You’re getting SoundCloud plays, but how do you use that information to help your career? SoundCloud has expanded the statistics that are available to their Pro Unlimited users, making geographical stats a little more detailed. The Pro Unlimited plan costs $15 a month or $135 a year.
SoundCloud now shows you statistics on a city level.
You can see play counts, likes, reposts, downloads, and comments city by city. This could be extremely helpful when planning tour routing.
Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more. She also runs West Coast Fix. Follow her on Twitter: @nine_u
It’s great to see that they are providing this kind of data to users — particularly the location based info to help planning tours / tracking fan engagement by city. Definitely more of an incentive to upgrade to the Pro version.
Or, you know, host your music on your own server and do proper analytics without sharing data with Soundcloud and its partners.
a simple idea anyone can easily do. ◔_◔
Most shared hosting companies offer an analytics package with open source software, the only thing you have to do is click on a button, pick a username and password…
Big deal…
Sure but does your website and hosting (that has such glorious and rich analytics) have a user base of 10,000,000, frictionless navigation, inherent social aspects, as well as private/public embed options?
Just because you are clueless and can’t write basic HTML doesn’t mean the rest of us are like you.
Or use a service like DropTrack, which also provides great analytics, and you can even include your own Google Analytics code.
So let me get this straight, artists complain about the payouts from streamers, yet PAY Soundcloud to play their music for free to people who want to hear it? And not a small amount – $135 per year.
And Soundcloud doesn’t pay any performance royalties, either? I’m sure the songwriters and publishers love that.
And Soundcloud is home to loads of illegally uploaded content?
Yet, Artists COMPLAIN about the streamers (who pay them), but PRAISE soundcloud (who charge them, and don’t even have the courtesy to pay performance royalties – not even to their premium subscribers).
Am I missing something here? Why would any in-demand artist put their music on a site that costs them money, pays them nothing, and likely cannabilizes their other paid channels?
I find Soundcloud a useful platform and I look forward to reading DMN. However, notwithstanding any preconceived positions Tiger may be bringing to the table about this, he/she raises undeniable concerns about the service that DMN has not even touched upon.
Why then does this DMN news item read like an endorsement for this new service from Soundcloud?
If I have to rely upon 3rd parties to provide a thorough, even-handed review of a service, DMN’s value to me plummets…
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/03/27/soundcloudlicenses
All very good questions, indeed. One can certainly see it as just paying for a hosting platform.
The problem is that there is a massive amount of illegally uploaded material on SoundCloud as well, which the intellectual property owners have no way to monetize (there is not even any equivalent of YouTube’s flawed and underpaying ContentID and embedded advertising system).
Well here is something new…not.
Something deliciously ironic about using early 90’s vernacular to describe something as not new here….
And this is news? I think it has been done by many for 15 years. I’m surprised it took this long. I hope that a big chunk of the $120million raised, didn’t go to build this feature 😉
The year was 1999 and the company was MP3.com. They provided stats to the registered artists to show where their fan base (those who clicked, listened and/or purchased) were located. It was revolutionary then. Not so much now.