Thrilled?

As in, "I'm THRILLED with this revenue! It's so much!"

That sort of thrilled?

So if Spotify paid $150 MILLION... what is the cooresponding Itunes payment for the same time frame, in the same territories in BILLIONS...

 

Sure $150 Million sounds like a lot until you get your check for $149 DOLLARS... for over hundreds of thousands of steams...

 

There's no artist discovery mechanism, which makes Spotify a Double No Thanks...

you can't compare itunes revenue to spotify revenue - one is a streaming service and the other a download service. okay it's 99p or whatever for an itunes download, but that's a one off fee never to be paid again. with spotify, you pay for each listen.

Which would you rather have:- your week's wages this week or a quarter of your week's wages spread over 10 years?

Which would you rather have one check for a $1 or 10,000 checks for a dime?

huge quantified catalogue numbers do not necessarily mean all the songs on Spotify are huge in quality, so i for one would like to see the following provided by Spotify:

1. to verify the overwhelming acceptance, a list of bands and artists and their managers (not record execs) that are in favour music on streaming on Spotify.

2. a complete list of recognizable Bands and Artist's that most folks that are not in the catalogue. 

3.. a complete list of all labels whose bands and artists are included in the Spotify service.

4. what's the broadcast quality of all the files being streamed on the Spotify?

5. updates of recognizable artists and labels, when they are added. Just like they do when artists go on tour or have a new product available.

6. access to song rotation spin numbers ongoing, in order to measure bands/artist popularity; by country, city and genres. Top 1000 tracks, Bands/Artists charts based on audited numbers.

cheers,

OK

 

 

susannah caviness 

LOL

hey Spotify, leave the fiction writing to the RIAA.  just be honest and you'd be surprised how people will react differently

I don't think the issue is over the revenues Spotify is returning to majors. Recent IFPI report on digital music reveals the size of Spotify in Europe and how much money it's actually churning for the record labels. The report also stated that on a European level, Spotify is the second single largest source of digital music revenue for record labels. This means that 2010 saw dramatic increase in its usage as well as payouts to record labels and artists themselves. The reason why labels are leaving is because this service cannibalizes other revenue streams with higher margins like digital tracks and albums sold on iTunes (although debate is not over on that issue). So, in the US, if Spotify becomes the source where people get their music (monetarily) instead places like iTunes or Best Buy then the labels are losing even more money.

Here's the bottom line, mobile apps are the future.  Streaming (not Cloud) will be the wave of the future and when people realize that they can stream a library of millions (for a monthly fee) vs. purchasing one song or CD at a time, then storing it on a Cloud or locally...it's a no brainer.

Streaming is the only logical choice for people who want to take a large library on the road.  Multi core Smart phones and tablets will/have made HD streaming the 1st choice for me.

I rarely use iTunes anymore, for $120 a year I have access to millions of songs...why would anyone buy one song/CD at a time?

 

 Güniz Trkylmz 

Spotify'dan cvp geldi

Spotify would also wish you believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

«...a few labels and artists...»  [have left Spotify]

The people who run this setup lack basic math skills. They see hundreds of artists/labels walking away and they translate it to "a few".

Perhaps this is why Spotify pays so ridiculously low royalties to the indie artists? Its accountants can't do the math?

 

You should checkout airbornemusic.com

In their video they use an Einstien quote "You cant solve a problem with the same thinking that created it" and I think this is quite true. 

All these other music services good but limited by the licensing payments/regions that they have to comply with.

Yeah I'd seen that video once before, I think through DMN ?  It's an interesting concept for sure - also avoids regional licensing issues like you said.  Whether or not it works remains to be seen - however these are exactly the types of revenue models that should continue to be expiremented with. good call.

such BS

you realize that streaming services are on a P.R. campaign to make themselves look better?  they want to make the world think they're not screwing artists.  Techcrunch took the bait

the campaign focuses on one thing that people hate: labels.  It's all about blaming them and sayiig if labels are screwing their own artists there's nothing we can do about it.  SPotify's just a scam, investors are screaming for an I.P.O. or some acquisition and artists yanking their songs isn't helping that.  

I made sure my Digital Label and all my music as well as other artist on the label are not part of Spotify.

We are in the Electronic Music Arena.  Royalties from Itunes flow in every month at a nice %.  Our label is more than profitable with Itunes alone.  However, we also sell limited releases on Dj Download and Beatport.  

I was on the phone with GOOLE music yesterday.  The will be rolling out a "label" division for their GOOGLE music store in 4 to 6 months.  I am debating on wether to add the label contet with Google.  

Bottom line, there are plenty of ways for Artist and Labels to make money.  SPOTFIY is not something that is "Revolutionary" nor will it take away the Market Cap from Itunes.  My sales in Europe, Asia, and other overseas markets has not drop because people rush to by other artist using Spotify.  

Streaming Services will be part of the equation however, I have yet to see my revenue drop due to Streaming Services Capturing a % of "EDM" fans and therefore, they no longer buy from Itunes. In fact, we are gaining more market share and revenue is rising via Digital Sales, which is the only way I sell music now.

Yeah. 

I'm just gonna wait for this one to come out on DVD. 

"150-million" divided by "many thousands"...

I call BS. Growing the service won't change anything for the vast majority of independent artists/labels, unless there's some way of scaling per-play payments along with it (which basically means charging the customers more).

The biggest improvement I've seen from Spotify was when they drastically scaled back their free tier. The improvement was from "are you taking the piss?" levels to "half-a-thousand plays more and I'll be able to afford a beer" levels.

If Spotify is looking to major labels for opinion, then of course they're going to learn their service is great: a major label earns money on a substantial portion of total plays. They shouldn't be surprised, though, when more and more people start walking away.

and here's another perspective:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2011/11/22/streaming-music-companies-pass-the-buck-on-issue-of-artist-payments/

francois momboisse

Spotify: 15 m titres, 150 m$ de revenus aux majors depuis sa création. sans hadopi.. stop ou encore?

 

I'll put my tracks back up on Spotify in exchange for shares of the upcoming IPO.

Not thrilled with my 5 month $850.00 loss in iTunes sales

Not thrilled with my 5 month $8.60 Spotify earning

Let's remember that Spotify advanced many millions of dollars to the majors and nothing to the indies.  With that in mind, the majors can take a longer view and look at empirical data as to what effect (positively and negatively) that streaming services like Spotify have on downloads.  The hardback (download)/paperback(streaming) windowed releases will probably become more prevalent on the heels of Coldplay's move.  Hard to say if the label licenses require delivery of all of their catalog (clearly not required for EMI or maybe just "licensed" acts such as Coldplay) or if the majors were able to create carve outs to allow for holdbacks.  Chili Peppers aren't on their either and no one is talking about that.

The study needed to complement this debate is whether Spotify has a positive effect on piracy (i.e. less) and what that means vs. any potential loss of download revenue.

P.S.  Rdio and MOG are also "free" streaming services.  Are people pulling their catalogs down from them as well?

Where the problem starts is with the under-cover, locked-up, totally sealed deals that Spotify has done with the rights holders. What we do know, is that huge sums have been involved any time the record companies allow access to their (entire) repertoire, for whatever kind of distribution. There are deals done everyday, chunks of dosh deposited into their accounts; because of confidentially clauses, NOBODY outside of the deal partners has any access to the knowledge of that income.  As far as we know, NOT A CENT has been passed down to artists, those whose work makes up the value of what they sell. The artists are 'earning' on their royalty rates, which most of the time are still unrecouped. This is the future of distribution: the rights holders will earn, nobody will ever know how much, and the artists will see pennies, if that. 

Nick O'Byrne 

Then there's this article which says that labels are happy. A look at the comments shows skepticism though...

another addition to the news-flow of streaming services...

http://solutions.finetunes.net/musicnews/streaming-services-some-calm-advice-for-labels/

As a user, I rather like Spotify. The playlisting facility fills that neat space in between hearing a song I like and wanting to commit to buying that song if I decide I like it enough.

 

Is it true that there is no incentive to the label to pass on Spotify revenues to their artists? I understand that is currently the case and it puts me off Spotify. I don't have an alternative at the moment, other than going straight to purchase for songs I quite like, which would be expensive. But the fact (?) that labels keep all the $/£ does put me on the lookout for a Spotify-type thing which guarantees or at least improves the likelihood the artist gets the revenue (minus a label cut, fair enough obv).

 

Caroline Botomley

www.RadarMusicVideos.com

Let's keep in mind that most songs by a major label(or any artist for that matter) are lucky to be streamed 60-100 or more on average in a fan lifetime. All songs do not have a vibrant existence throughout the fan's life.

Another reason the industry has to step away from the bubble gum pop trends.

In case anyone is interested in the tech details ---

Spotify Technology: How Spotify Works

I'm a world reknown songwriter who's songs appear on Spotify and are streamed daily. There is one simple reason why Spotify is incredibly valuable to the music business and its future. "IT IS CAUSING AN ADVERSE REACTION TO ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING" Think about it? I would rather make a fraction of a cent on a free stream of my song than no cent at all. DOWNLOADING illegally usually takes a few minutes to hear your song. Streaming happens in literally seconds. In the long run, streaming will be great for the music business as revenues increase from advertisers.

That said, there is only one thing about Spotify that makes me uncomfortable.... HOW is the $10/month fee divided up from all of the paid subscribers? From what I understand, that has never been disclosed. Transparency in this day and age is key. That's one of the reasons why the major labels lost their trust from the music consumer in the first place. :)

Just sayin'

The problem is not with Spotify or any other streaming service. The problems lies within percentages and payouts that were created when the music business was making tons and tons and tons of money and when digital technology was brand new. We have to adapt our payouts to the changes. Spotify is simply paying out what they are required to based on the streaming revenue rates. OR they are paying out what is negotiaed with the labels.