Garth Brooks won't stream either. Hey Garth you're a "has been". People aren't buying your albums any more unless they are used cds. Might as well let them stream it so you can get your money.
You obviously don't know anything about Garth Brooks. He'll sell more than pretty much anyone else and his tour is probably going to be the most successful tour of all time out of anybody.
This will go one of two ways. If the album is a hit she'll milk it till sales level off then take it to streaming to try to get a little more money. Or if the album is a bust then she'll "change her mind" blame the decision of her manager and it will suddenly be on Apple Music. Some money is better than no money.
However, being in the industry if I was asked I would have advised apple to not sell it either.
Remember when NBC decided they wanted "more of the pie" and pulled all its TV content from iTunes Store? All because they had a little hit called HEROES? GRIN. They were so sure apple would buckle but they stood firm. "Same fee as everyone else", so NBC being idiots offered it selling it "exclusively" to Amazon streaming. One BIG problem... Mac people buy, PC people don't. Look at android. I degrees... After just one season of zero sales they came crawling back to Apple and there show was canceled a year later "lack of interest".
I predict one of those two things I mentioned at the top will happen to Adele but I wish apple would NOT sell it too. Let it belly flop then she can come crawling back.
I remember the NBC greed very clearly. I decided to stop watching NBC because of it. I bought the Heroes series once it returned to iTunes, but I still have not returned to NBC. When I want to buy something new, I check for NBC first and if I see NBC, I do not purchase it. I did buy the Friends seasons when they became available on iTunes.
In other words, you need far, far more listens to make even a fraction of what can be made with individual song or album sales.
I was just about to go back and edit my post about it. I was hasty and wrong as a result. That .02 cents ($.002) is not accurate for paid subscribers. That was the rate they were paying during the free period, far far less than a penny per stream. And they're still paying less than a penny per stream. Apple said they'll be paying 71.5% of whatever the subscriber revenue is, slightly higher than the traditional 70% paid by Google Music, Spotify, and others. So there's no set pay per stream but instead a percentage of the pie they didn't keep for themselves if I understand it correctly.
Adele's decision has ZERO to do with Apple music. It's a business decision about money and streaming versus album sales. There may be nothing unique about Apple Music, but this move has no role in that and in no way makes a statement about that.
The title should have included, "will be sold on iTunes" to avoid one presuming you couldn't get it online or from Apple. Yes, it's in the text of the article but note the first comment to the article; the person went off the title.
The people that are going to pirate her new songs aren't likely to only do it because it's not on a paid service like Apple Music or Spotify; they're going to do it because they don't want to pay for anything.
You hit the nail on the head right there. People who would pirate the music would do so regardless if she allowed it to be streamed or not. It's in their nature.
It makes sense, really. We know that the artist doesn't make that much money off streaming, while they do get slightly more off sales, whether they be of CDs or downloads. So they release the album, wait until the sales plateau, then release it to streaming, if at all. Just the same way movie companies do with films.
Maybe she'll never let it be streamed. The people who were going to buy it anyway will buy it, and the rest of them weren't willing to pay for it, anyway. (There will probably be a few who were going to just listen to it on Spotify that will buy it, but that only means more money for her) She's popular enough she doesn't have to worry about new listeners and discovery. She'll get the radio and TV airplay to get any new listeners because of who she is.
If she were a small indie artist no-one had heard of, then it wouldn't make sense. Because she's already well known and regarded, she doesn't have to worry.
Mentioned by a few in this thread and honestly sounds like the smartest move that an artist can make.
For those of you declaring you won't listen unless it is free, Apple is smart enough to "fire" bad customers. They don't go after them and they simply won't create a product that is geared towards them. Likewise musical artists who have the right amount of clout are very smart to fire the freeloaders and be willing to limit their product to those who are willing to pay.
Likewise is if someone were really smart about these streaming music services, they would realize that original and exclusive content is the way to go. I don't mean of course exclusive as in you can only listen to the Adele album or some variant there. Most artist don't want to limit access to their product to paying customers. I mean exclusive as in stuff like exclusive right to purchase certain merch, remixes, access to certain promotions.
I had not only turned off my television, I was probably ready to chuck them out of my house due to reality television programming. I hate the stuff and it had taken over everything. Now every streaming service has gotten into the content game and it is often the best stuff I care to watch. I'd subscribe to Apple Music to have several full length concerts produced by Apple available for viewing in addition to the other Apple music features. Exclusive interviews, backstage and behind the scenes stuff, just make a channel or two for it and obviously not just audio but video.
If you had told me 12 months ago I'd be desperate to watch Jessica Jones drop on Netflix after already getting through Daredevil, I'd have laughed. Now Netflix can't take my money fast enough. I'm not going to pay for "radio" to my phone. I will pay for great interviews, jams between artists, etc. Apple or someone else could pay to produce it, get the exclusive rights for free and then let it go to all the other outlets with the artists and Apple getting an appropriate cut.
Mentioned by a few in this thread and honestly sounds like the smartest move that an artist can make.
For those of you declaring you won't listen unless it is free, Apple is smart enough to "fire" bad customers. They don't go after them and they simply won't create a product that is geared towards them. Likewise musical artists who have the right amount of clout are very smart to fire the freeloaders and be willing to limit their product to those who are willing to pay.
Adele just got my wife's money, so that's one. She preordered "25" just now and is anxious to get it tomorrow.
It looks to me that we have come full circle on this issue. Back in the early days of rock n roll we had payolla, the practise of the labels paying the radio stations to plug their record over the free airways. Why? Because they knew that the more kids liked the song, the more kids would buy it, and they could only learn to like it was if it got a lot of free exposure.
Now we have "artists" withholding their music from getting free exposure and trying to force the public into buying their music with little or no free exposure. Sometimes there is such a thing as being too greedy. Advertising is good for sales of most product, but not this negative advertising.
Adele just got my wife's money, so that's one. She preordered "25" just now and is anxious to get it tomorrow.
You could have pirated it and gotten it right now.
I'm sorry to tell you all. You might be the only honest ones out there, but a lot of people pirate music. A majority pirate it or stream it through Pandora.
Adele just got my wife's money, so that's one. She preordered "25" just now and is anxious to get it tomorrow.
You could have pirated it and gotten it right now.
I'm sorry to tell you all. You might be the only honest ones out there, but a lot of people pirate music. A majority pirate it or stream it through Pandora.
Please move along, and spare us your utterly moronic posts. Thank you.
You could have pirated it and gotten it right now.
I'm sorry to tell you all. You might be the only honest ones out there, but a lot of people pirate music. A majority pirate it or stream it through Pandora.
Yes, I think everyone knows you can find places to steal content.
As a creator of original work myself, a businessman for a few decades and a father supporting my family solely thru my talents, I have no tolerance for companies or individuals who steal my work for their own ends. I would not be so disingenuous as to steal original works from someone else. You apparently have few qualms about it. Good for you. I'm sure you have other redeeming qualities to contribute back to the rest of us.
Artists deserve appropriate royalties for their albums. They do not deserve to have them ripped off and downloaded for free. The fact that people steal digitally make it no less stealing than if you were to walk into a music store, stuff a CD in your bag and walk out without paying.
That said, streaming services are vital part of today's music industry, and withholding an album from all streaming services seems like a bad idea to me. Nonetheless, while I do have Apple music, when I really like something I buy it. I pre-ordered Adele's album already, and I find it difficult to believe it won't be available to stream at some point in the near future. Taylor Swift as the article points out did the same thing, but Apple was able to ensure her proper royalties and eventually get her board. I'm fairly certain they will be able to do the same with Adele.
You're still counting pennies wrong, sir.
.02 cents is not $.002.
Thank you sir. I should have added another zero? Back in the day I dropped calculus three times and never did finish it. Ending up swapping majors eventually just to avoid it. Mathematics for me is simply a necessary evil.
Thank you sir. I should have added another zero? Back in the day I dropped calculus three times and never did finish it. Ending up swapping majors eventually just to avoid it. Mathematics for me is simply a necessary evil.
Are you an accountant? Because you sound like my accountant.
Sounds like a typical techie thread, with the posters unaware that physical media and digital file sales still make up a larger source of actual revenue than streaming. With an average wholesale cost of $7 to $10 per unit, one CD sale will generate the same revenue as 2,000 plays on Spotify (assuming $.005 per play). The number of physical media and digital file buyers might pale in comparison to the number of streaming listeners, but those buyers also have an outsized influence over the industry because they actually spend money (similarity here to how iOS' bigger spending users drive the app economy, despite a lower market share).
Like her or not, Adele's a huge artist and the four-year wait between releases makes her new album highly anticipated. She's one of the few artists that still has enough clout and fans to attract a large number of buys. Unlike lesser known artists, Adele doesn't need the extra streaming plays for exposure.
Like all media releases nowadays, music releases are highly front loaded. Music, movies, and TV shows alike have a temporal value that peaks right around the time of initial release. It's the same reason why movies aren't streamed on Netflix the same day that they come out in theaters. Theater box office and DVD/Blu-ray/HD downloads each have their own window when audiences are willing to pay more. Shifting to streaming services too soon would leave a lot of money on the table. And the last time I checked, the movie studios and record labels aren't charities.
The date of release is when the Adele album has the highest value. Putting the album on a streaming service that generates comparatively low revenues at the same time as the more lucrative physical and digital media sales would dilute the higher revenue source.
Also, I read that the record company is shipping over 3 million CD copies of the album, making this the largest advance order for any CD release since 2000. The marketing for this release is obviously front-loaded for purchase. After the initial wave, the album will still continue to make money when it does become available for streaming.
Comments
You obviously don't know anything about Garth Brooks. He'll sell more than pretty much anyone else and his tour is probably going to be the most successful tour of all time out of anybody.
I remember the NBC greed very clearly. I decided to stop watching NBC because of it. I bought the Heroes series once it returned to iTunes, but I still have not returned to NBC. When I want to buy something new, I check for NBC first and if I see NBC, I do not purchase it. I did buy the Friends seasons when they became available on iTunes.
Adele's decision has ZERO to do with Apple music. It's a business decision about money and streaming versus album sales. There may be nothing unique about Apple Music, but this move has no role in that and in no way makes a statement about that.
I disagree
We live in a sorry world where artists make more than doctors who save lives. I sing a song therefore I should make millions.
It's her loss...Too bad for her.
You hit the nail on the head right there. People who would pirate the music would do so regardless if she allowed it to be streamed or not. It's in their nature.
It makes sense, really. We know that the artist doesn't make that much money off streaming, while they do get slightly more off sales, whether they be of CDs or downloads. So they release the album, wait until the sales plateau, then release it to streaming, if at all. Just the same way movie companies do with films.
Maybe she'll never let it be streamed. The people who were going to buy it anyway will buy it, and the rest of them weren't willing to pay for it, anyway. (There will probably be a few who were going to just listen to it on Spotify that will buy it, but that only means more money for her) She's popular enough she doesn't have to worry about new listeners and discovery. She'll get the radio and TV airplay to get any new listeners because of who she is.
If she were a small indie artist no-one had heard of, then it wouldn't make sense. Because she's already well known and regarded, she doesn't have to worry.
Mentioned by a few in this thread and honestly sounds like the smartest move that an artist can make.
For those of you declaring you won't listen unless it is free, Apple is smart enough to "fire" bad customers. They don't go after them and they simply won't create a product that is geared towards them. Likewise musical artists who have the right amount of clout are very smart to fire the freeloaders and be willing to limit their product to those who are willing to pay.
Likewise is if someone were really smart about these streaming music services, they would realize that original and exclusive content is the way to go. I don't mean of course exclusive as in you can only listen to the Adele album or some variant there. Most artist don't want to limit access to their product to paying customers. I mean exclusive as in stuff like exclusive right to purchase certain merch, remixes, access to certain promotions.
I had not only turned off my television, I was probably ready to chuck them out of my house due to reality television programming. I hate the stuff and it had taken over everything. Now every streaming service has gotten into the content game and it is often the best stuff I care to watch. I'd subscribe to Apple Music to have several full length concerts produced by Apple available for viewing in addition to the other Apple music features. Exclusive interviews, backstage and behind the scenes stuff, just make a channel or two for it and obviously not just audio but video.
If you had told me 12 months ago I'd be desperate to watch Jessica Jones drop on Netflix after already getting through Daredevil, I'd have laughed. Now Netflix can't take my money fast enough. I'm not going to pay for "radio" to my phone. I will pay for great interviews, jams between artists, etc. Apple or someone else could pay to produce it, get the exclusive rights for free and then let it go to all the other outlets with the artists and Apple getting an appropriate cut.
It looks to me that we have come full circle on this issue. Back in the early days of rock n roll we had payolla, the practise of the labels paying the radio stations to plug their record over the free airways. Why? Because they knew that the more kids liked the song, the more kids would buy it, and they could only learn to like it was if it got a lot of free exposure.
Now we have "artists" withholding their music from getting free exposure and trying to force the public into buying their music with little or no free exposure. Sometimes there is such a thing as being too greedy. Advertising is good for sales of most product, but not this negative advertising.
Adele just got my wife's money, so that's one. She preordered "25" just now and is anxious to get it tomorrow.
You could have pirated it and gotten it right now.
I'm sorry to tell you all. You might be the only honest ones out there, but a lot of people pirate music. A majority pirate it or stream it through Pandora.
Please move along, and spare us your utterly moronic posts. Thank you.
As a creator of original work myself, a businessman for a few decades and a father supporting my family solely thru my talents, I have no tolerance for companies or individuals who steal my work for their own ends. I would not be so disingenuous as to steal original works from someone else. You apparently have few qualms about it. Good for you. I'm sure you have other redeeming qualities to contribute back to the rest of us.
That said, streaming services are vital part of today's music industry, and withholding an album from all streaming services seems like a bad idea to me. Nonetheless, while I do have Apple music, when I really like something I buy it. I pre-ordered Adele's album already, and I find it difficult to believe it won't be available to stream at some point in the near future. Taylor Swift as the article points out did the same thing, but Apple was able to ensure her proper royalties and eventually get her board. I'm fairly certain they will be able to do the same with Adele.
I was just about to go back and edit my post about it. I was hasty and wrong as a result. That .02 cents ($.002) is not accurate for paid subscribers.
You're still counting pennies wrong, sir.
.02 cents is not $.002.
1920 seeders on Pirate Bay. Seems popular. Sad it's not on Apple Music.
Thank you sir. I should have added another zero? Back in the day I dropped calculus three times and never did finish it. Ending up swapping majors eventually just to avoid it. Mathematics for me is simply a necessary evil.
Are you an accountant? Because you sound like my accountant.
Sounds like a typical techie thread, with the posters unaware that physical media and digital file sales still make up a larger source of actual revenue than streaming. With an average wholesale cost of $7 to $10 per unit, one CD sale will generate the same revenue as 2,000 plays on Spotify (assuming $.005 per play). The number of physical media and digital file buyers might pale in comparison to the number of streaming listeners, but those buyers also have an outsized influence over the industry because they actually spend money (similarity here to how iOS' bigger spending users drive the app economy, despite a lower market share).
Like her or not, Adele's a huge artist and the four-year wait between releases makes her new album highly anticipated. She's one of the few artists that still has enough clout and fans to attract a large number of buys. Unlike lesser known artists, Adele doesn't need the extra streaming plays for exposure.
Like all media releases nowadays, music releases are highly front loaded. Music, movies, and TV shows alike have a temporal value that peaks right around the time of initial release. It's the same reason why movies aren't streamed on Netflix the same day that they come out in theaters. Theater box office and DVD/Blu-ray/HD downloads each have their own window when audiences are willing to pay more. Shifting to streaming services too soon would leave a lot of money on the table. And the last time I checked, the movie studios and record labels aren't charities.
The date of release is when the Adele album has the highest value. Putting the album on a streaming service that generates comparatively low revenues at the same time as the more lucrative physical and digital media sales would dilute the higher revenue source.
Also, I read that the record company is shipping over 3 million CD copies of the album, making this the largest advance order for any CD release since 2000. The marketing for this release is obviously front-loaded for purchase. After the initial wave, the album will still continue to make money when it does become available for streaming.