Jay Z talks Tidal's pay-structure, lack of free tier, and how indie artists benefit

Status
Not open for further replies.
CoolOff said:
I shell out 12*11 dollars for Spotify + maybe a consert bi-monthly (6*30), and a major festival ticket a year (200).

If the music industry can't make that work for the artists I'm listening to I really don't see why I should feel bad for it. It's the labels that are the problem, always will be.
Click to expand...

Precisely, it's the labels. Creating a new streaming service with a 5% higher royalty rate will not solve the problem. If Jay-Z really wanted to solve the problem, his music label should lead by example and change the royalty structure for artists. This is just a cash grab and I cringe when Jay Z says it's about the artists, because it's not.

Second problem, is that it's too easy to get free music (not talking about Spotify), but that's an issue I think Spotify is handling well.
 
mrklaw said:
I agree on your ignoring data point. But students did pay for music, back in the days when it was physical. Sure for every CD or tape that you sold a bunch of blank tapes would get recorded, but it was still money paid. And students are at the age where you are possibly most passionate about music and discovering what you like. So the demand is clearly there. The problem is that if you're offered something for free why would you choose to pay - especially as a student when you have lots of other priorities and little money.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you can't remove the free. I think Spotify approach is best
 
rambis said:
Spotify has a shitty model that doesn't stand to reason with basic mathematics. Idk how many times this can be said.

It doesn't matter if you like the device and want to protect it's good name. You have to call a spade what it is.
Click to expand...

Spotify model is fine. They pay out 70% of revenue to rights holders. Again, the problem is with the labels.
 
Baki said:
Spotify model is fine. They pay out 70% of revenue to rights holders. Again, the problem is with the labels.
Click to expand...
Ehh, no it's not. The payout isn't the problem, its the idiotic model they use to calculate who gets the payout. Idk how it makes any sense to forgoe a per stream model for a service like this.
 
Armadilo said:
Deadmau5 going on a rant -http://www.twitch.tv/deadmau5 check the vod if it's over but seems Tidal is for the indie artists and Spotify are for the Labels
Click to expand...

Deadmau5 doesn't know what he is talking about..clueless. Indie artists use bandcamp,soundcloud,youtube and that works perfect.

Looking at bandcamp and look at what fans have paid to there favorite artists alone..that's why i like bandcamp they can do name a price or just pay what you want but also listen to the music unlimited with no restrictions.

Fans have given artists $103 million using Bandcamp, and $3.4 million in the last 30 days alone.
Click to expand...

This is on the frontpage of bandcamp.
 
rambis said:
Ehh, no it's not. The payout isn't the problem, its the idiotic model they use to calculate who gets the payout. Idk how it makes any sense to forgoe a per stream model for a service like this.
Click to expand...

Tidal will most probably use the same formula as Spotify. It makes perfect sense to pay a label and artist according to it's relative popularity. It's the only way you can keep your business afloat.

You seem to be advocating flat per-stream payments. Let's run that scenario;
1) Music streaming service charges $10 per month per user
2) Service pays labels $0,007 per stream

In this scenario, users can listen to 1428 streams (~70 hours of music, based on an avg of 3 minutes per track, I slay that number easily each month) per month on average before the service hits it's break even point. Where go from here? Inform the user that he used all his streams? Take the loss? Turn up the fee untill you arrive at a point where the user no longer wants to pay for your service? Lower the per-stream-payout? All of those seem to be undesirable from either the consumer-end, business-end or both.
 
rambis said:
Ehh, no it's not. The payout isn't the problem, its the idiotic model they use to calculate who gets the payout. Idk how it makes any sense to forgoe a per stream model for a service like this.
Click to expand...
for someone who accuses other people of presuming too much you're rather quick to assume tidal will be totally different. i actually wanted to post something along the lines of DarkFlows post a few pages ago. you do sound like a pr rep.
 
rambis said:
Ehh, no it's not. The payout isn't the problem, its the idiotic model they use to calculate who gets the payout. Idk how it makes any sense to forgoe a per stream model for a service like this.
Click to expand...

What's the problem with the model? Please elaborate.
 
rambis said:
Eh, I expressed a doubt. Idk how that is being so sure or where I brought up a Swedish label(Aspiro is Scandinavian FYI). Also, I don't see anywhere saying that the big three had anything to do with Jay Z' recent majority grab. If they had stock before in the company that's fine but I don't see how it's relevant to the new ownership. Don't see how its counter to any message, you can't force people to give up stock.

If I'm a PR rep, you're a conspiracy theorist playing loose with facts to create some boogey man narrative that's isn't anywhere close to reality.

A lot of this is still very cloudy I agree but its easily understandable seeing as ownership only changed hands a couple weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Erm, you're aware Sweden is part of Scandinavia. Anyway, as already said forcing people to give up stock was exactly what happened as per Swedish rules:

“A shareholder who holds more than nine tenths of the shares in a company (the majority shareholder) shall be entitled to buy-out the remaining shares of the other shareholders of the company.”
Click to expand...

Common-sense says the 3 major labels having a current stake in Tidal is related to the fact their 16 biggest artists are involved. That didn't happen without their label's blessing, or without the labels gaining monetarily from it.

It's not about being a conspiracy theorist, it's about looking beyond the bluster about revolutions and changing the industry and seeing what actually is different. Which doesn't seem much at all.

The major labels own a stake we just don't know how much, artists without a label can already get on other services including Spotify just fine, the royalty difference will be negligible, labels will still be keeping the vast chunk of what people pay, 16 artists who have already benefited from the industry the most will gain more than any of the artists on it ...

It doesn't sound like a revolution really does it, just a cash-grab by everyone involved.
 
The water comment just shows how out of touch these artists are.

Being a musician became an overpaid profession anyway. Time to adapt, musicians.
 
Melkr_ said:
Being a musician became an overpaid profession anyway.
Click to expand...

iZdTFaaMA8yGa.gif


Why am I supposed to be mad at musicians wanting more control over their music/how they get paid again? If all my favorite artists migrate to Tidal, I can give them my $10 as easily as I gave it to Google. I'm not seeing an issue here. Don't want it, don't pay for it. Jeez.
 
<+)O Robido O(+> said:
Why am I supposed to be mad at musicians wanting more control over their music/how they get paid again? If all my favorite artists migrate to Tidal, I can give them my $10 as easily as I gave it to Google. I'm not seeing an issue here. Don't want it, don't pay for it. Jeez.
Click to expand...
It's nothing to get upset about. But it is funny to see how a bunch of millionaires are complaining about how the music industry isn't being fair to them. These are some of the richest and highest paid people in the world.

Nobody says they don't deserve money. But them having a stake in this business does nothing for struggling artists or the ones being screwed by their labels.
 
Nobody is going to give two shits about Jay-Z whining about not making enough money. The reasoning for these musicians raking in millions of dollars has always been "that is the value of their work to the market. They deserve to make what the market will bear." Well that's all fine and good but it works the other way too when the market starts to devalue your product and you aren't making as much as you used to. There's no inherent reason musicians should be raking in tens of millions of dollars a year. So if his argument and selling point is "we aren't making what we should make," well then....
 
Hahaha at that Close, if you don't spend $6 on water your not the target demographic for his pitch, since that close is based on something that demographic would actually spend (which is what any good salesman would do)..
 
?????????

For every millionaire musician you see, there are thousands of starving artists looking for a book. A lot of these rich artists make money from OUTSIDE business ventures; not music alone.

Music itself is notoriously bad in making millionaires on solely product/songs/albums alone.

If this helps musicians get paid that much more, then so be it.
 
I'm all for wiping away the pungent sense of entitlement that Spotify has generated and increase the payout artists receive, but Tidal's re-launch has been astoundingly embarrassing. A bunch of maybe-potential-in-the-future garbage rather than any solid, actual and existing plan.

I'll stick with iTunes.
 
Koodo said:
I'm all for wiping away the pungent sense of entitlement that Spotify has generated and increase the payout artists receive, but Tidal's re-launch has been astoundingly embarrassing. A bunch of maybe-potential-in-the-future garbage rather than any solid, actual and existing plan.

I'll stick with iTunes.
Click to expand...

Hi Koodo!
 
so much hostility

they aren't doing it for them, its the next generation. they explicitly say that because they're so successful the onus is on them to lead the way because they understand that it will be seemingly impossible for new artists to get anywhere close to where these artists have in this day and age. it's not far fetched to say in a time when a lot of people think music should just be free.

interesting enough thom yorke made these EXACT same comments about underpaid new material and that spotify works hand in hand with old record execs - two years ago and without any of the media circus

you guys can keep saying greed, but when a bunch of artists from different walks all say the same thing separately and without prompt, i'm sure they know more about the record label relationship with spotify than we do. that's why "you should be mad at the label, not spotify!" doesn't work - they work hand in hand, why do you think spotify offers a ton of music for free? labels give them access to tons of back catalogue without having to worry about updated contracts and royalties, etc.

that said, it's not that i'm for tidal specifically, but i think it's good to have this talk about the future of distribution for the medium.

edit: oh apparently spotfiy free has ads, like youtube, what a game changer. i can hop between 4 different artists and generally 5-7 whole songs before hearing a 15 second advertisement. hell, when i dont want to see one i often back out of the app and start it again without penalty. if i don't have the ability to switch songs i hop between artists and when i go back to the original artist the song has changed without penalty. what are they advertising most often in spotify? oh yeah, spotify premium. whatever.
 
You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!" Yeah, right. It's not about being pretentious; again, this is a thing for all artists. You pay $9.99 for Spotify, so why not $9.99 for TIDAL.
Click to expand...
There is an enormous hole in the logic of this statement. People run out and buy iPhones or Android phones that generate enormous profit margins because they see benefit and value in a device that functions as a phone, media player, camera, GPS, portable game system, fitness tracker, etc. $9.99 tor Tidal (sorry, TIDAL) offers no end user benefit over $9.99 for Spotify. It is actually less value if people have to abandon playlists and shared music lists they've built over the past three to four years.

If the idea is to cordon off particular music on particular services, they will just be invoking the piracy demon. Nobody is going to pay $20 or $30 to subscribe to multiple services in order to get access to the same volume of content that used to cost $10 monthly. Beats had a major, major mass marketing push and sturdier backing through the ATM machine that was the hardware side of the business, and it still did not make a huge dent in the established players.

I'm starting to think the end result is that labels and competing interests will try to make things so difficult for Spotify that in the long run they will just throw their hands up and sell to a company like Microsoft or Amazon for several billion dollars. And once the major services that people use are all owned by the megacorps, the labels are back to having no real sway over anything. Every time the music industry has tried to circumnavigate prevailing technology trends, it has blown up in their faces. Beats played it smart.
 
Pavaloo said:
so much hostility

they aren't doing it for them, its the next generation. they explicitly say that because they're so successful the onus is on them to lead the way because they understand that it will be seemingly impossible for new artists to get anywhere close to where these artists have in this day and age. it's not far fetched to say in a time when a lot of people think music should just be free.

interesting enough thom yorke made these EXACT same comments about underpaid new material and that spotify works hand in hand with old record execs - two years ago and without any of the media circus

you guys can keep saying greed, but when a bunch of artists from different walks all say the same thing separately and without prompt, i'm sure they know more about the record label relationship with spotify than we do. that's why "you should be mad at the label, not spotify!" doesn't work - they work hand in hand, why do you think spotify offers a ton of music for free? labels give them access to tons of back catalogue without having to worry about updated contracts and royalties, etc.

that said, it's not that i'm for tidal specifically, but i think it's good to have this talk about the future of distribution for the medium.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how anyone is getting anything for free from an ad-based service.

I don't need to be literally handing over my credit card to be paying for something. Spotify makes money from the ads they force on free users, and they pass over the bulk of that money to labels.

Ain't nobody getting shit for free. This narrative really needs to stop.
 
royalan said:
Explain to me how anyone is getting anything for free from an ad-based service.

I don't need to be literally handing over my credit card to be paying for something. Spotify makes money from the ads they force on free users, and they pass over the bulk of that money to labels.

Ain't nobody getting shit for free. This narrative really needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Did you know that if you had adblock installed on your browser you don't hear the ads?
 
Koodo said:
I'm all for wiping away the pungent sense of entitlement that Spotify has generated and increase the payout artists receive, but Tidal's re-launch has been astoundingly embarrassing. A bunch of maybe-potential-in-the-future garbage rather than any solid, actual and existing plan.

I'll stick with iTunes.
Click to expand...

gaga flopping on one format is enough for you huh
 
Hopefully this isn't is a sign of things to come, but Jay-Z's album Reasonable Doubt has been removed from Spotify. I'm in the US and the only song available now from that album is Coming of Age.
 
The ads are coming on constantly during my video streaming and don't explain a thing, so people in the room start asking and I find myself having to go into this tiered background of music streaming to even broach their hazy sales pitch.
 
Cyan said:
75%? So this whole AMAZING MUSIC REVOLUTION 4 THE ARTIST is about a 5% revenue cut differential?

SMH
Click to expand...

Not at all...its false marketing by the artists who own a stake in the company itself, and will make a fortune it the service succeeds. It's a revolution for the 16 or so musicians who own Tidal.
 
Judderman said:
Hopefully this isn't is a sign of things to come, but Jay-Z's album Reasonable Doubt has been removed from Spotify. I'm in the US and the only song available now from that album is Coming of Age.
Click to expand...

It's already started!
 
Jay Z is a pretty smart dude. I just think that unfortunately this may end up being a swing and a miss. Labels gave too much power to something like Spotify and I don't think people want to revert away from the 'free' model that Spotify has.
 
Judderman said:
Hopefully this isn't is a sign of things to come, but Jay-Z's album Reasonable Doubt has been removed from Spotify. I'm in the US and the only song available now from that album is Coming of Age.
Click to expand...

He owns his masters, unlike every other artist that was at the press conference. He can do what he wants with his music. Ironically except for Reasonable Doubt from what I understand; Dame Dash owns part of it or something.

There really isn't a major incentive to move all his music to Tidal. It would ultimately lose him money when you think about it, given Tidal's low sub base.
 
Tidal valued at $250m

It looks like Jay Z's star power has paid off, as Aspiro is reportedly valued at around $250 million. The New York Post also says that Tidal has gained 100,000 paying subscribers since the New York press conference. It had just 35,000 subscribers before the Jay Z acquisition.

Sprint is partnering with Tidal to bring the streaming services to phones using the network. It sounds like Sprint is going to bundle a Tidal subscription in with the cost of a phone contract, as a Sprint employee said there are "specials" on the way.
Click to expand...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jay-z-music-streaming-site-tidal-valued-at-250-million-2015-4?r=US

Idk what spotify's trajectory was but the subscriber amount here seems pretty low.
 
Baki said:
Precisely, it's the labels. Creating a new streaming service with a 5% higher royalty rate will not solve the problem. If Jay-Z really wanted to solve the problem, his music label should lead by example and change the royalty structure for artists. This is just a cash grab and I cringe when Jay Z says it's about the artists, because it's not.

Second problem, is that it's too easy to get free music (not talking about Spotify), but that's an issue I think Spotify is handling well.
Click to expand...

I think Jay Z and ROC nation actually made it worse. J Cole was one of the first rap artist to have to give the label a cut of his performance and merchandise money, a 360 deal he called it.
 
royalan said:
It is low.

Beats Music was at around 500k subscribers when it was sold.

And this was after Jay's celeb hail mary. Not sure what he's going to do to keep driving subscriber numbers up.
Click to expand...

The New York press conference was only about a week ago. I think Beats Music had almost half a year in between when it actually launched and when Apple purchased it. For what I thought was a complete cluster fuck of a re-launch I'd say that 100k is a decent number at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hulu to add ads to their ad free tier
32
2K
MayauMiao replied
do you pay attention to the moon?
44
371
Tajaz2426 replied
How many of you are cruising on free trials?
33
2K
notseqi replied
Cloudflare Announces Pay Per Crawl - Charging AI Crawlers for Access.
0
128
RiccochetJ replied
  • Locked
Tate brothers free and on their way to Freedomland
2
50
2K
RJMacready73 replied
Top Bottom