OK, time to go back to releasing cassettes

It is pointless to compare streams and downloads.

Some bands / labels still don't understand these are 2 completely different things / revenue streams...

------------------------------------------

please visit www.lostindigitalmusic.com

After reading articles here and other news outlets and realizing how the old major label business mind works, one would conclude that within a very short time frame, there will be no more downloads to buy.

Maybe, in the near future the vast majority of music (definitely all of the music distributed by the major labels and most "indie"labels) will be available only as streams. So that will be the only revenue stream available on-line.

The sale of DPD's will not be going away anytime soon.  There is still a very large consumer base that wants to own material, rather than stream it and it is a multi-billion dollar a year business.  Also with the rise in locker services (e.g. the user owns the music and has an account in which they upload their music to the "cloud" and can stream it from any where) it only further keeps a market for purchasing.

As stated above, people do need to learn the difference between a royalty paid on a stream and income received from a sale. 

Yes I think people do need to know the difference, however I think the vast majority of people do understand. I am merely suggesting a possible reason why they seem to be mentioned quite often in articles here and elsewhere.

As far as digital downloads are concerned, IMO it makes better business sense for the major labels to be 100% streaming. Once they are fully committed to streams they will cease digital downloads entirely and slowly phase out physical sales over the next 5 years.

Cloud/locker services will be harder for them to control, but it can be done.  I think that since other digital content providers are in the same situation when it comes to controling cloud distribution that they will try a political solution first.  If that proves to slow and it usually does, their teams of accountants and lawyers (and yes maybe some folks with knowledge of how digital distribution actually works), will devise a nefarious business plan to marginalize those folks who insist on buying something. Maybe designate "approved" cloud/locker services (those that have kowtowed to rights holders), all others will be labeled pirate sites.

Finally, I am not suggesting that this will happen overnight, it could take several years. But IMO digital downloads and physical copies will be this century's piano rolls

*shudder* I REALLY hope this is conjecture and not an actual idea.

yes the main difference being, people don't download music they do it illegally and streaming pays almost as much as illegal downloading the music. Artists may as well give people money to download it. No difference.

in reply to the "some don't understand the difference between a download and a stream"...  the point is, that the industry is headed towards streaming primarily, and the lack of money from streaming has the potential to make it even that much more difficult to make a living from music.    that comment sounds like it comes from someone who enjoys music but thinks it ought to be free.  maybe doctors, teachers, and garbage collectors should work for free too...

$1.38 for ten listens? That's better than I thought.

Let's face it, on the vast majority of the CDs out there the artist would be lucky to make that for each sale (a sale = 10 listens? is that fair?)

Still, we're going from one raw deal to another, but that's not a surprise...

Youtube has an interesting program for content makers (creators awards)

list of rewarded:

http://youtube.com/yt/creators/rewards.html

an article about it:

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2012/07/24/youtube-gold-discs-sort-of/

 So the record companies are still at it. i hate them

What a misguided statement... Educate yourself, please.

# of bands that I listened to and discovered for myself on Rdio last month that I absolutely wouldn't have paid $10 for the download of an unknown (to me) band -> ~10. And I listened to each multiple times, and some many, many more. And the bands got paid. Without subscription, I wasn't listening to them. 

Deezer est trois fois plus généreux que Spotify.

Whoa.

Interesting correlation RE: Deezer "If you listen to it a hundred times, we'll get $13.84." Isn't that about the same as selling a CD or DL to someone for $10.00 who listens to that CD about 100 times? Spotify needs to step up for sure.

A lot of people don't understand the math involved here.

Deezer has a higher payout because its subscribers listen to music less frequently.

Comparing Deezer to Spotify is not logical in this sense. IE a Deezer subscriber is less likely to listen to a song 45 times versus a Spotify subscriber.

As well, comparing 2011 to 2010 is not logical either unless the goal is to determine if the subscriber base is listening to music more or less frequently.

As a subscriber base grows it listens to music less frequently but the payout increases which tends to even things out in the end.

Is a subscription worthwhile for the consumer? Here is the best way to look at it: do you believe you will add 10 new songs on average, that you like, to your playlists every month until you pass away?

In the USA alone, there are a minimum 40 million legal music downloaders, according to NPD research group, spending on average 50$ per year. This average is higher on an international basis IE Japanese are big spenders on music.

Why should Deezer customers listen less than Spotify customers?

The one and only reason Deezer can pay more is because they don't offer free streaming. Only paying subscribers can listen full tracks on demand with Deezer 

It depends on the size of the subscriber base. You obviously don't understand that consumers have varying degrees of consumption. Those who consume the most are more likely to find subscription services the most advantageous for them. As the base grows there will be more subscribers who consume less frequently therefore in a trade-off increasing the stream payrate.

In this specific case with Uniform Motion, they are likely getting better royalty terms from Deezer versus Spotify because they are a European band but not from the Scandinavian region.

iTunes treats all independent bands equally regardless of region they are based...fair is fair.

Those who say subscription is the only way of the future, overestimate how much consumers are willing to spend on music.

Sorry Yves, simply not true. I run a label myself. Deezer is not big here (The Netherlands) but even my label gets the same rate. 

Less streams leads to a higher rate, you are right about that, but that doesn't explain the higher rate Deezer pays. All full Deezer streams are by paying customers so there is more money. I'm sure you have seen the article with the Ditto Music data? 

In that very article you mention, in the comments section you admit distributors have different deals with regards to streaming rates... not the case with iTunes.
 
I am strongly guessing your distributor has a better Spotify deal than CD Baby and Tunecore. The reason they have a better deal is not because of their size (likely a smaller distributor) but because they are European and may have a strong connection to Sweden.

Yves, you are strongly guessing.. but guessing wrong. The difference in deals is not that some aggregators get better rates, the difference is in the way the calculations are being done. Some get a calculation per tier, others get the same rate for all tiers.

The connection with Sweden is irrelevant. I use Zimbalam, it's from the UK. European aggregators don't have better deals than U.S. aggregators.

Hans, stop the B.S. Your spinning faster than a figure skater.

The real reason why distributors(aggregators) don't advertise their streaming deals is because each have their own contracts with the streaming company (Spotify, et al).

The less influential distributors would not do business with these streaming companies if it was known they are getting less lucrative deals for their clients. If this information was widely available, their artist/label clients would flock to distributors having the most lucrative deals.

Yves, I have seen dozens of statements from different distributors. In average the rate is $0.005 with each and every distributor. 

You keep spinning. You are trying to underhandedly convince bands they are getting a good streaming deal by underquoting (quoting the free service payout) and trying to prevent an exodus from streaming companies who give preferential stream payouts to bands depending on where they live (Sweden, Scandinavia and Europe).

I do not supply my music to streaming services for two reasons, at least:

1- Not a good business model, as it caps revenues from normally big individual spenders on music and excludes revenues from those who don't normally spend the value of a subscription.

2- Streaming companies divert revenues from independent artists/labels outside of Sweden, Scandinavia and Europe to their artist/label friends and early content providers of these streaming companies.

Me trying to prevent an exodus? Preferential stream payouts? Come on get real. 

Hans, you have not explained the reason distributors are not allowed to advertise their streaming rates. IE Lack of transpenracy as demanded by stream contracts.

The explanation is simple, distributors have different streaming rate deals and advertising them would cause shifts in the market for clients between distributors with good and bad deals. In the case of Spotify, Swedish, Scandinavian and European artists receive better rates because Spotify is a Swedish, Scandinavian and European company. Also early adopters could get better rates too.

I assume you will avoid responding to clarify the reason in the lack of transparency and continue pretending your innocence. Not all readers of DMN articles are clueless.

Yves, the awfull truth is that the distributors have no deals that cover the rate they are getting.

Check the article with the rates published by the aggregator Ditto Music. They had to get it from their customers statements.

I'm not avoiding anything. Pretending my innocence. What do you take me for? You are making a fool of yourself with these allegations.

agreed, the point of a download and stream shouldn't be considered the same thing... also, you don't have to listen all the way through to get credit for the stream, usually it is just a few seconds.  Not that it changes the payout amount, but just pointing it out.

We're going round in circles with these kind of posts.

Bands need to understand that without these streaming services they'd get nothing, 0.

Nobody would ever listen to or even pay for downloading music from unknown artists, that's a reality people have to face.

Streaming services are a chance to monetize unknown / unsignes artists.

What's the point of constantly complaining the payou rates are too low? What would you say with 0 revenue? Would you feel better, less frustrated?

I'd be curious to see how much TOTAL was paid to the artist from each of these platforms.

I think many people forget this question: Is it all about making the most money or is it about growing your fan base?

Here are the numbers you asked for.

Bandcamp: $2,640.08

iTunes:  $373.08

Deezer: $296.35

Spotify: $67.57

Grooveshark: $0.00

Cheers,

Andy

Uniform Motion

Thanks again for educating us all.

Thanks for sharing! That's the kind of info we need.

Interesting. Your streaming revenue is close to your iTunes revenue.  That puts your calculations in a completely different perspective.

Makes me wonder. How big is Deezer in France compared to Spotify? 

Yes, Deezer is bigger in France but largely due to their partnership with Orange. Orange bundle Deezer premium with broadband subscriptions, which is doing wonders for our numbers, but I'm not sure how long it will last.

Thanks Andy for being so open. I sure hope more bands start sharing info like this. 

On last question. Which aggregator do you use? 

Andy,

Thanks for sharing.  Beautiful work on your releases. A total package.

Does the Bandcamp figure include the physical as well as the digital?  If so, what's the revenue split?

I note that your Bandcamp pricing also undercuts iTunes on downloads.  Are you going through an aggregator for iTunes?

If that's your monthly total, you're doing very, very well, relatively speaking.  But not from streaming, though Deezer wipes the floor with Spotify in your summary.

Now, how does SoundExchange pan out for you?

Hi Robbie,

The bandcamp number includes both digital and physical. The split is about 50/50.

We're using TuneCore for iTunes.

As for SoundExhange, we're just getting started with them. I just finalised all the paperwork a couple of weeks ago and got an acceptance email from Pandora last week, so I'll have some numbers next year I suppose.

Cheers

Andy

Spotify & co = discovery + a few cents as a "bonus"

That's not true IMHO. Spotify can replace sales ( in the long run) Just look at what is happening in Sweden, The Netherland and France.

I am in total agreement.

Digital downloads and physical sales (both digtal and analog) will be slowly pahsed out entirely.  Within the next 5-10 years the only way anyone will receive new music is by streaming.  

I have heard all of the arguments about how people like to "own" something digital or physical and if people are given the choice of owning something for dollarsor streaming something for pennies, they will forget all about ownership.

I am not an advocate for Spotify or other streaming services, but it is what I see as the reality of the music business now.

I don't think we will ever see downloads go away. Simply because there is no reason to do so. Unlike CDs, there is no physical material and therefore added expense involved. Streaming and downloads can easily coexist. CDs on the other hand will more likely than not be phased out in the next 10 or so years.

IMO the only thing preventing music labels from distributing exclusively through streaming is that everyone isn't connected to the internet at home AND by mobile device.

Once a majority (or some larger percentage, I am sure label accountants have figured it out) in the US are connected at home AND by mobile device, purchasing music will be a thing of the past. In ten years you can tell your grandchildren about how you used to "buy" music and they will look at you in puzzled disbelief.

Makes it real easy to sift through music while referencing CMJ charts and reported Top 30 playlists from college radio.  Pretty spectacular possibilities.

How much do you get payed if someone buy's your CD and plays it every day for 3 years? $1.00 or maybe $ 1.50? 

Difficult to compare and additional income in my opinion.

Dear Sir and/or Madame,the past tense of pay is paid, not payed. Thank you.

"If you listen to the album 1,000 times (once a day for 3 years!) we'll get a whopping $138.36!"

If I buy an album once and listen to it every second of every day for the rest of my life, they get $5.65, so this seems like a good deal to me.

Sounds like scale is the answer.

Except for the fact that you're wrong. 

And are perpetuating complete fallacy. 

Glad you spent all that time on the JPG though. 

xoxo

Some ouchy streaming pay rate numbers

You must be very desperate to agree for such poor payment conditions. Nobody listens to any albums that frequently to let you make that $13 or $138. You won't see that money. There are either too many releases or too bad releases these days to focus on during such a long time to let the bands cover any expenses linked to making that album.

Musicians like other ordinary peeople have bills to pay more frequently than per year (internet, gas, power, phone etc). Listeners should buy music directly from bands; CDs, digital downloads etc. This will cover their work directly without forcing them to wait 3 years to earn little shitty money. F**k that Spotify scam. Don't beg for money, don't let some loudspeakers get on your knees. If you make ambitious music, you deserve as much $$ as your music is worth to you and to the lisneters who understand your tunes. If you make ambitious music, if you spent years on training your skills and have a natural talent for turning your ideas into original arrangements, you know how much it's all worth very well. Not 0,0001something per song which you were making for a few weeks/months including the costs of production, mastering, buying gear etc. Art is a creation of mind. It is much harder to make unlike any physical product. It doesn't matter music is not 'visible'. It's about its value and how it influences other minds. If one buys a chair to feel comfortable on while working, then why this person refuses to pay for music if it still makes him/her comfortable on the same level? This needs to be fixed ASAP.

a friendly advice: if you're making music to pay your bills, get yourself a day job.

and also: stop complaining about payout rates, something is still better than nothing.

finally! someone else that gets it. the days of record sales are over people. deal with it. your songs are now business cards. quit bitching and build a name for yourself and put on a show. a real show! not standing behind a laptop and pressing play. its amazing what a good job will do for a music career. you can make the music you want, buy all the gear you want and not sell out trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Great article...

THIS is why it's important to BUY music rather than Spotify / Grooveshark it

Home Streaming is Killing Music!

#Spotify =not much

#Grooveshark = zilch!

They can opt out; they're music doesn't have to be on Spotify or any other streaming service. Lastly, renegotiate your contract and STFU.

I love how when bands are starting out they are just happy people are listening to their music, and then they make a buck and the greed kicks in. Everyone knows the music industry is not where you go to make millions, the few that do are as lucky as lottery winners. Lots of talented artists have to do work on the side ontop of making music to make a decent living. Indie bands especially should be happy they are on streaming sites so people can discover them (if they haven't already) and see if they like your music. THEN comes more sales! People will buy tickets to your concerts, t-shirts, vinyl, etc, and tell all other friends about how awesome you are, and there's even more possibilities with sponsorships, licensing, etc. If you don't want to make money from streaming sites because it's "not enough" then don't put your music on them, the streaming site companies aren't going to cry about one missing band, you're only hurting yourself and your fans.   

this shows that the money is from touring and merch, not music sales anymore.

If you think "being on the road" pays, read Uniform Motion's blog (linked in the article above)

BTW, Guys, you are welcome to list with BuyMyPlaylist.com. We are small, so we cannot promise big returns, but we pay up to 65% of the download and/or streaming retail prices, which you set up yourself.

kassa!

Ten years from now, I invite everyone over to my place to listen to the vinyl records I just bought.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120104vinyl/

Twenty years ago, pundits said vinyl is dead. Now they say downloads are dead. I say you can't predict the future any better now than you or your predecessors could then.... I play it safe and only predicy my own behaviour.

If you are an independent (be that indie or otherwise) artist, engage your fans in the conversation. Ask what format they wish to have your next release available in. Chances are you already know, because you are a fan as well and know how you want to hear your peers. If not, and you are really worried about revenue streams (not data streams), then perhaps that day job is a better path to happiness.

And every one is shouting spotify, artists don't make much from it.

It's a slap on the face for indie artists.

There is a new music alternative to all these sites.

muyora.com is a new internet platform (www.muyora.com) that allows music artists,record labels,music aggregators to signup,upload and publish their music for sale in over 30 countries worldwide via sms billing.You can also sell in poland via sms billing through the platform.

It is a great alternative to retail music sites like itunes and amazon and a great opportunity to sell to people who don’t have access to

conventional payment methods like paypal and credit cards.And its all completely FREE of charge to signup and use the platform.

http://muyora.com/music/blog/faqs/

http://muyora.com/music/blog

What makes Muyora music unique is the ability for users to buy music, files, ringtones, music videos and audio content without the use of credit cards, paypal or using any personal information. All payments on Muyora are made using mobile phone SMS. Because mobile payments are accessible by 4 billion people worldwide more people have access to getting your music legitimately. 70% of Internet Users do NOT have a Credit Card and 53% of Internet users who have NEVER engaged e-commerce would do so if they were proposed an alternate payment solution. Over 3 Billion people globally are unable or unwilling to transact over the web because credit cards are required. Muyora music makes it fast, easy and safe for your fans, your music lovers to buy your music online whether you’re a music artist, music producer, preacher, song writer or music composer. It’s an efficient and secure way for them to buy their favourite music single or album in seconds. No need for credit/debit cards, no bank accounts, no need for a paypal,all they need to buy your music or digital content is their mobile phone.

We are looking for content partners who have high quality 320kbps musical tracks and can sell them on our platform.Our platform allows you to have a user account,upload your audio content,publish,monitor sales etc all from a user account.

Look at the brightside, we'll all be millionaires in a 1/2 million years!

Yup totally confirmed. THose "Broadcast Digitial distribution Systems" are a joke. Any musician putting tracks or releases in any of them is going to lose.