Streaming Now Accounts for 66% of ALL Music Sales In Norway…

Is this what the rest of the world eventually looks like?

Welcome to Norway, where streaming is now hyper-exploding: according to the top-level data shared by IFPI Norway, streaming accounted for ‘just’ 46 percent of total music (ie, recording) sales in 2012.

Now, it’s two-thirds of the entire music sales pie in 2013.

The streaming surge has caused an outrageous 17 percent gain in music sales in Norway (in 2013 alone).  But it’s clearly starving almost every other format: according to the data, downloads are down a drastic 21 percent over the same point last year.  Physical sales, already in deep trouble, plunged 29 percent.

Which makes the overall pie look like this for the past six months.


Similar trends are happening in nearby nations like Sweden, the birthplace of Spotify (and, the Pirate Bay).  So far this year, sales are up 14 percent in Sweden, part of another unexpected recovery.  In 2012, Sweden experienced its first recording sales increase in at least ten years, with platforms like Spotify reversing the carnage.



The question is whether countries like the US (and even Japan) eventually look just like Norway.  The US is now showing aggressive streaming growth, with iTunes and Amazon downloads trending downward for the first time ever.  But it’s still early in the States: for now, year-over-year paid download sales are down just a few percentage points.

56 Responses

  1. Jeremie

    What I can say after checking some stats is that it’s a very “Nordics-centric” situation, also since Spotify is swedish (there is some kind of national pride around the service), and Norway is therefore in Spotify’s zone of influence.

    You may see some similar trends in France, where Deezer is also seen as the national champion.

    • Viking

      “there is some kind of national pride around the service, and Norway is therefore in Spotify’s zone of influence.”

      It is clear that you know nothing at all about Swedish/Norwegian relations. They are actively competitive and faintly hostile in each and every situation. There is no argument whatsoever for Spotify popularity and growth in Norway being because it is Swedish. Quite the opposite. Being Swedish is a handicap in Norway. We will not even buy their ice cream. Add to that the fact that our “own” homegrown streaming service WIMP, is failing miserably and you have a better picture of the situation.

      Get used to the absolute truth that streaming is the future and downloads are dead. Spotify is popular because it is a good service from a consumer perspective. Norwegians are rich and can afford to be premium users. Americans are catching on slowly to the modern world just like they always do. (late with cell phones, driving energy wasting cars, rubbish health care etc etc .) So they will eventually get that Spotify or some other similar service is the way forward. In the end payment issues will be settled and things will continue moving forward.

      That said, the time is now more than ripe for forcing transparency from Spotify. This would probably be in their interest as well. The sooner we get a clear picture of what to expect the better.

      • Jeremie (JTV Digital)

        “Spotify’s zone of influence”

        Apologies if I offended you, I did not mean so!

        I meant in terms of digital music sales, Nordic territories and Baltics tend to have a similar “behaviour”

        That’s what the stats are saying, I don’t mean it has anything to do with the geopolitical situation.

      • Tune Hunter

        You better get used to seeing new opportunities – they have to come. Music belongs to creators and currently, it is under the jurisdiction of mismanaged labels entering to psychologicaly uncomfortable deals.

        “Spotify is popular because it is a good service from a consumer perspective.” – Yes it is, with free Shazam is much better than the original Napster! I repeat YES it is better!

        If I am the owner, it does not mean that my music belongs to everybody under their terms. Spotify is moreless a near nationalization of someone’s property at gunpoint. Just because the executives at the labels can not come up with better ways for monetization and become friends with the streaming Trojan Horses!

      • Visitor

        You sound like such a typically arrogant Norweigian. You’ve blown the liberal tradition of Scandinavia, of course Norway was never part of that, so noone cares.

        Streaming is not the future, its the past. Artists are leaving it in droves. We expect this behavior from Norge, but Sweden and Pirate Bay, and harassing Assange were new lows for the supposedly liberal bastion.

        BUt you keep dreaming you know the answers. Content creators rule, not thieves or desk jockeys.

        So now you can spew your template screed against people with talent. I’ve heard it a lot from the peanut gallery lately.

    • Visitor

      “You may see some similar trends [streaming killing music sales] in France, where Deezer is also seen as the national champion.”

      Again: Yes, streaming cannibalizes music sales in countries where streaming is popular…

      Which is why artists obviously should avoid it like the plague.

      • Visitor

        The consumer is clearly speaking… and the advice is to NOT give the customer what they want. BRILLIANT!

        Same advice was given to artiss to avoid radio in the 20’s – it would kill sheet music sales. Artists were told to avoid recording in the 30’s so as not to kill sheet music sales and radio appearance demand.

        Ten years ago artists were told to avoid digital downloads so as not to kill physical sales.

        One thing is historically clear: Artists shouldn’t listen to idiots like you.

    • Peter Bek

      Norway have their native streaming service, called WiMP, who is similar to Spotify. My guess is, that WiMP is the main channel for streaming in Norway in a similar manner as Spotify is in Sweden.

      • Viking

        Your guess is completely wrong. WIMP represents only a tiny fraction of the total streaming numbers in Norway. Spotify completely dominates the space.

    • Tune Hunter

      Both Norway and Sweden are Spotify’s show piece propaganda markets.

      The truth is Norway’s recorded music sales (including streaming) have declined from 966 Korona in 1999 down to 545 last year.

      Same goes for sweden

      Both markets are just couple years from total sreaming control and permanent retardation at 60% of best ever sales!

      • Visitor

        “Both markets are just couple years from total sreaming control and permanent retardation at 60% of best ever sales!”

        The above article doesn’t agree:

        “In 2012, Sweden experienced its first recording sales increase in at least ten years, with platforms like Spotify reversing the carnage.”

        • Paul Resnikoff

          The carnage has been reversed, meaning a patient in critical condition isn’t profusely bleeding anymore (see graph). But the points about about the broader shinkage of the market are important. This is a smaller industry, without the hemorrhaging this time around, and streaming is more about saving what’s left then saving an entire industry.

          In terms of the propoganda machine, there’s also a lot of merit to those points as well in my opinion. Actually, I’d point to the IFPI as a major source of this disinformation, most recently their wild proclamations at the end of 2012 that sales are no longer decreasing. Of course, to the uneducated journalist/audience, this leads to ‘yes, recovery!’… when of course, it’s more an industry “not bleeding as badly”.

          • Tune Hunter

            Ek has brainwashed IFPI, including Placido Domingo!

            I suspect he pays a premium to Scandinavian market participants to get “awesome” results and total blessings from golf playing label ignorantos. (most important is blessing of Francis Keelling – the partner savior).

            If we do not stop him and “me too” followers Ek will become a King of dwarfed Music Industry!

            We have to stop it, or $100 billions of annual business will land in dumpster and Spotify will rule the $20 billion sandbox.

          • Tune Hunter

            Ek also is paying heavy premium to carefully selected top musicians to get blind following in to this trap from all others.

            This allows him to spread his cancer. Actually, the cancer have already spread to Sony, Google Warner/Deezer and if we do not modifiy their business model the Musik Industry will implode and will stay forever under 20 billion. In the meantime Google alone can generate 30 billion out of music within 5 years there is additional 30 to 50 billions available to all others.

            Just switch to mandatory Discovery Moment Monetization!

            Labels! Music belongs to you and your artists! There is no reason for free ID services. (Shazam, lyrics ID = YOUR NEW RETAIL OUTLETS) Tere is no reason for tune info on the radio. Let them ejoy it and Shazam will sale it or add it to his/her playlist for just $.49, or LESS, to have a smooth sail to 100 billions / year.

            Good luck!

        • Tune Hunter

          I am telling you it is a propaganda effort – almost saturation – you will not squeeze many more dollars from both of those markets in year or two from now, no matter what method of monetization you use. Net result: shrunk industry with no hope for growth.

    • Viking

      Yes, streaming music cannibalizes music sales like cars cannibalized the horse and carriage.

    • smg77

      You really don’t get it. We’re never going back to getting people to pay $18 for a CD with only one or two songs they want.

      Streaming is the future. Embrace it or go get a real job.

      • Visitor

        “We’re never going back to getting people to pay $18 for a CD with only one or two songs they want.”

        But of course not, we have iTunes now.

        “Streaming is the future”

        On the contrary, we now know for certain that streaming cannibalizes music sales.

        Artists obviously don’t want that to happen.

        And guess what happens to streaming when the artists leave…


          • Visitor

            Oh you’re a prophet, or something? I only got the news today…

            And for the first time, we now know that streaming cannibalizes music sales?

            Again, I’m confident that artists will find the right way to respond.

          • lolz

            “And for the first time, we now know that streaming cannibalizes music sales”

            Anyone with an IQ above 80 has known that for a long time. Why should I buy an album in a different format, when I got it available all the time and everywhere, with my Rdio subscription? There is no rational reason to waste money on that.

            “Again, I’m confident that artists will find the right way to respond.”

            So am I. They’ll adjust to reality and the fact that they’ll make the majority of their money from live performances and merchandise. Also, it is only weeks ago that Pink Floyd and Eagles responded to reality by making their music available on Spotify. I personally can’t mention more than 4 or 5 holdouts now.

          • Visitor

            Yeah but the same fucking statistics say that Spotify’s revenue more than makes up for the lost downloads. It’s not rocket science:

            Artist: Without Spotify

            1,000,000 million D/Ls = $700,000
            0 streams = $0

            Artist: With Spotify

            800,000 million D/Ls = $560,000
            100 million streams = $500,000

  2. Visitor

    “it’s clearly starving almost every other format: according to the data, downloads are down a drastic 21 percent over the same point last year”

    Good, now we finally know that

    Yes, streaming cannibalizes music sales!

    Let us hope artists and other right holders all over the world will remove their property from Spotify and similar services as soon as they hear this.

    Meanwhile we have learned from Japan that

    Yes, harsh penalties for pirates increase music sales!

    So we now have all the data we need to build Music Industry vs. 2!

    • Jeremie (JTV Digital)

      “streaming cannibalizes music sales!”

      This can only be clearly stated in the regions where Spotify is very popular / was widely adopted.

      This does not happen in the “rest of the world”

      • Visitor

        “This can only be clearly stated in the regions where Spotify is very popular”


        Nobody expects Spotify to kill music sales in countries where it isn’t popular.

        Bottom line:

        We now know that streaming cannibalizes music sales!

        I’m confident that artists all over the world will know how to react on that information.

        • Visitor

          See, here is what you don’t understand:

          It is extremely expensive to produce the kind of music most people want to hear (the songs you see in the charts). But

          streaming can’t finance music production!

          And that is why streaming is such a disaster.

          Not for artists — we’ll just find new jobs — but for everybody who loves new music!

          • GGG

            Once again your ego and self-righteousness get in the way of any critical thinking. Maybe there is no music MOST people want to hear anymore….that’s why sales of your dumb pop songs are down…ever think of that? Album debuts at #1 with 300K sales and you think that’s ONLY because of piracy, streaming, etc? Give me a fucking break. A HUGE part is because people now have the option to DISCOVER what they like, not be force fed whatever is on the radio or MTV. Why buy this trendy, meaningless song when you know you won’t care about it in 3 months and a clone of said song will have replaced it?

            The internet has opened up access to smaller/niche genres like never before. Do Mumford & Sons and the Lumineers sound like Justin Bieber? No, and M&S has sold more records, I’m pretty sure. So is folk what MOST people want to hear? I doubt it. But a lot of people sure do. How many people do you think listen to Gangnam Style anymore, after it became the biggest song in the world for a couple months? Probably a fraction of a fraction.

            So please, do us all a favor and get off your high horse when talking about the shit music you make. In fact, if songwriters like you who whore themselves out by creating songs devoid of all emotion, that are basically math problems to get to the top of the charts, have to find new careers, I think streaming will have done it’s better than we could have imagined…

          • Visitor

            “Maybe there is no music MOST people want to hear anymore”

            Yes, that’s the music you know from the charts.

            And streaming can’t finance that kind of music.

          • GGG

            The Lumineers have 85M+ spins on Spotify for one song. That’s about just under $300K? I’m good friends with a songwriter/producer signed to BMG. Guarantee you he can write and record an entire album of pop songs for well under $300K.

          • Visitor

            This is an odd conversation.

            Don’t you think artists would be enthusiastic — ecstatic, even — about streaming if it could finance our work?

            Or do you really think we hold back because of ideology, stupidity or self-destruction?

            Let us see documentation for 50-100 songs that make this kind of money from streaming if you want us to take you seriously.

            Until you do, we have to conclude that streaming not only is worthless (to artists) but also extremely damaging as it obviously cannibalizes music sales.

          • wavedriver

            so with your logic a band that gets 85 million plays on Spotify deserves to make just enough money to recoup what was spent to make their record? say your friend produces their record for 50,000 dollars out of that 300,000 dollars. that leaves 250,000 the bands manager takes 20% off the top so that leaves $190,000. the record label takes 80% (because they did after all put up the money to make the record and the marketing in the first place and took all the risk if it fails) so now the band has $38k to pay for the mixer ($10-40k) the mastering engineer ($100-$350 per track) assuming they called in favors and got these guys at a reduced rate they then split what they have left (at best 27k) between all the band members which for a band of 4 people works out to $6.75k each. less than part time at Walmart.

            We are talking about a band whose song has made 85 million people happier in their daily lives and you want them to live below the poverty line so you can get music cheap.

            You are a dick.

          • GGG

            Ok, a few things. And clearly you’re a moron so I’ll try to be a straight forward as possible.

            1. Pretty much 90% of my point is showing that Spotify, a company with a fraction of the users as YouTube, is approaching the numbers this particular commenter I’m talking to finds OK on YouTube, a company that pays a third as much in royalties. Conclusion? Spotify grows and hits those numbers, you’ll make more off that than Youtube.

            2. This is ONE fucking song we’re talking about, not the album. The other songs have 100M more streams combined. So their album has grossed well over half a million bucks on Spotify alone.

            3. Since that needed to be pointed out, I guess I also need to point out that this is ONLY Spotify. The official video on YouTube has 80M views (curiously less than Spotify..hmmm). Not to mention people still bought their record. Over a million of them, in fact.

            4. I’ve never been particularly happy with or pro Spotify’s royalties. So do I think 85M spins should be more than $300K? Yes. Slightly different argument, though.

            5. I may be a dick, but at least my cognition developed past that of an 8 year old.

          • Esol Esek

            We’re also never going back to smug no-talent millenial clowns getting their entertainment for free. Go to the grocery store and get a steak for free. It’s your right. See ya foolio.

  3. Esol Esek

    Also, smugboy, I bet most quality artists can get better jobs than you anyway, since most are smart enough to work multiple outlets if they have to. You, however, are doomed to a mediocre non-existence too cowardly to attempt to cultivate and sell any creative product. You’re the last kind of fan anyone needs. Go watch sports with the drones.

  4. another anon visitor

    The Scandinavians understand minimalism. Why create digital clutter when you can stream everything?

  5. Eric

    Unlabeled chart for Norway.

    Sweden shows $ (USD equivalent?). Norway has no label.

    Dollars? Units? Songs?

    Hard to argue over charts with no labels. Unless you’re the RIAA, that’s their job 🙂

  6. Tune Hunter

    Those are very tragic statistics! Both Sweden and Norway are home back yards of Spotify and saturation of streaming is at the final stage. The problem is that propaganda machine of Spotify will not tell you that last year are just 545NOK (us$98million) comparing to 1999 sales of 966NOK. You will find same sales proportions in streaming nirvana – Sweden! Streaming is not a steroid style medication – it is shrinking poison pill.

  7. GGG

    cont from discussion with Visitor above:

    It’s an odd conversation because your stance doesn’t make any sense. Spotify can make you money, the Lumineers example proves that. And those numbers/that money is just under what you find acceptable for YouTube. A company with WORSE royalties and, I guess literally, billions more users.

    So when a company who claims to have 30M users, which they obviously don’t have that many active ones, can get 85% of the way to your desired levels of plays that pays better than what you’re fine with now, why in the fuck would you not be for the service? You can still absolutely complain about their royalties, you can still absolutely complain about their lack of transparency, but it’s clear your numbers are attainable with a little more growth.

    Secondly, I have never asserted that right now, in 2013, it’s financially great, I’ve always looked at it from a potential point of view.

    But since you asked, let’s see. I spent 10-15 during lunch looking, and these are what I found in that little time. Keep in mind, most of these acts also have a number of tracks between 15-50M, I just put 50M as the min. I’m 100% sure I could hit between 50-100, but don’t feel like it. You can do your own research. Or wait, I guess you can’t since it will fly in the face of your dumb argument.

    Ho Hey – 85M

    Radioactive – 108M, It’s Time – 51M

    Get Lucky (radio and album) – 76M

    Locked Out of Heaven – 78M, Just the Way you Are – 63M

    Sweet Nothing – 68M

    Can’t Hold Us – 94M

    Mirrors – 52M

    Pumped Up Kicks – 51M

    Gangnam Style – 86M

    Diamonds – 97M, Where Have you Been – 51M

    Somebody That I used to Know – 126M

    Levels (radio plus album) – 76M

    Just Give Me a Reason – 64M

    We Are Never Ever… – 54M

    One More Night – 73M, Moves like jagger – 68M, payphone – 83M

    Some Nights – 80M, We Are Young – 107M

    Midnight City – 58M

    Give Me Everything – 60M

    I Gotta Feeling – 54M

    The A-Team 60M

    Let Her Go – 77M

    Hall of Fame – 89M

    Little Talks – 71M

    Paradise – 50M

    Rolling in the Deep, 87M, Someone like You – 52M

    Titanium – 105M, She Wolf – 60M, Without You – 55M, Memories – 55M

    Bangarang – 70M, Scary Monsters… – 50M

    etc etc etc

    • antivisitor

      And every million of streams is good for about $5000. Do the math….

      • Visitor

        “every million of streams is good for about $5000”

        While every million iTunes sales = $700,000.

        Sure, every stream is not a lost sale. But a lot of them are. We need statistics on that.

        Then again, these numbers are interesting.

        • GGG

          I will say, I’m not of the mindset that Spotify doesn’t cannibalize ANY sales. I guarantee you it does, and in some cases substantial amounts of money. But I was just looking at some numbers and there’s still not really anything showing one way or the other is better. The biggest selling singles of 2007, so pre-Spotify, were Leona Lewis at about 10M and Umbrella at about 7. Everything else was less. Last year’s biggest selling singles, Jepsen, Gotye, Psy got up to 12.5M, 10-11M, 9M.

          I’m inclined to think single sales are hurt a lot more than album sales but those numbers are still great, not to mention higher than pre-Spotify figures. So you could look at Ho Hey’s 4M single sales now compared to Lewis and think it’s bad, but then look at Jepsen and it’s still low. So really, maybe that song was just never going to sell that much.

          Now, I will certainly admit to the point that even if the song could sell 100K more copies, that’s $70K as opposed to shit for 100K streams. But then again, to make up that extra is 25M streams, which maybe accounts for all the people that just wanted to check the song out a couple times so wouldn’t have bought it anyway. If you want to think 1M more people would have bought that single, then yea, Spotify fucked them really bad. But again, seeing as how a number of hit singles hit higher numbers with Spotify around sort of makes that presumption lose its strength.

          I think the best case scenario is to push both. Push sales because it’s good money and push streaming because it’s good extra money. Think about alllll the people who have NO interested in buying your song, but would absolutely play it once or more for whatever reason. It starts to add up. So in case you thought my arguing the whole time has been to replace DLing, that’s not my idea at all. DLing and streaming together can work wonderfully.

          • Visitor

            I think the fact that you can find tens of millions of artists on Spotify speaks for itself. Even critics of Spotify have their music up on it.

            Money talks. If having your music on Spotify led to less money it wouldn’t be as successful as it is today.

          • Visitor

            “If having your music on Spotify led to less money it wouldn’t be as successful as it is today.”

            Not correct.

            Spotify is a direct consequence of piracy, and right holders use it as a last desperate attempt to channel at least a tiny amount of cash around the Piracy Industry and back to the people who created the music.

            Now, GGG provided solid facts that show genuine streaming possibilities for top-selling acts. And that’s very good news, no matter how you look at it.

            But take piracy out of the equation, and Spotify will sink like a stone.

            Not tomorrow, not next year.


            And guess what’s in the news today:


            Outside of the public eye AT&T has lent copyright holders a hand inventing new anti-piracy tools. Previously we reported that the Internet provider has patented a BitTorrent monitoring system, but the company is sitting on an even scarier invention. AT&T has patented a mechanism through which it can detect copyright infringing files that are sent over its network in real-time, and then stop the transfer or report the perpetrator to copyright holders or law enforcement.”


          • GGG

            The only issue I have with this argument is that I don’t think people necessarily save money when they pirate in the sense that they now have all this extra desposable income they would otherwise have spent on music. The biggest myth of the anti-piracy crowd (and I don’t say that as a PRO-piracy person, just as an acknowledger of it, which I’ve outlined before) is that every single pirated album/single/movie would have been purchased. That’s not remotely true. Part of what makes piracy so rampant is simply that it exists and so many things are readily available.

            The people that torrent every BNM on Pitchfork or the top 20 albums of the year so far from NME or whatever, weren’t going to buy all those if piracy was strictly enforced. Maybe a few of them, but people can’t afford to spend the required amount of money for everything they want to hear. And you can attack that by saying it’s an entitled consumer culture, and you’d be right. But that’s what it is, you can’t change the collective cultural mindset overnight. Especially in people that grew up now with youtube/piracy.

            And this is why I’m fundamentally for streaming; it’s a legal outlet for all the people that want to hear music but have 0 interest in buying it. Unless they REALLY like it, as I have done a few times. I think you’d be VERY surprised to see how little sales go up for most acts if piracy was just ended tomorrow. For top acts? Yes, they’d probably go up somewhat. For mid-level Indie Band X that got an 8.1 on Pitchfork? They’ll be lucky if 5% of the people that pirated their music take the time/money to buy it.

          • Visitor

            “I think you’d be VERY surprised to see how little sales go up for most acts if piracy was just ended tomorrow”

            Well, I assume we can agree that piracy did cut music sales down by 50% over the past decade?

            So sales will return to normal or, more likely, higher levels if we stop mainstream piracy tomorrow.

            Here’s why:

            The need for music is at least the same as it ever was. People love and use music just as much as they did in 1999.

            So they’ll buy it if they can’t get it for free anymore.

            And streaming will be dead because there’s no chance any rightholder will give her work away for .005 when she can get .70.

            OK, ready to receive your reward for reading this? 🙂

            Go ahead, enjoy it — the best ammunition you could ever hope to find for your next Spotify discussion:

            “Piracy Collapses As Legal Alternatives Do Their Job

            Entertainment industry groups in Norway have spent years lobbying for tougher anti-piracy laws, finally getting their way earlier this month. But with fines and site blocking now on the agenda, an interesting trend has been developing. Quietly behind the scenes music piracy has collapsed to less than a fifth of the level it reached five years ago while movie and TV show downloading has been cut in half.”


  8. Econ

    “Sure, every stream is not a lost sale. But a lot of them are.”

    Only on planet Idiot.

    If someone is only goingto stream a song once, they wer NEVER going to buy it. When you get to about 8-10 streams by ONE user, THEN you can talk about a lost sale.

    And perhaps it’s by the time that a person streams a song 10 times, it actually DOES turn into a sale 5-10% of the time. I don’t know the figures, but neither do you.

  9. tune Hunter

    Tell me who is paying $1/2cent per stream? Your 5K /million means just that

    • Visitor

      I think a poster mentioned Spotify-numbers in that neighbourhood.

      Steve-something, I believe?

      • Tune Hunter

        Thank you for the link.

        Just note under this deciving chart there is actual payout of $.0005 which means 1/10 of 1/2 cent!

        In my world it should be 10 cents per stream with stream #5 converting you to owner. (50 cents rent to own deal)

        Instant Shazam (purchase-only) at no more than $39, bulk buyers max 29 cents/tune NO OTHER WAY! 100 billion industry in 5 to 10 years.

        • HansH

          There is nothing deceiving about the chart. These are my very own actual rates over the last few years.

          The $0.0007 payout is from a CDBaby statement. CDBaby uses another system where the rate is different for every tier. Look again and you will also see some near 2 cents per stream rates. The low rates are from Spotify Free streams. On average the CDBaby rates are also $0.005

          • tune Hunter

            OK, step in right direction! or are you by accident in one of those critical showpiece markets?

            Still 10 cents for initial stream, plus 7x 5 cent streams for total ownership @45cents would be a minimum and only way to go, no subscriptions – just direct weekly billing to cc, paypal, google wallet or anything!

            And then we can have free Shazam for any streamer and we can remove parasite label from all of them! If it is just monthly payment of 3.99 to 9.99 free discovery has to be removed from the deal. You like it – getting goosebumps? pay to add it to your play list! Otherwise we are dealling with improved loaded with features NAPSTER and it looks like Mr. Keelling wants it this way – his mouth watering article at Guardian makes streaming the Jesus Christ of the Music Industry.

          • Econ

            There was a company called LaLa that tried doing that 5 years ago. Artists and labels shat all over them, then Apple bought them and shut them down.

  10. Econ

    So you’re saying iTunes et al are OVERPRICED by over 100%.

    Which is what I, and most consumers, have been saying for years.

  11. Visitor

    “I have never asserted that right now, in 2013, it’s financially great”

    No, you have been hoping for a better future, and that’s fair enough. It’s just not of much use in the real world.

    The numbers you provide, however, is another story.

    They are not fantastic and they don’t compensate for lost sales, but they’re certainly in the ballpark.

    So thank you for taking your time to find them. There’s no doubt they’ll support your case considerably.

    Here’s how I see things:

    We’re at a cross road right now and have the opportunity to choose a few good platforms for music distribution and then go all in and support them to make them grow.

    It’s just equally important to kill the less fortunate companies. And I think the purpose of these discussions is to determine which is which.

    iTunes is an obvious keeper because it’s so huge and because it pays so well, and YouTube is obvious because it’s so… obvious (i.e. big enough to get away with lousy royalties).

    And now you show there’s a realistic chance for Spotify to become a keeper, as well. If it survives, that is…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *