hodayathink
Member
Amazon chooses not to make a profit (i.e. they invest all of their money back into their business and starting new ventures/expanding the ones they already have). If they wanted to, they could start profiting right now.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Adele's '25' Won't Be Available On Streaming Services
- Thread starter Angel_DvA
- Start date
- Status
Amazon chooses not to make a profit (i.e. they invest all of their money back into their business and starting new ventures/expanding the ones they already have). If they wanted to, they could start profiting right now.
n00bsauce87
Member
I don't know, maybe not put her in a box? Why force her to use streaming services?
So .05 (approx) is fine, but a bigger cut from a direct payment of the album isn't?
That dog doesn't hunt
How we think things were, versus how they actually were, is why this is such an easy picture for the industry to paint.
Here's a start:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=174923289
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=174928812
As always, it's where the money is going that is the problem. The big artists and labels aren't even the ones affected by the time it takes to transition to a new model at all.
Their complaints about streaming are quite frankly bollocks, and there is no moral position here. No one is stealing, everyone is contributing something, those subscribing are paying a lot more than the industry got in the past, and outstripping the loss in downloads. Basically everyone spending $120 a year on music is a little goldmine as far as the industry is concerned, and that's enough to compensate for everyone else who is still contributing something even on Spotify's ad-supported free tier.
Especially when the benefits of widespread accessibility to music, and exposure for all artists big and small, is so great.
This is just wanting a larger slice of pie now, when in the future this new pie would be big enough to feed everyone quite handsomely. It's really not the consumer's problem why some artists are starving and some are obese right now.
What's changed? Nothing, that's the point. In time it will, and they really hate that idea and its implications.
Regarding Spotify's profits and sustainability:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=167201669
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=167205569
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=167208909
Apologies for tone earlier, but it's frustrating how easily a service which transformed music in a whole number of ways has now been painted as the musical equivalent of a babykiller, just for having the audacity to make something successful and do what it was intended to do through a consumer-friendly model. The horror!
Spotify's free-tier isn't a problem, streaming services in general aren't a problem, and the arguments and actions against both are just by an industry thinking of itself both short-term and long-term, and using the leverage of artists to do so because anything else wouldn't wash nor get the results desired.
To be expected, but it's really not needed and the less we see of it the better.
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=167201669
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=167205569
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=167208909
Apologies for tone earlier, but it's frustrating how easily a service which transformed music in a whole number of ways has now been painted as the musical equivalent of a babykiller, just for having the audacity to make something successful and do what it was intended to do through a consumer-friendly model. The horror!
Spotify's free-tier isn't a problem, streaming services in general aren't a problem, and the arguments and actions against both are just by an industry thinking of itself both short-term and long-term, and using the leverage of artists to do so because anything else wouldn't wash nor get the results desired.
To be expected, but it's really not needed and the less we see of it the better.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Interesting stuff Deck'ard, thanks. I'm not seeing anything that talks about how much an artist makes from supporting Spotify et al. though. I don't disagree that if you enjoy streaming, it's a great deal. I would absolutely support it, but I've seen so many digital services come and go and I'm still constantly playing records I've owned for 20+ years. What does somebody like Adele make from Spotify? What does somebody like Jeb, the rapping crawfish catcher make? What are these high profile artists leaving the service?
assume she's unsigned with all rights - even at 100% to the artist, it would take ~130 full album plays (using her new CD as an example) to generate $10 from Spotify
if you want it weighted against physical/digital sales at that cost:
10-40% goes to the distributor in the case of a digital sale
40% goes to distribution/administration/manufacturing/retail in the case of a physical sale
so even if you remove the label/producer cut completely, it takes ~850 individual track streams on Spotify to be paid the same amount as a single album sale at the worst-case scenario split to the artist
and I know all forms of entertainment are consumed differently, but it's fun to break things down for perspective... considering the average song is 3 minutes long, Spotify would have to pay out 7x what they do now for an artist (with a 100% cut) to get paid 1 dollar for 1 hour of entertainment
if you want it weighted against physical/digital sales at that cost:
10-40% goes to the distributor in the case of a digital sale
40% goes to distribution/administration/manufacturing/retail in the case of a physical sale
so even if you remove the label/producer cut completely, it takes ~850 individual track streams on Spotify to be paid the same amount as a single album sale at the worst-case scenario split to the artist
and I know all forms of entertainment are consumed differently, but it's fun to break things down for perspective... considering the average song is 3 minutes long, Spotify would have to pay out 7x what they do now for an artist (with a 100% cut) to get paid 1 dollar for 1 hour of entertainment
I tend to really dig into an album more if I buy it off of iTunes rather than streaming it for some reason. There's something satisfying about owning a collection and just hitting shuffle and knowing every song is mostly something you'll enjoy. Idk. I have about 6000 songs so I tend to just listen to those. Spotify and Apple Music were both pretty useless for me. I buy like one album every 3 months or so. If that.
Ninja Scooter
Member
It's viable for her, as her Album will probably still sell buttloads, but the number of artists who can get away with this is shrinking.
As Greg went into above, she can make more through digital downloads. There is no argument there, it's the making it a moral thing and that streaming is stealing people's lunch with Spotify not feeding anyone at all that is disingenous. Especially from big artists and major labels who are swiping most of what is there anyway. The money streaming services would hand over to Adele if this was on there would still be enormous.
iTunes was Apple effectively dragging the record industry into the 21st century to save them. But they also hated the things that made it work - flat 0.99 pricing, and individual track sales, thinking they could make more. And when contracts came up for renewal, all the same bollocks started as well as simultaneously establishing rivals to prevent anyone else exerting control over the market again. Apple in the end was proven right anyway.
The thing with streaming though, is it isn't just dragging the industry forwards it's completely changing the business model. And this is what we should expect to happen from something like the Internet, which is putting the creators of any content in direct contact with the people who may appreciate it. For the middlemen who profit from doing that job, this is frightening.
All the streaming companies, including Spotify which is by far the biggest chunk, hand over roughly 70% of total revenue to be divided up. With this total revenue growing as this new market grows. At the moment the lionshare goes, and stays, with the major labels whose back catalogues and artists dominate the services. With the rest trickling down. Of course amounts are going to be low now, and lower because the total amount being divided up is still growing.
When the number of people subscribing to streaming services doubles, so will the amount everyone gets. It's an ever-increasing revenue model, which is why the record industry is so concerned with getting it on the best terms possible for itself.
For artists at the other end of the spectrum to Adele, the benefits of Spotify's evil free tier is getting their music out to absolutely everyone possible and then the people who like them share their playlists with others and it self-propagates. With Spotify now also automatically recommending concerts of those artists where you live. And ticket sales is where they can make their money. The major labels of course aren't concerned about this, because these artists are small, unsigned and even if they are amazing they haven't noticed them so they aren't worth anything to them yet.
When the streaming market is big enough though, those trickle down payments to these artists will start being as well, at which point they start not needing a label to fund or market them at all.
Streaming is the future, Spotify's model proved it, but Spotify also pointed to the end of the record industry's grip on things.
They don't like that, at all.
AHA-Lambda
Member
It's exactly the same as the gaming industry with used games. They're greedy shits that paint it in a bad light and some people just eat it up; why else would you get a service like Tidal that (laughably) promoted itself on artists having more money?
It's a fucking joke.
John Kowalski
Banned
oh wow we're the same age
puts things in perspective
puts things in perspective
does it really matter how much the payouts increase if the way it's paid out will always be the issue? (weighted towards large playcounts to favor the big artists/labels)
it would be a different scenario if you paid 10 dollars a month and your money was distributed accordingly to the artists you actually listened to, but if you only listen to 1 random indie song 1 time for the month, 99.99% of that money ends up going to the flavor of the month - all the more reason for a big artist like Adele to double dip in the future
and the exposure angle for smaller artists is bullshit because that's going to be a product of technology regardless of the platform... Spotify being that platform certainly helps, but that's why you're 'giving up' 30% (and exposure -> ticket sales isn't the income generator people think)
To illustrate the difference in the model, here's the total royalties that's been handed over by Spotify:
That's not what the devaluing of music looks like is it? It's the opposite.
Allowed to continue just as is, eventually everyone could be supported enough to make music their living. Well, if they weren't shit anyway. It could take a while, but it's not exactly a bad road to be on.
But that is at odds with an industry that has always milked the biggest artists at the expense of everyone else, and wants that money now.
You have to be in the game to change it.
Streaming services rely on the catalogues of the major labels or otherwise people wouldn't use them, so they set the terms.
Bandcamp is great, but it's not going to change the planet.
That's not what the devaluing of music looks like is it? It's the opposite.
Allowed to continue just as is, eventually everyone could be supported enough to make music their living. Well, if they weren't shit anyway. It could take a while, but it's not exactly a bad road to be on.
But that is at odds with an industry that has always milked the biggest artists at the expense of everyone else, and wants that money now.
You have to be in the game to change it.
Streaming services rely on the catalogues of the major labels or otherwise people wouldn't use them, so they set the terms.
Bandcamp is great, but it's not going to change the planet.
chart looks great until you realize that peak is still 'valuing' a stream at fractions of a pennyTo illustrate the difference in the model, here's the total royalties that's been handed over by Spotify:
That's not what the devaluing of music looks like is it? It's the opposite.
Allowed to continue just as is, eventually everyone would be supported enough to make music their living.
But that is at odds with an industry that has always milked the biggest artists at the expense of everyone else, and want that money now.
even at 10x payout you're looking at a quarter of a million streams for $20k (and that's assuming a 100% cut)
and that's my point with the model being flawed
obviously it's an amazing deal from a consumer's perspective, but I also think that given the option they would prefer their money went to the artists they actually listened to
for example people in this topic that don't give a shit about Adele and are still using Spotify... guess where their subscription money is going when she decides to pop up on the service!
Well you can sit there fretting comparing 2 completely different business models, or you can accept that this genie is not going back in the bottle.
Your option is there, you will just never get it as part of streaming services which rely on a deal with the Devil to get people to use them.
And the services people use are the ones artists need, something Spotify's added reach gives extra benefits to while transitioning to a different model.
privitsan02
Member
I heard some of it and it sounds rather derivative from my initial listen. Adele was never really my type of jam but she grows onto you overtime, so if it ever gets a release on Spotify, I might just leave it on in the background while I work or something.
I personally never understood why she's so popular, but its nice to have some diversity from the pop, electro and dance stuff.
Best wishes.
I personally never understood why she's so popular, but its nice to have some diversity from the pop, electro and dance stuff.
Best wishes.
when your solution is just wait until it grows 100x and everyone will live happily ever after...
Spotify gets their 30% for being the platform, so I don't know why they need defending
t-storm
Member
Which proves exactly why the music industry still doesn't get it and why critics use 'greed' as one of the nouns to label these kinds of actions.
She was never not getting paid in the first place.
I don't see the problem honestly. She's entirely entitled to the money she makes off her own CD sales. I think streaming is good for the industry, but it's very unbalanced for smaller artists. 10 dollars per CD was never much to begin with and now you can get 1000s of albums for that price legally. If you really want to hear the album buy it. She and the producers spent 100s of hours working on this for people to hear. People really dismiss and devalue the creativity in music. It's a job too. The quality of this album is another matter, she still deserves full price and she's big enough to do this.
It's called reality, and ironically you sound like the record industry telling the consumer their wrong for embracing what they liked. It doesn't work unfortunately. Who offered it them? The record industry!
Streaming services aren't going away, quite the opposite, and as they aren't going away you have to look at what else they bring to the table.
Spotify's free tier killed piracy, that's a good thing right? And got everyone in an environment where they are all paying something via ads no matter how small, and everyone is inside an environment where they can choose to subscribe at any time rather than make an active choice to seek it out. It works.
With that extra reach and no barrier to entry, sharing music with people is much easier and more effective. Not only translating to more plays, but ticket sales, merchandise, and all the more effective ways of getting money directly to artists. Something Spotify knows and actively pushes.
The quicker all streaming services grow, the better. You agree. So the good thing to do would be encourage it rather than actively hinder it correct?
Spin it however you want, but it's pure greed.
VEVO??
Edit: Just got off work and tired enough to completely miss your last sentence, but I'll let people see my dumb reply anyways.
Oh, and I think the estimate was it would take 100 million subscribers to be back to those "glory days" of the 90's they keep telling you back.
It's really not that far off, they are just grabbing the most out of the old model while trying to make sure the new one is on the best terms for them.
It would have grown even faster if they'd let Apple go with the $5 they wanted, and as with iTunes knew what was required to get mainstream adoption.
It's really not that far off, they are just grabbing the most out of the old model while trying to make sure the new one is on the best terms for them.
It would have grown even faster if they'd let Apple go with the $5 they wanted, and as with iTunes knew what was required to get mainstream adoption.
Dandy Crocodile
Member
Are you sure you're thinking of the same Adele?
It's an amazing deal for the consumer, and I'm not telling anyone they're wrong for taking advantage of it - I am a consumer, so I'm well aware of its advantages.
Saying it killed off piracy is obviously a reach because there will always be attempts to justify ("I already pay for a music service, so why would I pay for this" / "I get millions of tracks for free, so why would I pay for this"), but I agree, I'm all for consolidating.
I haven't used Spotify in a few months, but I always thought it did a poor job of connecting the fans to the artist. Maybe things have changed, but the more intricate bios were exclusive to larger distributors and labels, and there was no option to directly support (or be linked to) the artist.
Big picture, I get it, but where's the incentive now when music as an end product is viewed as worthless?
Preach. I get tired of saying the same things over and over in every streaming related thread.
With that said I'm pretty sure the album will be on streaming services some months later. Coldplay did the same thing with their last album IIRC.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
If you buy the album and get the files, you can play it in Spotify easily.
The piracy thing is fact, there was a Scandinavian study by their music industry and it's been repeated elsewhere. Spotify's effect on piracy was dramatic, it was one of the main reasons for the record industry approved model in the first place.
And there is a shitload going on at Spotify at the moment to combat the very disingenuous crap now being thrown back at it.
Fan insights for all artists:
https://www.spotifyartists.com/introducing-spotify-fan-insights/
Recommending whole lists of artists playing concerts where you are, or any place you tell it:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/12/spotify-turns-its-recommendation-engine-to-concerts/
As for your last paragraph, I'd phrase it differently. It's music not being seen as just a commodity, to be traded and sold.
Does Netflix make films seem worthless?
Thanks. Well if you go back a page you'd see I finally snapped haha
As
someone posted a recent report a page back(?) that said its effects on piracy ended up being revenue-neutral when you take into consideration the loss of sales in the other direction, so some growth is still needed (I didn't read the full 42-page report though)
and those features look great (very new)... still think some work could be done in terms of connecting both artist/fan outside of venues though because fans are often willing to support, but aren't given the channels
I know nothing about the film industry or Netflix's model to comment, but I do know people that have Netflix still go to the movies/purchase movies. If I tell my friends I bought a CD, they think I'm insane.
edit: sorry, phone typing is a pain in my ass
Which by extension means if Spotify's free tier disappeared, piracy would return reducing revenue. The only reason the industry now wants the free tier gone having established the market is the free tier is an anchor on pricing going forwards.
Going to the movies would be like going to a gig. Buying a CD is buying the DVD of a movie you could already watch.
Yeah, they'll try it but the cinema should be the concert hall. You know, where you go for music.
Err...?
uncelestial
Member
Smart move. Artists should be doing major music releases like movies. At release time, only hi-fi (more expensive and deluxe) options, just like movies when they're $20 to see in the theater. Then, dump them on streaming services after 5 or 6 months, just like movies when they show up to rent for $4.99 on Google Play/Amazon/whatever.
b) Functionally she would've gotten nothing from you anyway given the extremely low payouts of the streaming services. It would take 3,500 of streams of free-tier Spotify ($0.002) to equal one full album sale in mp3 format (probably $7 after Apple/whoever takes their cut). So, really, you won't be missed.
a) You're being an entitled jerk, and
b) Functionally she would've gotten nothing from you anyway given the extremely low payouts of the streaming services. It would take 3,500 of streams of free-tier Spotify ($0.002) to equal one full album sale in mp3 format (probably $7 after Apple/whoever takes their cut). So, really, you won't be missed.
NHarmonic.
Member
- Status