Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
.0000000000.....
'Viva Spotify' isn't quite the phrase being bandied about at Midem, and executives from both sides of the Atlantic are continuing to disparage. But this is a nuanced picture. Most
But the money situation is problematic, and that has prompted a few independents to jump ship. But also on the major label side, the royalties are a royal problem. In fact, one major label executive close to the numbers pointed to a bizarre problem: there aren't enough zeros in the royalty program to calculate the fractions being paid by Spotify.
So, think .00000000000005 euros and you get the idea. "It's laughable, if it wasn't so sad really," the executive told Digital Music News after a few beers.
...to be continued...
Comments Closed
steveh Tuesday, January 25, 2011
As someone who runs a small independent label I can absolutely concur. The income numbers from Spotify are PATHETIC. The boss of spotify is an arrogant idiot. He runs around screaming "ownership is dead - music is like water". Yeh mate - nice one! And our income will decline to one tenth to one twentiesth of what it is at the moment. What a bunch of assholes!
Ladida Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Not much made off of streaming. Artists getting buggered again.
Cheers!
JanonymousR Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Who cares about Spotify coming to America. Business model sucks anyways. Just post your music on your website and ask for donations. Just need one person to donate a nickel and you've got more than tons of Spotify streams. If music can't be owned and is like water why give companies like Spotify the chance to be the aquaduct?
steveh Tuesday, January 25, 2011
"If music can't be owned and is like water why give companies like Spotify the chance to be the aquaduct?"
Man that's a good quote!
@d_e_v Tuesday, January 25, 2011
dev sherlock
Ouch.
Econ Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Could the artists make a few dollars off of steaming if the labels were left out of it and the artist dealt directly with the streamer?
steveh Tuesday, January 25, 2011
"Could the artists make a few dollars off of steaming if the labels were left out of it and the artist dealt directly with the streamer?"
In a word:- NO.
Our label is UK based & artist owned. We are the artists. Our catalogue is aggregated by Orchard and IODA.
Our income from iTunes, Beatport, emusic, Amazon etc is pretty good.
The income from Spotify is MICROSCOPIC - LAUGHABLE - PATHETIC.
The fact that haven't been sufficiently called out on this is a SCANDAL.
Spotify are old school monopoly capitalists masquerading as painfully hip young "edgy" entrepreneurs. Their game plan is to devalue music 10 - 20 fold and then swallow it up like Pacman.
Don't let these fools become "the aqueduct"!
laszlo szell Wednesday, January 26, 2011
for sure could artists enter direct deals with spotify. this would multiply artist income by remarkable dimensions. income per streamed song would figure not 14, but _just_ 12 zeros after the comma. what a perspective! artists of the world unite! get rid of them parasites.
laszlo szell Wednesday, January 26, 2011
for sure could artists enter direct deals with spotify. this would multiply artist income by remarkable dimensions. income per streamed song would figure not 14, but _just_ 12 zeros after the comma. what a perspective! artists of the world unite! get rid of them parasites.
@AverageHB Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Average Homeboy
Bagels with Flash Drives in them? wtf?
Matt B Thursday, February 03, 2011
For some reason, I'm craving a nice fresh bagel after reading this article. Problem is, it's 9:41 at night. All the bagel shops are closed.
routenote Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I find that your missing the point here. I thought Digital Music News understood the aims of Spotify.
I have responded to the article here: http://routenote.com/blog/music-executives-dont-understand-the-point-of-spotify/
alexandra Wednesday, January 26, 2011
here's text for those that want to read it here. hope you don't mind but thought this would be easier for the general flow, and we love longer comments.
(cut n' pasted from routenote.com)
It seems as though executives and even Digital Music News don’t understand why Spotify is a great service for artists. Having your music on a specific service isn’t always about the revenue generated by that single activity. Spotify allows artists to showcase their music with the aim of growing their fan base even further. I would much rather have 1 million listeners on Spotify and get some of them to see us in concert, instead of just selling a few downloads on another store.
Spotify also aims to provide a service that will attract users away from bittorrent and other p2p services. More music is being consumed that ever before and from a larger diversity of artists. However, legal music only makes up a less than 7% of the entire online music market. Executives should be focused on helping to grow these new services that will attract users from illegal alternatives, instead of trying to pick holes in the legal service of Spotify!
dansinch Monday, February 07, 2011
That's the same argument people have been giving for piracy in general for years now. It sounds good in theory but I'm not sure that many bands are seeing the desired result.
You say you'd love to have 1,000,000 Spotify fans but how many do you really have? I'm guessing it's a number that's not gonna have much effect on ticket sales but would be generating some decent income if Spotify was willing to pay reasonable royalties.
HansH Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Let me give you the real deal.
For an independent artist the current pay out per stream is €0.0022
Need proof? Check http://www.digimuziek.nl/nieuws/?p=781
Or download this this PDF http://www.mijnbestand.nl/Bestand-BDJIRGO3VDOL.pdf of my Royalty overview.
I must add that pay out per stream is still rising.
How many bears did that guy drink? I allways believed drunk people told the truth.
presnikoff Wednesday, January 26, 2011
@HansH
I think a lot of people are taking the number of zeros posted literally, which is probably my fault. It's really not THAT many as posted above... ;)
/pr
GreGG Wednesday, January 26, 2011
It is not that many zeros, but close enough. There are some quotes from artists and lables available online showing real returns. And, there is another thruth about Spotify; one can check songs and albums popularity bars to quickly realize that only a tiny fracktion of the catalog is listen to. So, again, if someone thinks that the service is going to change anything, well, think twice. Selling (only) top hits for a few cents a piece is not the solution. Anyone can do that!
HansH Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Paul, I know Spotify is not paying much yet but it can and will get better as soon as the market for Spotify expands. Remember only 7 countries so far.
Ask that major lable executive for his plan B to save his job? If Spotify cannot succeed, all major labels are toast.
Man, I hate these unsubstantiated statements. Get the facts straight!
hieyt Monday, February 21, 2011
veryy good..
JanonymousR Wednesday, January 26, 2011
lol you tricked me! I was being quite literal up there when I used the figure "ton" because of your zero game.
Interesting to see a real royalty statement Hans thank you. So 2 iTunes track sales accounted for 47% of your 4Q royalties. And the 200+ streams on Spotify gave you the rest. Gotta say that bodes well for Spotify. Does Spotify have artist tour dates on it?
Econ Wednesday, January 26, 2011
How does that 0.0022 compare to radio royalties on a per spin per listener basis?
Moer importantl;y, what are an artist's expectations of royalties on a per lister per spin basis?
@thornybleeder Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Brian Thompson
Here's why the major labels aren't keen on signing up their content with Spotify
@ksfauche Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Ken Faucheux
I recognize the appeal of Spotify. But how long does the tail have to get? And when does it reach the artist?
@arabesq610 Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Elizabeth Linn
So sad.
@doughertym Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Mike Dougherty
new business model required
Visitor Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The point is, there are other business models that can pay more than Spotify, while giving the artists and their labels equal or even better chance of showcasing their music, and even selling it directly to the user. For reasons that are beyond my comprehension, however, everyone, including DMN, seems to be talking about Spotify, quoting their numbers of paying subscribers, and waiting for its coming to more countries as if this was a savior.
@HansH, if 2 bucks a quarter is a bonanza for you, take it and rejoice around fire. To me this is devaluing of music. And to your point about Spotify giving you more exposure and new fans, well, there is already YouTube and Facebook and many other sites happy to take your music and showcase it for free to millions of potential concert-goers. Do you really need one more? Is that buck or so every month such a big difference between (the bad) YouTube and (the wonderful) Spotify?
Chris de Palmer Wednesday, January 26, 2011
You guys, I've built up a white paper showing that paid streaming packages used by true fans could generate in 3 years the same revenues as download services.
1000 euros revenues would require either 7500 true
fans for a label or 81 000 true fans for a songwriter, being understood
that those true fans use 9.99 euros/month paid packages for streaming services.
10 000 true fans either consuming an
average of 23 streams (or plays) a month would generate 1 338 euros for a
label or 123 euros for a songwriter.
By the way, I’m not working for a digital streaming service company, I’m a songwriter owning a production & publishing company.
Check out the “music 2.0 business model”white paper on http://palmrocksongs.wordpress.com/publications/ !
Visitor Monday, February 07, 2011
In what other industry can you have 80,000 paying customers and only be making 1,000 a month?
JanonymousR Wednesday, January 26, 2011
@ Visitor
I would wager that one of the reasons Spotify has received so much attention is because we can not use it in the USA. When you are not allowed to do something, you suddenly want to. I have seen the word Spotify dropped quite a lot on this news site, but I'm not assuming that correlates to the size of its role in the Music Industry.
In reference to your statement to HansH: The value of music is not created by the supplier, rather the consumer. With finite goods the price is set by supply and demand, but here the supply is infinite and in many cases the demand has the option of free (both legal and illegal ways). Yes the supplier has the option to not go to market (and let their product make it to market on pirate ships), but if they want to go to market they will have to sell at their consumer's valuation, which varies depending on the fame and fan-connection to the artist. Yes there is always the chance that you will sell it for a price below what the consumer would have paid, but when marginal costs are $0 is this not a better risk than the chance of getting no money because the consumer didn't bite the bait? I am by no means saying I know the proper valuation for your musical offerings. But in Hans case it looks like the lower valuation was a good call.
Why do you criticize Hans for using sites like Spotify for promotion where he gets 2/10 of a cent for every stream, when your suggestion is for him to rather just post it on Facebook or Youtube (where he will likely receive 0 cents for every stream). What is a greater value: $0 or $2?
Visitor Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Ok, JanonymousR. Accidently, your theory
explains also why we have a drug problem in the US – b/c we cannot do drugs
legally. Interesting. Maybe independent thinking should be banned as well.
Value is not so much created as it is "recognized" by customer, that is true, but only when all other factors are equal. This is not the case. Spotify does not ask users to pay as much as they want to; it sets up prices they think will give them as big a niche in the market as possible. In all other industries such practice would be called price-dumping. It is only on the internet where some businesses can get away with the nonsense of so called "marginal costs being $0." Marginal to whom? The producer? Or like it this case, the artist and the label? Sure, there are people and businesses that can or want to give something away, as promotion or a way to gain recognition and following. There is nothing wrong if some other business wants to facilitate such promotional offers. The latest craze about Groupon can be a good example here. But to say that because prices on Groupon are low, this is the real value here and now everyone has to sell at those prices is another story. To hail it as a "new business model" is, sorry, but stupidity.
My suggestion to HansH about YouTube was ironic. I hope he got it. On the one hand he claims that Spotify is good b/c it helps him gain new fans; on the other, he seems to be complaining that the service is available only in 7 countries. YouTube or Facebook is available almost everywhere. So I asked him if it is worth it to sell out to Spotify for peanuts in the hope that he will gain another 200 fans in three month, or should he concentrate on those others and a lot more popular venues. Is the 2 bucks such a bargain?
Does it help now? Do you see my point?
HansH Thursday, January 27, 2011
For the record. I'm not an artist. I have released the album of Little Things That Kill on Spotify (with their consent) to find out how much Spotify realy pays. An effort to stop all these crazy stories like the Gaga pay out of $167 for 1 million streams.
I know many of you don't believe in the business model. But can you name one that will save the music industry?
Visitor Thursday, January 27, 2011
I was wondering about that HansH. This sort of info is usually confidential... But, well, thanks a lot. It is good to know.
I don't think I will disclose here another secret about Spotify; this has been discussed before -- the average number of streams an individual listeners orders is about 600/mo or 20 tunes a day. It is massive, when you think about it. But the number will probably go down, once more (less committed) users sign up.
On the other hand, the catalog of available music grows up every day. 7Digital alone has increased its offering from about 8 million to 12 million songs in less than a year, and there are many more sources of Spotify repertoire. So, what do you think is the likelihood of your music being listen to on Spotify, higher or lower with time?
The common wisdom (or folly?) is the larger the number of users the better. But this is not necessarily so, at least not for an individual artist/label, as human capacity and need for music is fairly stable. The choices are also predictable: out of the 20-songs-per-day, 19 are top hits -- that is the beauty of music on demand.
So, given the patterns, it seems unreasonable to expect any big change from Spotify. They will probably grow, probably at the expense of other similar services, but all we, the artists/producers, might get out of it is another 2 bucks now and then, unless of course you pay Spotify to feature your music. I bet they will introduce such premium service very soon.
Ben Patterson Thursday, January 27, 2011
Spotify is a bit of a victim of it's own hype. My company DashGo delivers to all the major streaming services, US and worldwide, and I can attest that revenues from Spotify exceed those of just about every other service - including Napster, Rhapsody, MOG, etc. Which is not bad for an ex-US only service.
But the real deal is YouTube. It's our #2 revenue generator and based on current growth could overtake iTunes this year. At the end of the day for Artists, it's better to have consumers paying .000001 to hear that song than 0.
Ben Patterson
DashGo
HansH Friday, January 28, 2011
@Ben Patterson Thanks for shaing this info. Good to hear that Spotify already outperforms other streaming services.
Can you give me some insight in the YouTube revenues? Is this similar to Spotify or do they per more per stream?
Annellsson Thursday, January 27, 2011
I use CdBaby for the distribution of my music and up untill the sales period of Nov 2010, reported on Jan 24, I've had 14722 streams on Spotify. The total income for these is $17.97 after CdBaby have taken their 9% of the net earnings.
I get a lot of different sums for the streams, and frankly I don't know why, but the highest sum I could find was $0.01219466 for a single stream.
Annellsson Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I also get paid as a composer, for my Spotify streams, from my Performing Rights Organisation (in my case STIM). I don't have any figures ,though.
steveh Thursday, January 27, 2011
OK so maybe it's my turn to give some figures.
Our artist-owned & run label has half our catalogue with Orchard and half with IODA. I can show here our Orchard figures since we started getting Spotify accounting, so this covers about 15 months. Our IODA figures are similar but we earn a bit more because IODA's percentage is lower than Orchard's.
Total Spotify streams accounted by Orchard:- 128896
Our total income after Orchard percentage:- $135.47
Income per stream:- $0.00105101 (1 tenth of one cent US)
It should be noted that in recent periods Spotify are dividing their accounting into two - presumably splitting higher rate streams from Premier subscribers from the ultra low rates for free users. The high rate streams are almost decent at a bit over half a cent ($0.00592218). But the freebie streams are SHOCKINGLY LOW at 1 twentieth of one cent ($0.00050028).
And of course we all know that Spotify's conversion rate to Premium subscribers is still stuck at around 7%.
So for every 1 person listening to your trax at half a cent a stream there are 14 listening at 1 twentieth of a cent. Ouch!
Looking at this another way:- our monthly income from Spotify via Orchard over 15 months has been 9 bucks. It is peanuts and about twenty-thirty times less than our equivalent income from or Orchard trax on iTunes. Now like any Ponzi/pyramid scheme Spotify's promise is based on ever expanding numbers. Let's imagine that Spotify becomes 50 times bigger - Facebook size. Our monthly income in this instance then becomes 450 bucks. But OMG that's not vastly bigger than what we earn from those trax on iTunes now!! And can anyone seriously believe that if Spotify had 500 million listeners (including 7% or 35million Premium subscribers) it would not be cannibalising sales from iTunes etc? When their egomaniac founder screams that "music ownership is dead - all you need is access to a URL".
This is NOT a business model that will "save" the music industry. For us it more likely the road to ruin because it just devalues music and legitimises the false concept that you can have something for nothing.
And before anybody makes the point yes I am happy to have our tracks on Spotify. Yes I am OK to take their very small sums of income. And yes I recognise it's a very good for "try before you buy" - if people are still prepared to buy, a practise which Daniel Ek is trying very hard to get them to stop.
HansH Friday, January 28, 2011
@steveh. Strange. I use both Zimbalam and Dittomusic. Both of these services are reporting pays per stream of 0.0022 Euro as of november 1th. I have tested if streams by Premium users generate more by asking people to stream a particular song, but the pay per stream was still 0.0022 Euro.
This is how pay outs are developing:
That's about 30% increase over 3 months.
steveh Friday, January 28, 2011
Hi @HansH
Possible reasons for different per track revenue:-
1. Orchard & IODA are American operations so the euro income from Spotify will suffer a currency exchange in order to be accounted in US dollars. This will balance out of course if Spot gets a proper US launch.
2. There are obviously different deals in place viz a viz a differentation between Premium subscribers and feebie users - or not as in your case.
3. I note on our detailed excel income statements that the per track revenues differ from country to country. A high proportion of our Spotify streams are from the UK which has a lower per track income than Scandinavia.
4. Orchard's commission - 30% - is high.
Further observations:-
The big elephant in Spotify's room is the astonishingly low per track income from freebie ad supported streams - coupled with the low take up proportion of Premium subscriptions. This is what is causing problems for them to get a launch in the USA.
In particular I remember when they first started Spotify made a big hype about ad income and how this was the future etc etc They are LIARS.
HansH Friday, January 28, 2011
Hi Steveh. The currency exchange must be the reason why your revenues per stream differ. In my case they remain the same no matter the country.
Check my 2010 Q3 details http://www.mijnbestand.nl/Bestand-Q8YIS6ORXMMN.pdf Same amount for every country and every stream, which leads to my conclusion that streams by Premium users don't give a higher payout. And I am quite sure the songs were played more than a couple of times by a premium user: me ;)
GreGG Friday, January 28, 2011
An excellent exchange with real numbers. Perhaps, the industry critics and experts, including DMN, will take a note of it and stop their daily spiel about Spotify or lack of it in the USA.
Perhaps they will even notice that there are better alternatives, better for music lovers and the artists. At BuyMyPlaylist.com, for example, we have a catalog of over 13 million tracks, all legal, licensed by 7Digital, The Orchard, and others. The catalog is available in the US (in addition to other territories), and we pay well comparing to Spotify, up to 65% of the music retail price PLUS additional 10 to 15% on the sales of artist-created playlists.This is both for downloads and streams.
The problem is, we do not have millions of users. But why we do not have them? Well, I sent DMN our press releases and info about the service many times over the past year. DMN has never bothered to mention that we exist or that there are other similar services like us that are flexible, interactive and supported by truly innovative business models, which do not devalue music. Instead, we have this daily coverage of Spotify and why they are not in the US.
Of course, this is not the DMN's role to get us registered users, but this constant buzz about Spotify, does not help either.
@mcpart Friday, January 28, 2011
mcpart
Spotify No Savior
Yves Villeneuve Friday, January 28, 2011
The problem with Spotify is it devalues recorded music as they actually say this is their intention so that the artist can build a larger fan base for its live performances.
How does the record label monetize with that kind of mission statement from Spotify? It can't.
Spotify is telling music consumers that songs are definitely not worth $.99 or $1.29 as sold in iTunes USA.
Let's not forget that Napster's founder is an investor in Spotify.
I cannot understand why Sony would make a deal with Spotify except possibly the outgoing CEO wanted to put a wrench into the music industry wheels possibly for personal gain in a different venture.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Friday, January 28, 2011
I just emailed an official notice to CD Baby (my digital distributor to Spotify) to cancel all licenses of my music.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Friday, January 28, 2011
Not only are the payouts extremely bad, according to numbers being bounced around in this comments section, it looks like artists with non-european distributors are getting ripped off by Spotify.
.002 Euros (.0027228 USD) vs .001 USD
As of January 28 2011, 1 Euro = 1.3614 USD
Bunch of crooks.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Friday, January 28, 2011
I'd like to see Paul Resnikoff investigate this particular matter since he has been a strong supporter of Spotify in the past.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Lefski Saturday, January 29, 2011
Come on Yves. This is stupid. What is your alternative?. What digital service will make you get the money you want? Do you earn a decent living from MySpace, Rhapsody or iTunes?
Did you really believe that Spotify can do magic and make you rich an famous from out of nowhere? If you are making music for the money, you had better stop now. Chances of getting rich and famous from your music are no bigger than the average lottery. Pulling your music from Spotify will not exactly improve the odds. You cut yourself of from 10 million potential listeners in Europe.
It’s all about promotion, you have to do that yourself. You are doing a good job by posting here. I checked Spotify and listened to a few of your tracks. Your album was hard to find and I noticed it has zero popularity. For those interested here is the URL http://open.spotify.com/album/0mTkUVzKwcJslud1mBOLTw Maybe this helps.
You know, the URL is the new MP3 ;) That may well be.
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
Dear Lefski,
My music also has zero popularity on iTunes and Rhapsody. Doesn't mean anything. You can test that hypothesis yourself. You are unaware of any arrangements made behind the scenes. I assure you the vast majority of my music sales are at iTunes. I won't reveal my actual unit sales due to my underground artist status except to Myspace friends at some point in the future.
I maintain Spotify significantly devalues music while they strongly appear to be a bunch of crooks at the same time which could cause mine and others very low popularity at Spotify. Let's not forget that the original Napster founder is an investor in Spotify: does not bode well for the music industry when he prides himself on destroying it. Sounds like Spotify is a true pyramid scheme.
Regards,
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
P.S. having 10M-15M free users means nothing unless you have direct access in promoting your music to them. If I did, I would definitely promote these users to buy at iTunes (or Rhapsody if they want a second but different and much less popular option)
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
P.S.S. I would still remove my music from Spotify while I promote to its users but still wouldn't trust my ads would get the minimum exposure as promised. Still best not to do any business with Spotify.
Lefski Sunday, January 30, 2011
Yves. To cut a long story short. I strongly disagree. Calling Spotify a bunch of crooks is absurd. The real crools are the big labels. Sales will never get to the point the were 10-20 years ago. Nowadays you get a #1 album by selling 40,000 copies is the US.
If an artist has no success, never blame others. Either your music is just not good enough or your marketing sucks.
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
Lefski, I am definitely not claiming I have no success. I just won't get into details with you.
I'm not mincing words. I think paying an North American artist .0005 or .001 USD (depending who you are it appears)while paying the european artist .002 Euro (approx. .0027 USD) is definitely crooked. Do you have a logical explanation for this discrepancy?
I am curious to know how much popularity I now have at Spotify and how is it measured. I don't have access to Spotify since I live in Canada.
You said Spotify is indicating zero popularity yet I have Spotify stream revenues dating as far back as Spring 2010.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
Lefski, I can only describe you with these possible options only: you are troll, working for Spotify or are in complete state of denial.
The advice often given is: don't feed the trolls, don't trust crooks and don't bother beating your head against a brick wall trying to convince someone.
Take care,
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Lefski Sunday, January 30, 2011
Yves, no need to get nasty. Bad guess, none of three apply. Unlike you I believe that streaming is the future. Soon people don't want want to own music anymore. The URL will be the new MP3, all music in the cloud. Daniel Ek may have a big mouth but I agree with him on this. You clearly don't. The future will tell who is right on this.
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
Lefski, I don't mind if music is in the cloud as long as consumers pay for an a la carte cloud library. Not many people nead an unlimited music library and this may be hard for you to digest for whatever reason. Most people only require a small library, occasionally adding to it: this certainly does not warrant $10 per month in subscription fees.
How can a product most people don't need be extremely successful? It would actually turn people off not only because of cost but also the size is too daunting while the library is not personalized. An unlimited music library has no personal attachement involvement.
Clearly, Spotify is devaluing music and is cheating artists with its very odd or discriminatory artists payment structure. It's not just that Ek has a big mouth because I have never heard him speak, so I wouldn't know. I truly believe he is cheating people. How can you avoid responding to my accusations when there appears to be evidence of impropriety in this comments section?
The majors have always been and will always be the backbone of the music industry as hard a pill it is to swallow for you. Spotify is trying to kill that but they will ultimately fail because their model is seriously flawed or cannot compete effectively with a artist paying model like iTunes and Rhapsody...and not too forget its management/investors cannot be trusted.
No one including myself are forced to play ball with Spotify. If it came down to Spotify being the only player (very very unlikely) I would sell my music from my website because this would give me a bigger advantage as hard to imagin as this might seem to you. Apple Inc does not make money by being an equal part of a large crowd...it has a strong and growing niche.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
Spotify is working hard to make recorded music free and have artists make a living on live performances.
That's like getting free groceries while the grocery store only makes money by selling recipes involving the food it gives away.
There are no guarantees the shopper will buy the recipes or the music fan will buy a ticket to a concert.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
Yves Villeneuve Sunday, January 30, 2011
I hope this is my last thought in this comments thread.
Creativity has the right to be compensated as much as Performing.
Spotify and likeminded people who want to devalue recorded music will stifle creativity because there would be little money to be made in creativity.
How about this scenario. No recorded music whatsoever. You want to listen new music, attend a concert. You want to hear it again attend another concert. Screw you, Spotify.
www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve
HansH Monday, January 31, 2011
@yves Let me add my two cents. Creativity has the right to be compensated. Sure and Spotify wants to compensate. They can't pay as much as they maybe should because they have just started. I witnessed that pay outs are steadily rising so if they are allowed to grow further it may well turn out to be the way we want it to.
Spotify is not working hard to make recorded music free. Where did you get that idea? The music is being paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. Free users can only stream 20 hrs per month, did you realize that?
A product that most people don't need? You underestimate the need for music in a big way. Millions of people are downloading music at this very moment. The vast majority uses illegal sources so artists get nothing at all. Spotify has the power to change this. I was a frequent user of BitTorrent, since I started to use Spotify I stopped downloading. And I can assure you I am not the only one breaking this habit thanks to Spotify.
You have to give Spotify some credit for that.
I pay 10 Euros a month to access (almost) all the music in the world, best deal I ever got!
No I don't work for Spotify I'm just a big fan. But if another company can give me the same or a better deal and user experience they are welcome.
rodja Monday, January 31, 2011
question: who of you actually use a streaming service such as spotify with mobile apps, offline playlists and millions of tracks available just a few touches away?
if you want to send spotify users to itunes to buy your music over there you are obviously missing the point. why should they??
the ways and habits of music consumption are changing and so does the market for music - and all you do is complain? it's 2011, you should know better.
rodja
Visitor Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Hey rodja, why would anyone want to buy a car, if there are buses and subways and you can also walk for free?....
SocialSoundSystem Friday, February 04, 2011
My Grandmother always used to say "why buy the cow, when you can get the sex for free."
@the327s Monday, February 07, 2011
The 3:27s
i hope it comes to the US, but damn!
@Ben_Kama Monday, February 07, 2011
Eppu Syyrakki
"If music can't be owned and is like water why give companies like Spotify the chance to be the aquaduct?"
Steveh Monday, February 07, 2011
That is exactly right my friend - you've got it.
If Spotify becomes large enough to generate anything remotely like any kind of decent income for labels/artists and profit for its investors, it will be a corporate behemoth infinitely more powerful and worse than the current major labels.
We all love to attack the major record labels - mostly with good justification - but if we give those total assholes of Spotify the kind of power over distribution that their model implies we are truly in trouble.
Wake up people!
BluePill_RedPill Tuesday, February 08, 2011
The current income per stream generated by Spotify to the artists I manage is 0,00132€ with Ditto, far from the 0,0022€ stated in previous comments (with CD baby the number is much lower).
That number is pretty low, sure. But the main problem is that people using spotify is not buying anymore your tunes. So, the problem is that the artist is losing the income previously generated through itunes, amazon etc and substituting it by those really tiny amounts.
HansH Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Have you checked the Q4 2010 data? I use Ditto as well, but I noticed the pay out per stream is rising. The Zimbalam.com pay out per stream is 0,0022€ as of november 2010 Check http://www.digimuziek.nl/nieuws/?p=781
You cannot really compare income from sales with streams. A sale is a one time event. Streams may go on for years and years. Sort of a long tail ;)
steveh Tuesday, February 08, 2011
@HansH
You are wrong about your streaming "long tail". You just don't do the math properly.
Let's say, for example, a label/artist earns, say, 40 US cents for an iTunes sale.
And on your figures earns .22 Euro cents per stream ($0.002992 US = 0.2992 US cents). (Other people's figures show a lower rate perstream by you).
40 divided by 0.3 is 133.33.
Tell me honestly do you listen to tracks you buy - or streams of certain track - 133 times?
Every track?
I would say - as a rough estimate - perhaps 20 plays is an AVERAGE number of listens for a track. (Some a lot more some a lot less - this estimate is an AVERAGE).
So for a bought track that earns 40 US cents that works out at 2 cents a play.
As opposed to 0.3 US cents per play. Which is nearly 7 times less per play.
So from this is can be strongly suggested that Spotify streaming leads to a SEVEN TIMES diminution of music value.
I call that CANNIBALISATION.
HansH Tuesday, February 08, 2011
@steveh
I was not doing any math at all ;) I was just explaining that you cannot really compare streams with sales. It's a different ball game.
Your calculation is right and I don't listen to tracks 133 times.
Two things:
1) I expect the pay out per stream to rise further, only time wil tell
2) People don't just listen to tracks they would have bought if there was no streaming service. In other words the market for streams is way bigger than the market for sales. Chances of your song being streamed are better than your song being sold.
So IMHO it is still possible that in the long run the income from streams will be equal to the revenue of sales. No cannabalisation at all, being rewarded per stream is more fair and in a way better reflects the popularity of a song.
steveh Tuesday, February 08, 2011
@HansH
"1) I expect the pay out per stream to rise further, only time wil tell"
You have NO EVIDENCE for this whatsoever - just wishful thinking.
"2) People don't just listen to tracks they would have bought if there was no streaming service. In other words the market for streams is way bigger than the market for sales. Chances of your song being streamed are better than your song being sold."
There is certainly a theoretical greater chance to get one streaming play than one complete track purchase - because as a speculative bet one streaming play is far less of a risk to the customer. This is obvious particularly if it is a free play!
But since one play at 0.3 US cents (your figure) is 133 (one hundred and thirty three) times lower than 40.00 US cents (or more) income from an iTunes purchase I say to you very loudly:-
BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!!!
The only concrete evidence I have as a professional label owner and music producer is that the Spotify model presents us with the prospect of a CATASTROPHIC INCOME DECLINE for all involved in the business of creating music.
You have absolutely no concrete evidence to prove to me otherwise.
HansH Tuesday, February 08, 2011
No need to shout Steve.
I said I expect, that doesn't mean I am sure it will rise further. All I can prove the pay out per stream grew from 0.17 cents to 0.22 cent in the last half year.
I agree that it still far from what the pay out should be but that doesn't mean it is hopeless. It just takes time.
No one forces you to put your music on Spotify or any other streaming service. Maybe it will increase your sales if you keep away from these services. Do whatever you feel is right.
steveh Tuesday, February 08, 2011
@HansH
Hey pal it's about time more people shouted about this because it's a complete scandal.
And I note with great interest that as your argument is totally demolished you fall back to the squalid and pathetic response of:-
"No one forces you to put your music on Spotify or any other streaming service. Maybe it will increase your sales if you keep away from these services. Do whatever you feel is right."
Come on can't you do better than that?
Here's a service (Spotify) that purports to be the "future" of the digital music economy, that employs a propaganda spin machine similar to that of Bush/Blair in the Iraq war, and yet on every analysis delivers only a tiny token income for the people that MAKE THE MUSIC that they want to profit from.
Just a tiny token income - just enough so that consumers like you can congratulate themselves on taking devalued music from a "legal" service that "pays the artists".
Wake up man! Stop trying to defend this capitalistic monster that is scheming to eat our music.
HansH Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Steve,
We disagree, let's leave it to that. I believe in streaming, you don't.
"a propaganda spin machine similar to that of Bush/Blair in the Iraq war" Come on. Talking about pathetic.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us