Music industry better off with streaming...

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

  1. Rockyhill

    Rockyhill 148 State Street Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,044
    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 148 State Street Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,044
    Location:
    Maine
  3. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,964
    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:
    2,482
    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
  5. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,964
    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:
    2,482
    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:
    2,482
    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:
    17,964
    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:
    3,983
    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:
    17,964
    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:
    3,983
    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:
    4,518
    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.
     
    +48V likes this.
  13. Rockyhill

    Rockyhill 148 State Street Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,044
    Location:
    Maine
    Crap, now I know I'm old. That fact plus the Shingles vaccine I received last week confirm it.
     
    +48V and uofmtiger like this.
  14. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,482
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    Other life chores now on the sideline, time for me to catch up and address the thread again.
    I do. ;)
    While defacto “exact” figures are/have always been contract privy and not freely or readily available to the general public at large, “exact figures” do exist and are provided to artists, labels, publishers, and other industry professionals. More on this below relating to "thousandths".
    That’s a notable and fair “inflation” question. While I noted earlier both the pinnacle and bust periods of the music industry, let me reiterate and clarify the date range again for you. The posthumous “heyday” of the music industry I referred to was in fact 1999 (the nascent Napster era)…not 1975. And the per person annual expenditure for an ardent music fan at this time was $64/yr. ...not $61/yr. [corrected in quote above] Probably worth noting that music consumers as a whole (average/non-fanatics) were only spending around $28/yr. on music in 1999.

    To clear things up with inflation fairness, $64 dollars spent in 1999 boils up to $95 in 2017. So at $120/yr. we’re now $25/yr. above the historical all time low of the music business circa 2008. Added to that, sales are exploding comparatively and trending well above & beyond based upon just the past 3 years of stats. Again, point being, people are finally beginning to buy music again gratuitously...despite numerous "free" outlets.

    That’s a tremendously significant and positive fact given the dry lake-bed of overall revenue the past 18 years. :)
     
  15. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,482
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    Now let's clean up the following ballyhoo'd and misconstrued "thousandths" language.
    OK. For clarity sake, let's first correct some much misunderstood, ever-popular and fantastic rhetoric. Foremost, the actual "per stream rate" of 'X' is measured universally as a standard in dollars...not cents. So out of the gate your presumed/stated figures are off by a factor of 100. By RGJ's gung-ho accounting, he's exaggerating by a factor of 1,000 & 10,000 respectively. In of itself, that's a good damn gob of... Perspective. ;)

    Also, short of getting into what any given artist actually receives at the end of the day from their label and/or distributor in whatever format, your presumed 10% share of a $10 CD math here is consequently faulty on it's face value since deals done on points/percentages are based on wholesale price...not retail price. So however valuable/invaluable, (per yer admittedly simple 10% analysis above) let's take an indy artist's spoils down to 70 cents per CD. Then back out stamping and physical distribution & packaging costs. The "artist" is lucky if 40 cents is left over to divvy up. Ergo, that boils down to $.04 (4 cents) per track.

    Per stream values/rates/payouts at wholesale from subscription on-demand services are currently floating between $.0045 and $.0065 per track streamed. So then, 100 (not 10,000) listens on a subscription streaming service is par with the per track gratuity you gave to the artist in perpetuity. See how that works? Perspective?

    Notes:
    --@uofmtiger beat me to yet another very salient point during my hiatus that I'd planned on sharing. The new school digital Drake vs. the old school analog Beatles sales volume....
    "unit" perspective... scaled appropriately. :deal:

    --another notoriously overlooked & unconsidered fact in the grand scheme of the said "thousandths" picture is that the total number of streams delegated per any given track includes any listen while browsing/exploring an artist's catalog which exceeds 30 seconds.

    While just a little bit closer on the bytes, these addtional points hopefully help explain why the "enormous volume" of 10s of thousands of streams ain't really all that high of a bar... these streaming days.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  16. Alobar

    Alobar Pulling out of the Last Chance Texaco.. Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,983
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    So are you saying that if I stream every track of an album 100 times that is the break even point for stream/cd? I am looking at the play counts of some of my most played tracks over the several years I have been playing music on JRiver (it's in the Metadata ) and none have gotten 100 plays (that is individual tracks ) so for me, even taking 10% of the wholesale rate the artist are making much more from me on cd sales. I of course don't have the vast limitless galaxy of music in my offline library that the streaming outfits have so likely replay music more than the average streaming listener does. After all there is only 24/7 available out there, and I generally spend about 3 to 4 hours it listening to music. Point being that your original opinion statement volley was saying the "industry" is better off. I'm not seeing it, maybe for all the different parts but not the artist, unless we are talking about everyone playing every song on an album an average of 100 times. That is a sure way to burnout IMHO!
     
  17. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,482
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    What I'm plainly saying/said is that your math (.001 cents per track streamed) is exponentially off by a factor of 100. I tried to convey to you (lend perspective) that your amazing armchair claim/misconception of streaming each track 10,000 times per 10 track CD is extremely erroneou$ and enormou$ly exaggerated. Essentially you equated 100,000 streams (10 tracks each streamed 10,000 times) to gross merely $10. Yet if you apply actual median royalty dollar amounts/payouts from subscription services, your stingy $10 gross would actually be $500 gross.
    Just trying whittle some fairly common errant and aggrandized rhetoric into factual info using your example. :)

    I posted news and related facts regarding the current state of affairs within & about the music industry. As I stated before, I'm an active and staunch advocate for both sides. Also, it has been stated here before and holds true since the beginning of recorded music; the consumer never has had any real overall control as to what ultimately ends up in the artist's pocket. That's not gonna change. Yet there is a groundswell of folks that chomp at the bit to single out and blame the streaming services soley for yet another "new boss" shitty payday. That's simply not the truth. And inaccurate armchair accounting attributed to payouts from streaming services does nothing but exacerbate that issue.

    I'm a messenger. So please don't shoot. Just trying to clean things (like your mistaken math) up a good bit.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  18. Alobar

    Alobar Pulling out of the Last Chance Texaco.. Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,983
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Hey nothing wrong with the math, just was always told many times what the actual artist got was. 001 to .004 cents per stream . You say. 001 dollar, you are the expert, you professionally represent "both sides" (however that works) , who am I to argue? Still at the end of the day, when a household can listen to tens of millions of songs any time or place they want, presumably into perpetuity for the unbelievable price of $10 per month, can't you see just how undervalued that is? How unsustainable ? I would happily have spent over 4 times that much in inflation adjusted dollars on just one lp back in my day! Now just because we look back at the Napster era we can justify this hogwash as somehow being better off. Even by your numbers (which a few artists here seem To disagree with ) this situation is a frigging mess for the industry or at least the part of it i care the most about.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  19. uofmtiger

    uofmtiger Super Member

    Messages:
    4,518
    Location:
    Memphis
    What we have learned:

    The good part for the consumer

    1. People can listen to a variety of music for $10 a month.
    2. People have more choices for music to listen to.
    3. Most services will tailor the service around the consumer's taste
    4. No longer have to rely on the radio for new music
    5. Nothing to lose by trying new music

    The bad part for the consumer
    1. $10 a month buys you an experience, but you have nothing tangible at the end of the month.


    The artists upside:
    1. More artists and songs will be played
    2. that could end up helping them fill seats at shows.
    3. Some (not all) will make more money (Drake would be exhibit A).
    4. They get paid for rentals vs buys. This means they get paid when someone who would have never have bought their album was willing to try it as part of a monthly service.
    5. Some people will play it a few times on the service and want to buy it. Double income streams. (edit: some will also get additional income from people that have already paid for an album and then stream it on a service)
    6. Some will play it over and over (ie Drake, Swift, Adele, Coldplay, Sheeren, etc.) and the artist get paid over and over.

    Artist downside
    1.Some (not all) will make less money because someone may listen to their album once and never go back to it, but may have bought the CD.
    2. Easier to live on "filler" in the old market. Put out one catchy song, fill the rest of the album with toss offs and you still get paid for the purchase of the whole album (even if they person hated the rest of the album and only listened to it once).
    3. Will need to have songs/albums people want to listen to over and over and want to share.

    The industry that uses it as a value added service:
    1. Apple
    2. Google
    3. Amazon

    These are the major players in the world. They have music services and therefore the industry is going no where. You want a sustainable business, have Apple, Google, and Amazon all support it.

    The fact is that all of the markets are driven by the consumer. Not everyone can make a living making music. If it was that easy, no one would choose to dig ditches for a living when they could sit at home and get paid to play their banjo.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
    +48V, Rockyhill and eljr like this.
  20. eljr

    eljr Koyaanisqatsi Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,964
    Location:
    NYC
    First, great summation! Thanks

    why would anyone want to buy it? OK, maybe someone our age but no one under 50 is gonna bother with that kind of redundancy.

    $10 in this day and age is essentially free.

    What did you get? The same as if your owned it. The enjoyment of the artistry.
     

Share This Page