Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

Irving Azoff: “Streaming Isn’t How We Market or Make Money for Our Artists…”

irvingmillken

Who are streaming services really benefiting?  According to arguably the most important artist manager and executive in the business, not the artists so much.  At the Milken Institute Global Conference  on Tuesday…

John Amato (Moderator): Irving, I think the narrative right now is that the artist is more powerful than ever. But is the artist making more money now than ever, relative to before?

Irving Azoff (Azoff MSG Entertainment):  I think the mix of an artist’s income has changed, and the big are getting bigger.  I serve on the Clear Channel Radio board, and since Bob [Pittman] brought in his team and put it together…  Clear Channel in particular — and they’ve forced some of the other radio chains to follow — have become really great partners in the artist development process.

But when you look at a streaming service, that isn’t really how we help market our artists and make them more money.

Everyone says the recorded business is tough, I’m very hopeful that as not only advertising and streaming but subscription comes along and [recorded music] will get even more healthy, but what’s really going on — and from my Live Nation days there were statistics around that –

I went to speak at an AdAge conference and they said, ‘what do you want to talk about?’ and I said, ‘can you do some research for me?’  And they basically did some research and showed me that brands were spending 14 times as much on sports marketing as they do on music marketing.

And we’re now seeing a reversal where those marketing dollars from outside our traditional things are now flooding into the music market.  So it’s only going to get bigger, and with that, everybody is going to make more money.

But artists are — newer, starting out artists — in the old days you had a couple of hit records and you could sell out four days at The Forum.  Now, you have a couple of hit records and you can $10,000 a night opening for someone on a tour.

Amato: Unless your an electronic music DJ, then you can make $50,000 a night.

Azoff: There you go.

 

Later in the discussion…

Amato: Irving, it’s only fitting that you get the first and last word here.

Azoff: I’m obviously very bullish [on the future of the music industry], I think the biggest challenge is the lack of respect for intellectual property among the technology companies.

I think that needs to change.

 

blue bar background graphic
Comments (42)
  1. Anonymous

    “the biggest challenge is the lack of respect for intellectual property among the technology companies”

    Yup.


    Reply
    1. klax

      Yea, but we should make a distinction among tech companies. There are good actors and bad actors. The pure streaming services are cooperating with rightsholders from the beginning.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        “There are good actors and bad actors”

        True, but most of the relevant ones belong to the second category.

        Apple and Microsoft are the only exceptions I can think of.


        Reply
    2. smg77

      Actually the biggest challenge is the lack of respect for artists coming from the record labels. Streaming companies are paying millions to labels…why aren’t artists getting their due?


      Reply
  2. Yep

    “Streaming Isn’t How We Market or Make Money for Our Artists…”

    Of course it isn’t it’s only really began 12 months ago *slams head against desk*


    Reply
    1. TuneHunter

      So where is the secret money stream for artist?
      Last year they have shrunk the business by 9% with full steam streaming!

      I am afraid we are streaming into another year of declines – my call just $14 billion for 2014
      and if we continue with Turbo Napster and FreeTube mode just 25B music industry in 2025.

      As a reminder inflation adjusted 1999 equals today $56 billion.

      Last, you do not have to be a GENIUS to pull existing resources and create $100 billion dollar industry by 2020.


      Reply
      1. Yep

        Nobody knows what will happen in the future. The only thing I know is that it will be streamed.


        Reply
        1. TuneHunter

          I totally agree. Streaming is the method.
          But they don’t have to run around the town naked and beg to be screwed.
          Give them all the pleasure, subscription free, and collect cash when they want to add the tune to the playlist.
          Discovery Moment Monetization – the only way to see music as a merchandise again!


          Reply
  3. David

    I wonder what would happen to any Google employee who ‘shared’ Google’s search algorithms with the public? A swim with concrete boots, I guess.


    Reply
    1. scary thought

      The most sensitive Google datacenters are guarded by mercenaries, so it wouldn’t be hard for Google to arrange that someone who leaked algos would suddently dissapear, or commit suicide with two bullets in the heart.


      Reply
      1. jw

        Are you talking about this?


        Reply
  4. Insider

    When it comes to what’s good and bad for the music industry and artists, any argument that starts with “streaming is…” or “streaming isn’t…” and doesn’t go on to distinguish between the wholly different impacts of internet radio, YouTube, freemium and premium is not worth listening to. Apples, meet oranges; if you can’t tell the difference, you don’t know what you’re talking about.


    Reply
  5. 777

    This was leaked today by a Google employee. Of course you won’t read it in any AdSense funded tech blog.

    Copy and paste to your browser, DMN doesn’t allow links in comments for some reason – pastebin .com/qh6Tta3h


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      Here`s the text of it, pósted by “A Guest”. I have no idea if this is true or not; frankly, some of it doesn`t seem to make any sense. Ari and I are looking into it a bit more.

      ___________

      I am a former Google employee and I am writing this to leak information to the public of what I witnessed and took part in while being an employee. My position was to deal with AdSense accounts, more specifically the accounts of publishers (not advertisers). I was employed at Google for a period of several years in this capacity.

      Having signed many documents such as NDA’s and non-competes, there are many repercussions for me, especially in the form of legal retribution from Google. I have carefully planned this leak to coincide with certain factors in Google such as waiting for the appropriate employee turn around so that my identity could not be discovered.

      To sum it up for everyone, I took part in what I (and many others) would consider theft of money from the publishers by Google, and from direct orders of management. There were many AdSense employees involved, and it spanned many years, and I hear it still is happening today except on a much wider scale.

      No one on the outside knows it, if they did, the FBI and possibly IRS would immediately launch an investigation, because what they are doing is so inherently illegal and they are flying completely under the radar.

      It began in 2009. Everything was perfectly fine prior to 2009, and in fact it couldn’t be more perfect from an AdSense employees perspective, but something changed

      Google Bans and Ban Criteria Before December 2012:

      In the first quarter of 2009 there was a “sit-down” from the AdSense division higher ups to talk about new emerging issues and the role we (the employees in the AdSense division needed to play. It was a very long meeting, and it was very detailed and intense. What it boiled down to was that Google had suffered some very serious losses in the financial department several months earlier. They kept saying how we “needed to tighten the belts” and they didn’t want it to come from Google employees pockets.

      So they were going to (in their words) “carry out extreme quality control on AdSense publishers”. When one of my fellow co-workers asked what they meant by that. Their response was that AdSense itself hands out too many checks each month to publishers, and that the checks were too large and that needed to end right away. Many of the employees were not pleased about this (like myself). But they were successful in scaring the rest into thinking it would be their jobs and their money that would be on the line if they didn’t participate. The meeting left many confused as to how this was going to happen.

      What did they mean by extreme quality control? A few other smaller meetings occur with certain key people in the AdSense division that furthered the idea and procedure they planned on implementing.

      There were lots of rumors and quiet talking amongst the employees, there was lots of speculations, some came true and some didn’t. But the word was that they were planning to cut off a large portion of publisher’s payments.

      After that point there was a running gag amongst fellow co-workers where we would walk by each other and whisper “Don’t be evil, pft!” and roll our eyes.

      What happened afterwards became much worse. Their “quality control” came into full effect. Managers pushed for wide scale account bans, and the first big batch of bans happened in March of 2009. The main reason, the publishers made too much money. But something quite devious happened. We were told to begin banning accounts that were close to their payout period (which is why account bans never occur immediately after a payout). The purpose was to get that money owed to publishers back to Google AdSense, while having already served up the ads to the public.

      This way the advertiser’s couldn’t claim we did not do our part in delivering their ads and ask for money back. So in a sense, we had thousands upon thousands of publishers deliver ads we knew they were never going to get paid for.

      Google reaped both sides of the coin, got money from the advertisers, used the publishers, and didn’t have to pay them a single penny. We were told to go and look into the publishers accounts, and if any publisher had accumulated earnings exceeding $5000 and was near a payout or in the process of a payout, we were to ban the account right away and reverse the earnings back. They kept saying it was needed for the company, and that most of these publishers were ripping Google off anyways, and that their gravy train needed to end. Many employees were not happy about this. A few resigned over it.

      I did not. I stayed because I had a family to support, and secondly I wanted to see how far they would go.

      From 2009 to 2012 there were many more big batches of bans. The biggest of all the banning sessions occurred in April of 2012. The AdSense division had enormous pressure from the company to make up for financial losses, and for Google’s lack of reaching certain internal financial goals for the quarter prior.

      So the push was on. The employees felt really uneasy about the whole thing, but we were threatened with job losses if we didn’t enforce the company’s wishes. Those who voiced concerned or issue were basically ridiculed with “not having the company’s best interest in mind” and not being “team players”.

      Morale in the division was at an all-time low. The mood of the whole place changed quite rapidly. It no longer was a fun place to work.

      The bans of April 2012 came fast and furious. Absolutely none of them were investigated, nor were they justified in any way. We were told to get rid of as many of the accounts with the largest checks/payouts/earnings waiting to happen. No reason, just do it, and don’t question it. It was heart wrenching seeing all that money people had earned all get stolen from them. And that’s what I saw it as, it was a robbery of the AdSense publishers. Many launched appeals, complaints, but it was futile because absolutely no one actually took the time to review the appeals or complaints. Most were simply erased without even being opened, the rest were deposited into the database, never to be touched again.

      Several publishers launched legal actions which were settled, but Google had come up with a new policy to deal with situations such as that because it was perceived as a serious problem to be avoided. So they came up with a new policy.

      After December 2012: The New Policy

      The new policy; “shelter the possible problem makers, and fuck the rest” (those words were actually said by a Google AdSense exec) when he spoke about the new procedure and policy for “Account Quality Control”.

      The new policy was officially called AdSense Quality Control Color Codes (commonly called AQ3C by employees). What it basically was a categorization of publisher accounts. Those publisher’s that could do the most damage by having their account banned were placed in a VIP group that was to be left alone. The rest of the publishers would be placed into other groupings accordingly.

      The new AQ3C also implemented “quality control” quotas for the account auditors, so if you didn’t meet the “quality control” target (aka account bans) you would be called in for a performance review.

      There were four “groups” publishers could fall into if they reached certain milestones. They were:

      Red Group: Urgent Attention Required

      Any AdSense account that reaches the $10,000/month mark is immediately flagged (unless they are part of the Green Group).

      In the beginning there were many in this category, and most were seen as problematic and were seen as abusing the system by Google. So every effort was taken to bring their numbers down. They are placed in what employees termed “The Eagle Eye”, where the “AdSense Eagle Eye Team” would actively and constantly audit their accounts and look for any absolute reason for a ban. Even if the reason was far-fetched, or unsubstantiated, and unprovable, the ban would occur. The “Eagle Eye Team” referred to a group of internal account auditors whose main role was to constantly monitor publisher’s accounts and sites.

      A reason has to be internally attached to the account ban. The problem was that notifying the publisher for the reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks. The exception: The exact reason must be provided if a legal representative contacts Google on behalf of the account holder.

      But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most amount of money accrued/earned.

      Yellow Group: Serious Attention Required

      Any AdSense account that reaches the $5,000/month mark is flagged for review (unless they are part of the Green Group).

      All of the publisher’s site(s)/account will be placed in queue for an audit. Most of the time the queue is quite full so most are delayed their audit in a timely fashion. The second highest amount of bans occur at this level.

      A reason has to be internally attached to the account ban. Notifiying the publisher for the reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks. The exception: The exact reason must be provided if a legal representative contacts Google on behalf of the account holder.

      But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most amount of money accrued/earned.

      Blue Group: Moderate Attention Required

      Any AdSense account that reaches the $1,000/month mark is flagged for possible review (unless they are part of the Green Gro Only the main site and account will be place in queue for what is called a quick audit.

      Most bans that occur happen at this level. Main reason is that a reason doesn’t have to be attached to the ban, so the employees use these bans to fill their monthly quotas. So many are simply a random pick and click.

      A reason does not have to be internally attached to the account ban. Notifying the publisher for the reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks. But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most amount of money accrued.

      Green Group: VIP Status (what employees refer to as the “untouchables”)

      Any AdSense account associated with an incorporated entity or individual that can inflict serious damage onto Google by negative media information, rallying large amounts of anti-AdSense support, or cause mass loss of AdSense publisher support.

      Google employees wanting to use AdSense on their websites were automatically placed in the Green group. So the database contained many Google insiders and their family members. If you work or worked for Google and were placed in the category, you stayed in it, even if you left Google. So it included many former employees. Employees simply had to submit a form with site specific details and their account info.

      Sites in the Green Group were basically given “carte blanche” to do anything they wanted, even if they flagrantly went against the AdSense TOS and Policies. That is why you will encounter sites with AdSense, but yet have and do things completely against AdSense rules.

      Extra care is taken not to interrupt or disrupt these accounts. If an employee makes a mistake with a Green Level account they can lose their job. Since it seen as very grievous mistake.

      New Policy 2012 Part 2:

      Internal changes to the policy were constant. They wanted to make it more efficient and streamlined. They saw its current process as having too much human involvement and oversight. They wanted it more automated and less involved.

      So the other part of the new policy change was to incorporate other Google services into assisting the “quality control” program. What they came up with will anger many users when they find out. It involved skewing data in Google Analytics. They decided it was a good idea to alter the statistical data shown for websites. It first began with just altering data reports for Analytics account holders that also had an AdSense account, but they ran into too many issues and decided it would be simpler just to skew the report data across the board to remain consistent and implement features globally.

      So what this means is that the statistical data for a website using Google Analytics is not even close to being accurate. The numbers are incredibly deflated. The reasoning behind their decision is that if an individual links their AdSense account and their Analytics account, the Analytics account can be used to deflate the earnings automatically without any human intervention. They discovered that if an individual had an AdSense account then they were also likely to use Google Analytics. So Google used it to their advantage.

      This led to many publishers to actively display ads, without earning any money at all (even to this day). Even if their actual website traffic was high, and had high click-throughs the data would be automatically skewed in favor of Google, and at a total loss of publishers. This successfully made it almost imposible for anyone to earn amounts even remotely close what individuals with similar sites were earning prior to 2012, and most definitely nowhere near pre-2009 earnings.

      Other policy changes also included how to deal with appeals, which still to this day, the large majority are completely ignored, and why you will rarely get an actual answer as to why your account was banned and absolutely no way to resolve it.

      —-

      The BIG Problem (which Google is aware of)

      There is an enormous problem that existed for a long time in Google’s AdSense accounts. Many of the upper management are aware of this problem but do not want to acknowledge or attempt to come up with a solution to the problem.

      It is regarding false clicks on ads. Many accounts get banned for “invalid clicks” on ads. In the past this was caused by a publisher trying to self inflate click-throughs by clicking on the ads featured on their website. The servers automatically detect self-clicking with comparison to IP addresses and other such information, and the persons account would get banned for invalid clicking.

      But there was something forming under the surface. A competitor or malicious person would actively go to their competitor’s website(s) or pick a random website running AdSense and begin multiple-clicking and overclicking ads, which they would do over and over again. Of course this would trigger an invalid clicking related ban, mainly because it could not be proven if the publisher was actually behind the clicking. This was internally referred to as “Click-Bombing”. Many innocent publishers would get caught up in bans for invalid clicks which they were not involved in and were never told about.

      This issue has been in the awareness of Google for a very long time but nothing was done to rectify the issue and probably never will be. Thus if someone wants to ruin a Google AdSense publishers account, all you would have to do is go to their website, and start click-bombing their Google Ads over and over again, it will lead the servers to detect invalid clicks and poof, they get banned. The publisher would be completely innocent and unaware of the occurrence but be blamed for it anyways.

      —-
      Their BIG Fear

      The biggest fear that Google has about these AdSense procedures and policies is that it will be publicly discovered by their former publishers who were banned, and that those publishers unite together and launch an class-action lawsuit.

      They also fear those whose primary monthly earnings are from AdSense, because in many countries if a person claims the monthly amount to their tax agency and they state the monthly amount and that they
      are earning money from Google on a monthly basis, in certain nations technically Google can be seen as
      an employer. Thus, an employer who withholds payment of earnings, can be heavily fined by government bodies dealing with labor and employment. And if these government bodies dealing with labor and employment decide to go after Google, then it would get very ugly, very quickly ….. that is on top of a class-action lawsuit.


      Reply
  6. THE TRUTH

    Is streaming the devil? Yes, why yes it is.

    Buy CDs.


    Reply
    1. GGG

      Tell potential fans that and let us know how it goes.


      Reply
      1. TuneHunter

        Streaming is brilliant but in controlled mode. Deliver all the best you can, total pleasure dressed up in little bet of under ware!
        They will PAY for final striptease! I am not psychology expert but I will bet all I have that THEY WILL PAY!

        Turbo Napsters running naked around the town are subject to indecent exposure and should be ARRESTED!


        Reply
      2. Anonymous

        :)

        Streaming is a museum. :) Nobody wants that. :)


        Reply
      3. FarePlay

        Why do some continually leave out selling CDs at shows?


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          I’m guessing because most people don’t believe in fantasy.


          Reply
          1. FarePlay

            And I’m guessing you haven’t been to a club in a very long time. I trust you have a very large t-shirt collection or supporting artists just isn’t your thing.


            Reply
            1. GGG

              Um…I don’t think YOU’VE been to a club in a very long time. At least one where the musicians playing were under 30. I’m in small venues an average of 3 times a week, usually see last 20 minutes of one act, act I’m there to see, and a song or two to the whole set of the next act, depending on how good they are. Most acts don’t even bring CDs anymore. Fact.


              Reply
        2. GGG

          Because occasionally you sell one your friend and feel good about yourself. Also, a lot of people still follow the sort of must-do list, even if it is in the process of evolving.


          Reply
      4. Willis

        Fans of an artist or fans of music? Either way, very few people value music.


        Reply
        1. GGG

          That’s not even the point anymore. People don’t give a shit about CDs. Sure, tell them to go home and buy digitally, and complain if they don’t I guess, or bring vinyl, but we really need to just officially move past CDs. They are done.


          Reply
  7. wazzup

    what the hell is with the terrible grammar in the article?


    Reply
  8. FarePlay

    If things continue down the path of streaming, artists with a sizable, vibrant fan base may very well decide not to release their music for airplay. Better to make margin than support someone else’s IPO.


    Reply
    1. GGG

      Here’s what you don’t understand about the young music culture; many bands with vibrant fanbases have vibrant fanbases BECAUSE of piracy/YouTube/Soundcloud/streaming. Why do you think undercards to festivals here in the states are basically more important than the headliners? You really think everyone buys like 30 albums before they hit up Coachella or Bonnaroo or Lollapalooza?


      Reply
      1. FarePlay

        Yes GGG, you are correct. Simply put there isn’t a single solution to any of these problems, as I’ve said many, many times before.

        All you say is true for some artists. What I don’t understand, that you fail to grasp, is that artists need to be able to place their work where they want. This is why I support eliminating the hideous loophole called Safe Harbor. Artists need to be able to file ONE take down notice and those sites who chose not to abide are penalized for their actions.

        If you believe piracy is positive for you and your artists, have at it.


        Reply
        1. GGG

          Really, these are two different issues. And here’s what you fail to grasp. If something came along that was able to eradicate a huge chunk of piracy, great, I’m all for it, but people would not magically start buying music again. The internet is too convenient for sharing. A way to share will always pop up. Unless you’re a fan of a gov’t agent screen sharing with you as you surf the web, we can’t get rid of a way to get music for free or dirt cheap. Searches scrubbed from Google? Cool, most people know or can find out from a friend what sites to go. Shut down those sites? Cool, one person buys the record, uploads it to Dropbox and it’ll get shared exponentially. Make DB scour their users for illegal media? I’m sure everyone will love having some $8/hr employee looking through their confidential documents.

          Not only that, let’s say for argument sake we DO eradicate piracy. It’s not going to change how the world is moving, technologically. The world is moving away from direct ownership. I know your entire life has been owning physical music so this idea can’t get into your skull, and honestly, it’s weird for me too, but it’s a fact. Almost every industry that exists online is or already has moved to cloud storage in some capacity. Why would, or why should, music be any different? Yes, I get all the emotional reasons, I have them, too. And it’d make my wallet a lot fatter if everyone bought music. But it’s not going to be there for much longer. So why not focus the fight on figuring out how to better grow/monetize streaming instead of spending so much time fighting something that will be irrelevant in the not too distant future anyway.

          If these things were happening in 2003, then I’d be all for them. But it’s too little too late.


          Reply
          1. FarePlay

            I do think we can have a serious hit on piracy with take down > stay down. I believe we can close down sites and cut way back on revenue flowing to these sites, which in turn will increase advertising for “sanctioned” streaming and Internet Radio.

            Take down > stay down is not government censorship. It is a stakeholder controlled mechanism, which will trigger action by governments in different countries. Had we not waited 15 years to effectively revise Safe Harbor things would be very different today, but it didn’t happen and that’s the major reason why music is so devalued today.

            While I do not believe these streaming services will ramp up to the levels some people say they will, except in third world countries, they aren’t going away and they will have significant numbers of listeners. If they can be more profitable and re-invest in music that’s an improvement.

            There will always be physical product, it may just be vinyl.


            Reply
            1. GGG

              To the first part, ok, that I will totally give you. There’s certainly a reason to try and move ad rev from illegal to legal. Though, at the same time, that will happen when the market makes it happen regardless. If all of a sudden Geico or whatever notices torrent site traffic dropping and moving to legal streaming, they will too. That’s why I think it makes more sense to focus on winning the streaming rev battle/pushing users there, as opposed to fighting the piracy battle. The former you’re growing where things are headed anyway, the latter, you’re lessening a problem that’s already going away. Sure, there’s value in making it go away sooner I guess, but is it really worth it when there’s an actual battle we can win?

              As for physical, I agree, and I hope and predict vinyl grows for at least a few more years to come. Although, when 3D printers are the norm, people will just print them themselves. I’m sure people will pay for whatever files at first, but then that will be pirated, too. As Dr. Ian Malcolm says in Jurassic Park “life, uh, finds a way.”


              Reply
              1. FarePlay

                There are conflicting studies, gee what a surprise, that claim that piracy has actually been growing since the advent of streaming, whether that is accurate or not I do not know.

                While not a fan of streaming, I doubt I have little or any influence over the consumer as to their preference of music acquisition. I am simply expressing a belief that streaming is not a viable income producer for mid-level musicians who have the ability to sell their music directly to fans.

                You and JW are the staunch “free market” let the consumer set the price guys. I do have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to the higher margin sale of digital downloads and physical product, even if it is on the decline. You are the ones who constantly talk about the absurdity of people paying for music, while I believe you are both collectors of physical product. I acknowledge streaming as an inevitable choice for many.

                I’m not standing in the way of anything, I’m simply expressing my concerns for musicians earning a commensurate wage for their work. It would be awesome and pro-artist if streaming companies positioned themselves as the ultimate channel for discovering music and encouraged the purchase of music.

                I value choice. I appreciate the “interactivity” of physical product as do many others. Why does it have to be just one way?


                Reply
                1. FarePlay

                  “Sure, there’s value in making it go away sooner ( Piracy ) I guess, but is it really worth it when there’s an actual battle we can win?

                  What battle are you referring to? The total dominance of streaming?

                  Sad


                  Reply
                2. GGG

                  No, streaming is not a viable income stream on it’s own for mid-level bands, which is why we need to figure out a way to make it one and push users to it. Instead of half the industry saying it’s the devil. How do we get to a fixed rate of a penny/play is the question we should be collectively discussing with Spotify, not this constant bickering back and forth. And yes, they are complicit in the shitshow, too. They can come out with a solution, too. So maybe they aren’t the platform. Maybe it is Deezer or a service by Apple or some brand new one someone needs to make.

                  As JW already said, despite what you constantly seem to think, we’re not opposed to other formats in the sense of we WANT them to disappear. If people buy that stuff still, great! More money for me. But CDs were declining long before streaming. Digital’s writing was on the wall before it, too. It’s a shrinking format. Hurt by streaming? Sure, but less than you think because of streaming, more than you think because of that’s how tech has always worked. You want to push for people to buy your shit, do it. But don’t be upset when your fans (who found you because of free outlets by the way, funny how that works…) don’t buy your $15 CD. If you’re going to push for something, push for vinyl, at least that’s growing.

                  And yes, it is sad. It’s sad like it’s sad every time some form of technology becomes obsolete, like they have since the dawn of mankind.


                  Reply
  9. Esol Esek

    Seems to me that wanting a song bad enough has always been the determiner of a hit record. When I was growing up, I could hear a song on the radio many times, or in a record store, but I wanted to own it, and that was control plus merchandise.

    Merchandise in my mind can still be part of the equation, but I’m probably delusional there. However,
    control is still key, and controlled radio, or streaming, offers no incentive to a buyer to look elsewhere.

    If strongly desired tune is NOT on streaming, people will look elsewhere, maybe pirated, but they will anyway. Streaming is dumb. People are still breaking songs on radio (professional music critics) and online (peer recommendations).

    Streaming and tech companies can shove it. They are the universal enemy of creators from musicians, to photogs to authors. Google is sneaking into libraries without permission. They should be imploded in anti-trust lawsuits.


    Reply
  10. zog

    I’m a little confused here Intellectual Property ,Copy rights,masters and which Mr Azoff is here today the record executive ,concert promoter , manager, exploiter ? The point I have which hat is Azoff wherein today is where the conversation seems to be directed.He says he only cares about the artist ?
    Would streaming be great if MSG Cablevision had its own channel to stream music for $ 10 a month that you could down load into devices and carry anywhere? Then would streaming be okay?
    Streaming is here to stay subscription or whatever if you care about all artist not just yours then let’s here your answer Irving not your complaints .


    Reply
  11. Jim

    Interesting that Mr. Azoff suggests the company makes money for the artists, rather than the exact opposite truth.


    Reply
  12. Pete

    Why do so many comments keep insisting streaming is the problem?
    Does no one remember the VHS v Betamax issue? Customers decide which one wins and streaming is the future.
    Focus should be on fixing the industry around that model to ensure a future of the industry.


    Reply
  13. Veteran - US MUSIC INDUSTRY 1970-today

    Streaming is not the problem. Monetizing is the problem. 80% of my daily listening is to streaming. 100% of my teen age grand children listening is to streaming, via YouTube, and other services. The fix needs to come in the form of a rewrite of existing copyright and royalty rules – some of which are nearly 100 years old now. How we continue to do business today with 100 yr old rules is laughable.


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


four + = 13

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!