Most performers don't get rich from Album sales anyway. They get this tiny cut and the Record company gets most of the money. Now they both get screwed basically out of money. There are exceptions that make a lot of money. Most performers make their money from LIVE Concerts and not Song/Album sales. Along with merchandise sales at those concerts.
That's not true. You can buy all the music you want from iTunes and have the Google Music Manger downloaded and installed. This will sync all the music from iTunes to Google Music to be played on practically every device in the world.
You cannot buy from the iTunes store with an Android device or from a Linux machine. Although you can buy music from iTunes and then setup a sync via Google Play this requires additional steps and is more cumbersome than buying the music directly from Google Play
People who buy want lossless audio, and the right to transfer ownership. People who want convenience want to budget, and are no audiophiles.
iTunes satisfies neither, so the convenience freaks move to streaming, and the rest continues to buy and rip media.
Time for Apple to offer lossless audio, or do what Amazon does in Europe: you buy a CD and MP3 versions are automatically included for computer and mobile use, saving people the need to rip the discs.
I have spotify, but only because it was a promotional bonus when I was shopping around for a new internet provider - free full Spotify thrown in and payed for by my provider. Wonder how much this type of deal added to spotify's total income.
Don't kid yourself, Google's music service isn't Google Music or Google Play it is YouTube. And YoutTube is free and ad-supported. My daughters both listen to over 50% of their music on YouTube. It allows them to choose which song they want to listen to when they want to listen to it, and it doesn't cost them a thing.
Our family share a $7.99/mo google play music subscription, ad free. Everyone loves it. 2 iPhones and 2 Androids.
Given the amount of inflation across all sectors over the last ten years, songs going from $.99 to $1.29 is a small increase, especially since they became DRM free with that move.
Again, iTunes Radio already does all that.
Remind us again in what countries iTunes Radio is available.
I suspect iTunes Radio as a distinct service will disappear within another year or two.
That’s the opposite of how things are looking. Beats will disappear, integrated into iTunes Radio. Or perhaps you mean a fundamental change to iTunes otherwise?
"Bob Dylan, Dave Grohl, Paul McCartney, Maroon 5and Max Martin"
Really? These are the bands that this data is based on? I'm not sure that's a great representation, since they aren't exactly big sellers in new music. Maroon 5 did have a new record, but we need more recent artist names to really compare this to.
As to everyone bashing T-Swift, I think it's come down to labels being pressured for platinum status. Digital streams of individual songs don't equal platinum albums. I'd expect more "Album only" blackouts on iTunes for non-single tracks.
Listen to music for free. Great business model. No wonder it "sells".
Spotify is like Google for music. I don't have the numbers, but I bet the majority of Spotify's users are free, ad supported accounts.
And just like with YouTube videos with ads - the only one making money are the ones with a great number of videos/ songs with very high play count. In other words big publishers or superstars. There's no way to get a revenue to pay for the rent, from either streaming music or video if you're not in the multiple high view/ play count region. It's just a really, very, extremely bad business model for independent musicians and artists. Not all artists are superstars. Most artists just work, and get the ends to meet. And Spotify... Stopify.. is making it sort of harder for them, since the mindset of the masses has gone from buy to own, to listen for free.
In Sweden, and probably other countries too, internet service providers has started to offer Spotify premium included.. which only continues to set their minds to "streaming music is free". It's sad.
I instead welcome Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Patreon etc. Services where independent artists can stay in control themselves. And can connect to supporters in person. 100 supporters on Patreon means more than 1.000.000 ad plays, and kicks the whole ad system in the butt.
If musicians embraced these models with all their might, they could earn their living, instead of hunting to become the next million dollar hit superstar.
Power to the people.
I saw something yesterday that said 10M of their 40M subscribers are paid subscribers, but the ad-supported accounts are also generating revenue, of course. The music is "free" in the same way that a movie or sports event is "free" on network television, but I'd be surprised if networks spend 70% of their revenues on programming, as Spotify does.
A musician friend of mine was recently complaining that he'd had something like 40,000 listens on Spotify and received some something like a few bucks in compensation, and I understand the frustration, but I think there are a few things to think about here:
1) 150 years ago, nobody would have ever heard of him
2) 20+ years ago, probably none of these people would have ever heard of him--most of his live performances are in a tiny neighborhood bar, and his albums are self-released
3) more recently, more people know about him because of the Internet, but they can probably also download his songs for free on the Internet
4) even if this were 20 years ago and he had signed with a label, he probably wouldn't be making much from album sales--see Steve Albini's excellent article for an explanation: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
So I think he should be comparing this number to zero, not the thought of what he might have earned if everyone willing to *listen* to one of his songs was also willing to *pay to own* one of his songs.
I have another friend who is more successful but definitely not a household name, and he makes about $300k/year with his music, but of course very little of that is album sales these days. It's all the other stuff, like when they use one of his songs in a commercial or movie, etc. Touring is also very lucrative, and this where Spotify can probably help artists most, by gaining fans that will want to see them play. Spotify recently bought the most sophisticated music-recommendation software company, so I think they are really putting a lot of resources into helping people find new music that they will like.
I want musicians to be properly compensated as much as anyone does, but I think probably the average "free" Spotify listener would otherwise be listening to the radio or getting music for free some other way (the free service has various restrictions on how you can listen to what), and I doubt the average paying subscriber these days would be delivering more than $84/year directly to the music industry (as they currently do via Spotify, after Spotify takes their cut).
The way music is distributed and paid for will probably continue to evolve, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.
That’s the opposite of how things are looking. Beats will disappear, integrated into iTunes Radio. Or perhaps you mean a fundamental change to iTunes otherwise?
I don't think iTunes Radio as it now exists will be around in another year or so. Apple hasn't done much with it at all since it was first introduced, still only available in two countries and not getting the best of reviews from its users. In contrast both Spotify and Google Music are available throughout the world, each supporting nearly 60 countries at last count.
If Apple rolls Beats up with iTunes Radio I expect a complete re-badge and a fresh start. In addition a fundamental change coming in iTunes itself is almost a given isn't it? That's just my guess of course.
I saw something yesterday that said 10M of their 40M subscribers are paid subscribers, ... all of this post ... The way music is distributed and paid for will probably continue to evolve, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.
Thanks. Nice post!
For sure, interesting to follow. Streaming and listening has sort of become marketing rather than the end product. I'd rather play my music to people who care, and create a little micro world with Patreon and Bandcamp, etc. where it all works fine. I think honestly, that YouTube is gonna steal all streaming free music anyways. The world is becoming increasingly more visual. It's probably already doing it to some significant extent.
I think it's totally valid to withdraw your albums from Spotify if you don't wanna support that model, like many big artists do today. I have never found any music that I didn't know about before, that I like, on Spotify. I truly think either their catalog sucks (my own taste), or it suggests music based on marketing money, or their ability to understand my taste is bogus or non existing. It's really, really difficult to find good music there. So I don't expect anyone to find my music either. So if they don't find it, they have to be told by someone. And then they can just as well be told to listen to it from another place that's even free'er than Spotify. Like bandcamp or soundcloud, that has a more direct connection to the creators.
It's an interesting topic, with an ongoing change for sure...
Problem with Spotify is, no musician makes any money. I definitely prefer the streaming service over iTunes after using it for a while, but at least the iTunes model was more transparent and attractive for artists.
How do you rebadge it? It already has the perfect name.
You know, I hope so. At least in the UI department.
He he.. They'll rebadge it Apple Music. But then there'll be problem with Paul McCartney again ;-)
In my opinion, the most significant thing Apple could do is to create really, really great virtual, personal DJ's. Tim Cook mentioned in an interview that he could "feel" the difference with Beats' music finding algorithm, compared to the other services. If Apple and Dre could make personalized virtual DJ's that kept playing what you consider to be "quality music", they could introduce the user to new quality music, and avoid commercialism to dictate what music is getting played. Apple is making money on hardware - so their solution could be virtually free from commercial push. This could be the unique selling point. There's so much good music out there that you won't ever get to listen too, because it won't reach through the layer of commercialism. I don't think Spotify is making a good job at all there..
Correct me if I am wrong, so according to this article Spotify paid more to the artistes than Apple and because of this they have the pole position. This part is funny the amount of royalties paid depend on the number of time the song is played and not on the purchase made by the listener. So who is making some money besides the record companies and the artistes. Spotify doesn't own any content and until they do they will keep on losing money.
So are the movie rental prices. I can easily afford $7 or $8 rentals, but it's annoying. I recall the early VOD selections on DirecTV. They were $2.
I still have Spotify paid account because [1] iTunes has no "pick and play any album" service (yet) and [2] I capture the audio streams so I want the best fidelity. Fun story: Playing a CD in my car last year, and one song had several Apple alert sounds in it. Realized they were alerts that came in while I was capturing the stream. Turned off alerts on the Mac.
Since I found Spotify, I haven't bought a thing off of iTunes. I just went into the iTunes store to look at my wishlist and look up everything on Spotify.
I'm a paying subscriber-- no ads, and I can download music to listen to offline on my phone. It's perfect for travel. It used to be that on my Macbook and iPhone, a good portion of the space would be taken up by music, but with Spotify, now that isn't an issue. I didn't pay for it until the catalog improved, however. I listen to a lot of obscure stuff (old-school khaleeji!), but they somehow manage to get a lot of it in there.
I get that artists don't get paid much in this business model. But before, there was no way I could listen to some it (some of it wasn't even available on iTunes!). No CDs to buy off of Amazon, nothing. Plus, music discovery. I found artists on Spotify that I went to see in concert. In such a large pool of talent, some visibility is probably good.
At any rate, I don't see this streaming model going away. It's too convenient, and I don't think I'll ever go back to buying songs the way I used to.
Comments
Most performers don't get rich from Album sales anyway. They get this tiny cut and the Record company gets most of the money. Now they both get screwed basically out of money. There are exceptions that make a lot of money. Most performers make their money from LIVE Concerts and not Song/Album sales. Along with merchandise sales at those concerts.
That's not true. You can buy all the music you want from iTunes and have the Google Music Manger downloaded and installed. This will sync all the music from iTunes to Google Music to be played on practically every device in the world.
You cannot buy from the iTunes store with an Android device or from a Linux machine. Although you can buy music from iTunes and then setup a sync via Google Play this requires additional steps and is more cumbersome than buying the music directly from Google Play
People who want convenience want to budget, and are no audiophiles.
iTunes satisfies neither, so the convenience freaks move to streaming, and the rest continues to buy and rip media.
Time for Apple to offer lossless audio, or do what Amazon does in Europe: you buy a CD and MP3 versions are automatically included for computer and mobile use, saving people the need to rip the discs.
I have spotify, but only because it was a promotional bonus when I was shopping around for a new internet provider - free full Spotify thrown in and payed for by my provider. Wonder how much this type of deal added to spotify's total income.
Don't kid yourself, Google's music service isn't Google Music or Google Play it is YouTube. And YoutTube is free and ad-supported. My daughters both listen to over 50% of their music on YouTube. It allows them to choose which song they want to listen to when they want to listen to it, and it doesn't cost them a thing.
Our family share a $7.99/mo google play music subscription, ad free. Everyone loves it. 2 iPhones and 2 Androids.
Given the amount of inflation across all sectors over the last ten years, songs going from $.99 to $1.29 is a small increase, especially since they became DRM free with that move.
Again, iTunes Radio already does all that.
Remind us again in what countries iTunes Radio is available.
I suspect iTunes Radio as a distinct service will disappear within another year or two.
EDIT: Until I just checked I had no idea that iTunes Radio was available in only two countries, the US and Australia.
That’s the opposite of how things are looking. Beats will disappear, integrated into iTunes Radio. Or perhaps you mean a fundamental change to iTunes otherwise?
"Bob Dylan, Dave Grohl, Paul McCartney, Maroon 5 and Max Martin"
Really? These are the bands that this data is based on? I'm not sure that's a great representation, since they aren't exactly big sellers in new music. Maroon 5 did have a new record, but we need more recent artist names to really compare this to.
As to everyone bashing T-Swift, I think it's come down to labels being pressured for platinum status. Digital streams of individual songs don't equal platinum albums. I'd expect more "Album only" blackouts on iTunes for non-single tracks.
I saw something yesterday that said 10M of their 40M subscribers are paid subscribers, but the ad-supported accounts are also generating revenue, of course. The music is "free" in the same way that a movie or sports event is "free" on network television, but I'd be surprised if networks spend 70% of their revenues on programming, as Spotify does.
A musician friend of mine was recently complaining that he'd had something like 40,000 listens on Spotify and received some something like a few bucks in compensation, and I understand the frustration, but I think there are a few things to think about here:
1) 150 years ago, nobody would have ever heard of him
2) 20+ years ago, probably none of these people would have ever heard of him--most of his live performances are in a tiny neighborhood bar, and his albums are self-released
3) more recently, more people know about him because of the Internet, but they can probably also download his songs for free on the Internet
4) even if this were 20 years ago and he had signed with a label, he probably wouldn't be making much from album sales--see Steve Albini's excellent article for an explanation:
http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
So I think he should be comparing this number to zero, not the thought of what he might have earned if everyone willing to *listen* to one of his songs was also willing to *pay to own* one of his songs.
I have another friend who is more successful but definitely not a household name, and he makes about $300k/year with his music, but of course very little of that is album sales these days. It's all the other stuff, like when they use one of his songs in a commercial or movie, etc. Touring is also very lucrative, and this where Spotify can probably help artists most, by gaining fans that will want to see them play. Spotify recently bought the most sophisticated music-recommendation software company, so I think they are really putting a lot of resources into helping people find new music that they will like.
I want musicians to be properly compensated as much as anyone does, but I think probably the average "free" Spotify listener would otherwise be listening to the radio or getting music for free some other way (the free service has various restrictions on how you can listen to what), and I doubt the average paying subscriber these days would be delivering more than $84/year directly to the music industry (as they currently do via Spotify, after Spotify takes their cut).
The way music is distributed and paid for will probably continue to evolve, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.
If Apple rolls Beats up with iTunes Radio I expect a complete re-badge and a fresh start. In addition a fundamental change coming in iTunes itself is almost a given isn't it? That's just my guess of course.
How do you rebadge it? It already has the perfect name.
You know, I hope so. At least in the UI department.
I saw something yesterday that said 10M of their 40M subscribers are paid subscribers, ... all of this post
Thanks. Nice post!
For sure, interesting to follow. Streaming and listening has sort of become marketing rather than the end product. I'd rather play my music to people who care, and create a little micro world with Patreon and Bandcamp, etc. where it all works fine. I think honestly, that YouTube is gonna steal all streaming free music anyways. The world is becoming increasingly more visual. It's probably already doing it to some significant extent.
I think it's totally valid to withdraw your albums from Spotify if you don't wanna support that model, like many big artists do today. I have never found any music that I didn't know about before, that I like, on Spotify. I truly think either their catalog sucks (my own taste), or it suggests music based on marketing money, or their ability to understand my taste is bogus or non existing. It's really, really difficult to find good music there. So I don't expect anyone to find my music either. So if they don't find it, they have to be told by someone. And then they can just as well be told to listen to it from another place that's even free'er than Spotify. Like bandcamp or soundcloud, that has a more direct connection to the creators.
It's an interesting topic, with an ongoing change for sure...
Problem with Spotify is, no musician makes any money. I definitely prefer the streaming service over iTunes after using it for a while, but at least the iTunes model was more transparent and attractive for artists.
How do you rebadge it? It already has the perfect name.
You know, I hope so. At least in the UI department.
He he.. They'll rebadge it Apple Music. But then there'll be problem with Paul McCartney again ;-)
In my opinion, the most significant thing Apple could do is to create really, really great virtual, personal DJ's. Tim Cook mentioned in an interview that he could "feel" the difference with Beats' music finding algorithm, compared to the other services. If Apple and Dre could make personalized virtual DJ's that kept playing what you consider to be "quality music", they could introduce the user to new quality music, and avoid commercialism to dictate what music is getting played. Apple is making money on hardware - so their solution could be virtually free from commercial push. This could be the unique selling point. There's so much good music out there that you won't ever get to listen too, because it won't reach through the layer of commercialism. I don't think Spotify is making a good job at all there..
This part is funny the amount of royalties paid depend on the number of time the song is played and not on the purchase made by the listener.
So who is making some money besides the record companies and the artistes.
Spotify doesn't own any content and until they do they will keep on losing money.
$1.29 songs are killing iTunes.
Labels now pay for being too greedy.
So are the movie rental prices. I can easily afford $7 or $8 rentals, but it's annoying. I recall the early VOD selections on DirecTV. They were $2.
I still have Spotify paid account because [1] iTunes has no "pick and play any album" service (yet) and [2] I capture the audio streams so I want the best fidelity. Fun story: Playing a CD in my car last year, and one song had several Apple alert sounds in it. Realized they were alerts that came in while I was capturing the stream. Turned off alerts on the Mac.
Again, iTunes Radio already does all that.
iTunes radio isn't even in Europe.
This is like saying, "Apple pays 3 Billion a year to 100,000 artists, whereas Spotify pays 4 Billion a year to 2 billion artists."
That's whacked math but I (believe) still talks to the underlying truth of this situation.
This doesn't surprise me.
Since I found Spotify, I haven't bought a thing off of iTunes. I just went into the iTunes store to look at my wishlist and look up everything on Spotify.
I'm a paying subscriber-- no ads, and I can download music to listen to offline on my phone. It's perfect for travel. It used to be that on my Macbook and iPhone, a good portion of the space would be taken up by music, but with Spotify, now that isn't an issue. I didn't pay for it until the catalog improved, however. I listen to a lot of obscure stuff (old-school khaleeji!), but they somehow manage to get a lot of it in there.
I get that artists don't get paid much in this business model. But before, there was no way I could listen to some it (some of it wasn't even available on iTunes!). No CDs to buy off of Amazon, nothing. Plus, music discovery. I found artists on Spotify that I went to see in concert. In such a large pool of talent, some visibility is probably good.
At any rate, I don't see this streaming model going away. It's too convenient, and I don't think I'll ever go back to buying songs the way I used to.