ASCAP and BMI are not the only royalty collecting agencies. There is also http://www.harryfox.com
Well let me clarify ASCAP/BMI are the only ones I trust. The "other" agency is not always forth coming with their monies owed. Several lawsuits later artists decided who they'd rather trust getting paid.
The problem is dance clubs are supposed to submit what's played nightly 10% do. Other venues only pay if confronted. The only "constant" was radio because it was fiercely monitored.
Apple is trying to become the trusted "radio of the future". But to do that you have to collect revenue just like radio. They pause for paid commercial time. If there's no commercials there's no revenu stream. Apple is offering the artist and labels at least the chance to get paid like radio paid them. That's why Ms Swift had her panties in a bunch - she wasn't getting paid her radio fee when they're streaming free.
Apple is actually trying to find a happy medium. But when artists drop their labels, list their songs on iTunes and start getting $0.70 per song sold they will be ecstatic trust me.
Oh the record labels will NOT go quietly into the night trust me. Remember THEY OWN THE RECORDING - NOT THE ARTST and that's for life ladies and gentleman. The songs don't bounce back to the group in time. They sell the recording to the label. I see a time when the labels start getting shut out that they triple their fee or stop allowing all streaming period. They'll set up their own "stations" like CBS or NBC have they're own app to watch their programming. But you're forced to watch commercials like tv. I see the record companies pulling their products as the artist bail and then this will get really interesting. (Pass the popcorn please)
I hope he is putting his money where his mouth is and artists are getting paid more with Apple Music than other streaming options.
I only bring it up because he is championing a service that pushed Taylor Swift to stand up for artists to be paid during the 3 month free trial.
If Jimmy had his way he would have tried to launch and build the new Apple Music service directly on the backs of artists for 3 months.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Good grief Jimmy.
Duh! Free trial is a common and important SHORT TERM marketing tactic. And this meant Apple was also promoting these artists for free for a mere 3 months out of a lifetime. That's not a lot to ask. Taylor's point was well taken though, that most artists don't make much money, which by the way has a lot to do with the onerous structure of their label agreements. With that, Apple agreed. So put a sock in it. The two things aren't even close to the same.
Duh! Free trial is a common and important SHORT TERM marketing tactic. And this meant Apple was also promoting these artists for free for a mere 3 months out of a lifetime. That's not a lot to ask. Taylor's point was well taken though, that most artists don't make much money, which by the way has a lot to do with the onerous structure of their label agreements. With that, Apple agreed. So put a sock in it. The two things aren't even close to the same.
Since this is a thread about music, if you don't mind I will put a sock ON it.
I'm not subscribing to Apple Music but can still stream radio for free. So there's that.
Yes. And it has ads. Not many, but some. And you can program your own radio station, just like Pandora. So I don't know what the fk he's talking about, unless I'm very confused, which is certainly possible. If I use Siri and say, "play all music", it doesn't play my iTunes music, it plays that Apple radio station I set up (and which I'm not paying for). Often, I can't immediately tell because the first one or two tracks it plays are tracks that I happen to also have in ITunes. Then it plays a track I know I don't have and I realize I'm listening to the radio. Or I hear an ad.
But having said all that, I do agree that fremium has helped kill the music industry. Adjusted for equivalent dollars, the entire U.S. music industry is now at about a third of its former peak. But downloads helped kill it before streaming did largely because consumers stopped buying albums in favor of singles, which is not sustainable. If the record labels had refused to license their tracks to the streaming services, then fremium never would have happened. So I don't really blame the streaming services - they asked for the tracks at a given price and they got them. I blame the labels who were in such a panic after initially missing the demand for downloads and also wanted any cash possible, made these "deals with the devil".
Some numbers:
The U.S. industry peaked in 1999, with $14.584 billion in sales (at list prices). 938.9 million CDs and 123.6 million cassettes were sold. Adjusted for equivalent dollars, that's $20.856 billion in 2015 dollars.
CD sales peaked in 2000 with 942.5 million units sold. But overall sales were lower ($14.324 billion) because of a big drop-off in cassette sales.
In 2014, total sales (including downloads, streaming, licensing and sync royalties) was only $6.972 billion ($7.042 billion in 2015 dollars). Dollars from physical units had a 32.6% share, downloads 37.9% and streaming 29.5%.
For the first half of 2015, total sales were $3.166b. Dollars from physical units had a 23.6% share, downloads 40.9% and streaming 35.4%.
(Streaming includes Sound Exchange royalties and synchronization royalties).
The revenue back to the industry for ad supported streaming is very small: only $162.7 million for the first half of 2015. That's less than $222 million in revenue (at list price) from the 9.2 million units of vinyl sales. (CDs sold just 41.1 million units - less than what CDs sold in just 3 weeks at their peak).
So in spite of all the myriad ways consumers can consume music, which you would think would expand the market, the revenue keeps getting smaller and smaller. This is one of the reasons why concert ticket prices are so high - it's one of the few ways bands can make money today.
[QUOTE]...most technology companies are culturally inept.[/QUOTE]
Apple Music aims to serve 110 countries. In contrast, Apple Music focus on American culture (which is OK) to the exclusion of many other cultures (which is NOT OK). For example: my Apple Music "For You" had exactly ZERO Brazilian music, despite 80% Brazilian music in my iTunes Library.
Apple needs expertise in global culture to succeed in global music markets. Ignoring that, while bragging about culture expertise, is both arrogant and bad for business.
Jimmy should be more humble. For Apple standards, Apple Music felt rushed/immature on several levels: user interface, non-american music availability & curation, and keynote presentation.
Jimmy lost a golden opportunity (the 3-moth trial) to make a good first impression. Now, even if the product improves dramatically, it will be more difficult to lure back lost customers. Specially while facing free and "good enough" competition.
On the bright side, Apple typically corrects its mistakes, has amazing talent, and considers user's music experience one of its core competencies. So, I would not be surprised if, by next year, Apple Music music gets a solid overhaul (on interface and international music selection), great keynote (hopefully by Federighi) and new trial period.
Iovine is right. Freemium music doesn't pay the artists nearly what they are entitled to. Apple could offer free music in the morning, it doesn't need the money, but they avoid freemium to ensure the artists get paid. It's a rather straight forward argument. You prefer freemium because you couldn't care if the artists get paid.
But they DO offer a freemium. You can listen to all three radio stations you want for free right now beyond Beats1. You have skip counts and ads. You can customize your station and all. Just like Spotify or Pandora or Google Play Music. So by your words Apple also doesn't care about the artists.
From my understanding the artist makes close to nothing on the actual sales of the songs and radio play and the artist makes a majority of their money by touring. So, if that's true, this guys not gonna make me feel guilty about streaming Pandora for free.
Big artists who can play arenas and stadiums, yes. But most bands, even recording bands, play clubs. So there's maybe 150 seats in most clubs, say 120 people show up and admission is $20 for $2400 total. Sometimes the band gets the gate and the club keeps the bar/food, but more frequently, the band gets 70% of the gate. So now the band has to split $1680 among them including all the transportation, food and equipment rental costs. That's not a living.
As someone else posted, bands used to tour to support the album sales. But now there's meager sales, so they have to tour to live.
Labels and artists should be paid for almost any music consumption. This business of "this should be free because they make money from that" doesn't really make any sense. Why should the senior executives of music streaming services or downloading services get rich off of the backs of artists?
Unfortunately, consumers have been trained to expect music for free or near free. And most don't have the patience to listen to an album. The combination of those two things are killing the industry. Artists will always create, but it's a shame that the vast majority of recorded musicians (aside from the Taylor Swift's and Rihanna's of the world) won't be able to make a living.
The royalty payment thing starts waaaaaay before a group even has a label. Check this out:
In America, the ONLY way a label will consider signing you is if you have 10-12 songs already recorded and get this, two of the twelve must be "AM radio ready" whereas a third must be at least alternative radio ready. They're in the business to market and sell product. Even with this as an "unknown commodity" (that's the term they use) since ALL the risk is on them you only get $25,000 signing bonus.
But there is a clever way around this and when artists approach us I freely give this info:
Take your single recorded song to Europe. Europe will literally sign anyone (even your wife) to a "1 off" (fancy term for a single only).
So each country has their own "rights to distribute" which means signing a deal with each country. They will give you anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 signing bonus if you'll agree to "3 rights to refusal". In otherwise if your song is a relative hit they get to release another single. Then if that's a hit a 4 track EP THEN you get to renegotiate.
Consider the worse case scenario England $5000 France $5000 Germany $5000 Switzerland $5000 Austria $5000 Netherlands $5000 Norway $5000 Sweden $5000 and we haven't even gone to Asia yet! Etc
If you're song goes number 1 you go back to America now your signing bonus is $250,000 and "let's get you in to finish that album", because you're a " proven commodity"
Then there's the "Razormaid factor" (that's us). If you appear on Razormaid! youre guaranteed a top 10 position on billboard magazine (Eutope only). That's because we're noted for picking winners. "If it's in Razormaid! it's the bomb". That was easy.
Unfortunately we get over 400 submissions a month. We only have time for 22 remixes so... once you're signed in America "our work here is done". The artists don't like this but we have to make room for new up and coming artists. In fact we'll find something on our own in a $0.99 bin in Germany, call the label, remix it and now the label has to go re-sign the artist because we just put them on the charts. We warn the artist in advance when they approve our mix "charge $25,000 resign fee for them going a crappy promotion and putting out a terrible mix - stick it to them". Done!
It's a win-win-win-win situation. The artist wins we helped them get resigned and for 4 times the original amount. The label wins because we're making them money hand over fist on something they mishandled. The DJ wins because they have a GREAT mix of a song they've never heard of. And Razormaid! wins because we further our credibility for providing audiophile quality dance music.
So with Apple and iTunes the artist no longer has to record 12 songs, they can "pay as they go" recording one song, listing it on iTunes, if that sells, take that money do another, etc. finally at $0.70 per track sold they are making more money than ever dreamed possible and (and this is a HUGE and..) and they own the recording. 10 years from now when some movie producer wants to use THEIR song they will negotiate it's use with the band not really label who will pay them little to nothing because the record label owned the recording outright and their contract for royalties only lasted 3 years.
Did you know that every 3-5 years not only artists but record labels themselves must renegotiate rights to release? Let's take Mute Records (owner) and Sire Records (the licensee). Sire must renegotiate to print up more Depeche Mode albums every 3-5 years. That's because like the artist the licensing label only gets rights in 3-5 year increments.
It's a tough business folks. But with Apple and iTunes Store it's proven that the "sweet spot" for buying a song is $0.99 cents. Apple didn't just pull that out of their ass. They did like we did when Napster showed up. We took a poll to find out what music stealers would be willing to pay.
In fact we polled the Depeche Mode fan club of then 6,000 members asking them "if we did a special 12 song special edition of previously unreleased Razormaid! remixes of DM tracks, what would you seriously be willing to pay for a CD?" we even colored the CD fluorescent green on the underside and did cool artwork and presented the package for them to see before polling.
It turned out they would pay $10 (slightly less than $0.99 a song. So we not only put it out for $10 we dropped the price of all our past and future projects from $25 down to $10 on the spot. We started making money like there was no tomorrow! Turns out people would rather own our audiophile recording than a crisply badly encoded Napster download. We even offered Napster converts a "buy 1 pick another free" on their first order if they told us they originally were illegally downloading Razormaid! Via Napster. We rewarded them for their honesty! You don't see that everyday.
So Apple is helping the artists best they can. But the artist won't really feel it till they break free of their record label. Granted, they won't have rights to anything previously released that's gone forever, but they WILL control everything from this point forward.
I always admired Reuben Blades because he became both a lawyer and a musician and was able to completely control his own career. Giving away your power to others is always a bad move.
I think the main reason for iTunes being such a mess is that it all has to run on Windows. By stuffing everything including the kitchen sink and garage door opener into iTunes it is essentially an "iTunes virtual machine" that they can deploy on Windows. Most of the applications and features in iTunes would be much better served as integrated features of OS X but there's still the Windows problem to deal with. Unfortunately Windows is too large a market to ignore and OS X users have to suffer as a result. I'm sure Apple will fix this eventually but it has obviously gone on for long enough to be a major black eye for Apple and its OS X and iOS customers. Just my opinion.
Sorry that's an excuse and not good enough for Apple. I think Eddy Cue has too much on his plate and Tim Cook needs to bring some one in to run the iCloud stuff. iTunes needs to be completely gutted and rebuilt from the ground up. That will take time and will require more of Eddy's attention.
I was pointing out the irony between Jony and Jimmy's talks. Nowhere did I say Steve Jobs was not involved in the iTunes mess.
I would say iTunes was better in early 2000's. You could open up multiple windows so different iTunes functions or song lists could be viewed at the same time. Forcing everything into one window, with many times more options now, has made it worse than any 2000 GUI.
It is actually hard to find a good comparison app for iTunes as it is so bad.
The problem is iTunes has morphed into A tool with so many different functionalities. Playlist management, device syncing, iTunes Store, App Store, Apple Music. Apple really needs to go back to the drawing board here. I would argue having all of this in one app isn't the route to go, and saying it has to be that way because of Windows is not a legitimate excuse. If Apple can put thousands of resources on building a car I think they can find the necessary resources to rebuild iTunes into something that isn't a piece of junk.
The royalty payment thing starts waaaaaay before a group even has a label. Check this out:
In America, the ONLY way a label will consider signing you is if you have 10-12 songs already recorded and get this, two of the twelve must be "AM radio ready" whereas a third must be at least alternative radio ready. They're in the business to market and sell product. Even with this as an "unknown commodity" (that's the term they use) since ALL the risk is on them you only get $25,000 signing bonus.
But there is a clever way around this and when artists approach us I freely give this info:
Take your single recorded song to Europe. Europe will literally sign anyone (even your wife) to a "1 off" (fancy term for a single only).
So each country has their own "rights to distribute" which means signing a deal with each country. They will give you anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 signing bonus if you'll agree to "3 rights to refusal". In otherwise if your song is a relative hit they get to release another single. Then if that's a hit a 4 track EP THEN you get to renegotiate.
Consider the worse case scenario
England $5000
France $5000
Germany $5000
Switzerland $5000
Austria $5000
Netherlands $5000
Norway $5000
Sweden $5000
and we haven't even gone to Asia yet!
Etc
If you're song goes number 1 you go back to America now your signing bonus is $250,000 and "let's get you in to finish that album", because you're a " proven commodity"
Then there's the "Razormaid factor" (that's us). If you appear on Razormaid! youre guaranteed a top 10 position on billboard magazine (Eutope only). That's because we're noted for picking winners. "If it's in Razormaid! it's the bomb". That was easy.
Unfortunately we get over 400 submissions a month. We only have time for 22 remixes so... once you're signed in America "our work here is done". The artists don't like this but we have to make room for new up and coming artists. In fact we'll find something on our own in a $0.99 bin in Germany, call the label, remix it and now the label has to go re-sign the artist because we just put them on the charts. We warn the artist in advance when they approve our mix "charge $25,000 resign fee for them going a crappy promotion and putting out a terrible mix - stick it to them". Done!
It's a win-win-win-win situation. The artist wins we helped them get resigned and for 4 times the original amount. The label wins because we're making them money hand over fist on something they mishandled. The DJ wins because they have a GREAT mix of a song they've never heard of. And Razormaid! wins because we further our credibility for providing audiophile quality dance music.
So with Apple and iTunes the artist no longer has to record 12 songs, they can "pay as they go" recording one song, listing it on iTunes, if that sells, take that money do another, etc. finally at $0.70 per track sold they are making more money than ever dreamed possible and (and this is a HUGE and..) and they own the recording. 10 years from now when some movie producer wants to use THEIR song they will negotiate it's use with the band not really label who will pay them little to nothing because the record label owned the recording outright and their contract for royalties only lasted 3 years.
Did you know that every 3-5 years not only artists but record labels themselves must renegotiate rights to release? Let's take Mute Records (owner) and Sire Records (the licensee). Sire must renegotiate to print up more Depeche Mode albums every 3-5 years. That's because like the artist the licensing label only gets rights in 3-5 year increments.
It's a tough business folks. But with Apple and iTunes Store it's proven that the "sweet spot" for buying a song is $0.99 cents. Apple didn't just pull that out of their ass. They did like we did when Napster showed up. We took a poll to find out what music stealers would be willing to pay.
In fact we polled the Depeche Mode fan club of then 6,000 members asking them "if we did a special 12 song special edition of previously unreleased Razormaid! remixes of DM tracks, what would you seriously be willing to pay for a CD?" we even colored the CD fluorescent green on the underside and did cool artwork and presented the package for them to see before polling.
It turned out they would pay $10 (slightly less than $0.99 a song. So we not only put it out for $10 we dropped the price of all our past and future projects from $25 down to $10 on the spot. We started making money like there was no tomorrow! Turns out people would rather own our audiophile recording than a crisply badly encoded Napster download. We even offered Napster converts a "buy 1 pick another free" on their first order if they told us they originally were illegally downloading Razormaid! Via Napster. We rewarded them for their honesty! You don't see that everyday.
So Apple is helping the artists best they can. But the artist won't really feel it till they break free of their record label. Granted, they won't have rights to anything previously released that's gone forever, but they WILL control everything from this point forward.
Isn't buying songs on the way down, becoming less important as a revenue driver for artists?
Apple Music aims to serve 110 countries. In contrast, Apple Music focus on American culture (which is OK) to the exclusion of many other cultures (which is NOT OK). For example: my Apple Music "For You" had exactly ZERO Brazilian music, despite 80% Brazilian music in my iTunes Library.
Apple needs expertise in global culture to succeed in global music markets. Ignoring that, while bragging about culture expertise, is both arrogant and bad for business.
Jimmy should be more humble. For Apple standards, Apple Music felt rushed/immature on several levels: user interface, non-american music availability & curation, and keynote presentation.
Jimmy lost a golden opportunity (the 3-moth trial) to make a good first impression. Now, even if the product improves dramatically, it will be more difficult to lure back lost customers. Specially while facing free and "good enough" competition.
On the bright side, Apple typically corrects its mistakes, has amazing talent, and considers user's music experience one of its core competencies. So, I would not be surprised if, by next year, Apple Music music gets a solid overhaul (on interface and international music selection), great keynote (hopefully by Federighi) and new trial period.
Bob Lefsetz was pretty brutal on Jimmy. I agree that Jimmy isn't the right fit for Apple. He must have done one hell of a snow job on Eddy Cue and Eddy is respected enough inside Apple that no one else challenged him.
Bob Lefsetz was pretty brutal on Jimmy. I agree that Jimmy isn't the right fit for Apple. He must have done one hell of a snow job on Eddy Cue and Eddy is respected enough inside Apple that no one else challenged him.
However, I am not, necessarily, calling for anyone to be fired. Only Apple knows whether Jimmy's internal contributions were positive enough. Perhaps Jimmy (and Eddy Cue) could stay if they focus on what they do best (behind the scenes deals, american music curation). I'd defer to Apple's judgement on that.
However, now that Jimmy had its chance to contribute, it seems obvious:
1) Officers experts in design and software engineering (Ive and Federighi) should direct the overhaul of Apple Music interface, and
2) Jimmy and Cue should NOT do keynotes. That is no offense to them because not every officer at Apple does keynotes. For example: Ahrendts has done none. Similarly, other great officers (Ive, Mansfield, and Riccio) prefer to make edited videos instead.
Apple produces the best results by letting each officer do what they do best. The same should apply to Jimmy and Cue.
However, I am not, necessarily, calling for anyone to be fired. Only Apple knows whether Jimmy's internal contributions were positive enough. Perhaps Jimmy (and Eddy Cue) could stay if they focus on what they do best (behind the scenes deals, american music curation). I'd defer to Apple's judgement on that.
However, now that Jimmy had its chance to contribute, it seems obvious:
1) Officers experts in design and software engineering (Ive and Federighi) should direct the overhaul of Apple Music interface, and
2) Jimmy and Cue should NOT do keynotes. That is no offense to them because not every officer at Apple does keynotes. For example: Ahrendts has done none. Similarly, other great officers (Ive, Mansfield, and Riccio) prefer to make edited videos instead.
Apple produces the best results by letting each officer do what they do best. The same should apply to Jimmy and Cue.
People don't know who Jinmy Iovine is. He's a monster. This is akin to Giggle hiring Eddie Cue. The guy knows his s***, this was a massive acquisition.
Dr. Dre and Jimmy built a billion dollar company with a $0 marketing budget. These guys are perfect for Apple.
"You know, just because you go to Burning Man doesn't make you Hunter S. Thomspon." I like this guy. A very intelligent dick. But I think Apple probably has a lot of dicks working at the higher levels. It just that they are smarter, more polite and hip than your run-of-the-mill dick. You don't get to be as big and successful as Apple by being dickless.
Right on! I wonder if he aimed that Burning Man comment at anyone in particular.
Why did AppleInsider leave out the funniest line from Jommy!
"The media business needs to have tech people and give them stripes and the tech businesses needs to give media people stripes," he added, "or it's going to keep being the Star Wars bar in Tatooine."
Comments
Well let me clarify ASCAP/BMI are the only ones I trust. The "other" agency is not always forth coming with their monies owed. Several lawsuits later artists decided who they'd rather trust getting paid.
The problem is dance clubs are supposed to submit what's played nightly 10% do. Other venues only pay if confronted. The only "constant" was radio because it was fiercely monitored.
Apple is trying to become the trusted "radio of the future". But to do that you have to collect revenue just like radio. They pause for paid commercial time. If there's no commercials there's no revenu stream. Apple is offering the artist and labels at least the chance to get paid like radio paid them. That's why Ms Swift had her panties in a bunch - she wasn't getting paid her radio fee when they're streaming free.
Apple is actually trying to find a happy medium. But when artists drop their labels, list their songs on iTunes and start getting $0.70 per song sold they will be ecstatic trust me.
Oh the record labels will NOT go quietly into the night trust me. Remember THEY OWN THE RECORDING - NOT THE ARTST and that's for life ladies and gentleman. The songs don't bounce back to the group in time. They sell the recording to the label. I see a time when the labels start getting shut out that they triple their fee or stop allowing all streaming period. They'll set up their own "stations" like CBS or NBC have they're own app to watch their programming. But you're forced to watch commercials like tv. I see the record companies pulling their products as the artist bail and then this will get really interesting. (Pass the popcorn please)
Duh! Free trial is a common and important SHORT TERM marketing tactic. And this meant Apple was also promoting these artists for free for a mere 3 months out of a lifetime. That's not a lot to ask. Taylor's point was well taken though, that most artists don't make much money, which by the way has a lot to do with the onerous structure of their label agreements. With that, Apple agreed. So put a sock in it. The two things aren't even close to the same.
Duh! Free trial is a common and important SHORT TERM marketing tactic. And this meant Apple was also promoting these artists for free for a mere 3 months out of a lifetime. That's not a lot to ask. Taylor's point was well taken though, that most artists don't make much money, which by the way has a lot to do with the onerous structure of their label agreements. With that, Apple agreed. So put a sock in it. The two things aren't even close to the same.
Since this is a thread about music, if you don't mind I will put a sock ON it.
Red Hot Chili Peppers FTW!
I'm not subscribing to Apple Music but can still stream radio for free. So there's that.
Yes. And it has ads. Not many, but some. And you can program your own radio station, just like Pandora. So I don't know what the fk he's talking about, unless I'm very confused, which is certainly possible. If I use Siri and say, "play all music", it doesn't play my iTunes music, it plays that Apple radio station I set up (and which I'm not paying for). Often, I can't immediately tell because the first one or two tracks it plays are tracks that I happen to also have in ITunes. Then it plays a track I know I don't have and I realize I'm listening to the radio. Or I hear an ad.
But having said all that, I do agree that fremium has helped kill the music industry. Adjusted for equivalent dollars, the entire U.S. music industry is now at about a third of its former peak. But downloads helped kill it before streaming did largely because consumers stopped buying albums in favor of singles, which is not sustainable. If the record labels had refused to license their tracks to the streaming services, then fremium never would have happened. So I don't really blame the streaming services - they asked for the tracks at a given price and they got them. I blame the labels who were in such a panic after initially missing the demand for downloads and also wanted any cash possible, made these "deals with the devil".
Some numbers:
The U.S. industry peaked in 1999, with $14.584 billion in sales (at list prices). 938.9 million CDs and 123.6 million cassettes were sold. Adjusted for equivalent dollars, that's $20.856 billion in 2015 dollars.
CD sales peaked in 2000 with 942.5 million units sold. But overall sales were lower ($14.324 billion) because of a big drop-off in cassette sales.
In 2014, total sales (including downloads, streaming, licensing and sync royalties) was only $6.972 billion ($7.042 billion in 2015 dollars). Dollars from physical units had a 32.6% share, downloads 37.9% and streaming 29.5%.
For the first half of 2015, total sales were $3.166b. Dollars from physical units had a 23.6% share, downloads 40.9% and streaming 35.4%.
(Streaming includes Sound Exchange royalties and synchronization royalties).
The revenue back to the industry for ad supported streaming is very small: only $162.7 million for the first half of 2015. That's less than $222 million in revenue (at list price) from the 9.2 million units of vinyl sales. (CDs sold just 41.1 million units - less than what CDs sold in just 3 weeks at their peak).
So in spite of all the myriad ways consumers can consume music, which you would think would expand the market, the revenue keeps getting smaller and smaller. This is one of the reasons why concert ticket prices are so high - it's one of the few ways bands can make money today.
Apple Music aims to serve 110 countries. In contrast, Apple Music focus on American culture (which is OK) to the exclusion of many other cultures (which is NOT OK). For example: my Apple Music "For You" had exactly ZERO Brazilian music, despite 80% Brazilian music in my iTunes Library.
Apple needs expertise in global culture to succeed in global music markets. Ignoring that, while bragging about culture expertise, is both arrogant and bad for business.
Jimmy should be more humble. For Apple standards, Apple Music felt rushed/immature on several levels: user interface, non-american music availability & curation, and keynote presentation.
Jimmy lost a golden opportunity (the 3-moth trial) to make a good first impression. Now, even if the product improves dramatically, it will be more difficult to lure back lost customers. Specially while facing free and "good enough" competition.
On the bright side, Apple typically corrects its mistakes, has amazing talent, and considers user's music experience one of its core competencies. So, I would not be surprised if, by next year, Apple Music music gets a solid overhaul (on interface and international music selection), great keynote (hopefully by Federighi) and new trial period.
But they DO offer a freemium. You can listen to all three radio stations you want for free right now beyond Beats1. You have skip counts and ads. You can customize your station and all. Just like Spotify or Pandora or Google Play Music. So by your words Apple also doesn't care about the artists.
From my understanding the artist makes close to nothing on the actual sales of the songs and radio play and the artist makes a majority of their money by touring. So, if that's true, this guys not gonna make me feel guilty about streaming Pandora for free.
Big artists who can play arenas and stadiums, yes. But most bands, even recording bands, play clubs. So there's maybe 150 seats in most clubs, say 120 people show up and admission is $20 for $2400 total. Sometimes the band gets the gate and the club keeps the bar/food, but more frequently, the band gets 70% of the gate. So now the band has to split $1680 among them including all the transportation, food and equipment rental costs. That's not a living.
As someone else posted, bands used to tour to support the album sales. But now there's meager sales, so they have to tour to live.
Labels and artists should be paid for almost any music consumption. This business of "this should be free because they make money from that" doesn't really make any sense. Why should the senior executives of music streaming services or downloading services get rich off of the backs of artists?
Unfortunately, consumers have been trained to expect music for free or near free. And most don't have the patience to listen to an album. The combination of those two things are killing the industry. Artists will always create, but it's a shame that the vast majority of recorded musicians (aside from the Taylor Swift's and Rihanna's of the world) won't be able to make a living.
The royalty payment thing starts waaaaaay before a group even has a label. Check this out:
In America, the ONLY way a label will consider signing you is if you have 10-12 songs already recorded and get this, two of the twelve must be "AM radio ready" whereas a third must be at least alternative radio ready. They're in the business to market and sell product. Even with this as an "unknown commodity" (that's the term they use) since ALL the risk is on them you only get $25,000 signing bonus.
But there is a clever way around this and when artists approach us I freely give this info:
Take your single recorded song to Europe. Europe will literally sign anyone (even your wife) to a "1 off" (fancy term for a single only).
So each country has their own "rights to distribute" which means signing a deal with each country. They will give you anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 signing bonus if you'll agree to "3 rights to refusal". In otherwise if your song is a relative hit they get to release another single. Then if that's a hit a 4 track EP THEN you get to renegotiate.
Consider the worse case scenario
England $5000
France $5000
Germany $5000
Switzerland $5000
Austria $5000
Netherlands $5000
Norway $5000
Sweden $5000
and we haven't even gone to Asia yet!
Etc
If you're song goes number 1 you go back to America now your signing bonus is $250,000 and "let's get you in to finish that album", because you're a " proven commodity"
Then there's the "Razormaid factor" (that's us). If you appear on Razormaid! youre guaranteed a top 10 position on billboard magazine (Eutope only). That's because we're noted for picking winners. "If it's in Razormaid! it's the bomb". That was easy.
Unfortunately we get over 400 submissions a month. We only have time for 22 remixes so... once you're signed in America "our work here is done". The artists don't like this but we have to make room for new up and coming artists. In fact we'll find something on our own in a $0.99 bin in Germany, call the label, remix it and now the label has to go re-sign the artist because we just put them on the charts. We warn the artist in advance when they approve our mix "charge $25,000 resign fee for them going a crappy promotion and putting out a terrible mix - stick it to them". Done!
It's a win-win-win-win situation. The artist wins we helped them get resigned and for 4 times the original amount. The label wins because we're making them money hand over fist on something they mishandled. The DJ wins because they have a GREAT mix of a song they've never heard of. And Razormaid! wins because we further our credibility for providing audiophile quality dance music.
So with Apple and iTunes the artist no longer has to record 12 songs, they can "pay as they go" recording one song, listing it on iTunes, if that sells, take that money do another, etc. finally at $0.70 per track sold they are making more money than ever dreamed possible and (and this is a HUGE and..) and they own the recording. 10 years from now when some movie producer wants to use THEIR song they will negotiate it's use with the band not really label who will pay them little to nothing because the record label owned the recording outright and their contract for royalties only lasted 3 years.
Did you know that every 3-5 years not only artists but record labels themselves must renegotiate rights to release? Let's take Mute Records (owner) and Sire Records (the licensee). Sire must renegotiate to print up more Depeche Mode albums every 3-5 years. That's because like the artist the licensing label only gets rights in 3-5 year increments.
It's a tough business folks. But with Apple and iTunes Store it's proven that the "sweet spot" for buying a song is $0.99 cents. Apple didn't just pull that out of their ass. They did like we did when Napster showed up. We took a poll to find out what music stealers would be willing to pay.
In fact we polled the Depeche Mode fan club of then 6,000 members asking them "if we did a special 12 song special edition of previously unreleased Razormaid! remixes of DM tracks, what would you seriously be willing to pay for a CD?" we even colored the CD fluorescent green on the underside and did cool artwork and presented the package for them to see before polling.
It turned out they would pay $10 (slightly less than $0.99 a song. So we not only put it out for $10 we dropped the price of all our past and future projects from $25 down to $10 on the spot. We started making money like there was no tomorrow! Turns out people would rather own our audiophile recording than a crisply badly encoded Napster download. We even offered Napster converts a "buy 1 pick another free" on their first order if they told us they originally were illegally downloading Razormaid! Via Napster. We rewarded them for their honesty! You don't see that everyday.
So Apple is helping the artists best they can. But the artist won't really feel it till they break free of their record label. Granted, they won't have rights to anything previously released that's gone forever, but they WILL control everything from this point forward.
He's also good at skinning people alive.
Sorry that's an excuse and not good enough for Apple. I think Eddy Cue has too much on his plate and Tim Cook needs to bring some one in to run the iCloud stuff. iTunes needs to be completely gutted and rebuilt from the ground up. That will take time and will require more of Eddy's attention.
The problem is iTunes has morphed into A tool with so many different functionalities. Playlist management, device syncing, iTunes Store, App Store, Apple Music. Apple really needs to go back to the drawing board here. I would argue having all of this in one app isn't the route to go, and saying it has to be that way because of Windows is not a legitimate excuse. If Apple can put thousands of resources on building a car I think they can find the necessary resources to rebuild iTunes into something that isn't a piece of junk.
Bob Lefsetz was pretty brutal on Jimmy. I agree that Jimmy isn't the right fit for Apple. He must have done one hell of a snow job on Eddy Cue and Eddy is respected enough inside Apple that no one else challenged him.
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2015/10/01/jimmy-iovine-2/
Bob Lefsetz was pretty brutal on Jimmy. I agree that Jimmy isn't the right fit for Apple. He must have done one hell of a snow job on Eddy Cue and Eddy is respected enough inside Apple that no one else challenged him.
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2015/10/01/jimmy-iovine-2/
That seems plausible.
However, I am not, necessarily, calling for anyone to be fired. Only Apple knows whether Jimmy's internal contributions were positive enough. Perhaps Jimmy (and Eddy Cue) could stay if they focus on what they do best (behind the scenes deals, american music curation). I'd defer to Apple's judgement on that.
However, now that Jimmy had its chance to contribute, it seems obvious:
1) Officers experts in design and software engineering (Ive and Federighi) should direct the overhaul of Apple Music interface, and
2) Jimmy and Cue should NOT do keynotes. That is no offense to them because not every officer at Apple does keynotes. For example: Ahrendts has done none. Similarly, other great officers (Ive, Mansfield, and Riccio) prefer to make edited videos instead.
Apple produces the best results by letting each officer do what they do best. The same should apply to Jimmy and Cue.
Can anyone make any sense of this?!!
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/63874/width/200/height/400[/IMG]
Also the artist name kept fading in and out.
Smh.
People don't know who Jinmy Iovine is. He's a monster. This is akin to Giggle hiring Eddie Cue. The guy knows his s***, this was a massive acquisition.
Dr. Dre and Jimmy built a billion dollar company with a $0 marketing budget. These guys are perfect for Apple.
They did you a favor by refusing to play a song from a group called Crime Mob.
Right on! I wonder if he aimed that Burning Man comment at anyone in particular.
"The media business needs to have tech people and give them stripes and the tech businesses needs to give media people stripes," he added, "or it's going to keep being the Star Wars bar in Tatooine."
Imagine the headlines for this one?
"Greedy Apple wants you to pay for music"
I was gonna add a disclaimer about that but didn't think it'll be a bid deal.
The song was downloaded for offline play by the way and wouldn't play offline and I got this message on all my offline songs