I respect Ms. Swift as a music cum celebrity business-person. And her music is riding the current pop wave. Whether she has staying power remains to be seen. Will her songs be as timeless as Paul McCartney? Few are. But I've never really liked her, and I don't know why. There is just something about her that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I really believe her actual artistic talents are pretty limited, and resent the way she is grotesquely rewarded for them. Maybe it's really the system that angers me.
I'm not into pop music and don't often listen to her stuff. But as a musician myself and the father of two daughters that play Swift's music, I can clearly see that she is an incredibly gifted songwriter. She writes all her own stuff, and she changes styles and themes almost effortlessly. If you think her artistic talents are "pretty limited", then I have to wonder whether you've actually given her the benefit of the doubt.
The album in question is still generating hit after hit and selling like hotcakes! You may not appreciate it, but tons of people worldwide do. Her album is like the iPhone of albums, and you prefer Android (it's an analogy, don't flip)!
If the music on that album were available for on demand streaming for 3 months, do you know how many record sales that would cost her? A hell of a lot is the answer. Now, how many of those listeners would go on to purchase the music anyway after the trial period ends? We don't know. And how many would ultimately stay with the Apple Music service afterwards? We don't know that either, nor do we know whether that is lucrative enough to even partially offset the earlier losses. But it seems to me pretty clear that three months worth of royalty-free streaming would result in a big loss to Swift, with an unknown amount of mitigation afterwards. She's making the right call with this particular album.
No it wouldn't. Fans that likes her music will buy her albums regardless. Even if it only has one hit on it. People that thinks her music is just OK to listen to every once in a while or just like a few tracks won't think her music is worth buying in the first place and will just make a copy from some one they know that already has the album or buy the few tracks they like online.
The RIAA wants you to believe that every illegal copy of a CD made is a CD sale loss. That is far from the truth. The truth is that most people that pirate music for personal use, would never buy that music. The real loss comes from the mass distribution of illegally made copies from a CD. Streaming is the same way. Just because someone was able to stream the music doesn't mean that it was a loss sale. Most people that are willing to pay for streaming are the people that don't want to buy and own music in the first place. And if they really like an artist, they will still buy the music because with streaming, there is no guarantee that the music you like will always be available or that the streaming service will always be there and affordable. Like what's happening to Netflix, movies that you like and thought you'd always have access to, because you subscribe to Netflix, may not be available next year or next month. If you really like the movie, you buy it. Even used. Plus many music listeners like to be able to listen to their music on a plain old MP3 player, or on a mix CD in their car or in higher quality on a home stereo or have a very limited data plan. Having the music you like to listen to, only available on a streaming service, has it's limits.
I'll bet that having music on a streaming service will result in more music sales than less. Do you think that having your music played on the radio will result in more music sales or less? At least with a streaming service, unlike radio, the artist is getting paid for the advertising (Except for this 3 month free trial.) As more and more people listen to radio less and less, because of streaming services, soon the best way to expose your music to the most people listening to music is to have it available on a streaming service (or YouTube). And the people listening to music on a free streaming service will be the ones most likely to buy the music they like when hey hear it. Streaming is the new radio. It's where most music listener will soon be going to hear new music. If your music is not on it, it's going to cost you in sales. It's like how for advertisers, the internet is the new TV.
Taylor Swift has a huge fan base. If she put out an album of her sneezing, it would still sell a million copies. Her fans will buy her new album even if it was available for free on a music streaming site. What sales she will lose are from the music listeners that aren't really her fans but may find out they like her music, because they were able to stream it. And some of these music listeners might end up buying her music. If only a few tracks on iTunes. But it would still a sale that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't available for streaming. And if these listeners didn't end up buying any of her music, in most cases, it was not a loss sale.
^ That's a whole lot of assumption about human behaviour across millions of individuals and multiple continents.
If I subscribe to ?Music, I strongly doubt I'll be buying much more music from iTunes. Do you really think that Spotify subscribers, while paying for streaming, are also paying for significant quantities of music the old fashioned way? I don't.
Taylor Swift is really starting to think of herself as a savvy businessperson, and celebrity activist. She may be the former, but she looks ridiculous as the latter. The debate concerning streaming and breaking up albums was over more than 10 years ago. It was over as soon as iTunes became a huge success. As for her activism, if I have to hear her $250 million net worth ass complain about how women are discriminated against in the industry, I'll lose my mind.
Going by her statement in this instance she doesn't seem to have an issue with streaming, particularly Apple Music as people actually pay for it. Its more the idea that Apple want to offer a free trial to users to get people to sign up, but don't want to pay any of the music owners for there stuff during that time.
Its like opening a shop and telling your suppliers your just going to give there stuff away and not pay them for it either. Because you want to gain popularity for your store. No benefit for the supplier and they may never actually get a sale after the free period, yet there being told to take on the cost.
TBH I think apples starting to go to far with how it try's to use its position of power to take all the benefits and pass on the risk/costs.
TBH I think apples starting to go to far with how it try's to use its position of power to take all the benefits and pass on the risk/costs.
Yes. It's one thing to use your size to drive a hard bargain with an electronics supplier in the Far East, but quite another to try the same thing with American pop singers.
Unlike the electronics supplier, the pop singers are popular in their own right and can take your tough contract to the court of public opinion. So let's see what happens next. Lately, when Apple has started to get bad publicity about this issue or that, they have changed course more often than not.
Going by her statement in this instance she doesn't seem to have an issue with streaming, particularly Apple Music as people actually pay for it. Its more the idea that Apple want to offer a free trial to users to get people to sign up, but don't want to pay any of the music owners for there stuff during that time..
She wrote an excellent blog post explaining her position, which is what I assume you're referencing, Well worth reading by anyone posting attacks on her character and decision.
"I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation." http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
^^^ I don't buy her rationale as presented. I believe what we've actually seen her do, which is to act in her own interest from a position of strength.
New artists must resort to all kinds of tactics and tricks to make their name and gain an audience because there is a massive oversupply of musicians and music, just as there are far more actors than are needed. Too much supply, meet too little demand. The current market value for the majority of recorded music is effectively 'zero'.
^ That's a whole lot of assumption about human behaviour across millions of individuals and multiple continents.
If I subscribe to ?Music, I strongly doubt I'll be buying much more music from iTunes. Do you really think that Spotify subscribers, while paying for streaming, are also paying for significant quantities of music the old fashioned way? I don't.
I wasn't really talking about the pay subscription models. Taylor Swift don't seem to have too much of a problem with those either. It's the lost of sales of her new album, due to the free 3 month trial that I was addressing to the post that I quoted. I merely stated why, if she made her new album available on the 3 months of free trial subscription, that it would not have too much of an impact on her new album sales.
But back in 2003 (or so) when iTunes came online, people were saying that album sales would plummet due to the fact that iTunes would allowed for the purchase of individual tracks from an album. Well, that didn't happen. At least not for artist with a huge fan base and artist that plays good music. (They are not necessarily one and the same.) Artist like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Britney Spears, Eminem, ColdPlay, Madonna, Usher and even the Beatles still managed to sell millions of copies of their albums since then. These artist probably made more money (due to individual track sales.) because the people that bought only the individual tracks wouldn't have bought the whole album to get the tracks they wanted anyways. So these artist made some extra money from people who would have just pirated the few tracks they wanted, if it weren't available for $.99.
In the end, if they can make the subscription model work, the artist will benefit. I don't think it would impact music sales too much and the artist will continue to collect something whenever their music is played from a subscription service . Even 3 or 5 years from now. Even if you already own the music from before you started your subscription. All of a sudden, the artist are receiving a faction of a penny from the music you already own, when you play those music on your subscription account. But it won't cost you any more to do so. On the other hand, the albums that they sold will never generate any more income for the artist. Even if the music on it is played millions of times and it get passed from one owner to another, over the years.
And even though you can now listen to all your music from your subscription, I'm willing to bet you're not going to throw away the music you already bought any time soon, it at all. And if the subscription model turns out to be a bust and shuts down, you will still go out and buy all the music you like and was listening to from your subscription. (At least by that time, you can get them on used CD's for a fraction of the cost new, to help recover some of the cost of paying for the subscription over the years, only to end up with nothing.)
I still think Steve Jobs was right when he said people want to own the music that they want to listen to, over and over again. I was only one of millions of people that went out and ended up buying all the Beatles remastered albums. (I got them on CD's) Albums that were released 40 years ago. Albums that I have on vinyl and CD's when they first came out. Not to mention the Mobile Fidelity Half Speed Master box set.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't some middle ground, where someone with the right business model can make money (for the artist and themselves.). But I don't think we're even close to that yet, (but Apple getting into it is a good sign.) and iTunes music sales will not see much of a hit until then. I wouldn't be surprise if these subscription models actually drive music sales up (as a whole and not for just the big artist.), as music listeners are easily exposed to more different types of music than otherwise available elsewhere. If anything, I think air wave radio will feel it before there's any big loss of music sales.
If music sale starts to take a big loss because music listeners with a pay subscription service are no longer buying music and the artist (and labels) aren't making up enough of that lost from the pay subscription model in place, how long do you think the subscription model is going to last? The price of the subscription will have to go up and if it has to go up to the point of it no longer being affordable to enough music listeners to sustain the service, it will shut down.
I wasn't really talking about the pay subscription models. Taylor Swift don't seem to have too much of a problem with those either. It's the lost of sales of her new album, due to the free 3 month trial that I was addressing to the post that I quoted. I merely stated why, if she made her new album available on the 3 months of free trial subscription, that it would not have too much of an impact on her new album sales.
Why not? If someone is on the 3 month trial, what incentive do they have to buy the album? After the 3 month trial is up and they decide to cancel the subscription, sure, they may then buy those albums that they liked, but during the free period? Buying something that they have access to for free (barring edge cases of people with intermittent internet access for streaming) is not particularly rational behaviour.
Come 30th June, some 250 million (give or take, I don't know exact numbers) people using iTunes on OS X, Windows, or iOS will have access to a free streaming service and will have no incentive whatsoever (bar ignorance or irrational clinging to ownership) to pay for music. Hell, more users than that even, since ?Music will also be on Android. 3 months free is a big draw (which is why Apple are offering it) so they may well find people putting their Spotify, Rdio, or Pandora subs on hold and trying out ?Music for 90 days. So likely a very large proportion of iTunes customers lost. Some Spotify and other streaming service customers lost. No music sales income from any of those customers. Sure, it'll be temporary, what with ?Music subs kicking in and some people returning to their original purchase model, but that's going to be a massive dent in income over 3 months. Taylor Swift will be fine, but some smaller artists might not be able to cope with that loss in income; as has been pointed out in this thread, the music business can be a bit like a lottery ticket, with a few big winners, and many more barely scraping by.
Why not? If someone is on the 3 month trial, what incentive do they have to buy the album? After the 3 month trial is up and they decide to cancel the subscription, sure, they may then buy those albums that they liked, but during the free period? Buying something that they have access to for free (barring edge cases of people with intermittent internet access for streaming) is not particularly rational behaviour.
Come 30th June, some 250 million (give or take, I don't know exact numbers) people using iTunes on OS X, Windows, or iOS will have access to a free streaming service and will have no incentive whatsoever (bar ignorance or irrational clinging to ownership) to pay for music. Hell, more users than that even, since ?Music will also be on Android. 3 months free is a big draw (which is why Apple are offering it) so they may well find people putting their Spotify, Rdio, or Pandora subs on hold and trying out ?Music for 90 days. So likely a very large proportion of iTunes customers lost. Some Spotify and other streaming service customers lost. No music sales income from any of those customers. Sure, it'll be temporary, what with ?Music subs kicking in and some people returning to their original purchase model, but that's going to be a massive dent in income over 3 months. Taylor Swift will be fine, but some smaller artists might not be able to cope with that loss in income; as has been pointed out in this thread, the music business can be a bit like a lottery ticket, with a few big winners, and many more barely scraping by.
Those 250 million iTunes users have access to free subscription music right now and have for the past 3 years. It's called Spotify. Granted it may not be as good as what Apple is going to offer, but still, it's free and been around for over 3 years. Spotify is accessible to everyone with a mobile device (with data or at least WiFi) or a computer with internet connection (which includes all iTunes users.) So that's got to be way, way more than 250 million people. And yet, over the past 3 years, they only managed to get about 75 million subscribers (World wide) and only about 15 million of them are paying. And I'm sure a good percentage of them are iTunes users that will switch over at the end of the month, at least to try out the 3 month free trial. And a good percentage of paying Spottily users may switch over if Apple subscription model offers a better deal. So even if only 50% of iTunes users were interested in subscription music, that would mean that Spotify should have at least 125 million subscribers by now. And remember that only about 20% of their subscribers are paying. 60 million are using Spottily free ad based service. Apple won't be offering a free subscription music service, other than the 3 months free trial.
So it's not a matter of Apple all of sudden having 250 million new potential users for their subscription service, that the other music subscription services didn't have access to before. It's whether Apple can convince any more people to sign up for a subscription service, that haven't already signed up with one (in the past 3 years) or convince those that have, to switch over to Apple's new pay subscription service.
Music sales has been steadily declining even before subscription took off in 2011, with Spotify. It was declining when the iTunes Store came online. So far there's has been no accelerating of the decline even with the huge increase of subscription music subscribers over the past 3 years. So no one, for now, is blaming subscription for the decline of overall music sales. The strange thing is that physical CD's sales is taking the biggest hit in sales, with digital downloaded music next. One would figure that if subscription music was the cause of declining sales, it would have the least impact on people buying CD's and more impact on the people that download their music. For now, they are saying that subscription music service is adding to music sales. Just like how they said that iTunes sales was adding to music sales and not cannibalizing it with $9.99 albums and sales of individual tracks.
I don't really see what any of that has with your OP. Spotify's "free" service still pays content providers, and has the disadvantages of ads, and not much of a mobile proposition. ?Music won't require a difficult sign up, it'll likely just appear on every iOS device and Mac come June 30th as an update, and use already existing iCloud info. And Apple have a well-noted ability to galvanise an industry/service that others had difficulty breaking - mp3 players, smartphones, tablets, e-pay systems, etc, so they are well positioned to outperform other streaming services, especially for 3 months of no-charge, no-ad service.
On that basis, with those prerequisites, why are you so certain that artists' (Taylor Swift or otherwise) revenue from new album sales wouldn't have seen much impact during those three months, prior to the change?
I don't really see what any of that has with your OP. Spotify's "free" service still pays content providers, and has the disadvantages of ads, and not much of a mobile proposition. ?Music won't require a difficult sign up, it'll likely just appear on every iOS device and Mac come June 30th as an update, and use already existing iCloud info. And Apple have a well-noted ability to galvanise an industry/service that others had difficulty breaking - mp3 players, smartphones, tablets, e-pay systems, etc, so they are well positioned to outperform other streaming services, especially for 3 months of no-charge, no-ad service.
On that basis, with those prerequisites, why are you so certain that artists' (Taylor Swift or otherwise) revenue from new album sales wouldn't have seen much impact during those three months, prior to the change?
Now you're moving the goal post. The issue is albums sold, not revenue.
In 2014, Taylor swift had the number 1 selling album with 3.6 million copies sold and it was only available for the last 9 weeks of 2014 and not available for streaming. The second place album was the soundtrack to Frozen. It barely missed being the top selling album with 3.5 million copies sold. It was the top selling album for all of 2014, except the last week, when Taylor Swift album over took it. Frozen was available for streaming for 10 months in 2014. Not bad for an album that 60 million people on Spotify, as you put it, would have been ignorant to buy. Third place was a distance away with 1.2 million copies sold. That was Sam Smith, The Lonely Hour. Which was not available for streaming until the end of the year.
Here's an interest take on whether Sam Smith's album could have done better if it was available for streaming from the start.
With the average iTune account spending only $12 a year in music (back in 2013 when there was about 600 accounts) I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden a significant amount of them will start spending over $100 a year for streaming music, let alone even interested in the 3 month free trial. No matter how easy it is to sign up. That's not to say that 10's of millions of them won't and millions won't pay for it. But it's going to be a far cry from the 800 million iTunes account (as of 2014) out there. The numbers suggest that most iTune accounts don't spend any money on music (at least with iTunes) at all. This isn't like the old days when the iTunes store first came on line. People back then had iTunes accounts to manage their iPods. Which is a device for playing music, both purchased and ripped. I remember iTunes account were spending an average of $20 a year in music back then. Now of days, most of the growth in iTune accounts comes from people buying iPhones and apps.
I don't see how album sales as a count are particularly important or relevant, overall revenue is what counts, and a widely available three month free streaming package that applies to most music will have a massive impact. It'll have a massive impact on your count of album sales too no doubt, so if you want to consider those your goalposts then let's leave them wherever you think they are.
And stop inserting Spotify as an equal equivalent. Spotify Free has ads. Spotify Free also requires sign up and install of something. Spotify Free also does not (did not? I haven't checked for a while) work on mobile. Spotify Free has a number of barriers which the ?Music 3 month trial will not, plus ?Music will have a lot more mindshare right now (especially after the Taylor Swift affair).
Comments
I respect Ms. Swift as a music cum celebrity business-person. And her music is riding the current pop wave. Whether she has staying power remains to be seen. Will her songs be as timeless as Paul McCartney? Few are. But I've never really liked her, and I don't know why. There is just something about her that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I really believe her actual artistic talents are pretty limited, and resent the way she is grotesquely rewarded for them. Maybe it's really the system that angers me.
I'm not into pop music and don't often listen to her stuff. But as a musician myself and the father of two daughters that play Swift's music, I can clearly see that she is an incredibly gifted songwriter. She writes all her own stuff, and she changes styles and themes almost effortlessly. If you think her artistic talents are "pretty limited", then I have to wonder whether you've actually given her the benefit of the doubt.
There, fixed the headline.
“The far reaching implications of this profound cultural loss are staggering.” – No one, ever
The album in question is still generating hit after hit and selling like hotcakes! You may not appreciate it, but tons of people worldwide do. Her album is like the iPhone of albums, and you prefer Android (it's an analogy, don't flip)!
If the music on that album were available for on demand streaming for 3 months, do you know how many record sales that would cost her? A hell of a lot is the answer. Now, how many of those listeners would go on to purchase the music anyway after the trial period ends? We don't know. And how many would ultimately stay with the Apple Music service afterwards? We don't know that either, nor do we know whether that is lucrative enough to even partially offset the earlier losses. But it seems to me pretty clear that three months worth of royalty-free streaming would result in a big loss to Swift, with an unknown amount of mitigation afterwards. She's making the right call with this particular album.
No it wouldn't. Fans that likes her music will buy her albums regardless. Even if it only has one hit on it. People that thinks her music is just OK to listen to every once in a while or just like a few tracks won't think her music is worth buying in the first place and will just make a copy from some one they know that already has the album or buy the few tracks they like online.
The RIAA wants you to believe that every illegal copy of a CD made is a CD sale loss. That is far from the truth. The truth is that most people that pirate music for personal use, would never buy that music. The real loss comes from the mass distribution of illegally made copies from a CD. Streaming is the same way. Just because someone was able to stream the music doesn't mean that it was a loss sale. Most people that are willing to pay for streaming are the people that don't want to buy and own music in the first place. And if they really like an artist, they will still buy the music because with streaming, there is no guarantee that the music you like will always be available or that the streaming service will always be there and affordable. Like what's happening to Netflix, movies that you like and thought you'd always have access to, because you subscribe to Netflix, may not be available next year or next month. If you really like the movie, you buy it. Even used. Plus many music listeners like to be able to listen to their music on a plain old MP3 player, or on a mix CD in their car or in higher quality on a home stereo or have a very limited data plan. Having the music you like to listen to, only available on a streaming service, has it's limits.
I'll bet that having music on a streaming service will result in more music sales than less. Do you think that having your music played on the radio will result in more music sales or less? At least with a streaming service, unlike radio, the artist is getting paid for the advertising (Except for this 3 month free trial.) As more and more people listen to radio less and less, because of streaming services, soon the best way to expose your music to the most people listening to music is to have it available on a streaming service (or YouTube). And the people listening to music on a free streaming service will be the ones most likely to buy the music they like when hey hear it. Streaming is the new radio. It's where most music listener will soon be going to hear new music. If your music is not on it, it's going to cost you in sales. It's like how for advertisers, the internet is the new TV.
Taylor Swift has a huge fan base. If she put out an album of her sneezing, it would still sell a million copies. Her fans will buy her new album even if it was available for free on a music streaming site. What sales she will lose are from the music listeners that aren't really her fans but may find out they like her music, because they were able to stream it. And some of these music listeners might end up buying her music. If only a few tracks on iTunes. But it would still a sale that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't available for streaming. And if these listeners didn't end up buying any of her music, in most cases, it was not a loss sale.
^ That's a whole lot of assumption about human behaviour across millions of individuals and multiple continents.
If I subscribe to ?Music, I strongly doubt I'll be buying much more music from iTunes. Do you really think that Spotify subscribers, while paying for streaming, are also paying for significant quantities of music the old fashioned way? I don't.
Its like opening a shop and telling your suppliers your just going to give there stuff away and not pay them for it either. Because you want to gain popularity for your store. No benefit for the supplier and they may never actually get a sale after the free period, yet there being told to take on the cost.
TBH I think apples starting to go to far with how it try's to use its position of power to take all the benefits and pass on the risk/costs.
TBH I think apples starting to go to far with how it try's to use its position of power to take all the benefits and pass on the risk/costs.
Yes. It's one thing to use your size to drive a hard bargain with an electronics supplier in the Far East, but quite another to try the same thing with American pop singers.
Unlike the electronics supplier, the pop singers are popular in their own right and can take your tough contract to the court of public opinion. So let's see what happens next. Lately, when Apple has started to get bad publicity about this issue or that, they have changed course more often than not.
"I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
New artists must resort to all kinds of tactics and tricks to make their name and gain an audience because there is a massive oversupply of musicians and music, just as there are far more actors than are needed. Too much supply, meet too little demand. The current market value for the majority of recorded music is effectively 'zero'.
^ That's a whole lot of assumption about human behaviour across millions of individuals and multiple continents.
If I subscribe to ?Music, I strongly doubt I'll be buying much more music from iTunes. Do you really think that Spotify subscribers, while paying for streaming, are also paying for significant quantities of music the old fashioned way? I don't.
I wasn't really talking about the pay subscription models. Taylor Swift don't seem to have too much of a problem with those either. It's the lost of sales of her new album, due to the free 3 month trial that I was addressing to the post that I quoted. I merely stated why, if she made her new album available on the 3 months of free trial subscription, that it would not have too much of an impact on her new album sales.
But back in 2003 (or so) when iTunes came online, people were saying that album sales would plummet due to the fact that iTunes would allowed for the purchase of individual tracks from an album. Well, that didn't happen. At least not for artist with a huge fan base and artist that plays good music. (They are not necessarily one and the same.) Artist like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Britney Spears, Eminem, ColdPlay, Madonna, Usher and even the Beatles still managed to sell millions of copies of their albums since then. These artist probably made more money (due to individual track sales.) because the people that bought only the individual tracks wouldn't have bought the whole album to get the tracks they wanted anyways. So these artist made some extra money from people who would have just pirated the few tracks they wanted, if it weren't available for $.99.
In the end, if they can make the subscription model work, the artist will benefit. I don't think it would impact music sales too much and the artist will continue to collect something whenever their music is played from a subscription service . Even 3 or 5 years from now. Even if you already own the music from before you started your subscription. All of a sudden, the artist are receiving a faction of a penny from the music you already own, when you play those music on your subscription account. But it won't cost you any more to do so. On the other hand, the albums that they sold will never generate any more income for the artist. Even if the music on it is played millions of times and it get passed from one owner to another, over the years.
And even though you can now listen to all your music from your subscription, I'm willing to bet you're not going to throw away the music you already bought any time soon, it at all. And if the subscription model turns out to be a bust and shuts down, you will still go out and buy all the music you like and was listening to from your subscription. (At least by that time, you can get them on used CD's for a fraction of the cost new, to help recover some of the cost of paying for the subscription over the years, only to end up with nothing.)
I still think Steve Jobs was right when he said people want to own the music that they want to listen to, over and over again. I was only one of millions of people that went out and ended up buying all the Beatles remastered albums. (I got them on CD's) Albums that were released 40 years ago. Albums that I have on vinyl and CD's when they first came out. Not to mention the Mobile Fidelity Half Speed Master box set.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't some middle ground, where someone with the right business model can make money (for the artist and themselves.). But I don't think we're even close to that yet, (but Apple getting into it is a good sign.) and iTunes music sales will not see much of a hit until then. I wouldn't be surprise if these subscription models actually drive music sales up (as a whole and not for just the big artist.), as music listeners are easily exposed to more different types of music than otherwise available elsewhere. If anything, I think air wave radio will feel it before there's any big loss of music sales.
If music sale starts to take a big loss because music listeners with a pay subscription service are no longer buying music and the artist (and labels) aren't making up enough of that lost from the pay subscription model in place, how long do you think the subscription model is going to last? The price of the subscription will have to go up and if it has to go up to the point of it no longer being affordable to enough music listeners to sustain the service, it will shut down.
I wasn't really talking about the pay subscription models. Taylor Swift don't seem to have too much of a problem with those either. It's the lost of sales of her new album, due to the free 3 month trial that I was addressing to the post that I quoted. I merely stated why, if she made her new album available on the 3 months of free trial subscription, that it would not have too much of an impact on her new album sales.
Why not? If someone is on the 3 month trial, what incentive do they have to buy the album? After the 3 month trial is up and they decide to cancel the subscription, sure, they may then buy those albums that they liked, but during the free period? Buying something that they have access to for free (barring edge cases of people with intermittent internet access for streaming) is not particularly rational behaviour.
Come 30th June, some 250 million (give or take, I don't know exact numbers) people using iTunes on OS X, Windows, or iOS will have access to a free streaming service and will have no incentive whatsoever (bar ignorance or irrational clinging to ownership) to pay for music. Hell, more users than that even, since ?Music will also be on Android. 3 months free is a big draw (which is why Apple are offering it) so they may well find people putting their Spotify, Rdio, or Pandora subs on hold and trying out ?Music for 90 days. So likely a very large proportion of iTunes customers lost. Some Spotify and other streaming service customers lost. No music sales income from any of those customers. Sure, it'll be temporary, what with ?Music subs kicking in and some people returning to their original purchase model, but that's going to be a massive dent in income over 3 months. Taylor Swift will be fine, but some smaller artists might not be able to cope with that loss in income; as has been pointed out in this thread, the music business can be a bit like a lottery ticket, with a few big winners, and many more barely scraping by.
Why not? If someone is on the 3 month trial, what incentive do they have to buy the album? After the 3 month trial is up and they decide to cancel the subscription, sure, they may then buy those albums that they liked, but during the free period? Buying something that they have access to for free (barring edge cases of people with intermittent internet access for streaming) is not particularly rational behaviour.
Come 30th June, some 250 million (give or take, I don't know exact numbers) people using iTunes on OS X, Windows, or iOS will have access to a free streaming service and will have no incentive whatsoever (bar ignorance or irrational clinging to ownership) to pay for music. Hell, more users than that even, since ?Music will also be on Android. 3 months free is a big draw (which is why Apple are offering it) so they may well find people putting their Spotify, Rdio, or Pandora subs on hold and trying out ?Music for 90 days. So likely a very large proportion of iTunes customers lost. Some Spotify and other streaming service customers lost. No music sales income from any of those customers. Sure, it'll be temporary, what with ?Music subs kicking in and some people returning to their original purchase model, but that's going to be a massive dent in income over 3 months. Taylor Swift will be fine, but some smaller artists might not be able to cope with that loss in income; as has been pointed out in this thread, the music business can be a bit like a lottery ticket, with a few big winners, and many more barely scraping by.
Those 250 million iTunes users have access to free subscription music right now and have for the past 3 years. It's called Spotify. Granted it may not be as good as what Apple is going to offer, but still, it's free and been around for over 3 years. Spotify is accessible to everyone with a mobile device (with data or at least WiFi) or a computer with internet connection (which includes all iTunes users.) So that's got to be way, way more than 250 million people. And yet, over the past 3 years, they only managed to get about 75 million subscribers (World wide) and only about 15 million of them are paying. And I'm sure a good percentage of them are iTunes users that will switch over at the end of the month, at least to try out the 3 month free trial. And a good percentage of paying Spottily users may switch over if Apple subscription model offers a better deal. So even if only 50% of iTunes users were interested in subscription music, that would mean that Spotify should have at least 125 million subscribers by now. And remember that only about 20% of their subscribers are paying. 60 million are using Spottily free ad based service. Apple won't be offering a free subscription music service, other than the 3 months free trial.
So it's not a matter of Apple all of sudden having 250 million new potential users for their subscription service, that the other music subscription services didn't have access to before. It's whether Apple can convince any more people to sign up for a subscription service, that haven't already signed up with one (in the past 3 years) or convince those that have, to switch over to Apple's new pay subscription service.
Music sales has been steadily declining even before subscription took off in 2011, with Spotify. It was declining when the iTunes Store came online. So far there's has been no accelerating of the decline even with the huge increase of subscription music subscribers over the past 3 years. So no one, for now, is blaming subscription for the decline of overall music sales. The strange thing is that physical CD's sales is taking the biggest hit in sales, with digital downloaded music next. One would figure that if subscription music was the cause of declining sales, it would have the least impact on people buying CD's and more impact on the people that download their music. For now, they are saying that subscription music service is adding to music sales. Just like how they said that iTunes sales was adding to music sales and not cannibalizing it with $9.99 albums and sales of individual tracks.
I don't really see what any of that has with your OP. Spotify's "free" service still pays content providers, and has the disadvantages of ads, and not much of a mobile proposition. ?Music won't require a difficult sign up, it'll likely just appear on every iOS device and Mac come June 30th as an update, and use already existing iCloud info. And Apple have a well-noted ability to galvanise an industry/service that others had difficulty breaking - mp3 players, smartphones, tablets, e-pay systems, etc, so they are well positioned to outperform other streaming services, especially for 3 months of no-charge, no-ad service.
On that basis, with those prerequisites, why are you so certain that artists' (Taylor Swift or otherwise) revenue from new album sales wouldn't have seen much impact during those three months, prior to the change?
I don't really see what any of that has with your OP. Spotify's "free" service still pays content providers, and has the disadvantages of ads, and not much of a mobile proposition. ?Music won't require a difficult sign up, it'll likely just appear on every iOS device and Mac come June 30th as an update, and use already existing iCloud info. And Apple have a well-noted ability to galvanise an industry/service that others had difficulty breaking - mp3 players, smartphones, tablets, e-pay systems, etc, so they are well positioned to outperform other streaming services, especially for 3 months of no-charge, no-ad service.
On that basis, with those prerequisites, why are you so certain that artists' (Taylor Swift or otherwise) revenue from new album sales wouldn't have seen much impact during those three months, prior to the change?
Now you're moving the goal post. The issue is albums sold, not revenue.
In 2014, Taylor swift had the number 1 selling album with 3.6 million copies sold and it was only available for the last 9 weeks of 2014 and not available for streaming. The second place album was the soundtrack to Frozen. It barely missed being the top selling album with 3.5 million copies sold. It was the top selling album for all of 2014, except the last week, when Taylor Swift album over took it. Frozen was available for streaming for 10 months in 2014. Not bad for an album that 60 million people on Spotify, as you put it, would have been ignorant to buy. Third place was a distance away with 1.2 million copies sold. That was Sam Smith, The Lonely Hour. Which was not available for streaming until the end of the year.
Here's an interest take on whether Sam Smith's album could have done better if it was available for streaming from the start.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/digital-and-mobile/6165317/sam-smiths-spotify-gamble-did-it-pay-off
Here's another interesting bit of data.
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1567869/business-matters-average-itunes-account-generates-just
With the average iTune account spending only $12 a year in music (back in 2013 when there was about 600 accounts) I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden a significant amount of them will start spending over $100 a year for streaming music, let alone even interested in the 3 month free trial. No matter how easy it is to sign up. That's not to say that 10's of millions of them won't and millions won't pay for it. But it's going to be a far cry from the 800 million iTunes account (as of 2014) out there. The numbers suggest that most iTune accounts don't spend any money on music (at least with iTunes) at all. This isn't like the old days when the iTunes store first came on line. People back then had iTunes accounts to manage their iPods. Which is a device for playing music, both purchased and ripped. I remember iTunes account were spending an average of $20 a year in music back then. Now of days, most of the growth in iTune accounts comes from people buying iPhones and apps.
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/6106550/value-of-800-million-itunes-accounts-to-beats
And stop inserting Spotify as an equal equivalent. Spotify Free has ads. Spotify Free also requires sign up and install of something. Spotify Free also does not (did not? I haven't checked for a while) work on mobile. Spotify Free has a number of barriers which the ?Music 3 month trial will not, plus ?Music will have a lot more mindshare right now (especially after the Taylor Swift affair).