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.
That makes sense. I bought a Bob Seger album from iTunes since I couldn't stream it on Apple Music.
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.
I think withholding major releases from streaming for a certain embargo period will become the norm, much the same way that it has with movie releases.
If you had the Adele album available for streaming on Apple Music on the date of release, then you might have been less inclined to pre-order the album. I think this will be a test case to see how the revenues balance out, because as I pointed out in my other post, the revenue from just one CD sale is the same as thousands of streaming plays. The album is going out into all other physical and digital sell-through channels, so it's about maximizing revenues when the demand is highest.
I agree that artists need to make money off their hard work!
I just don't want to pay the studios for adding nothing in the way of value. Yet they take the highest share!
Adele is signed to an indie label. She wasn't an overnight hit. They worked with her for several years before her first album came out. They deserve your money too.
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.
Adele has my money as well. I preordered the album to get the first single when possible and I'll be happy to download the rest tomorrow and listen to it on the way to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
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.
It isn't free exposure when you get to listen to the whole album in order and treat it like you own it. That isn't exposure. That's giving away the whole deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigybank
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.
I think withholding major releases from streaming for a certain embargo period will become the norm, much the same way that it has with movie releases.
If you had the Adele album available for streaming on Apple Music on the date of release, then you might have been less inclined to pre-order the album. I think this will be a test case to see how the revenues balance out, because as I pointed out in my other post, the revenue from just one CD sale is the same as thousands of streaming plays. The album is going out into all other physical and digital sell-through channels, so it's about maximizing revenues when the demand is highest.
I agree with your thoughts. Embargo for the period where probably 80% of first year sales will be made will probably be the norm soon. I don't pay for any streaming service. Simply loaning me music doesn't appeal to me. I want more than borrowing music for my cash. I gladly pay for my music for the artists I support.
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.
Someone at my kid's school got a new iPhone 6s, then got it stolen. Sad how crook are everywhere.
There are countless millions of people who won't stream music. Those are the generations brought up on Vinyl (I work in the building where EMI packaged LP's such as Sgt Pepper) and Cassette. We prefer physical media.
To stream you have to have an umbilical cord to the internet. I go places where this is not possible so I take my music with me. All from Vinyl or CD. We generally don't download either.
There is nothing wrong in my eyes with her decision.
Oh, I'm buying music on Vinyl again. Sounds brilliant on my Quad Electostatics.
I too do my serious listening on vinyl through vintage Quad ESLs (57s baby) but I am an Apple Music subscriber as well. It is all good. I save money by streaming an album first before I buy. If I avoid one bad purchase a month I come out ahead.
Likewise I own a physical copy of Patti Smith's "Just Kids" but I do most of my reading of the book on my iPhone or iPad. Love it all.
People work their ass off to complete albums only to have selfish fu**s promote free ways to fu** Adele and other artists over with ZERO benefit to themselves.
What do you gain really by artists losing hundreds of hours of work and millions of dollars? What?
NOTHING.
artists already made hundreds of $millions. You sound like they're starving.
The album already leaked about 20 hours ago. Those who don't want to pay for it will have it by tomorrow anyway. I don't care for her music, not even if it's free...
Though it's funny to see the comments on this story... the tone would have been completely different if Apple Music would have streamed this and not Spotify. Now that Apple Music is equally deprived of this album, the tone is more like "oh well..."
If she'd done an exclusive deal with Apple (or Spotify or other streaming service), then her decision would make a lot less sense. Exclusives on streaming only work if she's getting a kickback beyond the royalty rate. Which could include free advertising in Apple Stores, or other non-monetary perks (as for what Spotify could offer in that regard, I have no idea). What she's doing makes sense for her. For other artists it might not. Good for her.
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.
Actually, as others have mentioned, a majority of people still buy physical media, if they buy music at all.
Adele is signed to an indie label. She wasn't an overnight hit. They worked with her for several years before her first album came out. They deserve your money too.
Again, that's a fairly unusual circumstance, but it's worked out well for her and her label. Normally musicians get chewed up and spat out by the big companies, screwed over their royalties, and have to spend most of their time playing live to make any money. The number of artists who can make a living off record sales is incredibly small. But there are good record companies out there, although usually the big companies will come in and buy them out if they're successful.
There are countless millions of people who won't stream music. Those are the generations brought up on Vinyl (I work in the building where EMI packaged LP's such as Sgt Pepper) and Cassette. We prefer physical media.
To stream you have to have an umbilical cord to the internet. I go places where this is not possible so I take my music with me. All from Vinyl or CD. We generally don't download either.
There is nothing wrong in my eyes with her decision.
Oh, I'm buying music on Vinyl again. Sounds brilliant on my Quad Electostatics.
I don't stream either and have a large CD collection, but I do download. Either 24bit high-res or from iTunes for tracks and albums I like that are not available as 24bit.
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.
Not necessarily, I have no plans to buy her album but if it was available on my streaming subscription I might give it a listen and if I like it might add a song or two to a playlist. That's money (albeit a tiny amount) she'd get that she wouldn't normally get. If the song(s) are good enough that I listen regularly over so many years the money she gets might even exceed the cost of a single album sale to me.
Apple Music was a breath of fresh air for me. I was a little reticent about the idea of streaming; I still prefer to own my music. However, the convenience of Apple Music, the fun, dead-easy interface, and the ability to easily *discover* music, convinced me to subscribe once the trial period is over. Apple's entire music library - ALL OF IT - there for me to enjoy whenever I like. It's an easy sale.
I still buy my music. Apple Music is actually a nice way to decide what I'll be buying. It's like a playground.
Adele and artists like her might do well to make their work available on Apple Music. This kind of service is great for exposure, and additionally, the folks who will be seeing it are known for *paying* for things in the first place.
Apple Music was a breath of fresh air for me. I was a little reticent about the idea of streaming; I still prefer to own my music. However, the convenience of Apple Music, the fun, dead-easy interface, and the ability to easily *discover* music, convinced me to subscribe once the trial period is over. Apple's entire music library - ALL OF IT - there for me to enjoy whenever I like. It's an easy sale.
I still buy my music. Apple Music is actually a nice way to decide what I'll be buying. It's like a playground.
Adele and artists like her might do well to make their work available on Apple Music. This kind of service is great for exposure, and additionally, the folks who will be seeing it are known for *paying* for things in the first place.
Adele is available on Apple Music isn't she. Just not her album released this morning.
Yes she's available. She should make her latest albums available inmediately on Apple Music. My mistake for not making that clear in my post.
Gotcha.
IMO it would be a huge mistake to make "25" available for streaming immediately. Those already paying for Apple Music/Google Play Music/Spotify would not need to pay one penny more than they do now to listen to that specific album as many times as they wish across a plethora of personal devices. At home. At work. In the car.
I doubt many of those streaming subscribers would see much reason to go spend another $11 just to have another copy of what they already have "free".
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.
You could use the following excerpt from your Spotify link to explain how Apple Music pays labels/artists/songwriters;
Wait, I thought SpotifyApple paid per stream?
The real measure of Spotify’sApple's success is our progress in 1) convincing music fans around the World to pay for music again (by converting millions of pirates into monetized users on our platform), and 2) increasing the total money spent by paying listeners by graduating them to a much more valuable form of consumption (away from free listening on YouTube and other services to SpotifyApple – see the chart on relative payments above).
Every time somebody listens to a song on SpotifyApple Music it generates payments, but SpotifyApple does not calculate royalties based upon a fixed “per play” rate. Although much public discussion of Spotify Apple has speculated about such a rate, our payouts for individual artists have grown tremendously over time as a result of our user growth, and they will continue to do so.
The royalties artists see on their royalty statements derive from the formula above on a country-by-country basis, and depend upon the many moving variables specified in the formula. Of course, it is possible to reverse engineer an effective “per stream” average by dividing one’s royalties by the number of plays that generated them, but this is not how we measure our payouts internally nor is it a reliable yardstick for Spotify’sApple's value to artists.
An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:
• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music
• Spotify’sApple's # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate
• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries
IMO it would be a huge mistake to make "25" available for streaming immediately. Those already paying for Apple Music/Google Play Music/Spotify would not need to pay one penny more than they do now to listen to that specific album as many times as they wish across a plethora of personal devices. At home. At work. In the car.
I doubt many of those streaming subscribers would see much reason to go spend another $11 just to have another copy of what they already have "free".
Whether that is the case or not, artists must eventually find a way to reconcile themselves with the demands of the distribution/listening medium or media. And streaming is a very, very big deal. It's here to stay, so long as those providing it can offer an equitable business model. Apple is currently in the best position in this regard.
Comments
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.
That makes sense. I bought a Bob Seger album from iTunes since I couldn't stream it on Apple Music.
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.
I think withholding major releases from streaming for a certain embargo period will become the norm, much the same way that it has with movie releases.
If you had the Adele album available for streaming on Apple Music on the date of release, then you might have been less inclined to pre-order the album. I think this will be a test case to see how the revenues balance out, because as I pointed out in my other post, the revenue from just one CD sale is the same as thousands of streaming plays. The album is going out into all other physical and digital sell-through channels, so it's about maximizing revenues when the demand is highest.
Adele is signed to an indie label. She wasn't an overnight hit. They worked with her for several years before her first album came out. They deserve your money too.
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.
Adele has my money as well. I preordered the album to get the first single when possible and I'll be happy to download the rest tomorrow and listen to it on the way to work.
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.
It isn't free exposure when you get to listen to the whole album in order and treat it like you own it. That isn't exposure. That's giving away the whole deal.
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.
I think withholding major releases from streaming for a certain embargo period will become the norm, much the same way that it has with movie releases.
If you had the Adele album available for streaming on Apple Music on the date of release, then you might have been less inclined to pre-order the album. I think this will be a test case to see how the revenues balance out, because as I pointed out in my other post, the revenue from just one CD sale is the same as thousands of streaming plays. The album is going out into all other physical and digital sell-through channels, so it's about maximizing revenues when the demand is highest.
I agree with your thoughts. Embargo for the period where probably 80% of first year sales will be made will probably be the norm soon. I don't pay for any streaming service. Simply loaning me music doesn't appeal to me. I want more than borrowing music for my cash. I gladly pay for my music for the artists I support.
I disagree
I respect your opinion, but I would interested in hearing a little explanation and what facts are out there that you think supports your opinion.
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.
Someone at my kid's school got a new iPhone 6s, then got it stolen. Sad how crook are everywhere.
I too do my serious listening on vinyl through vintage Quad ESLs (57s baby) but I am an Apple Music subscriber as well. It is all good. I save money by streaming an album first before I buy. If I avoid one bad purchase a month I come out ahead.
Likewise I own a physical copy of Patti Smith's "Just Kids" but I do most of my reading of the book on my iPhone or iPad. Love it all.
Actually, as others have mentioned, a majority of people still buy physical media, if they buy music at all.
Again, that's a fairly unusual circumstance, but it's worked out well for her and her label. Normally musicians get chewed up and spat out by the big companies, screwed over their royalties, and have to spend most of their time playing live to make any money. The number of artists who can make a living off record sales is incredibly small. But there are good record companies out there, although usually the big companies will come in and buy them out if they're successful.
Well, considering that I've already purchased it from iTunes ...
Certainly not going to miss out on new Adele music.
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.
Not necessarily, I have no plans to buy her album but if it was available on my streaming subscription I might give it a listen and if I like it might add a song or two to a playlist. That's money (albeit a tiny amount) she'd get that she wouldn't normally get. If the song(s) are good enough that I listen regularly over so many years the money she gets might even exceed the cost of a single album sale to me.
I still buy my music. Apple Music is actually a nice way to decide what I'll be buying. It's like a playground.
Adele and artists like her might do well to make their work available on Apple Music. This kind of service is great for exposure, and additionally, the folks who will be seeing it are known for *paying* for things in the first place.
Yes she's available. She should make her latest albums available inmediately on Apple Music. My mistake for not making that clear in my post.
IMO it would be a huge mistake to make "25" available for streaming immediately. Those already paying for Apple Music/Google Play Music/Spotify would not need to pay one penny more than they do now to listen to that specific album as many times as they wish across a plethora of personal devices. At home. At work. In the car.
I doubt many of those streaming subscribers would see much reason to go spend another $11 just to have another copy of what they already have "free".
You could use the following excerpt from your Spotify link to explain how Apple Music pays labels/artists/songwriters;
Wait, I thought
SpotifyApple paid per stream?The real measure of
Spotify’sApple's success is our progress in 1) convincing music fans around the World to pay for music again (by converting millions of pirates into monetized users on our platform), and 2) increasing the total money spent by paying listeners by graduating them to a much more valuable form of consumption (away from free listening on YouTube and other services toSpotifyApple – see the chart on relative payments above).Every time somebody listens to a song on
SpotifyApple Music it generates payments, butSpotifyApple does not calculate royalties based upon a fixed “per play” rate. Although much public discussion ofSpotifyApple has speculated about such a rate, our payouts for individual artists have grown tremendously over time as a result of our user growth, and they will continue to do so.The royalties artists see on their royalty statements derive from the formula above on a country-by-country basis, and depend upon the many moving variables specified in the formula. Of course, it is possible to reverse engineer an effective “per stream” average by dividing one’s royalties by the number of plays that generated them, but this is not how we measure our payouts internally nor is it a reliable yardstick for
Spotify’sApple's value to artists.An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:
• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music
•
Spotify’sApple's # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries
Gotcha.
IMO it would be a huge mistake to make "25" available for streaming immediately. Those already paying for Apple Music/Google Play Music/Spotify would not need to pay one penny more than they do now to listen to that specific album as many times as they wish across a plethora of personal devices. At home. At work. In the car.
I doubt many of those streaming subscribers would see much reason to go spend another $11 just to have another copy of what they already have "free".
Whether that is the case or not, artists must eventually find a way to reconcile themselves with the demands of the distribution/listening medium or media. And streaming is a very, very big deal. It's here to stay, so long as those providing it can offer an equitable business model. Apple is currently in the best position in this regard.
artists already made hundreds of $millions. You sound like they're starving.
Yes, every artist makes hundreds of $millions. Or maybe it's about .001% of artists.
Streaming pays crap. It's not a sustainable model for music except those that get millions of streams daily.
The ones getting hundreds of $millions are the tech companies that are screwing artists over.