing life can offer.
Personally, I believe they will join because, although there is no clarity about this yet from Apple (maybe intentionally), Apple Music is not about streaming - it is a subscription service that is about downloading as many songs as you like for a fixed monthly fee. I expect (but I am really guessing here) they will be available in your music library, indistinguishable from purchased music.
Assuming you listen to music for 70 years, at $ 10 per month you end up paying a total of $ 8,400 for music, about 500 albums. But on a subscription service, you are not restricted to 500 albums, i.e. you can listen to thousands of albums for the price of 500 albums. So many people will probably become paid subscribers.
Has anyone an idea or thought why the music industry did not develop like the movie industry? Offering music first as purchase only, later on paid subscription services and later still on free/ad supported subscriptions? Wouldn't that make sense?
Comments
Is this a big deal? They can just join 3 months later.
Meanwhile it's the industry to present this in the best light for themselves - during that same time period plays can equal sales, in much the same way that Free-Play on iTunes Radio leads to new album sales. Even Lady Gaga made her whole album available on Free-Play for that reason, trial periods let people make up their own mind towards the music.
Heck, this sort of stuff would come under the marketing budget of an independent anyway, they're not concerned about artists: they could easily pay them projected royalties, it's the label themselves who are worried about not turning as much profit during the same time period.
Apple should simply rewards those artists who participate in the free trial period. Or rather, if you don't participate from the beginning, but then want to join Apple Music once there are tons of paying subscribers, you get 1% less on your royalties than those who had faith from the beginning. It'll still be way more that you earn from Spotify.
Will the 3-month free trial period be only for the 3 months immediately following Apple Music launch or is it 3 months from when the user signs up, like Amazon Prime and Netflix's free trials? If it's the latter, then those rolling three month free trials could definitely be problematic.
Losing XL's catalogue would be a big blow. They're seriously talented at nurturing new artists.
XL Recordings alone includes acts like Arctic Monkeys, Vampire Weekend, Beck, SBTRKT, and the XX.
You may be happy with Britney and Justin but some of us have more discerning taste in music.
Who?
Who?
The Prodigy, MIA, Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Jack White...
Do you seriously not know of or at least heard of one of these great artists? There are some massive amounts of talent with this label.
Who?
The Who are kind of geriatric now, and some are dead.
/s
If they stay out for the duration of the three month trial period they will make NO money from
Apple Music anyways, and maybe straining their relations with the service. They might have a hard time getting on board the Apple once the free trial ends.
A bit of a hissy fit on the part of the British Indie labels. As if Apple Music alone is going to make them go belly up due to a 3 month free trial period - nonsense!
My assumptions are arrived at by using industry averages release over the last few days on this and other sites comparing payouts. The issue is that a customer value that is worth so little but has full access to your product is not a sustainable model for anyone. The sale of that song or cd was lost already if they are a free streamer. With Apple Music they have to either join or leave. because of the size of their install base with credit cards, they only have to convert 2% to move the needle and match Spotify because so few stream world wide.
Apple's model is as it always has been, a partnership. They build and support a system they fans love to use and gets them ready to spend money, and Apple pays 70% to the rights holders. Just like when the labels do give aways, they don't pay the artist for them, in fact the bill the artist for the cost out of any owed royalties. In Apples case, there is no revenue during the trial, so 70% of nothing is nothing. Just like free downloads on the App Store or iTunes.
A free trial is fine but it should be on Apple, not the musicians or labels. The reason for this is obvious. It is in Apple's interest to help small independents. For Apple it is 'blip' on the profit graph, for a tiny label it could mean the end. There is no benefit in that.
You missed the part where Apple is paying more royalties. In the end, the musicians will end up with MORE money, not less(compared with spotify, etc).
You're assuming a 1-1 ratio, which it's not. Even with your numbers there are more than 10 people listing to free than paying. So your numbers are wrong there. Also, you're assuming again that people will stay on as a paying customer. This again is wrong. Some will, the majority will not. By your numbers it would only take 10 free Spotify customers to equal 1 paying Apple Music customer. Easy done.
And just how many do you think will stay a paying customer? 5%, 20%, 60%? Some will stay on, the majority will not.
And here I thought, because most people on here were saying it, that Apple was all about and for the artist.
Bingo
Oh, you KNOW the majority will not stay on as a paid customer? Is that what the stars are telling you?
A majority would be 51% or more. So yes, a majority will not stay a paying customer. If you think for one second that out of all the people that sign up for the free 3 months that the majority will stay on as a paying customer I have a bridge to sell you.
Three month's lost revenues can be painful, especially given the uncertainty about the conversion rate to paid subscriptions. Also, there is no cost in waiting. If the conversion rate is high, the Indies can still join Apple Music, and if it is slow, then they may get a better deal. It's a free option, the best thing life can offer.
Personally, I believe they will join because, although there is no clarity about this yet from Apple (maybe intentionally), Apple Music is not about streaming - it is a subscription service that is about downloading as many songs as you like for a fixed monthly fee. I expect (but I am really guessing here) they will be available in your music library, indistinguishable from purchased music.
Assuming you listen to music for 70 years, at $ 10 per month you end up paying a total of $ 8,400 for music, about 500 albums. But on a subscription service, you are not restricted to 500 albums, i.e. you can listen to thousands of albums for the price of 500 albums. So many people will probably become paid subscribers.
And ban vegetarians too!
Has anyone an idea or thought why the music industry did not develop like the movie industry? Offering music first as purchase only, later on paid subscription services and later still on free/ad supported subscriptions? Wouldn't that make sense?