Beats Music Is Paying Me 2 Cents Per Stream…

beatscdbabystatement

35 Responses

  1. jw

    Alternative headline: Guy gets one quarter for listening to his own album on Beats.

    I’d love to hear input from someone who actually has fans.

    Reply
  2. so

    Until Apple does something with it, nothing Beats does, or pays, matters. It is simply *not* a player in the streaming space and wasn’t going to be.

    Reply
    • FarePlay

      Beats is sitting on the sideline watching what’s going on and trying to see their way through this controversial mess. Unlike everyone else, Beats has direct access to a sales channel and the opportunity to get songs or partial albums from new releases with the ability to direct those listeners to purchases, which just may be the way out of this with a way to maximize paid downloads and drive additional revenue to artists.

      Reply
      • jw

        Look, man. People are either going to pay $9.99 per month to stream, or they’re going to buy digital downloads.

        No one is going to do both. It wouldn’t make any sense to.

        IT WOULDN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.

        I, honest to god, think you should be over the moon at the prospect of someone paying $120 per year for music, & not advocating for squeezing that consumer for more money.

        Premium streaming will always be paired with the ability to download songs for offline listening (even if that functionality has limitations in the future). Removing that functionality cripples the value proposition of the service. So why would anyone buy something when they’ve already paid for the ability to download it for offline listening? Where is the logic in that?

        Reply
        • FarePlay

          Amazing that you still have the same confidence in a service that is clearly broken, Spotify. The model that will emerge is the same one that works for the legal movie streaming companies, where paid downloads are offered and purchased and both the streaming service and the copyright holder benefit.

          Windowing will expand, indie musicians and maybe even the major labels will limit songs or bypass Spotify and other streaming services altogether. Changes to the DMCA will reduce piracy, vinyl sales will continue to grow, people will purchases devices that process high-end audio files and people will pay to download audiophile files.

          You and the boys from Spotify need to see beyond the Napster Model and realize that it doesn’t work and embrace the changes taking place in the marketplace.

          Reply
        • FarePlay

          I, honest to god, think you should be over the moon at the prospect of someone paying $120 per year for music, & not advocating for squeezing that consumer for more money.

          I would lol if it wasn’t so tragic and ended the careers of talented musicians and songwriters. Yes, I’m referring to the government study that showed a neraly 50% decrease in individuals who once listed musician as occupation on their tax returns. Yes, the study was from 2002 to 2012, before ALL this revenue started flowing from Spotify. Hah.

          Your consumer centric comments are just another indicator of your core belief system. “…Squeezing the consumer for more money”. You mean getting a generation to pay for music? And you set the bar for what’s fair and reasonable? I don’t think so dude.

          Reply
          • GGG

            Did that study have an in-depth analysis of who these people were?

            I said this back then and I’m still willing to bet a huge percentage was people not directly related to recorded music sales, i.e. local symphonies having to let people go, Broadway sticking two synth players where 10 horns and strings used to be, bars not wanting to pay for live music and just getting a digital jukebox, etc.

            Because you can’t honestly tell me you think there was 50% more working/successful bands in 2002. Unless you’re going to count every failed band that still hasn’t recouped their advances.

          • FarePlay

            We always end at this crossroads. You’re of the school there’s more music than ever, I’m of the school, yes, but fewer can make decent money from their work. The study was from the US Bureau of Labor and there’s really no way top purse those numbers.

            Besides, the numbers tell it all.

          • GGG

            So doesn’t that line up with what you want anyway? As you said, “I don’t care if everyone can make money from their music. I do care that those with true talent get rewarded for their work…” Maybe we’re weeding out the hacks.

          • FarePlay

            Smart repartee, but you and I know that isn’t the case. For the musician this has always been a very, very tough business, even in the seventies. I do find it no coincidence that the music business has lost half of its’ revenue and we’ve lost half of our full-time musicians.

            But I’m not going to blame it on Spotify. The survey was 2002 to 2012, it was online piracy.

          • Dave 5000

            Music selling on it’s own has gone down. That is what they mean by losing half the revenue. What these studies do not take into consideration though is that live performance fees are way up. There are also multiple revenue streams that never existed before the internet. This whole “oh the music industry is dying no one is making money i’m gonna cry and moan like bitch because I’m dumb” needs to stop.

            Either you build a fanbase and make money connecting with your fans or you gripes and bitch. It’s one or the other.

          • FarePlay

            “What these studies do not take into consideration though is that live performance fees are way up.”

            Your right. It costs $500 to see the eagles. Nobody other than the big guys can make a go of it touring. Plus these major acts suck so much money, people don’t have the money to see other bands.

            Once again, what we’re talking about are mid-level artists who play 2,500 seaters and below. You’re dragging out a ten year old argument about new revenue streams replacing recorded music sales. An argument that has proven wrong.

  3. Tom

    Do you or someone else have the current payout grid across all the major on demand and radio streaming services? It’d be nice to see a single source of truth to compare. Thanks!

    Reply
      • Jeff Robinson

        Yeah, this chart isn’t even close to accurate.

        Our Nokia numbers came in at .0038 for the U.S. for ad-aupported and .008 for subscription supported streams. Nowhere near Lowry’s quoted rate of 7.4 cents a stream.

        Google reported in at 1.21 cents a stream, Microsoft (Zune and Xbox) between 3.2 cents and 4.4 cents a stream, Rhapsody (Napster) at 1.1 cents a stream, Rdio between 4/10ths and 9/10ths of a penny, Spotify between .0014 for ad-supported streams and 1.1 cents per stream for subscription service. One service not on Lowry’s list is Omniphone which supplies music to Sony’s Playstation devices and Music Unlimited Service. That pays steadily at 2.2 cents a stream.

        As there are 4 potential royalties to be derived from streaming, the numbers above reflect only the ‘sale’ side of streaming paid through distribution. BMI/ASCAP (for songwriting), Soundexchange (for performance royalties and not paid by on-demand streaming services, only radio-style services) and Mechanical Royalties. These rates remain to be determined. Paid typically 9 to 18 months after the streaming occurs, these are where the industry is falling seriously short. BMI reported at .0006037 per stream from Spotify in September. Not sure if the songwriting rate is any different from any other service or if it varies like the ‘sale’ royalty does from these services.

        Collecting Mechanical Royalties proves to be a trick, Music Reports collects for some streaming services like Rdio and Xbox, your distributor may collect from others, Harry Fox collects too for Rhapsody and other, but all collect and few pay those who are due. Where does that money go? How are they allowed to go on collecting and not performing due diligence to pay out? If there were to be reform in the Music Industry, getting to the bottom of unpaid millions might be a good place to start.

        Reply
        • Jeff Robinson

          Let me be more clear on the Mechanical Royalty scam-

          More indie artists are releasing music these days. These indie artists control all 4 of the above royalty streams- or at least could if they are organized and understand this Music Industry 2.0. Streaming rates as a sum of all 4 of the above royalties doesn’t look awful. Organized artists can earn a decent amount from this.

          But why should an artist be penalized and not able to collect Mechanical Royalties for On-demand streaming if they are self-publishing? Harry Fox will not pay mechanical royalties unless you have a publisher. Why are they allowed to collect on behalf of someone (entity) if they are not legally obligated to pay them?

          It gives them the ability to collect for all and pay a few.

          You can imagine too how with publishing deals given to major label artists, the equity deals the major labels have signed how those 4 royalties above could be whittled down to nothing.

          An organized indie artist should be able to collect streams themselves. It would be interesting to ask Zoe Keating whether she’s been able to collect all 4 royalty streams for her releases and at what rates- NOT JUST her sale royalty from streaming. Trichordist.com doesn’t even get close to discussing this in detail.

          Reply
  4. Willis

    IF they are paying $.02 per stream, they will be gone shortly. I doubt it, though.

    Reply
  5. Remi Swierczek

    Beats operates on Ek’s utopian business model therefore you tune Plastic Utopia is subject to payout typo.

    Let’s can convert Radio and streaming to $100B music store. Then your tune if it is any good will enrich you and all digital broadcasters.

    Reply
  6. quak

    Same business model as all the rest. Just a different name.. If it walks like a duck…

    Reply
  7. FarePlay

    Beats is sitting on the sideline watching what’s going on and trying to see their way through this controversial mess. Unlike everyone else, Beats has direct access to a sales channel and the opportunity to get songs or partial albums from new releases with the ability to direct those listeners to purchases, which just may be the way out of this with a way to maximize paid downloads and drive additional revenue to artists.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Everyone has that ability. Rhapsody, Rdio, Spotify all had pay-per-download services. It wasn’t worth the effort.

      If you think Beats is sitting on the sidelines then you are not really paying attention.

      Reply
      • FarePlay

        Being connected to iTunes and being connected to anyone else is different. There’s a reason iTunes has dominated. So no. Not only is your comparison weak, it doesn’t take into account artists removing their music from streaming services. THE GAME CHANGER.

        Particularly high demand new releases. …… Which is definitely one of the things Beats has its’ eyes on and a big reason why Apple brought Iovine into the company.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          Itunes dominated because Apple made a device everyone wanted called the iPod. Itunes was the one and only music service that supported the iPod.

          Some artists are removing music from Spotify. Not streaming services in general. There has been little-no talk about pulling out of Rdio, Rhapsody, XBox Music, etc.

          I think you are really overestimating what Iovine brings to the table. Apple could buy all the major labels outright with cash. If Apple wants a high profile album then Apple will get a high profile album. With or without Iovine.

          Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Sorry if this was said, but from what I’ve seen in the past, $0.02 per stream is a lot. Are most of the deals $.0025 or something like that? What do you want? $1 for 1 person listening to your song once? Or how about we cram an entire CD down their throat for $17 that only has this one song they want? Yeah! Now there’s a business model! Oh, wait…

    Reply
  9. DNog

    They’re so pumped on this they put direct links to iTunes, Bandcamp, Spotify, and Rdio on their site! If Beats is paying you out that much you should probably pull your head out of your ass and direct link to Beats on your own site. Just an idea.

    Reply
  10. Paul Resnikoff
    Paul Resnikoff

    I wonder if Iovine, Dre and the Apple-assigned Beats team can figure out a way to integrate Beats into the iTunes ecosystem. Steve Jobs was unafraid to cannibalize his own businesses, though I’m not seeing that same toughness and fearlessness in the Cook-led crew.

    Downloads are dying. What’s your next move, Apple? Because Spotify and YouTube and rendering you obsolete.

    Reply
    • Justin Mayer

      Pretty darn fearless to hire a guy who was at the helm of a super huge criminal organization…

      Interscope = Massive property thieves, among other things…

      Criminals deserved of spending many years behind bars in prison…

      Zero morals, zero class, zero honor those people have!

      Reply
  11. Sgmarshall

    Exactly, I’d like to see payout numbers from beats for someone who has a hit.

    Reply
  12. David

    Granted, the sample is too small to be statistically valid. Still, there is no obvious reason why the payout rate per stream should be any higher for a track with few streams than for one with a lot of streams. So the high payout rate is quite interesting.

    Reply
  13. john Luongo

    JW, I hear you but you are way off! We should NOT be ecstatic or even slightly happy that people pay another party $120 a year to listen to our music and pay us all nothing.

    Try that line on a mechanic that buys you the parts at a discount, tells you how to put that part in then you go to someone who is in competition with that mechanic that you want them to do the work! Should all mechanics be happy that some mechanics somewhere are making money and not them!

    Reply
  14. Confused

    Are we suppose to be upset about this? Please DigitalMusicNews, tell me what to feel!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *