to quote Mark Twain "lies, damn lies and statistics"

It was actually Benjamin Disraeli who said that. 

it's hard to say that Spotify is cannibalizing transactional business (downloads) when they are what... like... .003 % of the total revenue of the business in major markets?

Tell you what though... if you see downloads and other transactional numbers decrease while Spotify increases that is a tell tale sign... of course they may attribute the decline to other factors, but in reality... it will be pretty clear.

I work for a small independent record label, with a pretty sizeable back catalog.  We are averaging over $7k from Spotify each month, and our iTunes downloads are up this year from last year.  So, based on what I've seen, Spotify/streaming doesn't cut into downloads at all.

I'd love to see a screenshot of the statement from your Distro...

I guess I'd also like to know how "small" a small indie label is these days...

This is very interesting. 

So, is that 7k before the artist splits??

Yes, that's before any royalties and are paid out.  Also, this is just from the U.S.  Spotify Europe was an additional $5k in the last reporting month. 

if you're making 7k monthly in streaming you must be making 700K in sales monthly! that's amazing for a small indie label. (Even 70K in sales would be pretty amazing.)

Back in 1981 or '82 I'm sure CDs did not dominate the maket share.

What was the time frame that it took to marginalize vinyl and tape?

Your answer sir, in 30 seconds or less ;)

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081611thirty

Smart phones and tablets are killing (or will kill) the download, not streaming.  Streaming is the result of having always-connected personal devices.  No reason to download for on-the-go listening if you've got access to XX million songs through 4G.  And, similar to the late 90s Napster wars with the industry trying to dictate to the fans, trying to force the round peg consumer into the square hole of downloading won't be the answer either.

Good point!

In a world that has become so caught up on getting things as fast as possible, more and more people will want to quickly search and then stream a song rather than go search for it, click a buy button, wait for it to download, then make sure the song is uploaded to whatever computer or device you want it on.

The balanced look? Is it possible to currently determine if the stream is killing downloads, helping or indifferent.

cd baby has just averaged it's overall dload/streaming revenue increase and applied them to one "if made 10K then would make" situation. 

doesn't the average artist on cd baby make less than $300 (?)

if cdbaby has increased it's downloading revenue by a million because another 500,000 brand new albums/artists uploaded that year (or 2 billion songs have been newly delivered to streaming sites,) ... but each individually have each sold $2 or increased $.20 in streaming revenue...

what i'm trying to say is methinks CDbaby jumps are simply due to new volumes of stock being added, but the per capita increase is pretty minimal. does that make sense? 

I think based on the evidence shown in this article it is clear that streaming isn't killing the download, yet. 

Streaming might be keeping download sales from growing at a faster rate, but it isn't killing or causing a decline in downloads. 

The biggest killer of music is free Shazam, free Sound Hound and free Music ID by Sony/gracenote. Steve Jobs made them free for Apple and pirates benifit. Shazam has almost 200 million active users and billions of monthly recognitions and..... is making no money! Just 30 million dollars a year from sales of premium aps and endorsment of say.. Britta filter.

  Those services have bigger value than brick stores ever did. Instant stisfaction and purchase!

If they can strike a deal with lables and convert free ID  with no cash involved to 29 cent instant purchase all will win. Shazam and Soundhound will become billion dollar corp. overnight.

Apple boys can buy this service from Shazam for 2 cents and offer same "instant deal" for 29c without changing anything with iTunes.  NO MORE FREE ID let it be discounted in favor of irversible purchase! Apply same to lirics search and you will have 100 billion industry in 5 years.

Interesting.

How exactly are these services "the biggest killer of music?"  Sure, there's probably more money to be made here, but I don't see how it's killing music. 

If you can't get a straight answer, perhaps you're asking the wrong question - or possibly: the wrong person.

The answer to whether streams are killing downloads lies not in retailer data, but in consumer spending data.

The quickest way to establish the likely effect of streaming on music sales is a consumer survey in a mature streaming market, such as Sweden. Failing that, industry data on the dynamics of sales in such a market, prior to and after the launching of Spotify could be used as a proxy.

Here's my reality: I exposed my music on Jango picking up a small fan base. There were repeat listens. I then pulled my material from play and waited to see what would happen. The result: I had visitors but no 99-cent purchases. They waited until the songs became available again on Jango.

The lesson learned: when the consummer pays a subscription fee to hear whatever they want, especially with the mobiles (forget audio quality) they have no need to own it.

For promotion  I gave over a dozen free album download cards with only three takers. It appears most don't like downloading albums.

Money for substinence and reinvestment comes from sales of CDs/MP3s. Not streaming royalties. And forget about performing, unless you can fill 1500+ seating venues and make money after paying the venue's rent and your transportation and lodging expenses.

According to a survey taken by John Oszajca,  a consultant, most Indies are selling 5 units/year. An appearanace on Letterman might sell 800 units.

That's my reality.

buckbaran.com

The question is not so much about inconclusive data - it's about how is this company's business model compensating the creators of copyright.  Not too well according to reports such as this one written by Alan Farmelo and this one in the Guardian.  

Not that iTunes is perfect.  They take 29 cents per download, when the writers, the creators get only 9.1 cents per unit.  But who determined the value of a mechanical royalty?  Oh yes, it's set by Congress. iTunes didn't decide that.

I'm interested to see how foriegn collegues weigh in on this issue of mechanical licensing.  Does every country set a mechanical for its creators?

The bottom line is that fairness is a principle.  A principle is something that is both timeless and self evident.  Therefore, one has to be fair oneself in order to have fairness.  Do you think Spotify and other streaming sites are behaving fairly?

What about the principle of respect?  Are the streaming servers being respectful of the creators of copyright?  I think, in most cases, the answer is "no."  Until that day, we're looking at a flawed model, folks.  Plain and simple.