This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Spotify Artist ROI - how Spotify contributes to the music business

Discussion in 'ProgPower USA' started by AeonicSlumber, Dec 5, 2013.

  1. General Zod

    General Zod Ruler of Australia

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    14,210
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I have no doubt that Swift (and her management) made the decision based on the math. However, I think your comment is very telling of the current environment; she's now perceived as "ripping off her fans" by asking them buy her music. The horror!!!

    I think the key question is, "the same amount of revenue" as what? What artists use to make? Or what they might expect to make now, under the diminished expectations created by pervasive digital piracy?

    I think to describe "money now" as simply "more exciting", undermines the true value of it. "Money now" can be the difference between an artist being able to sustain themselves and/or funding their current tour or next album.

    I think we must first acknowledge how ludicrous an idea it is that a song must be listened to 150 times to have value or that art has somehow become a win/lose value proposition. Even more ludicrous is how this value is determined. Based on the graph you linked to, it would seem Spotify pays the label $0.005 per play. This makes the value of playing a song worth 1/1000th of a Vanilla Latte.

    It's still a bit strange to me to see how significantly the paradigm has shifted in some people's minds. The very idea that an artist enticing you to actually buy their music can now be equated with a casino trying to mask the true odds of a table game and underhandedly trying to shift the numbers in their favor, underscores just how drastically our perception of music has changed.
     
  2. skyrefuge

    skyrefuge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, USA
    They only "lose" compared to the "renting" (streaming) alternative. Just like someone who buys a house but sells it two years later is likely to have been better off financially if they had rented for that period. Stay in the house 20 years, and buying is probably a better choice.

    Swift's music is worth exactly what all music is worth: whatever people are willing to pay for it. In today's world of a dramatically increased supply of music, and many more flexible ways by which to obtain it, it's likely that people, in aggregate, are willing to pay less for it than they did in the past. Just like I'm willing to pay less for a 500GB hard drive than I did 10 years ago.

    More than three years ago, on this very forum, I calculated that "if someone listens to an album on Spotify 100 times, the artist will get the same amount of money he would have gotten if they bought the CD". Then, one month ago, Billboard announced that they would start including on-demand streaming numbers in their calculation for the Top 200 album chart. I don't know what method they used, but they decided that, in terms of gauging popularity, "1,500 song streams = 1 album sale". Since they consider an "album" to be 10 songs, it can also be expressed as "150 song streams = 1 song sale". Pretty darn close to my 100:1 calculation, and we nicely corroborate each other, but I'll go with theirs.

    Obviously it's her right, and I applaud her (and/or her management/label) for making what was probably a smart business decision. My use of the word "forced" was from the perspective of a fan who might actually feel that way. Anyone who actually feels "forced" to buy something as unessential as music is a straight-up idiot.

    Yes, sorry, I was using "Taylor Swift" there to mean "Taylor Swift the Business". Also, Taylor Swift the Human is much more of a songwriter than Katy Perry the Human, and, as a really smart, insightful mega-star on an indie label, is clearly much more in control of the destiny of Taylor Swift the Business than Katy Perry the Human is of Katy Perry the Business. So I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor Swift the Human actually sees a higher proportion of Spotify payouts than Katy Perry the Human does.

    My whole point there is that "artists getting ripped off by their labels" is a topic completely unrelated to "Spotify ripping off rights-holders", and bringing them together only confuses things. This is a Spotify thread.

    Yep, just like I want my cheap hard drive, and value 1MB of storage a lot less than I used to. I certainly don't "expect" artists to bleed and suffer for me, but I expect them to understand that if they want to enter a market where they are in competition with hundreds of thousands of other artists who are willing to bleed and suffer, then bleeding and suffering for them is a likely outcome as well. "Art" is not exempt from the laws of economics.

    Of course. Even disregarding the fleetingness of fame, an artist, like any human, should seek to maximize their compensation at every turn.
     
  3. TheLongshot

    TheLongshot Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Which tells me that Spotify seriously undervalues music, IMO. Course that's pretty obvious when one pays $9.99/mo (or nothing for me, who listens ad supported) for a huge catalog of music. I guess similar can be said about Netflix, except there movies generally play in a movie theater first, to a crowd that has paid a lot more. Part of the point here is that first sale is probably taking a hit here because of the value proposition.

    Also, let's also point out that it is uncertain if Spotify's business mode is even a sustainable one. At this point, Spotify has yet to turn a profit. Granted, many businesses are in the red for years (Amazon is a prime example), but there are a lot of questions. While Spotify is a hot place to be, I can understand those who question if it is worth canabalizing album sales and if their music catalog will be devalued.
     
  4. skyrefuge

    skyrefuge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, USA
    Eh, I don't think it's that new of a thing. Fifteen years ago, during the Napster debates, how many times did we hear music fans complaining about being "forced to pay $17 for a CD with two good songs and a load of filler"?

    I dunno, maybe both? First, while industry revenue is down from its crazy 90s peak, it's not entirely clear that artists are making less. Steve Albini doesn't seem to think so. Artists were getting paid like shit before the Internet too. Also, piracy is kind of an outdated '00s thing. In this era of YouTube, Spotify, Pandora, iTunes, and law-enforcement and ISP action, piracy is just too much of a pain in the ass compared to the alternatives. If only a quarter of the US population paid for Spotify accounts, and no other money was spent on recorded music in the whole country, industry revenue would equal the level it had for most of the 70s and 80s.

    Yeah, sorry, that was intentional sarcasm. Of course "money now" is hugely preferred over "money later"; it's basically the basis of the banking system. Though I've theorized before that record labels (and particularly their mega-corporation overlords) probably prefer the more-predictable and long-term revenue flows that come from streaming sources than those from unpredictable "hits".

    Ha, I actually find the prices Starbuck's has tricked people into paying for a cup of coffee to be the far more ludicrous part of the equation! Perhaps labels/bands just need to hire Starbucks' marketing team to achieve similar price premiums. Or hey, maybe coffee beans are actually more limited in supply than songwriters and musicians. Anyway, no, it's not like 150 listens is some magic threshold between "value" and "worthless", that's just the crossover point where "renting" matches "owning". Every rent-vs.-buy decision has such a crossover point. For a sewer rodder, maybe after 5 rentals you'd be better off buying. For a car, maybe it's 200. For music in the current environment, apparently its somewhere around 150.

    I agree, but I think it's more a case of a veil being lifted from our eyes by the alternatives, than our eyes becoming more cynical. If you ignore the particular details of payout rates for the moment, doesn't the streaming situation really make a lot more sense and seem like a more equitable exchange of value? Artists get paid based on how much people actually listen to their songs, rather than based on how much a marketing campaign convinced them that they might like to listen to their songs in the future. Imagine how pissed off you would be if this equitable streaming world was all you knew, and then your favorite Instagram bestie Taylor Swift invented this new gimmick: "instead of paying me based on the plays of songs you actually listen to like you've always done, how I let you listen as many times as you want for free? The only teeny-tiny catch is that I won't let you listen to any of them until you pay me up-front an amount equivalent to 150 listens (and sorry, no volume discount!)" That would be like a restaurant not allowing you to pay for a single meal, but rather, requiring you to pay $5000 for a lifetime pass. If their food sucks? Eh, too bad. You move out of town? Eh, too bad. You just lose your taste for sushi? Eh, too bad. We wouldn't be happy about that in the restaurant world, so why would we be happy about it in the music world? Just because it has always* been that way?

    *always = "the brief ~100 year period of human history where sale of recorded music was a thing"
     
  5. nailz

    nailz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Francisco
    That's true for anyone who wants to make a living off of music regardless of distribution format.

    Shit. Pomplamoose barely scrapes by a decent wage. They're about as not quite there yet as you can get on a music only salary and they sold something like 1000 tickets a show on their last tour.

    lol.
     
  6. Keir

    Keir Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    773
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bridgewater, MA
    I started using Spotify a little over a month ago. At the time I didn't think I would ever upgrade to Premium, but now I am seriously considering it. I don't see it as replacing buying physical media, or even as a way to support artists, but rather I see it as paying for the convenience of being able to stream nearly anything I might want to listen to. If the rights-holders (be it artist or label) don't think that it is worthwhile for them then they don't have to have their albums on Spotify. What is holding me back from giving them my money is mainly the fear that my physical music purchases will unwittingly slow down because of it.
     
  7. General Zod

    General Zod Ruler of Australia

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    14,210
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    There have definitely been fluctuations in the perceived value of the medium between fans and industry. However, I feel it's a bit unfair to say an artist is ripping off their fans by asking them to pay $12 for a CD in 2014.

    I'm not going to claim that I'm familiar with the financial nuances of the music industry. However, it seems unlikely that musicians could be making the same (see next comment).

    I don't think this is true at all. Have you been on a Torrent site lately? On one of the more popular torrent sites, the new Angra record (which doesn't come out for another month) has already been downloaded over 1,000 times in just 20 hours. That's just one torrent site among thousands of torrent sites, blog sites, usenet and other sharing technologies. The Taylor Swift album, on that same torrent site, has been downloaded well over 100,000 times. Piracy is still having an impact on music sales. I think it seems less prevalent because the music industry has largely conceded they can't win the infinite game of Whack-a-Mole they were playing with sharing technologies.

    And the average human has one breast and one testicle. :loco:

    From what I can quickly Google, Spotify has 3 million U.S. customers. To suggest that if Spotify could grow itself 5,000% it would set the industry on par with what it once was, is a bit over the top (unless I missed something).

    First, no worries about the sarcasm, I'm a big fan. Second, I suspect this model does and will continue to work for the labels and the big corporations. I'm not sure it will work for the artists. Personally, I'd prefer to see a Bandcamp model succeed that reduces the corporate tax as much as possible.

    If this model were to prevail, I wonder if it would influence songwriting. Might songs become shorter? Does SX's "The Odyssey" show up as one song or many?

    I completely understand where you're coming from. And I've never been an advocate of doing a thing the same way, simply because you've always done it that way and never bothered to challenge it. That said, my measurement for the success of a new model will always be largely based on how it compensates the artist. Right now, it seems like the labels are making out far better than the artists. It also seems like a large percentage of Spotify's value lies in finding a way to get people to pay for old music. To follow your restaurant analogy, Spotify has discovered a way to get diners to pay a second time for a meal they ate twenty years ago.
     
  8. orcslayr23

    orcslayr23 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    CT, USA

    Not sure if anyone mentioned it yet, but for a limited time you can get Spotify premium for 3 months for just $1. I don't use Spotify that often, but i've spent that much on worse things. I might get it simply because artists get more per stream from plays on a premium account than a regular account.
     
  9. skyrefuge

    skyrefuge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, USA
    Agreed, it's only a rip-off if the CD sucks!

    With industry revenue down from the peak, and with piracy probably having some role in that, *someone* must be making less money (btw how did that anomalous peak become the standard anyway?!) But a lot of those "someones" are surely truck-drivers, plastic-manufacturers, CD-store-workers, property-taxing agencies, etc. Under the new methods, a far greater percentage of revenue goes to the music rights-holders than under the CD-regime. So it's entirely possible that labels and artists can be collectively making just as much as they did in the past, despite the lower total revenue.

    I admit that I have not (I'm the perfect example of "with Spotify, why bother?"), but your data points don't tell me anything about the time-varying change.

    Here is an actual data-based analysis stating that file-sharing in 2014 is down to "only about 8% of daily Internet traffic in North America". It was nearly 33% in 2008, and 22% in 2011.

    No, I wasn't suggesting anything about Spotify's actual growth. I was merely trying to illustrate that the revenue-per-user that Spotify generates for the music industry is quite reasonable. If Spotify *does* grow 5000%, then the music industry should be happy, because they're getting tons of revenue. If Spotify stays where its at, the music industry should be happy, because the small number of people using Spotify are providing reasonable per-user revenue, and everyone else is getting their music through other channels. For artists who are not happy with the money that they get from Spotify, it's not because Spotify pays poorly, it's because hardly anyone uses it, and thus, it cannot be a threat.

    Even with iTunes, the "corporate tax" of 30% is much lower than under the label system, but yeah, Bandcamp's 15% is even lower.

    Spotify is still fairly opaque about their payout formulas; it's really just "we have $X to pay out this month, so we'll divide it up proportionally based on listening" rather than a set rate of "we pay $0.00xxx per track-listen". So it's entirely possible that they factor time-spent-listening into their equations rather than (just) number-of-tracks-listened-to. That at least seems like it would be the ultimate in equitability, and easily determinable for them too.

    But it seems like iTunes downloads would have already exerted any influence on songwriting here, since they've been around a lot longer, and, unlike Spotify, don't even have the potential to do time-based tracking. Generally, all tracks on an album get the same price regardless of length; they attempt to smooth this distortion (in a pretty arbitrary rough-justice kind of way) by making tracks over 10 minutes "album-only" tracks, and charging a standard price for a full album regardless of the number of tracks.

    For the record, "The Odyssey" is a single 24 minute track on Spotify.

    Same here, I guess I'm just more skeptical than you are about artists' own opinions about how poorly-compensated they are. Most artists are pretty bad at math, and if they're younger, don't have a history to compare to, and if they're older, still don't have an "aging artist in the 1980s" to compare to an "aging artist in the 2010s".

    So the only thing I can really trust is what I see around me, and what I see, and have seen for the decade-and-a-half that this Internet-related artist whining has been going on, is that there are just as many artists, songs, and concerts as there ever were before, if not more. When the deluge of new music starts slowing down, then I'll start considering that artists are getting insufficient compensation.

    Yeah, that's certainly a part of Spotify's value at the moment, but depending on the age of the user, and, as time goes on, the user is less likely to have even paid for the meal twenty years ago. In a Spotify-only world, there's no double-dipping, and any listening to old music just shifts money from new songs to old songs. That said, Spotify shows just as big of a "fuck you" to The Long Tail theory as everything else has: the top lists are still dominated by just-released pop songs.
     
  10. General Zod

    General Zod Ruler of Australia

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    14,210
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I too think it's possible, but seems unlikely. I suspect they're simply making a slightly bigger portion of a smaller pie.

    I don't trust these numbers. For starters, it's easy to see how often music is downloaded on a given torrent site and those numbers aren't decreasing. Second, music is now heavily downloaded via blog posts, which wouldn't be captured in these P2P stats. Finally, how much more data was downloaded in 2014 than 2008 in total? With the exponential growth of Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, not to mention gaming networks, music downloads could have easily remained flat or grown, while declining as an overall percentage.

    And only 10% once you surpass $5K in sales.

    I don't think iTunes would have exerted this same influence. An album costs the same on iTunes whether it's 5 songs totaling 60 minutes or 10 songs totaling 40 minutes. However, if I spend an hour listening to Green Carnation on Spotify and an hour listening to Napalm Death, Green Carnation would only get paid for one song stream, while Napalm Death would get paid for 142 song streams.

    Are you referring to iTunes or Spotify?

    Perhaps. However, I would argue that the history of the record industry and Corporate America should suggest you have more reason to be skeptical of their math.

    I feel that's a bit unfair. History has shown that artists will create art regardless of compensation. However, that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be appropriately rewarded for their art.

    In fairness, that would be true of any single model world. The difference is, only in a Spotify world do I pay for music even during months when I don't actually consume any. After all, they don't look at my usage, determined I didn't listen to $9.99 worth of music and return the difference.

    By the way, the point we've failed to note is whether or not Spotify's model can be financially viable in the long term. To date, (I believe) they've lost money every year they've been in business.
     
  11. Dustin

    Dustin C-C-Cool Beans!!!

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Interesting reading through the dialogue on this subject...

    I would have to echo what Matt and Urban have said through the conversation. I also find the back-and-forth of everyone on the whole streaming model enlightening. I think it's great everyone is talking about the 600 lb gorilla :)

    My personal thoughts on it are this: As much as I despise Spotify's pay-out calculations and Daniel Ek's bully-tactics to songwriters, I have to at least applaud his efforts to steer revenue away from pirates (of which he used to be at one time http://thetrichordist.com/2014/10/0...-daniel-ek-utorrent-and-kim-dotcom-megaupload) with a legitimate and legal option for consumers. But again, sometimes old habits/ideals are hard to break. I feel he still has a bit of that "Freeculturalist" mentality, otherwise he would be more open to making slight adjustments to his model that would benefit both Spotify and content creators.

    With the 90 days for a $1 deal, he is obviously feeling the vise by content creators (by-way of Swift for example) and Ek is moving in the right direction to proactively transition casual customers to "paying" consumers. Again, it's a good start, but ditching the "Freemium" model entirely and going to a 30-day-free-trial-only would be far more effective in my opinion. Also offering a multi-tier option after the fact, ($9.99 - $19.99 mo.) with higher benefits for each tier would certainly increase revenue. At the end of the day. The more "paid" subscribers Spotify (or any streaming service) get's, the more sustainable their business would be and thus, would be more economical to FAIRLY pay creators. BTW - Zod is correct - Spotify has yet to actually turn a real profit so far.

    With 22 million people still using torrent sites as of November 2014 - with an average of 3 million individual user IP's a day - I am not convinced streaming has really created a renewed sense of value in music by steering consumers to this legal option. I admit, Streaming is bringing over some casual users to a safer, better option (via the freemium aspect), But 3 million unique IP's a day using torrents is still a lot... cutting that number even in half and converting the 2+ million "Freemium" customers to the paid subscription service would literally turn the industry around entirely. But, that is wishful thinking at this point.

    Then you have Pandora and Google... Compared to these two boner companies, Daniel Ek and Spotify is a saint in comparison. These two companies have spent millions in either litigation or lobbying tactics (1.8 million for Google in 2013 alone) to try and weaken or devalue copyright. Copyright is the one and ONLY leverage we as creators have to help us monetize and be compensated for our works legally. Granted, Google/YouTube has moved to a subscription based offering on YouTube and allow artists to monetize there, but they STILL compete with themselves by allowing and facilitating piracy through their Adplus and search engine. So yeah, this may be a conversation for another day - but when you look at all that, Spotify (the artists extortionists that may be), are a far better option for legal streaming that these two clowns.

    My other minor beef with streaming (one that most technologists propagate to consumers AND artists as gospel) is that it does not cannibalize actual digital/physical sales. With Taylor Swift windowing her latest release and then pulling it off spotify; if it proved anything, it is that it does indeed cannibalize sales to some degree. Three days after pulling her work - she goes platinum for an album released 30 days prior to doing so. Kind of ironic how going into the end of October, it was looking like there was not going to be platinum selling artist for the first time since 1989. That alone should say something. I believe she was ticking in around the 700,000+ mark after the 2nd week of sales report (?) on CD/digital and was holding steady until 29 day mark, where she then at the 11th hour pulls out of Spotify.... and leaps over the million mark three days later? I find that hard to be pure coincidence. This is a good example of music still having value, and would also show a major shift in how consumers are listening/consuming music they are loyal too.

    Thus, streaming - with some small changes - could easily pay artists/songwriters a lot more than fractions of a penny, adding value to the consumer experience as well as making a viable model pay more to creators. it would be win win. They just need to shake that freeculuralist ideology out of their system and ditch the freemium model all together, and balance very could possibly be restored to the musical ecosystem.

    Then you have this...
    http://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/2...e-or-the-end-of-meaningful-metrics-for-music/


    At the end of the day, there is one thing artist/creators just can't compete with or adapt too... and that is trying to monetize from their creative work being offered for "Free". There is no economical solution to work around that option.
     
  12. Keir

    Keir Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    773
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bridgewater, MA
    That just tells me that she has a creative marketing team who came up with a clever way to draw attention to her new release.
     
  13. Dustin

    Dustin C-C-Cool Beans!!!

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    You say that as if it was just a one-off gimmick... well if that is/was the case, it's a smart one for sure, as it maximized her sales, created a demand for her music, AND forced the Tech industry to bring the conversation about the 600 lb gorilla to the table about proper compensation. So, kudos to creative marketing then - I hope she paid her team handsomely for it. :-D
     
  14. General Zod

    General Zod Ruler of Australia

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    14,210
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
  15. Dustin

    Dustin C-C-Cool Beans!!!

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    You are most certainly welcome :-D
     
  16. orcslayr23

    orcslayr23 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    CT, USA
    It's not that creative or clever. Most artists would be shooting themselves in the foot by not having their music available on every single digital platform/retail store possible. Swift was only successful because she's so massively popular. If a band like Soilwork released a new album and removed their whole catalog from Spotify to promote album sales, I doubt it would have the effect they wanted.
     
  17. General Zod

    General Zod Ruler of Australia

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    14,210
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    To your point, I think most of the discussion we've had about Taylor Swift is pointless. And not simply because her music has little relevance on this forum, but because her level of popularity of popularity is a statistical outlier. When you design a system, you don't do so to accommodate the 1%, you do so to accommodate the 99%. And in the case of Swift, she doesn't even represent the 1%, she represents the .0001%.
     
  18. skyrefuge

    skyrefuge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, USA
    Pre-Internet, the maximum per-album-sale revenue an artist could expect to receive was $1. Today, for a $10 album on Bandcamp, he can receive $8.50. An increase of 850%. Meanwhile industry revenue has dropped only 50% from its absolute peak (and more like 20% from its 40-year average). It seems you like going by gut-feel rather than numbers, but I still wanted to mention those just to show the staggering amount of money being lost to middlemen in the '90s. Certainly plenty is still being lost to middlemen, but the ability to cut them out is FAR greater than ever existed before, so to counteract the 50% revenue decline, an artist only needs to take advantage of a small part of the available efficiency.

    "It was cold last winter, so I don't believe these global warming lies!!" :loco: Ok, so first you think your personal survey of torrent-tracker hit-counts is a better review of reality a company that surveys actual network traffic from hundreds of ISPs? What is their incentive to lie? Also, they're smart enough to know about storage sites ("blog posts") too. In their 2011 report, they accounted for 1% of traffic, so pretty much inconsequential compared to the 22% P2P traffic at the time (and to cut you off at the pass, their P2P numbers include newsgroups too). In their 2014 report, they don't even mention storage traffic, so I can't say whether it has declined as well, but it certainly hasn't grown, and remains relatively insignificant. In terms of relative vs. absolute: "the average bandwidth consumed by Internet subscribers remained relatively stable at 44.5 gigabyte per month, suggesting that BitTorrent traffic has gone down overall."

    Finally, even if you continue to doubt all of that for some reason, at least you seem to trust in the validity of the massive increase in "Real Time Entertainment" (e.g. Spotify, Netflix) as a portion of traffic. Logically, what do you think these people are doing: simultaneously watching Netflix, listening to torrented music, streaming Spotify, and playing video games? There are a finite number of hours in the day, and a limit to the ways a human's attention can be divided. If they're watching more Netflix and listening to more Spotify, there just isn't any time left to listen to torrents.

    Agreed, but luckily I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic! And in my long experience of digging through numbers on the Internet, while the industry is more intentionally/maliciously deceptive, artists just tend to have more misconceptions or a less-global view about their numbers.

    Certainly no one should be forced to sell something for less than they want to, but they may have to face the reality that in a world of nearly infinite competition, no one will be willing to pay them what they want.
     
  19. skyrefuge

    skyrefuge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, USA
    Good post, I agree with most of it. Maybe you're right and the Taylor Swift pressure will be the thing that finally leads Spotify to close off the free tier in the US (which they closed off forever ago almost anywhere else). Presumably they just haven't had enough pressure until now to start closing the doors, which implies that the labels have been fine with the revenue. I hadn't seen that proposal from the Rhapsody guys before, suggesting that new/premium releases are only available on the paid tier. It seems like that would be a winner for everyone, so I guess Spotify must have some kind of philosophical objection to that sort of segmentation.


    Really? People actually say that? I know that metal-nerds/hoarders would buy that line ("I need to have 'the real thing or Joey DeMaio will call me a poseur!!!'"), but I figured to everyone else it was pretty obvious that once you're paying for access to a streaming catalog, it's silly to pay for anything else.

    Hmm? Are you talking about '1989' here? It never appeared on Spotify. It went platinum (1.3 million copies) in its first week. She pulled the rest of her catalog off Spotify the week after '1989' was released.

    I'd say she's relevant to the discussion just as a reminder that the music industry has always been about the 1%. The fact that the 99% makes nothing is not new. And it's not even an a particular effect of the music industry either. 99% of basketball players, photographers, and painters also make nothing.
     
  20. Dustin

    Dustin C-C-Cool Beans!!!

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    I shouldn't generalize it as 'people' saying streaming doesn't' cannibalize actual sales, as it is more or less propaganda that comes out of the tech sector - Daniel Ek (Spotify), Brain Mcandrews (Pandora) and Eric Schmidt (Google IP Attorney) are the champions of this phrase. However, I have read many statements in casual conversation from both music fans AND artists who seem to echo that streaming doesn't cannibalize sales, which is very interesting to me, as you said "once you're paying for access to a streaming catalog, it's silly to pay for anything else."

    LOL... okay, I just realized that her album was called '1989' - how bloody ironic! and eerily creepy?? No, I was referring to the actual year 1989 when billboard officially shuttled the 1 million mark as the gateway to break platinum. I will have track down the article, as I would hate to post misinformation, but I read that she had windowed her release in digital/CD format in early October and was a the 700,000 mark - all the while was going through a back-and-forth with Spotify about allowing it only on the paid service, of Which Daniel Ek flat out refused to bend on. You are correct - she didn't put it on Spotify at all, however pulled her entire catalog on November 1st, of which she flew up to the 1.3 million point after three days from the announcement. It was gauged that her fans on Spotify migrated over to buying it outright after the fact.

    Again, I will have to research that as I believe it was posted on digital music news and billboard.
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Our music community has been around for almost 15 years and we pride ourselves on offering great metal music discussion, as well as music production and other closely related topics. We work hard every day to make sure our community is one of the best. Enjoy!
  • Like us on Facebook

  • Donate ♥

    We have worked hard for 15 years (and running) to make sure our Metal community is running fast, uses the best software, and isn't overloaded with advertising. If you love the forum as much as we love bringing it to you, please show your support with a generous donation. We really appreciate it!