Comments on: It's Time For Transparency On Music Streaming Rates

By: guest2

guest2 — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:21:35 +0000

I’m on the small label camp. This discussion needs to be segmented. Coldplay, Adele, etc…are simply not in the same situation as the smaller labels and artists. I have sen Hyperdub and Tri-Angle – very influential, smaller labels – out of spotify. why? Because spotify shares the same affluent, middle-class leaning audience. One this audience realizes they don’t have to pay for the hype williams release they just won’t. They’ll listen “legally” through spotify and get used to free, constant, on-demand music, anywhere.

The audience for small labels, I’m afraid to say, will not increase dramatically. The number of people who look for interesting experimental music will not change – people are predisposed towards mainstream tastes or not. What spotify does, is it finds these labels’ audience and provides them with the free product. Can someone tell me how many of the spotify listeners actually BUY the music? It’s so simple. Once people realize they NEVER have to buy music, they simply won’t, it’s legal and cheaper than a couple of cappuccinos. Would they ever go back to paying? Possibly not. The message is: music is legally free. Take as much as you’d like. It’s all the same, just pay the flat fee.

Not a great scenario for those actually providing the music. The accounting needs to be transparent. Only then can people tell if it’s worth it or not.

By: Jack Schafer

Jack Schafer — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:03:14 +0000

My take is that streaming rates are so low, and should be due to the fact that all of the distribution costs are cut out. The artist should still be getting paid as much per tract as they are on plastic as their investment in the music is exactly the same. The problem is that the business end of the industry has not been able to figure out where that are supposed to get paid when their investment and risk is minimal.
For the Artist & the consumer, streaming should be a goldmine, as both entities win…
What’s happening is similar to what happened in the long distance telephone industry. Suddenly, with the internet, long distance was available to everyone directly, and that middleman and those long distance services were no longer needed. The big labels are scrambling trying to find their revenue stream, and it’s not there anymore. Now it’s the new breed of private labels, niche markets, inexpensive downloads, merchandise, and venues.

By: Dj Gilcrease

Dj Gilcrease — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:12 +0000

Nice to know my guesses were not too far off from what you really get. And yes I understand why Artists are concerned and fully support them getting paid a reasonable amount.

I will admit my 600 times a month example is extreme (Though I have done that on occasion). I would like to see that study since according to last.fm the average plays per track per user is 180 per year. But still you would only make more if you were on the high end of the Spotify pay scale (0.0033/play), though you would make about twice that if they pay what this article calls “Industry Standard” pricing (0.0085).

By: Steve Hillage

Steve Hillage — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:43:55 +0000

You hit the nail on the head there Dave.

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:09:32 +0000

If we are to receive increments of pennies on the dollar I would rather control our own Gang of Four catalogue and give away MP3s to fans both new and old. I believe that companies like Spotify enriching themselves on our catalogue in return for a pittance in royalties is neither fair nor ethical.

By: martinrigby

martinrigby — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:17:53 +0000

Subscription streaming could be guilty of eroding download sales but some streaming, especially Psonar Pay Per Play, lets people listen to complete tracks with minimal financial cost while still paying out to artists and incentivising download. After all, why keep paying 1p to play a track you like when you can download it and own it to play with no recurring cost.

By: spotidj

spotidj — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:32:38 +0000

Read it, but what does it prove? The downfall in iTunes revenue could be due to numerous of other reasons. Still doesn’t prove that streaming is the main cause.

By: kdardis

kdardis — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:08:42 +0000

Two items to address 1) Which come first, airplay for exposure or revenue from song sales? 2) Why are streaming royalty payments the same for Coldplay and an artist who is trying to get noticed?

Without the exposure through airplay a musical group cannot reach a point where the value of their music is an audience-draw for the streaming service. Music is everywhere. Remove its distribution channels and we’ve seen it often, the artist slips into oblivian.

If I operate a streaming service – or online radio station – the worth of an artist’s song (or presence on my stream) is in proportion to the previous amount of airplay/exposure it has received. Popular acts are worth more to me in keeping/building an audience than a new artist looking to build their career. The latter is more a detriment, one I’ve taken a chance that they won’t cause audience tune-out. Is it fair for the same royalty payment to be made to both acts?

To uncover the area where artists are shorted, try getting major labels to explain how much of these royalties make it into the bank account of the band.

By: Greg Golebiewski @znakit

Greg Golebiewski @znakit — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:56:37 +0000

All the artists and labels unhappy with Spotify or other low-return services are more than welcome to join BuyMyPlaylist.com. We pay decent rates.

By: kdardis

kdardis — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:48:00 +0000

Two items to address 1) Which comes first, airplay for exposure or revenue from song sales and streaming? 2) Why are streaming royalty payments the same for Coldplay and an artist who is trying to get noticed?

Without the exposure through airplay a musical group cannot reach a point where the value of their work is an audience-draw for the streaming service. Music is everywhere. Remove any band’s distribution channels and, we’ve seen it often, the artist slips into oblivion.

If I operate a music service – or online radio station – the worth of an artist’s song (or an artist’s presence on my stream) is in proportion to the previous amount of airplay/exposure it has received. Popular acts are worth more to me in keeping/building an audience than a new artist looking to build their career. The latter is more a detriment, one I’ve taken a chance that they won’t cause audience tune-out. Is it fair for the same royalty payment to be made to both acts?

To uncover the area where artists are shorted, get the labels to show how much of these royalties make it into the bank account of the band. That’s where more transparency is needed.