1. Rest in Peace Paul (Kegger) If you would like to help the family in this time of great sorrow and need, you may donate on their GoFundme page: https://www.gofundme.com/mckechnie-medical-and-funeral-fund?
    Dismiss Notice

Music industry better off with streaming...

Discussion in 'Streaming Services' started by +48V, May 29, 2017.

  1. Rockyhill

    Rockyhill WDEV Waterbury, VT "Tallest Tower in N.E." Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Maine
    I don't like tripe but I don't make a big deal over people who do like tripe or the industry that markets tripe.
     
  2. Rockyhill

    Rockyhill WDEV Waterbury, VT "Tallest Tower in N.E." Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Maine
  3. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,134
    Location:
    NYC
    not sure why someone would not like tripe

    it's delicious when prepared in traditional Italian fashion, Turkish fashion or Dominican fashion.

    as to those that market tripe, I don't think anyone does and that is the problem to it's low acceptance.

    seems I always have to search it out.... never recall seeing more than a simple offering on a menu

    :)

    next time you see a billboard advertising it, let me know :D
     
  4. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    Part Two - Perspective
    Circa 1999 total music revenue (worldwide) peaked at $38.6 billion. The US share (at peak) was around $14.3 billion. Back then, the average music consumer spent $64/year on CDs, etc..

    Circa 2013, post P2P sharing and several other mitigating factors, global music revenue had been slashed & gutted to $15 billion. The US share bottoms out around $7 billion annually.

    Ok, so short of me being scalped again, I’ll add this most recent addendum report to the thread.

    MIDiA Research has released its second State of the Streaming Nation report.

    The report notes that streaming revenue alone (globally) in 2016 was $7.6 billion. It projects that streaming will reach $20.1 billion by 2025. Paid subscribers are also expected to increase from 106 million in 2016 to 336 million in 2025. <-- The music market now is a dramatically different one than that which existed in 2015 when there were "just" 67.5 million subscribers.

    The current numbers and trend (solely via streaming) represent a much needed shot in the arm overall to a very ailing and stagnant industry.

    One of the most notable takeaways I gathered here is that many millions of “average music consumers” are now spending $120/year on subscription music alone compared to $64/yr. on all forms vs. the “good ol’ days of 1999. And according to the research, people will continue to do so going forward.
    a.k.a. People are finally and willfully paying for music again…double-time.

    Yes, this is macro scale econ and I’m sure many are pondering how all this boom-town growth trickles down to the songwriters and performing artists in the form of compensation. As I’d mentioned earlier, understanding this disruptive/transitional music streaming biz has much to do about amortization and scale; both macro (industry) and micro (artists). So based upon many fantastic comments here, I think it’s fair we discuss and put some Perspective on these “incredulous” and "unfair" thousandths of pennies per play. I’ll pos that piece a bit later.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
    uofmtiger, eljr and Rockyhill like this.
  5. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,134
    Location:
    NYC

    so there is still plenty of money to go around

    good link, made clear much
     
  6. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    Ah yes. If only intellectual property law, contracts, and musicians real life were just that simple.

    A handful of artists/bands do have "donation"/buy direct schemes on their site...if they can afford (time moreso than cash) a website. Some distributors offer a "web package" but that too comes at a cost of someone's time and money. A small subset of the handful do reap revenues above nickels and dimes. They do "OK" with what comes in from rabid fans and the occasional drive by. Not saying it's not worthwhile. It's a you get what you give deal.

    Every artist/band should indeed have a regularly updated fresh presence on the Internet along with a seamless means to contribute.
    Problem/issue is, the overall "windfall" is relatively minimal for the average artist and most, even moderately successful, bands simply do not have the time and/or expertise (techno or marketing wise) to actively promote and manage that piece. Some do, some don't. Overall, that's a manager's job...so, say hello to the 20% or more take of bottom line rule. [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  7. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    Not at all RhythmGJ. Thanks for "quoting" me but that's nowhere near where I'm coming from mate. I'm simply attempting to point out that this is a disruptive transition that is finally beginning to turn a very long & winding corner.

    Yes it's painful for many learning yet another curve ball. It sucks, yes. It has nothing to do with diligence or intelligence. But a considerable part of this new "money grab/grub" cluster-fuck (for the average musician) is due primarily to a very frustrating ignorance issue. Please do not take that as a disparaging comment. Take it in the vain that most singers/songwriters/performers simply don't know how to navigate, promote, and negotiate by this new distribution scheme.

    Same as the old boss, there are those in a high castle (labels and artists alike) that do know how and are skimming the cream off the top. But streaming services are not at the top of this food chain...they're smack dab in the middle of a very tight viper pit.

    Yes, some in the chain do take advantage and artists' hands are many times tied contractually and "independently" at various points along the way, but there are ways that artists small, medium and large can maximize/exploit the streaming system. So not it's not, as you say I said, "things are good as they are"...my spiel toward the artist, band, or small indy label is that it's an eat or be eaten and/or lemons to lemonade state of the business.

    I'm not trying to be some dickweed antagonist here. I'm honestly trying to help steer artists and musicians such as yourself forward through some muddy & choppy water. :)
    OK. That all sounds extremely egregious. Let's examine and discuss (for perspective) this micro accounting ballyhoo.
    "Lots of plays"
    "1000ths and 10,000ths of a penny"
    "hell of a lot more than .001 cent per song"

    Let me begin with asking you individually and jointly,
    --How many plays/listens is "a lot"?
    --What would you deem fair as a royalty per listen from an on-demand streaming service to pay to the rights holder?
    --What would you deem fair as a royalty payment per listen from an online radio station/webcaster?
    --How much do you think/know the average artist/band receives from the sale of a $16 retail CD?


    No trick questions here. I and others really want to hear some clear and factual feedback/numbers from both camps on your side of the streaming fence; an artist and an average consumer. Well, @Alobar is probably not average, but I'm fairly convinced he is an honest music consumer. ;) I'd also like to prod new member @Alan LaFleur back into this mix as another real world payee. All ears fellas.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
    eljr likes this.
  8. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,134
    Location:
    NYC
    IMHO, these questions are most powerful left as rhetorical.

    Point made.

    yawn
     
  9. Alobar

    Alobar Pulling out of the Last Chance Texaco.. Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,277
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    I don't know the exact figures, because there are not any really. Each were different from the days before the CD or LP. Still when I went down and bought a CD, I made a commitment to actually pay for that music. When I stream it, I rent it for a few minutes. Lets say that the artist received 10% on a CD (I believe I have heard this as a possible breakdown for the artist). That may be high, maybe low but it is an easy number to do math in my head with (dangerous thing for me) Again for ease of mental mathematics, lets say there are 10 songs on that CD. The artist in this case received $1 from me alone for 10 songs, or another way to look at it, 10 cents per song. Now lets compare it to streaming. Again keeping math simple, lets say they get from me .001 cents per song to stream it once. That is one thousandths of a penny so in order to break even with what the artists made I would have to stream each of those 10 songs 10,000 times! An unlikely thing to happen for any one individual.

    While I can agree that nobody seems to be getting rich at this point, I am now starting to think even more than ever that streaming as a business model is doomed with the $10 a month pricing structure. Cell phones charge a lot per month, and there is a piece of ever changing hardware attached to it. Streaming has no hardware (other than any generic device connected to the web) and thus nothing to buy to join in on this great new future of listening. Without any hardware to buy (remember Apple is basically a hardware company and Microsoft is basically software and look how each is doing now!) streaming outfits will continue to cut each others throats.

    Remember the thread topic claims to be "better off". My point in a prior thread was that we paid much more per month on music before streaming than we do now. I would buy an lp every few weeks to a month and those ran 7 to 10 bucks each and in dollars much more dear than they are today. I would submit to you that the only ones who are truly "better off" are the listeners, or at least in appearance they are. Could be in fact that when there is nobody producing new music anymore, or it all starts sounding a little like Muzak, then he will wonder what happened to the "greats", where they all gone too... Well the short answer will be heaven, where they can perform without the need for compensation!

    To say that "Music industry is better off with streaming" is a little like a prisoner is better off getting 3 meals a day in jail than out on the streets. What choice does the music industry have today other than to embrace their fate?



    Thanks for the complement! I do appear to strive to be a non-conformist! :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  10. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,134
    Location:
    NYC
    so the $25 a month I pay to stream does not count?

    someone earlier in the thread submitted a link showing that at cd's heyday the average spend was $61 a year for music enthusiast


    12 times 10 is 120

    :rolleyes:
     
  11. Alobar

    Alobar Pulling out of the Last Chance Texaco.. Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,277
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    I am unfamiliar with a $25 a month plan. It sounds like a step in the right direction however. The $10 a month was used because the major players have set their prices to it. Spotify, AM, etc. Some are less like Amazon unlimited, and of course Pandora.

    Yes averages. Numbers can be made to say so much! Was that $61 a year adjusted for inflation? Was it in the Napster era before law enforcement got off their butts? Was it the start of the 99 cent song era? I like to think of the heyday as being before the internet became a "thing". That 120 a year spent, and factored into it were inflation, would be approximately 25 or 30 bucks a year in 1975. As +48V says, I ain't average, but I know I bought more than 3 lp's a year back then..

    Yes, but 10,000 plays of those 10 songs for the artist to reach the break even point for buying the cd is still an impossibility unless I set it up to just play 24/7.. Who does that? As it was brought to my attention, in spite of what I may have read elsewhere, nobody is making any money at this.. So where is the end game? One thing is pretty certain, the ones making the music will have a long wait for money from increased revenue in the "industry" to trickle down the line that far.. I would submit at this point that the artists are really not part of the music industry to which the OP speaks of.
     
  12. uofmtiger

    uofmtiger Super Member

    Messages:
    4,364
    Location:
    Memphis
    I think "a lot" is really hard to measure. It depends on the artist. Bob Dylan has sold "a lot" of records, but he isn't Elvis. However, when we are talking about streaming, the numbers are going to be much larger than sells of a single in terms of the fact that you are being tracked every time you go back to it, rather than just being tracked for buying it once. If I listen to one song 50 times because it my favorite workout track, it isn't like I would pay $50 for it.

    Let's put this in perspective. Drake has over 3.5 billion streams of one album. In comparison, The Beatles have reportedly (certified) sold 270 million albums (when you add them all together). We definitely aren't comparing Apples to Apples.
     
  13. Rockyhill

    Rockyhill WDEV Waterbury, VT "Tallest Tower in N.E." Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Maine
    Crap, now I know I'm old. That fact plus the Shingles vaccine I received last week confirm it.
     
    uofmtiger likes this.

Share This Page