Support NeoGAF

[Sean]

Is the $44 supposed to be shocking? That's not even 1 season of 13 episode Daredevil!

That $44m figure was certainly shocking to me, The Blacklist is a series that aired on free TV months earlier, was streamable on Hulu and NBC's site, and could be purchased on DVD/Blu-Ray etc. Netflix paid all that money just to be able to stream it. (At least with Daredevil that's an original series created exclusively for Netflix so it's a bit more understandable to shell out a lot of cash for that.) These kinds of massive payouts don't seem to happen in the music industry.

She made more than $300K from just one song last October alone.

She had the number one song on the service that was streamed 46.3 million times and only earned ~$300k? That seems like an extremely small amount of money to me.

 

[Greg]

I love the entitlement in these topics with the alternative always being the threat of piracy

"piracy is more convenient than buying a physical CD!"
a digital store opens
"I'm not paying for something digital!"
a free streaming service opens
"ads? low-quality? I'll take my 'business' elsewhere!"
a premium streaming service opens
"but the artists should be blessed to have exposure! music was never supposed to be the end product!"

labels complain and people say they're greedy and out of touch
signed artists complain and people say take it up with the labels
independent artists complain and no one gives a shit

end the argument with "but look, this artist that was already established self-released and made a ton of money!" and "look here, this artist that broke every streaming record made so much money!" and "well, everyone knows artists make the real money on tour"

 

[RDreamer]

I'm actually kind of going to side with the music industry on this one...

I find it funny that people champion Netflix, with its shitty as fucking hell selection, yet Spotify offers almost literally everything in existence for about the same price.... and also free if you want ads. As much as the music industry gets a lot of flack for their anti-piracy tirades, they've actually been quite accommodating to new ways of consuming their product.

What I get on spotify I would be willing to pay a good amount more for, as long as the actual artists got most of the increase.

I also kind of wish there was another tier with spotify: It'd be rad if they made something that was like $5 or $10 more and it was pre-release stuff. An artist could just put their stuff on that tier before release, or if they saw their shit leaked, boom, put it up on the pre-release tier of Spotify. I'd pay for that shit.

 

[exmachina64]

Record labels: "We'd rather consumers pirate music than get something for free."

 

[rezuth]

Amazing how stupid Universal is. This will only drive people back to torrenting.

Even if 80% go back to downloading but they gain another 20% paying to stream thats a major win for them.

I'm electing that they're using Apples new service that won't be free as leverage.

 

[Guevara]

I love the entitlement in these topics with the alternative always being the threat of piracy

"piracy is more convenient than buying a physical CD!"
a digital store opens
"I'm not paying for something digital!"
a free streaming service opens
"ads? low-quality? I'll take my 'business' elsewhere!"
a premium streaming service opens
"but the artists should be blessed to have exposure! music was never supposed to be the end product!"

labels complain and people say they're greedy and out of touch
signed artists complain and people say take it up with the labels
independent artists complain and no one gives a shit

end the argument with "but look, this artist that was already established self-released and made a ton of money!" and "look here, this artist that broke every streaming record made so much money!" and "well, everyone knows artists make the real money on tour"

Here's the thing though: if one person thinks music should be free, that's their problem. If everyone thinks music should be free, that's the industry's problem.

Right now everyone seems to agree: music should be free.

 

[Treythalomew]

Not sure what the labels want more from premium. 320 kbps, no ads, offline syncing, full phone functionality. Those are big reasons to pay. I would have zero interest in them providing flac. Exclusive albums would just kill the money the artists get.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Only Taylor Swift matters.

I see. If I was the label Id force them to make the free service have commercials and be limited to 128kbps.

'i dont use this service'

'heres my simple solution for a complicated problem i know nothing about'

 

[Poodlestrike]

Why is it on Universal if people decide to pirate, exactly?

 

[Guess Who]

Here's the thing though: if one person thinks music should be free, that's their problem. If everyone thinks music should be free, that's the industry's problem.

Right now everyone seems to agree: music should be free.

I don't think it's true at all that people think music should be free. It's just that pirating music is so absurdly easy and convenient that, for most people, why wouldn't they pirate?

 

[Zoned]

Good luck with that universal. Most people I know use free version of Spotify and if they can't listen to music, they'll be back to pirating.

 

[linsivvi]

She had the number one song on the service that was streamed 46.3 million times and only earned ~$300k? That seems like an extremely small amount of money to me.

It's one song, in one month.

Small amount of money? Good luck finding a revenue stream that pays more then.

It ain't the 80s any more.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I think they're fine with this actually. As long as they can sue more people.

Is that still a thing? I don't remember the last time I heard about people getting sued for mp3-related stuff.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

She had the number one song on the service that was streamed 46.3 million times and only earned ~$300k? That seems like an extremely small amount of money to me.

Yeah but making music isn't a real job so she should be glad to get that 300k. She should be doing it for the love, not money bruh

 

[teruterubozu]

Is that still a thing? I don't remember the last time I heard about people getting sued for mp3-related stuff.

Cuz we have Spotify now.

 

[SheSaidNo]

The major labels also own around 20% of spotify

 

[Airan]

Spotify already had a good run when they "updated" the desktop app. God damn what were they thinking? Spotify's major advantage over other services on PC (desktop app versus browser app) is now gone.

Their only draw now is being free, and if that goes away Google or Apple will win.

What did the update do, aside from a UI touch-up?

 

[linsivvi]

What did the update do, aside from a UI touch-up?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=155485174&postcount=1348

It's atrocious.

 

[Tragicomedy]

Greed. Doesn't Taylor make millions touring? Isn't that where the money is?

Estimated values of music gum fifteen years ago are irrelevant. The consumer has set a new price point. We aren't going back. I happily pay $10 a month.

 

[J10]

Why is it on Universal if people decide to pirate, exactly?

The idea is that convenience matters above all else. If piracy turns out to be more convenient, that's what people will do, and it's been shown that they can't even scare all the people into submission via lawsuits because people know that them suing everybody isn't feasible.

 

[soundahfekz]

Greed. Doesn't Taylor make millions touring? Isn't that where the money is?

Estimated values of music gum fifteen years ago are irrelevant. The consumer has set a new price point. We aren't going back. I happily pay $10 a month.

Not every artist does the volume of Taylor Swift. In fact, 99.9% do not.

Labels do need to pay their artists better, but consumers underestimate the sheer amount of work and contribution from producers, engineers, writers, etc necessary to fuel a mainstream album.

 

[teruterubozu]

Not every artist does the volume of Taylor Swift. In fact, 99.9% do not.

Labels do need to pay their artists better, but consumers underestimate the sheer amount of work and contribution from producers, engineers, writers, etc necessary to fuel a mainstream album.

Not to mention the producers, directors, camera, sound, wardrobe, actors, dancers, etc. for mainstream music videos.

 

[serenewarfare]

Not sure what the labels want more from premium. 320 kbps, no ads, offline syncing, full phone functionality. Those are big reasons to pay. I would have zero interest in them providing flac. Exclusive albums would just kill the money the artists get.

If they adopted lossless streaming for premium members (like Tidal) that would be be big news. It'd also undercut a current competitor in Tidal and a future competitor in whatever service Jay Z is working on.

 

[Xe4]

Go away Universal.

 

[Jhriad]

Amazing how stupid Universal is. This will only drive people back to torrenting.

No one is going back to torrenting. It's a lot more work, possible exposure to viruses/malware, and excessive use triggers pretty draconian network shaping on a lot of ISPs. People would move to something easy like YouTube rather than return to shit torrents again.

 

[soundahfekz]

Not to mention the producers, directors, camera, sound, wardrobe, actors, dancers, etc. for mainstream music videos.

yep. all those people eat off that album's earnings, but consumers want a buffet full of foie gras and truffles w/ golden corral money.


The balance is somewhere in the middle and would require each group (mainly labels on the music side) to gain a better perspective on the value of music.

 

[Tragicomedy]

I don't listen to mainstream pop and consider videos to be pointless. I also believe we overvalued musicians in the past and don't care if they get rich. Music is about emotional connection for me, not a mechanic to create wealth.

Artists don't determine the value of their music. Record labels don't either. Consumers do. Guess what? For 15 million music listeners, we're on board for $10 a month. Record labels agreed, and that ship sailed away. We aren't going back to the concept of purchasing an album again.

Swift complaining about making only $300k off a single song is hilarious, particularly when you consider she can't sing a single note in tune. Why not be content duping folks for the millions she's making?

Zero sympathy. As for the tons of people it apparently takes to make an album, why not downsize? This isn't 1990, albums aren't selling 15 million copies. Get with the times. It's especially stupid coming from Taylor Swift...everyone is getting rich on that train. Keep cashing them checks.

 

[Klossen]

I started my subscription on Spotify simply because their free service was so promising. Universal, please stop. Had it not been for Spotify, people would've still pirated your overpriced music.

 

[mrklaw]

IMO the business model for streaming music just isn't there yet.

At least on the TV and movie side of things the studios get big bucks from all the exclusivity deals that Netflix/Hulu/Amazon sign. Netflix is paying a whopping $2m per episode for NBC's The Blacklist for example (that's $44 million for just one season of one show). For comparison, Taylor Swift reportedly earned only $2 million from Spotify all of last year and she's perhaps the biggest artist out there.

I know the music industry is greedy as fuck, but there's some legitimacy to their complaints imo.

Taylor Swift grossed approx $150m on tour in 2013. That's where the big bucks are. If she isn't making a ton off Spotify, they are probably doing a lot for publicity which in turn feeds ticket sales.

What is the average payout to artists for radio Airplay?

 

[JMDSO]

What is the average payout to artists for radio Airplay?

It's an insane calculation.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm

For radio performances, ASCAP does a sample survey of all radio stations, including college stations and public radio. To do this, it uses a digital tracking system, station logs provided by the radio stations, and recordings of the actual broadcasts.

 

[Tragicomedy]

Taylor Swift grossed approx $150m on tour in 2013. That's where the big bucks are. If she isn't making a ton off Spotify, they are probably doing a lot for publicity which in turn feeds ticket sales.

What is the average payout to artists for radio Airplay?

Exactly what I wrote earlier. Money is in touring and licensing your song for movies and TV. Spotify gets your stuff out there to a big group. Many of us pay, others listen to ads like on the radio.

 

[teruterubozu]

I love how Taylor Swift is the poster musician in this discussion. Her situation is hardly representative of 99% of musicians just trying to make a buck.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The idea is that convenience matters above all else. If piracy turns out to be more convenient, that's what people will do, and it's been shown that they can't even scare all the people into submission via lawsuits because people know that them suing everybody isn't feasible.

No, I get why people pirate. What I don't get is why it's Universal's (or really, any company that doesn't place undue burden on the consumer) fault. Smells a little like victim blaming, to me; "how dare you demand to be PAID!"

 

[John Kowalski]

I love how Taylor Swift is the poster musician in this discussion. Her situation is hardly representative of 99% of musicians just trying to make a buck.

Her argument isn't even about getting paid, just that her work should be accessed for fee. The whole thing is a sordid affair.

 

[Guess Who]

I don't listen to mainstream pop and consider videos to be pointless. I also believe we overvalued musicians in the past and don't care if they get rich. Music is about emotional connection for me, not a mechanic to create wealth.

Artists don't determine the value of their music. Record labels don't either. Consumers do. Guess what? For 15 million music listeners, we're on board for $10 a month. Record labels agreed, and that ship sailed away. We aren't going back to the concept of purchasing an album again.

Swift complaining about making only $300k off a single song is hilarious, particularly when you consider she can't sing a single note in tune. Why not be content duping folks for the millions she's making?

Zero sympathy. As for the tons of people it apparently takes to make an album, why not downsize? This isn't 1990, albums aren't selling 15 million copies. Get with the times. It's especially stupid coming from Taylor Swift...everyone is getting rich on that train. Keep cashing them checks.

Focusing on Taylor Swift ignores the broader picture of 99.999% of artists not making a hundredth of what Taylor Swift makes.

Musicians need to fucking eat and drink and pay bills just like anyone else and for the vast majority of artists Spotify doesn't pay the bills. Not every artist goes on multimillion dollar international tours or get their music licensed in films. The devaluation of music is creating a system where you have to be ridiculously successful to make any kind of living at all - the middle ground of modest success is rapidly disappearing and becoming unviable. "Music is about emotional connection for me, not a mechanic to create wealth" - get the fuck out. Music takes shittons of work and hours and effort to make to a high level of quality, and artists 100% deserve to be paid a fair wage for their work.

People didn't "decide" music was worthless. A system came out where anyone could download any music for free, which would jeopardize any industry. Imagine what would happen to the traditional car industry if you could just download a Lexus for free! Fucking no one is going to pay money for anything if they could get it just as easily without paying. That's no fault of the artist or the record companies or even the consumers. It's not a statement that music isn't worth paying for, it's simply a matter of there not being a reason to pay for it when they could download it for free. If piracy never happened people would be 100% fine with buying music just as they always had.

 

[linsivvi]

Not every artist does the volume of Taylor Swift. In fact, 99.9% do not.

And guess what? People like Taylor Swift are routinely stealing money from those 99.9% using the traditional licensing system from organizations like ASCAP which heavily favors the major artists.

From Spotify if an indie band has a share of 0.001% of the total number of streams, the band gets 0.001% of the total payout. For music licensing from radio, TV, performing venues, or any commercial space that plays music, that band would likely get 0%.

 

[Pavaloo]

is spotify the only music streaming service in the world?

this is not how you get piracy

 

[Condom]

Do you want piracy? Because that's how you get piracy.

Pretty stupid that music lovers don't want to pay a little for music streaming. Has it really been devalued so much?

 

[BolognaSoup]

I hate the music and TV/cable industries so much. Every time they open their mouths I have less desire to give them my money.

 

[giga]

Here's the thing though: if one person thinks music should be free, that's their problem. If everyone thinks music should be free, that's the industry's problem.

Right now everyone seems to agree: music should be free.

What? No.

 

[Crud]

People going to get what they want with or without.