PR:  curious, what percentage of #1 US records from 2012 were available on Spotify on release date?

Has to be some other metric besides #1 to go by. Considering you can soundscan 3 copies and be #1 these days. It may be better to ask how it affects a long term, slow build... like Mumford, Adele, etc. 2010-onward.

Rihanna, DeadMau5, Adele all holdouts with  no.1 albums

Hope that pizza tastes like the sweat of the employees the founder of Papa Johns is shitting on.

Maybe find a less offensive endorsement?

That's an understatement.

But it seems the higher ups in these labels don't give a damn about things like that.

But Taylor Swift is going to sell regardless.  She is in the minority as an act that is big enough to still sell millions.  

What about the thousands of mid teir artists?  What about the millions of completely independent, lower teir artists?  How would a move like this effect them?  And sadly, the answer is that we will never know.  There is no way to find out.  

Mid Tier artists should follow this trend, especially if they recieve huge sales within the first few months of release. Low tier artists should post directly to spotify until their sales track for new releases increases significantly, because for low tier artists, listeners from spotify are more than likely hearing the low tier artists' songs for the first time ( so why not pick up a few pennies). 

"Why shouldn't we learn from the movie business?"

And here's an even better question: Why shouldn't we learn from the car/beer/real estate business?

If Mr. Borchetta really wants to learn from the film industry, he ought to take note that Disney just discontinued their digital store & signed an exclusive deal with Netflix. Physical products are quicky becoming irrelevant... even Redbox just announced plans for a streaming service.

Sure, witholding pays dividends as a stopgap measure, but it ultimately slows the transition to something more sustainable.

There's nothing longterm to extrapolate from BMLG's strategy, any more than there was from Kid Rock withholding from iTunes. The bottom line is that you can't fight the evolution of the format, not with all of the star power in the world.

iTunes/permanent downloads are digital.

@ jw quote "he ought to take note that Disney just discontinued their digital store & signed an exclusive deal with Netflix."

unless disney plans to release its blockbusters on netflix the same time as they release it to the movie theaters, then your comparison is meaningless..

Most likely the stuff Disney will be giving to netflix is their back catalog stuff, and TV releases (which they already have on their TV channel).. Netflix just allows them to not have to worry about doing their own streaming distribution..

It does plan to release it's blockbusters on Netflix, exclusively, in a deal that replaces it's existing deal with Starz, beginning in 2016. Their non-theatrical releases will begin showing up on Netflix next year.

The point is that Disney is de-prioritizing digital downloads & prioritizing streaming, whereas BMLG is doing the exact opposite. You may think that's meaningless & that's your prerogative, but I think it's telling. I also think that Disney's got a much more consistent track record than any film studio.

Honestly, I don't know why you bothered posted a comment without even googling the Netflix deal.

@ JW "It does plan to release it's blockbusters on Netflix"

please reread my post.. I never said they wouldnt give them content.. I said having a major release on netflix the same time as its released in the THEATERS.. disney makes lots of content that is direct to cable, TV, and DVD, I could easily see them give netflix that,

but they will most likely stay with releasing the "blockbusters" in theaters first, then give netflix "first choice" after a standard delay.

Everything I read basically says the same thing.. Disney is giving netflix First Run IN PLACE OF CABLE/TV..

If you have link that says otherwise, please correct me.. as I didnt read every single 'news' article..

so again.. (I will try to type slower this time) ;-)

The Disney/Netflix deal is STILL a tiered release, and thus BACKS UP THE ASSERTION THAT STREAMING IS SECOND OR EVEN THIRD TIER.. 

I never said it was meaningless, I said your example was, as it was based on incorrect assumptions..

The teired comparison makes perfect sense when you're comparing a film release to a live album release. The initial concert recording can be directly compared to a theatrical run, as many parts of the experience (social aspects, the size/volume of the performance, the exclusivity of attendance, etc) can't be reproduced effectively. And the format has built-in teirs... perform/record, release.

But I object to your, & Borchetta's, assertion that a studio recorded album release can be compared to the theatrical release of a film. There are elements of the theater experience that, like I said, can't be effective reproduced, which makes it an anomoly. The comparison doesn't work because you're paying for the experience, not the media itself, there's scarcity involved, the experience is bolstered by the accoutrements...

If what Borchetta, & you, are suggesting is some sort of cd release experience, where scarcity comes into play & you aren't paying for ownership, licensing, or rental of the media itself, then, sure, add that teir. And don't gut it with releasing the album for streaming/download/sale the same day, because you've got scarcity on your side.

But outside of that, let's stick to comparing apples to apples here & call the theatrical release exactly what it is... an orange. And when it comes to apples, the streaming apple is moving up the chain & the downloads/ownership apple is moving down the chain. That's my point.

Resnikoff misspelled 2 out of 4 artists' names wrong in the last sentence, and continues to be a pathetic excuse for a "journalist" (everybody reading this knows there have always been troubling, more substantive issues on top of his terrible typos and fact checking). It's no surprise that so many people call him the Perez Hilton of digital music behind his back.

Sorry Paul's not a cheerleader for your f--kd startup.  At least he puts his name on every article he writes. 

Seriously. Anonymous Coward.

And yet...

You had to come here to post that or no-one would ever see it...

You can't compete with Perez Hilton and bad spelling ? Or you can't afford a website of your own? Or maybe its all 'too technical' for you?

Which is it? no talent , no money or no brains ?

@Visitor,

Surely you are mistaken about my readers. They would never say anything so unkind behind my back... without adding several expletives.

/paul

Zing!

Awesome response.

While windowing makes perfect sense for big acts, the picture is not so clear for mid level or smaller artists. Most of the time they are looking for attention for their art, not sales.

It is comparable to any brand building exercise. First create the brand, then fill it with value, then sell off the back of the brand.

Taylor S is a huge brand, so maximising profits makes perfect sense. However, that strategy will probably only be valid for the next few years until streaming takes over completely.

After that maybe Spotify and the others will have to negotiate with big acts to get their content first and pay the act for the privilege. Anyone remember when Prince "gave away" his album together with a british newspaper. He actually made more money on that one effort than his former album earned him in Britain. The newspaper paid him. This model may well turn out to be the future, or at least part of it.

Why should I as a "lower gier" artist put my stuff on Spotify? Yeah, so everyone can listen for free my music and so I have no sales at all. And this after I've invested 24 years practicing, 20k in going in studio and paying a producer, then invested 1k a month for PR and a few grand for radio promo.

I'm not there yet, but this is some of my plan for next year. I will try to withhold my releases from streaming services. I absolutely do not care if anyone appreciates my art. I produce a stone hard mainstream music and if I want free exposure I chose to go to YouTube. Why would anyone want to put in years of practice and money and reap literally nothing? Why?

Dacesita

in your case it might not make sense.

For others it might help drive sales and/or create interest for them and their music.

But of course these decisions are completely up to you. That is the great thing about modern music distribution. You decide. No one else. Everyone has a right to their own preferred approach. Windowing is a method some of our clients choose and others not.

Freedom. Gotta love it.

@ david "While windowing makes perfect sense for big acts, the picture is not so clear for mid level or smaller artists. Most of the time they are looking for attention for their art, not sales."

The thing is,  non of the streaming services have REALLY shown themselves to be a huge revealer or promoter of new acts either.. (VS places like terrestrial radio, youtube, or even myspace LOL)

The only way to know FOR SURE is to compare two mid-level artists with one holding their release from spotify and see the difference..

until we see that, everything else is just conjecture..

I have to disagree with you. Many artists use spotify to promote themselves by building playlists and sharing them, getting friends to wallpost their stuff and so on and so forth. 

Anyway itunes has not shown itself to be a great promoter either, so that would be a draw between the two services on this account.

But the main point remains the same. This is completely in the hands of the artists themselves. No one is twisting anyones arm to be on any service.

@ david "I have to disagree with you. Many artists use spotify to promote themselves"

Not sure what part your disagreeing with? ;-) 

I'm sure Spotify, and Itunes, etc etc all contribute somewhat to helping an artists 'build their brand'...

My point was they just dont seem to be doing a very good job at it (in comparison to their prominence in the music world) VS other options..

EG: youtube, garageband, indiesites, etc etc

Just because an album isn't available on Spotify doesn't mean people will automatically go out and buy it. 

Fans buy albums because they like them...even if they are available for streaming.  

Like them or not, One Direction are available on streaming services, and yet they still sell a lot of records.

One question no one asks but I'd be interested to know the answer to is: Does this windowing even hurt Spotify?

Their growth seems stable and if an artist or two keeps off their service for a few months does it even matter? 

My guess is Spotify could care less if there are a few holdouts. 

It's curious how CEO Borchetta, or the author of this article, fail to mention the business deal "Big Machine" has with Clear Channel (and, by default, its iHeartRadio).