... so now Apple takes 100% of the risk in this new adventure instead of the artists sharing (very little) in the risk... Even though both would profit in the long run if AM takes off. This looks like the music industry is betting on AM failing.
Again, Apple takes _all_ the risk, the artists/labels take none of the risk.. and Hypocrite Swift comes out squeaky clean.
What risk? The bigger risk was not coming out with a streaming service, and continue to lose sales on iTunes because a user was streaming their music from a competitor.
Just think if Walmart wants to break into a new market and says to all its suppliers and employees, for the next three months I'll be giving your stuff for free and no one gets paid.
Why should its suppliers and employees go along with that? Would you, if put in their situation?
I don't think that analogy fits.
With the Apple Music trial period, you get to listen to music for free and don't get to download and own it. In your analogy, Walmart would be giving away actual physical products. Also, the artists are not employees working for Apple; they are in essence partners (more akin to the suppliers in your analogy), so the power dynamic is different. The artists can say no, and find another platform for their music, but in your analogy, the employees are required by contract to do the work Walmart tells them to.
I see what you're saying and agree that many people like their free stuff and aren't willing to pay.
My question is: in this free trial period arrangement, why should Apple be bearing all of the risk of offering it, while the artists don't? They're in this venture together—Apple needs the artists' music to sell devices, the artists need Apple's platform to reach their audience. So what's the rationale for Apple to concede to paying the artists during this trial period, from a business perspective?
... so now Apple takes 100% of the risk in this new adventure instead of the artists sharing (very little) in the risk... Even though both would profit in the long run if AM takes off. This looks like the music industry is betting on AM failing.
Again, Apple takes _all_ the risk, the artists/labels take none of the risk.. and Hypocrite Swift comes out squeaky clean.
This is all Apple's doing. The artists are not going to be making a huge amount of money just from Apple Music. It'll be a small amount after all the money is divided up. So if Apple wants to make a service to make Apple more money and give a free trial, Apple should pay for it. Apple isn't making this service for the artists. Apple is making the service for Apple, to make more money. The artists would get along just fine without Apple Music and don't need to have all their hard work taken advantage of for Apple's profits.
I tell you what, I'll start a new business in your line of work but I want to entice people to use it. So I want to use your services for free for three months. You have the potential to make a little bit more money and I have the potential to make a great deal of money. Deal? I thought so.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
This is all Apple's doing. The artists are not going to be making a huge amount of money just from Apple Music. It'll be a small amount after all the money is divided up. So if Apple wants to make a service to make Apple more money and give a free trial, Apple should pay for it. Apple isn't making this service for the artists. Apple is making the service for Apple, to make more money. The artists would get along just fine without Apple Music and don't need to have all their hard work taken advantage of for Apple's profits.
I tell you what, I'll start a new business in your line of work but I want to entice people to use it. So I want to use your services for free for three months. You have the potential to make a little bit more money and I have the potential to make a great deal of money. Deal? I thought so.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
With the Apple Music trial period, you get to listen to music for free and don't get to download and own it. In your analogy, Walmart would be giving away actual physical products. Also, the artists are not employees working for Apple; they are in essence partners (more akin to the suppliers in your analogy), so the power dynamic is different. The artists can say no, and find another platform for their music, but in your analogy, the employees are required by contract to do the work Walmart tells them to.
During the three months trial, labels/artists woul've had zero revenue. That's the main issue here. All to promote Apple's service.
Companies like Apple and Amazon and Walmart can afford to take those risks. Small local/independent artists don't have that luxury. Unfair to ask them.
This is probably right. Or at least those arguing in favor of not paying would pitch it this way. I'm still not sure it was a 'win' for Apple. Someone who used to be a high up at Pandora tweeted that this was all theater and Apple isn't doing anything that the other services aren't already doing as they all pay during free trials. I actually agree with Jon Fortt who said on CNBC with spending $3B on Beats and getting Jimmy Iovine on board this stuff shouldn't be happening. Or at least the way the sausage gets made shouldn't be airing in public like this.
Well we don't know for sure if Jimmy had anything to do with this other than trying to sway the labels and musicians, after someone told him that paying the artists from the beginning was a no-go.
Everyone and his dog has already commented on how out of touch Jimmy was at the preso. Downright unsure of what he was saying or supposed to say, as if he he was expecting the text to be different than what he thought was supposed to be there. The guy has never come across as so lacking in bravado and confidence as he did on that stage... and most people agree with that assessment at least... so why?
I still think it was the penny-pinchers at Apple rather than the new guys... and/or Eddy Cue sill on he power-trip, thinking he can do whatever he wants to. If he wasn't power-tripping, it was also probably because someone warned him to watch his step with this one. He still has the iBooks fiasco tagged to his back.... almost literally what with Mr. Blueberry monitoring the hallowed halls.
Last note: and exactly because they're doing "nothing different than the other guys"... I'm still holding out that we've all been witness to clever public marketing battle.
It wasn't the artists decision to offer a 3 month trial. And there's no hard evidence to suggest people using the 3 month trial will convert to paid subscribers.
Delegating these decisions to large labels doesn't mean that the artists should be free of the choices or consequences. The artists were the ones who choose their representatives in this industry, and those representatives went on to help form and sign the deal on their behalf. The people who the artists choose to represent them believe that the conversion afterwards will be worth the payout, and while the views may not be the same, the view of the label stands in place of the artists unless otherwise asked (i.e., a label reaches out to an artist to ask their permission to stream music, T.Swift retrospectively hears and shouts) - which, at that point, is out of Apple's hands.
If an artist plays at a show that is not profitable, that issues falls on the hands of the label who crafted the deal, not the hands of the venue that couldn't fill seats for Iggy.
Apple isn't in the right here, but neither are the artists nor especially are the larger labels.
During the three months trial, labels/artists woul've had zero revenue. That's the main issue here. All to promote Apple's service.
Companies like Apple and Amazon and Walmart can afford to take those risks. Small local/independent artists don't have that luxury. Unfair to ask them.
That makes sense to me for "small local/independent artists" who may be struggling.
But I certainly wouldn't put Taylor Swift in that category... haha.
IMHO, Apple and Taylor Swift played this PR campaign masterfully.
I agree.
But more so in regard to Apple. By giving in to Taylor Swift's demand, Apple has managed to convince the 20,000 indie labels under Merlin and Beggars Group to sign on to Apple Music.
One thing I'm hoping Apple offers is the option to pay for the subscription by the year and not just on a monthly basis. I prefer that model so I can pay for it and forget about it for a year???? like ITunes Match.
Comments
It's right there in the name... "Beggars"...Hello?
What risk? The bigger risk was not coming out with a streaming service, and continue to lose sales on iTunes because a user was streaming their music from a competitor.
Just think if Walmart wants to break into a new market and says to all its suppliers and employees, for the next three months I'll be giving your stuff for free and no one gets paid.
Why should its suppliers and employees go along with that? Would you, if put in their situation?
I don't think that analogy fits.
With the Apple Music trial period, you get to listen to music for free and don't get to download and own it. In your analogy, Walmart would be giving away actual physical products. Also, the artists are not employees working for Apple; they are in essence partners (more akin to the suppliers in your analogy), so the power dynamic is different. The artists can say no, and find another platform for their music, but in your analogy, the employees are required by contract to do the work Walmart tells them to.
This is all Apple's doing. The artists are not going to be making a huge amount of money just from Apple Music. It'll be a small amount after all the money is divided up. So if Apple wants to make a service to make Apple more money and give a free trial, Apple should pay for it. Apple isn't making this service for the artists. Apple is making the service for Apple, to make more money. The artists would get along just fine without Apple Music and don't need to have all their hard work taken advantage of for Apple's profits.
I tell you what, I'll start a new business in your line of work but I want to entice people to use it. So I want to use your services for free for three months. You have the potential to make a little bit more money and I have the potential to make a great deal of money. Deal? I thought so.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/23/breaking-apple-paying-just-0-002-per-stream-during-its-free-trial-period
This is all Apple's doing. The artists are not going to be making a huge amount of money just from Apple Music. It'll be a small amount after all the money is divided up. So if Apple wants to make a service to make Apple more money and give a free trial, Apple should pay for it. Apple isn't making this service for the artists. Apple is making the service for Apple, to make more money. The artists would get along just fine without Apple Music and don't need to have all their hard work taken advantage of for Apple's profits.
I tell you what, I'll start a new business in your line of work but I want to entice people to use it. So I want to use your services for free for three months. You have the potential to make a little bit more money and I have the potential to make a great deal of money. Deal? I thought so.
Apple will still only be paying a severely-discounted rate during the trial. Apple will be paying artists $0.002 per play, according to Digital Music News. This figure is about one-third to one-forth less than what Spotify, music streaming's biggest company, pays its artist – which, according to their website, pays artists anywhere from .006 to .0084 dollars per play.
During Apple's free trial, it will take an artist about 50,000 plays to make $100. With Spotify, an artist gets paid $100 for anywhere from approximately 12,000 to 16,500 plays. These figures are before record labels take out its cut. According to an article in The Guardian, after a record label takes its cut, an artist, on average, gets $0.0011 per play through Spotify. Because of this, artists need to anywhere from six-to eight-times more plays to make $100 through Spotify. For instance, if Spotify is paying an artist $0.008 per play, the artist would need about 12,000 plays to make $100. But because, on average, artists only get $0.0011 per, they would need eight times more plays to make $100. That's 96,000 plays. For $100. On Spotify.
So if an artist's music is streamed on Apple Music, it will take them four times as many plays, during this three-month trial, to make the same $100 they would on Spotify (if said artist was getting paid $0.008 per stream). And after the record label takes out its cut, an artist's song(s) would need almost 400,000 plays during the three-month trial period to make $100.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/23/breaking-apple-paying-just-0-002-per-stream-during-its-free-trial-period
A couple of questions.
Are you comparing Apple Music's free trial rate to Spotify's regular rate? If so, isn't that an uneven comparison?
Given that Spotify has a free tier and Apple Music doesn't, how does that affect the math?
Companies like Apple and Amazon and Walmart can afford to take those risks. Small local/independent artists don't have that luxury. Unfair to ask them.
Spotify pays the same rate when they do their free month or normal subscription which is what this is compared against.
Well we don't know for sure if Jimmy had anything to do with this other than trying to sway the labels and musicians, after someone told him that paying the artists from the beginning was a no-go.
Everyone and his dog has already commented on how out of touch Jimmy was at the preso. Downright unsure of what he was saying or supposed to say, as if he he was expecting the text to be different than what he thought was supposed to be there. The guy has never come across as so lacking in bravado and confidence as he did on that stage... and most people agree with that assessment at least... so why?
I still think it was the penny-pinchers at Apple rather than the new guys... and/or Eddy Cue sill on he power-trip, thinking he can do whatever he wants to. If he wasn't power-tripping, it was also probably because someone warned him to watch his step with this one. He still has the iBooks fiasco tagged to his back.... almost literally what with Mr. Blueberry monitoring the hallowed halls.
Last note: and exactly because they're doing "nothing different than the other guys"... I'm still holding out that we've all been witness to clever public marketing battle.
BTW:
#TSwift4President
>running for cover!]
It wasn't the artists decision to offer a 3 month trial. And there's no hard evidence to suggest people using the 3 month trial will convert to paid subscribers.
Delegating these decisions to large labels doesn't mean that the artists should be free of the choices or consequences. The artists were the ones who choose their representatives in this industry, and those representatives went on to help form and sign the deal on their behalf. The people who the artists choose to represent them believe that the conversion afterwards will be worth the payout, and while the views may not be the same, the view of the label stands in place of the artists unless otherwise asked (i.e., a label reaches out to an artist to ask their permission to stream music, T.Swift retrospectively hears and shouts) - which, at that point, is out of Apple's hands.
If an artist plays at a show that is not profitable, that issues falls on the hands of the label who crafted the deal, not the hands of the venue that couldn't fill seats for Iggy.
Apple isn't in the right here, but neither are the artists nor especially are the larger labels.
During the three months trial, labels/artists woul've had zero revenue. That's the main issue here. All to promote Apple's service.
Companies like Apple and Amazon and Walmart can afford to take those risks. Small local/independent artists don't have that luxury. Unfair to ask them.
That makes sense to me for "small local/independent artists" who may be struggling.
But I certainly wouldn't put Taylor Swift in that category... haha.
Spotify pays the same rate when they do their free month or normal subscription which is what this is compared against.
I see.
I read in another AI article that Apple Music "should ultimately pay better than Spotify".
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/23/tidal-loses-interim-ceo-peter-tonstad-on-eve-of-apple-music-launch
If true, and depending on how much better AM pays, I'd say that might make up for not paying artists during the free trial period.
IMHO, Apple and Taylor Swift played this PR campaign masterfully.
I agree.
But more so in regard to Apple. By giving in to Taylor Swift's demand, Apple has managed to convince the 20,000 indie labels under Merlin and Beggars Group to sign on to Apple Music.
I'd say that's a productive day for Mr. Eddy Cue.
That's logical.
Anyway...
Yes, what the Billboard guy said doesn't make any sense.