Music industry better off with streaming...

That sensational graph gets picked up and parroted back by countless other outlets and inevitably digested hook, line, & sinker by Joe Blow music customer. It's awfully disingenuous, ultimately deceptive, and well...chaps my ass as an advocate for both artists and streaming providers. Does that make sense?

As a card carrying member of the Joe Blow Music Customers Guild it might help me to understand in what capacity you are in where you advocate for both artists and streaming providers? This to me seems almost a conflict of interest, or at least a conflict of terms. How exactly do you "advocate" for both? Is this done at the same time, or do you get hired out at different times to represent one or the other, like an attorney or perhaps a lobbyist? Or perhaps you do all this as a hobby? I would like to understand how you advocate for artists in particular. Is this all inclusive, all artists, or just the ones who hire you to advocate for them?

I know that this angers you, the gross misrepresentation of the facts as you see them, but this whole thread hinges on a LOT of easily skewed statistics, and a somewhat complex bit of mathematical formula where the truth can become more than a little obscured. Yes you did set some of the record straight as to payment to the artists and I appreciate that, but much still is a bit mysterious. And not all artist do as well with streaming either as opposed to selling their music to their fans for instance . Nowhere have I seen where you have acknowledged this. I will give you an example of what I am talking about. Small lesser known artists in the music business wouldn't see much from streaming, but currently are none the less making a go of it in small venues, fairs, festivals, etc. If they were to ask the people who came to watch their show to now please go home and stream their music (a lot), how much income could they expect to get from a few hundred people? a few dollars maybe.. But if they were to instead say they will be selling CD's during intermission and after the show, and considering their cut wouldn't be after Walmart's, what would they as musicians prefer that we as listeners do? CDs sold in this way would net them perhaps up to half the costs based on eliminating the stores cut and even shipping. My point here is that not everyone will be a big winner when cd players are found only in museums.

The complete elimination of purchased music would cut into small venue artists revenue. Why do I say that? Because in a few years when streaming takes over the worlds music and nobody has even a device to play purchased music that no CD's can be sold, and fans can't show support by purchasing their wares. It is the same in effect as somehow removing canvas and brushes from painters. Ridiculous I know, but it is the removal of hard copy we are talking about here.
 
I gotta say, despite me starting this thread, you, Alobar have been a most engaging host. Kudos!
I know that this angers you, the gross misrepresentation of the facts as you see them, but this whole thread hinges on a LOT of easily skewed statistics, and a somewhat complex bit of mathematical formula where the truth can become more than a little obscured.
Facts as I see them? Angry? LOL, naw...save the strawman tact Dave. I, the RIAA, and others here have bestowed real numbers and real facts; they are what they are. Truthfully, I did correct a 1,000 fold error on your assumption of pay scale; but more on point it's how micro payments can be presented that obscures one's viewpoint. To that concern, that pink bubbles chart posted earlier really screwed the pooch in terms of incidental and/or purposeful agenda driven obscurity.

Music revenues are finally going up thanks mainly to paid on-demand streaming. Streaming, as of 2016 now rakes in 51% of total music sales. The former head of Warner Music admits that the industry is better off thanks to streaming. I personally know of several, virtually unknown, "pizza money" artists/bands that are making 100-250k annually on streaming alone. Are you insinuating that I've somehow skewed or misrepresented these facts? :(
Yes you did set some of the record straight as to payment to the artists and I appreciate that, but much still is a bit mysterious. And not all artist do as well with streaming either as opposed to selling their music to their fans for instance . Nowhere have I seen where you have acknowledged this.
Huh? Acknowledge what? Where...anywhere did I say that artists should cease selling their CDs at local venues or through physical distribution in lieu of streaming? That's as untrue as it is ridiculous. I've said and maintain that streaming is a necessary addendum to their cash quiver...not a total revenue replacement. The fundamental flaw here is that you are posing things in "either/or" terms? That's a vacuous and unreasonable stance.
The complete elimination of purchased music would cut into small venue artists revenue. Why do I say that? Because in a few years when streaming takes over the worlds music and nobody has even a device to play purchased music that no CD's can be sold, and fans can't show support by purchasing their wares. It is the same in effect as somehow removing canvas and brushes from painters. Ridiculous I know, but it is the removal of hard copy we are talking about here.
Complete elimination of music purchases? 3.9 billion dollars worth (and growing) of streaming purchases within a 7.7 billion dollar market last year does not comport well with your crystal ball mate. Small artists are and can be doing just as well as they were 10 to 20+ years ago.
As a card carrying member of the Joe Blow Music Customers Guild it might help me to understand in what capacity you are in where you advocate for both artists and streaming providers? This to me seems almost a conflict of interest, or at least a conflict of terms. How exactly do you "advocate" for both?
Simply put, Radio. Tis the mysterious avenue that bridges this “great non-sensical and conflicted divide” as you call it. It’s also why I am keenly aware of the sausage factory details on both sides of the streaming royalty issue.

I approach and am approached by/cater to both up and coming and established independent artists/bands as well as managers, agents, & records labels at various levels. As I’d mentioned before, things aren’t as divisive as you/one might think between artists and “the industry”. It’s a symbiotic dance. Especially concerning small sub or independent labels. Runs the gamut from a slam to a waltz.

Sure, like any other concern, I’ve dealt with a fair share of assholes. But overall along the way, from my first toe in the water to today, the number of great, hard working folks, and mutually beneficial friendly relationships that exist and harbor far out-weigh the ever-present associated assholery of the business. As a side note, for the record… “assholes” are an essential ingredient to the stew of “success” in this realm.

Contrary to what you may think of the “industry”, at it’s core and below the fold of mega stardom lives a most fantastic creative place to be—a semi-solid group of people including artists and promotion folks. As I remarked earlier, it works—in spite of the "present" techno-transitional bumps. Handled and navigated/negotiated smartly, streaming does work; and it pays. You say lemons…I preach lemonade.

Much of my digital/streaming history in this universe is inside baseball experience so I cannot expect the average music consumer to really dig into the back door minutia and totally understand where I’m coming from. But it’s somewhat frustrating to see and hear practically anything rather than doom and gloom for artists and the industry when it comes to streaming. Particularly when the truth is misrepresented. Again, music has turned a big and overdue corner away from it’s main menace--piracy.

The sun is now rising and shining on the southwest side of the house. Communicating this and coaching artists & labels on how and where to best furrow and plant comes part and parcel with which I’m involved. Been doing such actively and enthusiastically for a over a decade. And I’ve yet to see any significant negative impact on a band or label that embraced streaming as part of their distribution scheme. So far, the ones that do, typically and historically out earn the “non-streamers”.
 
Facts as I see them? Angry? LOL, naw...save the strawman tact Dave
. It's awfully disingenuous, ultimately deceptive, and well...chaps my ass as an advocate for both artists and streaming providers
No strawman here. You have had an angry tone here in much of this thread. you seem angry that people might have and express a different opinion than yours or challenge you in some way. All I have wanted was for you to explain streaming clearly and concisely, like an advocate should be able to do. How it works and how the math behind it works for the artists as well as the industry. .
simply put, Radio
So you are in radio ? How does that explain how you are an advocate for both artists and industry?


And I’ve yet to see any significant negative impact on a band or label that embraced streaming as part of their distribution scheme. So far, the ones that do, typically and historically out earn the “non-streamers”.
That sounds like many other claims and factoids I have heard that can be skewed quite easily. In fact I can see I am never going to get a clear concise explanation of how this complex system is better off for the bottom rung . You say you are in a position to know and yet much of what you say is almost in riddle form . i would have liked from you a clearer description of your job, to help me to understand just how your unique position makes you a credible authority in how streaming works, the business model, the math behind it, how its broken down, who gets how much per stream but i guess i am never going to get that from you so am forced to take your word that the artists are as you say, better off.
 
No strawman here. You have had an angry tone here in much of this thread. you seem angry that people might have and express a different opinion than yours or challenge you in some way. All I have wanted was for you to explain streaming clearly and concisely, like an advocate should be able to do. How it works and how the math behind it works for the artists as well as the industry. .

So you are in radio ? How does that explain how you are an advocate for both artists and industry?


That sounds like many other claims and factoids I have heard that can be skewed quite easily. In fact I can see I am never going to get a clear concise explanation of how this complex system is better off for the bottom rung . You say you are in a position to know and yet much of what you say is almost in riddle form . i would have liked from you a clearer description of your job, to help me to understand just how your unique position makes you a credible authority in how streaming works, the business model, the math behind it, how its broken down, who gets how much per stream but i guess i am never going to get that from you so am forced to take your word that the artists are as you say, better off.

Hmmm, OK then. I and others have posted verifiable facts and salient information counter to opposing (your) armchair opinion that on-demand streaming is the death nell to artists and/or the industry as a whole. Thanks for the unwarranted snarky reply by the way.

I have not presented any “easily skewed factoids”. Just hard real current numbers relating to streaming revenue. And those substantiated numbers speak for themselves. Tit for tat, if you believe I've offered anything but genuine/typical figures...then please, let me know show your cards to the contrary.

General wholesale pricing for both CDs and on-demand streaming were stated way back on page X were they not?. To refresh; $7 on a $10 CD. $.005-$.008 per stream/listen. And again, as to how much ultimately ends up in an artist's/band's wallet from wholesale, streaming revenue (typically) is subject to the same conventional percentage breakdown/split. So here she blows....Net moola varies based on contracts.
-Producer 2-3%
-Songwriter 5%
-Distributor 10-15%
-Record Label 30%
-Manager 15-20%
-Studio Time .5-2%
-Dup & Packaging (Bulk CD) 2.5%
-Artist/Band (signed) 12-15%
___________________________________________________________________________

As for you questioning why a position in radio lends itself to being an advocate for both artists and “the industry”. I assumed most people could/would connect those dots. I tried to convey that it’s about building and maintaining mutual relationships. Some of that connection(s) I can share publicly/generically here. Sorry, I can’t and will not drop names. So yeah, on that front you're just gonna have to trust me with what I can/will share :/

My tone for much of this thread? Seriously? LOL...Pot, kettle, black mate. Have I barked about bogus data and sensationalist media on this matter?, damn straight. But I have in no way been “angry” toward anyone’s opinion on this issue. I attacked the data that was posted upon which their (your) opinion was/is based upon in the hope that they may question what they’ve been told or read. I believe that the record shows that “my tone” here toward you and others has been nothing less than very cordial and accommodating. You even remarked as much.

I PM’d you very early on with a fairly good bio on my 20+ year experience in the industry. But it’s apparent that like much of the other pertinent info that has been posted here…you choose to gloss over and/or ignore most all of it; very casually and conveniently.

Credible authority? For what it's worth Alobar, you and/or anyone else here can take anything that I’ve posted or proclaimed here as complete bullshit. Frankly, I really don’t know what you want/need from me at this point short of my SS number, home/business address, phone number, and business license. And please, feel free to continue to publicly insinuate that my “credentials” are suspect. Fine by me. All I can say there is, You asked, I answered honestly.
Good deeds punished… indeed.

PS. You do appear to have an inordinate tendency to project F.U.D. and conspiracy. And the thread thus far bears this out… in spades. Party on pal.
 
Hmmm, OK then. I and others have posted verifiable facts and salient information counter to opposing (your) armchair opinion that on-demand streaming is the death nell to artists and/or the industry as a whole. Thanks for the unwarranted snarky reply by the way.

I have not presented any “easily skewed factoids”. Just hard real current numbers relating to streaming revenue. And those substantiated numbers speak for themselves. Tit for tat, if you believe I've offered anything but genuine/typical figures...then please, let me know show your cards to the contrary.

General wholesale pricing for both CDs and on-demand streaming were stated way back on page X were they not?. To refresh; $7 on a $10 CD. $.005-$.008 per stream/listen. And again, as to how much ultimately ends up in an artist's/band's wallet from wholesale, streaming revenue (typically) is subject to the same conventional percentage breakdown/split. So here she blows....Net moola varies based on contracts.
-Producer 2-3%
-Songwriter 5%
-Distributor 10-15%
-Record Label 30%
-Manager 15-20%
-Studio Time .5-2%
-Dup & Packaging (Bulk CD) 2.5%
-Artist/Band (signed) 12-15%
___________________________________________________________________________

As for you questioning why a position in radio lends itself to being an advocate for both artists and “the industry”. I assumed most people could/would connect those dots. I tried to convey that it’s about building and maintaining mutual relationships. Some of that connection(s) I can share publicly/generically here. Sorry, I can’t and will not drop names. So yeah, on that front you're just gonna have to trust me with what I can/will share :/

My tone for much of this thread? Seriously? LOL...Pot, kettle, black mate. Have I barked about bogus data and sensationalist media on this matter?, damn straight. But I have in no way been “angry” toward anyone’s opinion on this issue. I attacked the data that was posted upon which their (your) opinion was/is based upon in the hope that they may question what they’ve been told or read. I believe that the record shows that “my tone” here toward you and others has been nothing less than very cordial and accommodating. You even remarked as much.

I PM’d you very early on with a fairly good bio on my 20+ year experience in the industry. But it’s apparent that like much of the other pertinent info that has been posted here…you choose to gloss over and/or ignore most all of it; very casually and conveniently.

Credible authority? For what it's worth Alobar, you and/or anyone else here can take anything that I’ve posted or proclaimed here as complete bullshit. Frankly, I really don’t know what you want/need from me at this point short of my SS number, home/business address, phone number, and business license. And please, feel free to continue to publicly insinuate that my “credentials” are suspect. Fine by me. All I can say there is, You asked, I answered honestly.
Good deeds punished… indeed.

PS. You do appear to have an inordinate tendency to project F.U.D. and conspiracy. And the thread thus far bears this out… in spades. Party on pal.
Snarky, me? Seems you would know about snarky. This last post of yours writes the book on it, drips of it in fact. As for what it is that you do for a living that makes you a self proclaimed authority, frankly even after reading your pm to me it is just downright VAGUE.As is your facts and figures. I don't need your personal information , just a description of the type of work you do, and an example of it and how it makes you know what you are talking about would go along way towards understanding and even trusting what it is that you are saying. You opened this door by saying you were credible because you were in the business , I just wanted to know what sort of business that is. "Radio" was apparently your answer which tells me nothing . I am done with this, your insulting responses, your playing victim . You're incapable of convincing me of anything.
 
I never used Pandora, but now that it is built right into my Dots, it gets played regularly. I think there are a lot more voice controlled speakers since Amazon started pushing the Dot, so the numbers makes sense.

Spotify is growing subscriber base at faster pace than Apple Music. Surprising.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/60-million-subscribers-spotify-dominating-195250485.html

I always thought the free to subscriber path that Spotify has would continue to help them grow. If Apple wanted to win in the short run, they should have offered a free service. I think Apple is more concerned with it fitting in with their premium branding and was willing to take a hit for it. If it was one of their main revenue streams, I bet they would also want a freemium to pay avenue.
 
Spotify subs probably helped by its availability on Echo; Amazon last year sold more wifi speakers than market leader Sonos, which had sold far more wifi speakers than anyone for years.
 
Spotify subs probably helped by its availability on Echo; Amazon last year sold more wifi speakers than market leader Sonos, which had sold far more wifi speakers than anyone for years.
You would think that would benefit Amazon's service, as well. I haven't seen any numbers on how Amazon Music is doing, have you?

I agree that Spotify benefits from the availability on numerous platforms, especially the Echo. Other than the freemium to pay avenue, which is unique in the streaming business, the fact that it is on products that people own, has to help them turn quite a few users from free to pay ( freemium isn't usually available on these devices).

The last I checked, Apple was adding about a million subscribers a month. That will probably go up with they introduce their HomePod. I think they said they had 27 million subscribers at this point.
 
Last edited:
I think Apple is more concerned with it fitting in with their premium branding and was willing to take a hit for it.
Me thinks the Apple Music team is tremendously hungry and is more than eager to forgo the premium "mystique" and take names. Coincidentally, I recently watched the Defiant Ones documentary (excellent doc BTW). According to producer extraordinaire/Apple Music exec Jimmy Iovine regarding AM's relative stagnation; in a team strategy session at Apple HQ he says, "There's a problem with the messaging". "No one knows what we’re talking about. I have people that I hang out with on weekends (Oct. 2016) that still don’t use this thing. (Apple Music). What are we gonna do to get people to come into AM and get them to sign up?" "Just telling them, it’s there, is not enough, I don’t even know if advertising works.”

Apple bought Beats for 3 billion 3 years ago. Moving forward, a scorched earth tact would be to wrangle Tim & Co. to just buy Spotify. :naughty: I do wonder how many times such a suggestion (on whatever concern) comes up in meetings at 1 Infinite Loop. Could it be a "fireable" offense? LOL. Back on track....Lots of dominoes and real estate to manage on this chess board.:idea:

The last I checked, Apple was adding about a million subscribers a month. That will probably go up with they introduce their HomePod
AM had a great surge out of the gate and have grown since in leaps to being number 2. Much of that result was expected given their built in grip. Of late however, AM's growth rate, while not flat, has ebbed. Even growing at 1 million subs a month is more a testament to the boom of streaming than it is with keeping pace with the competition. Ergo, back to Jimmy's WTF to his marketing team. Apple Music peaked with mostly inherent demand among seasoned streamers. Now then, how do we get/teach the moms, dads, non-geeks (weekend warriors) that hold our iPhones interested in this product?

It'll happen for AM inevitably cause, well...they're a staple and they ain't goin south by no means. The Home Pod will certainly be a shot in the arm for AM. Yet, alas again, they're following Amazon's terrific lead and pricing in the SA/music dept. Fascinating times on the market watch.
 
Last edited:
Me thinks the Apple Music team is tremendously hungry and is more than eager to forgo the premium "mystique" and take names. Coincidentally, I recently watched the Defiant Ones documentary (excellent doc BTW). According to producer extraordinaire/Apple Music exec Jimmy Iovine regarding AM's relative stagnation; in a team strategy session at Apple HQ he says, "There's a problem with the messaging". "No one knows what we’re talking about. I have people that I hang out with on weekends (Oct. 2016) that still don’t use this thing. (Apple Music). What are we gonna do to get people to come into AM and get them to sign up?" "Just telling them, it’s there, is not enough, I don’t even know if advertising works.”

Apple bought Beats for 3 billion 3 years ago. Moving forward, a scorched earth tact would be to wrangle Tim & Co. to just buy Spotify. :naughty: I do wonder how many times such a suggestion (on whatever concern) comes up in meetings at 1 Infinite Loop. Could it be a "fireable" offense? LOL. Back on track....Lots of dominoes and real estate to manage on this chess board.:idea:


AM had a great surge out of the gate and have grown since in leaps to being number 2. Much of that result was expected given their built in grip. Of late however, AM's growth rate, while not flat, has ebbed. Even growing at 1 million subs a month is more a testament to the boom of streaming than it is with keeping pace with the competition. Ergo, back to Jimmy's WTF to his marketing team. Apple Music peaked with mostly inherent demand among seasoned streamers. Now then, how do we get/teach the moms, dads, non-geeks (weekend warriors) that hold our iPhones interested in this product?

It'll happen for AM inevitably cause, well...they're a staple and they ain't goin south by no means. The Home Pod will certainly be a shot in the arm for AM. Yet, alas again, they're following Amazon's terrific lead and pricing in the SA/music dept. Fascinating times on the market watch.
Below is from an article where Jimmy Iovine was interviewed (May 2017):

"However, he admitted that free music is "so technically good" that many people simply aren't willing to pay up. In fact, he said if Apple Music were to offer a free tier like Spotify, it "would have 400 million people on it" and make his job a lot easier. But that's not what he nor Apple believe in."

I don't know that he is really in line with upper management. He sees everything through his small scope. If Tim's top concern was growing AM, he would make it available on any platform that would have it. He hasn't done that. He would add a "freemium" service that makes it easier to get people to try the service and eventually move to subscribers. He hasn't done that either.

Also, I don't think the upper management feels as dire about what is happening right now in AM: The CFO said:

"Revenue from our Apple Music streaming service and iCloud storage also grew very strongly, and across all of our services offerings, the number of paid subscriptions reached over 185 million, an increase of almost 20 million in the last 90 days alone."

"We continue to bring more and more forms of payment in the App Store around the world. The other reason why the number of paying accounts is growing is because the quality and the quantity of content continues to improve, and so there's many more ways of experiencing games and entertainment and other apps on the store. We have other businesses like the Apple Music streaming service, which is growing very fast. We just started it a few years ago, so we are getting a lot of new subscribers there."

If they want to compete with Spotify for the #1 position in streaming, they would have to completely change their philosophy. Personally, I am not sure a freemium service fits with their branding. Either you are a premium brand or you aren't. Apple, as far as market share is concerned, has disadvantages to Windows and Android. So they aren't really #1 in users in most of the areas they compete. They have always been about premium products at premium prices. I am not sure how a free service with a bunch of ads fits into that model.

(As a side note, I said from the start that they would not be able to kill Spotify without providing a freemium version of the service. I just think Apple is more concerned with growing their services at a steady pace and bringing out more products that give Apple Music a competitive edge in Apple's ecosystem. )

It should be noted that one of the biggest complaints from long time Apple fans is that their management structure is setup like a small company. Everything in the company bows to the iPhone and iOS. It is why Apple Music has advantages on the iPhone that other services don't. It is why we see desktop Macs updated at a snail's pace. It is why many of the most recent improvements to MacOS are handoff, universal clipboard, and continuity. It is why you have to use an iPhone with the Apple Watch. I don't see Apple changing their overall philosophy while they are raking in money with a snowplow, but you never know. As far as the Beats acquisition, they got the best selling headphone brand in the world, so they should be able to make that investment back pretty quickly (they may have made it back by now, but they lump Beats in with a bunch of other stuff..like they do with AM, so no one outside of Apple knows).

As for them buying Spotify. I can't see it happening. The things Spotify is doing to grow their base are things Apple Music could do as well. They just haven't shown any interest in those things.
 
Last edited:
Fair points all. But I’d argue (whether Tim is directly aiming to or not) that if Apple Music was leading the pack today, (and they may very well be at some point) there’d be no shortage of Apple PR and news blurbs proclaiming that Apple is the world’s best & largest streaming service. :D

Mainly I was just noting what Jimmy said 7 months earlier in a more “fly on the wall” reality environment rather than fielding direct questions from a reporter. I can’t help but think Jimmy was probably wearing a more heavily starched shirt on that 9TO5 sit down. ? You gotta admit that he took some license on the puffery front. ;)

I dunno, maybe things have since been realized, more crystallized, and they/he is not as "concerned" as he was when he said internally, “we have a messaging problem” as far as growing the business/awareness of Apple Music.

Like I said, lots of expensive dominoes are involved when it comes to any one (or two) directions that are deemed feasible and prudent. And so goes for what Tim Cook has or hasn’t done so far. Freemium would probably cost them more longhaul than a buyout; all despite them keeping the hood ornament on the Rolls polished. :D

Buying Spotify? Tongue was mostly in cheek with that remark. To that, I agree it probably won’t happen. Apple is fairly content with their direction and what’s on their plate right now. That, and Spotify will likely not sell; even at gobs above their present FMV what with an IPO on the horizon.

As we consistently remark, timel tell.
:lurk: :beerchug:
 
Fair points all. But I’d argue (whether Tim is directly aiming to or not) that if Apple Music was leading the pack today, (and they may very well be at some point) there’d be no shortage of Apple PR and news blurbs proclaiming that Apple is the world’s best & largest streaming service. :D

Mainly I was just noting what Jimmy said 7 months earlier in a more “fly on the wall” reality environment rather than fielding direct questions from a reporter. I can’t help but think Jimmy was probably wearing a more heavily starched shirt on that 9TO5 sit down. ? You gotta admit that he took some license on the puffery front. ;)

I dunno, maybe things have since been realized, more crystallized, and they/he is not as "concerned" as he was when he said internally, “we have a messaging problem” as far as growing the business/awareness of Apple Music.

Like I said, lots of expensive dominoes are involved when it comes to any one (or two) directions that are deemed feasible and prudent. And so goes for what Tim Cook has or hasn’t done so far. Freemium would probably cost them more longhaul than a buyout; all despite them keeping the hood ornament on the Rolls polished. :D

Buying Spotify? Tongue was mostly in cheek with that remark. To that, I agree it probably won’t happen. Apple is fairly content with their direction and what’s on their plate right now. That, and Spotify will likely not sell; even at gobs above their present FMV what with an IPO on the horizon.

As we consistently remark, timel tell.
:lurk: :beerchug:

Personally, I didn't see the "Defiant Ones", but it has to be frustrating to be asked to make the music service explode while having one arm tied behind your back and maybe being put in a potato sack. A lot of what I have heard from Jimmy about trying to make AM a pop culture phenomenon comes from his roots at Beats. They were able to take the headphone business into that realm by making sure every star in all walks of life had a pair of Beats headphones around their necks or on their heads. Nearly every thirteen year old kid identifies with one of the people wearing the headphones. You can't do that with a music service.

While I think Apple would love to have more iOS devices in the world than Android devices and more Macs than Windows PCs, sometimes you have to find other ways to market a product than just saying it is the most popular. If you remember, at one time, Apple was the renegade and sold that idea to "Think Different" crowd. Of course, they could pull out their financial statement if they want to show how coming in second or third pays off, but I don't think they want to go there.:biggrin:

Personally, I don't see AM being worth much to their bottom line as a stand alone product. Has Spotify ever made a profit? When or if it has, does that profit compare to the profit of any hardware Apple is selling? They seem to think it makes more sense to use it in combo with products that actually make money (often a ton of it) and that is what they are doing. The main exception to this thinking was when they put it on Android, but I think they wanted to at least get it off the ground without having every limb tied behind their back. Now that they are #2 in the market, there is less reason to take it further outside the Apple ecosystem, but maybe Jimmy will catch Tim on a good day and convince him to put the service on more third party products? I just think they would rather try to sell you a HomePod/iPhone/AppleTV/Watch/iPad/Mac that works best with AM and grow the service with more hardware that works best with it. In other words, it is about building the ecosystem more than it is about having the number one music service.

I read an article recently that 80 percent of Spotify subscribers came from the free service. That is the power of having a free option that Apple doesn't support. They know this, which is why Jimmy was making the point that they would have 400 million users if they had a freemium service. I think his numbers are ridiculous, but if a pre-installed iOS app offered free music, I think it would be a whole lot more popular and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot closer to Spotify's numbers by now. Tim Cook obviously thinks freemium will damage the brand more than having the second largest on-demand music streaming service on the market. I am not saying he is right, but I do see where they are coming from. If they thought Apple Music could bring in billions a quarter on its own, like many of their products, they would have more incentive to change.


More from Iovine's May 2017 interview:

"I’ve put my money where my mouth is Beats Music didn’t have a free tier. Apple Music doesn’t have a free tier.

I’m not just talking it; I’m walking it. That’s why I aligned with Eddy and Tim and Steve. They thought the same way.

I think what’s going on [with free music] is wrong. I just do.To change that, he said "you've got to put everything into making the experience for people who are paying feel special."

Iovine believes that "people who pay for subscriptions should be advantaged," something Apple Music aims to accomplish with a lineup of original content in the works, including Carpool Karaoke: The Series, Vital Signs, Planet of the Apps, and an upcoming documentary with Harry Styles.In the beginning of Apple Music, I was very frustrated; I tried to fight [Spotify] and all those things.

Now all we can do is make Apple Music such a special place that people want to come and that will encourage more people [to subscribe]."


I have to think someone at Apple had to tell him that they weren't expecting to compete with Spotify on users at this point. It is silly to think that AM can catch Spotify, who not only has freemium but a several year head start, in two years. If he was thinking that was his mission, I think he has given up on it.
 
One thing I forgot to mention, is that at Apple's WWDC event, they used their products as a way to show how great AM worked with them. Here is an article about it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmc...verything-coming-to-apple-music/#d63a86046f3e

They talked about changes coming to the service, changes coming to the Watch for AM subscribers, and the new HomePod working with AM. I expect that we will see more of this in a few weeks at the new iPhone event (or whatever they call it).

With the new features they are adding to the Watch, it will be even more useful when paired with Bluetooth Headphones. Therefore, the Apple Watch sells more subscriptions of AM, while the AM features help sell more watches and that even helps them sell more Airpods/BeatsX. Same with Homepod and Siri on iOS/MacOS for that matter.

Personally, my main issue with AM advertising is that it is taking the same route that Beats took. Big stars using the device/service. I think it has to actually market the features that make it work better with iOS/watch/Mac that they have barely spoke about outside of Keynote events. The average iPhone owner has no clue that AM works with Siri or how that would benefit them. Jimmy wants the service to be ingrained in pop culture (like Beats), but I think he is wrong with his approach. If just having stars on board was great for business, Tidal would have been huge coming out of the gate.

Personally, I can't remember seeing an ad where someone was controlling their iPhone via Siri with the watch. However, I do remember Taylor Swift falling on her face. I think that is the problem (if we believe there is one).
 
Last edited:
The average iPhone owner has no clue that AM works with Siri or how that would benefit them. Jimmy wants the service to be ingrained in pop culture (like Beats), but I think he is wrong with his approach. If just having stars on board was great for business, Tidal would have been huge coming out of the gate.
I agree. :thumbsup:

Catch The Defiant Ones yet? Jimmy touches on this quandary.
 
I agree. :thumbsup:

Catch The Defiant Ones yet? Jimmy touches on this quandary.
Where can I find The Defiant Ones? I am curious to know how he explains their marketing approach with AM. Seems to me, they could have had Taylor or Drake or any other big star actually show how the product works. Just showing Taylor and Drake using it for music isn't enough...it isn't a fashionable product like Beats or iPhone (for that matter).
 
Last edited:
An interesting article about streaming and the independent artists:

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/new...cretly-fixing-your-mainstream-taste-in-tunes/

"If there's one thing that streaming has done for sure, it's created a new independent music industry," said Jorge Brea, founder and CEO of Symphonic Distribution, an independent music company in Tampa, Florida, that distributed music by Waka Flocka Flame and Deadmau5 in his early days."
 
Because, artists that are self publishing their own music, are not going to streaming. Streaming ends up being the big boys only and there are so many excellent artists not on those labels.

Streaming will never be as good as owning the medium, period. Too much noise in the stream and the compression that is used makes untenable for me and also the cost. Unless the artist gets 100% of the streaming proceeds, I will never support. That is me though.

Also, Tidal is not doing well, they are going through the 3rd CEO in so many yrs. They lost 28 million dollars last year.

http://www.techradar.com/news/tidal-may-be-doing-even-worse-than-you-thought

Yes, I know Sprint bought 33% of Tidal but that is not a guarantee that it will survive.
That article is 2017. The music artist owned TIDAL is doing very well after billionaire Shawn Carter aka Jay-Z purchasing of Aspiro AB for $56 million in 2015. TIDAL is worth over $600 million in 2019.

TIDAL with MQA is really taking off!
I’m a member in an TIDAL and MQA forum and literally see a hundred new members a week!

Car manufacturers are in line to add MQA streaming to their new automobiles.

Many high end audio manufacturers are scrambling to implement MQA into their equipment like PS Audio, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer, Meridian, Cambridge Audio, Sonos, Integra, and many more.

It’s a good day to embrace MQA.:banana:

What I do find amusing are the whole 23 MQA naysayers26DC90AE-BD32-4ECF-9E96-B601AD1B30FD.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom