SoundCloud could be forced to close after $44m losses

Post by criddell » Thu, Feb 11, 2016, 4:07 PM UTC

printering wrote: post #130

aback wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when people argue that "digital distribution is essentially free," then ask why Soundcloud is losing money, since distributing music is literally their only real cost of doing business. we will continue to endure substantial cultural losses for so long as people continue to believe that content can & should be distributed and consumed for free. ultimately some sort of micropayments + blockchain-like-cloudserving migh…

The problem is that some people pay $10 a month for Spotify and others pay for services like Apple Music or Tidal. The question is how this income is split between the services (which deservedly should be profitable) and the musicians. Art has always had a shady connection to commerce in which the gatekeepers tend to profit more than the artists themselves.

Post by 6stringmerc » Thu, Feb 11, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

cmyr wrote: post #139

6stringmerc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter-point though, the role of SoundCloud in a diversified music commerce portfolio is not ideal as a catch-all archive. A professional elsewhere mentioned it is a useful tool for sharing and A/B/C listening tests with tracks set to private, but that's not the end use-case scenario. In principle, SoundCloud should not be the sole - or even main - distribution channel for a music act. To put it another way, So…

A significant role of the SoundCloud that I'm most familiar with is as a distribution platform for mixes and performances by musicians for whom the _sale_ of their music is not a significant revenue source; these performers (and I'm talking about dance music, in all its varieties) almost exclusively make their living performing live, and release mixes mostly as a sort of marketing. This obviously isn't the _only_ typ…

Post by sangnoir » Thu, Feb 11, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

strgrd wrote: post #118

cmyr wrote: post #103

Soundcloud is absolutely ubiquitous in the electronic music community. I was talking about this with a friend recently who is a programmer and a (relatively) well known composer, and she made the point that soundcloud actually represents a very important cultural document; there is tons of music that has been created in the past 5+ years that exists exclusively there, and it would be a tremendous cultural loss if it…

We are living in the age of data impermanence. There is no mechanism to archive all of the content we are generating efficiently. Soundcloud represents but one of the many websites whose content will be lost forever to the digital dark ages.

Post by 6stringmerc » Thu, Feb 11, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #149

6stringmerc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter-point though, the role of SoundCloud in a diversified music commerce portfolio is not ideal as a catch-all archive. A professional elsewhere mentioned it is a useful tool for sharing and A/B/C listening tests with tracks set to private, but that's not the end use-case scenario. In principle, SoundCloud should not be the sole - or even main - distribution channel for a music act. To put it another way, So…

A lot of queer music, IME, is primarily distributed through Soundcloud - and more generally, there's a lot of people making music for reasons other than making money off it. Obviously, it's a poor business choice to keep a service running primarily for these people, but it's certainly a cultural centre for certain types of music none-the-less. I'll be sad to see it go.

Post by dopamean » Thu, Feb 11, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

npalli wrote: post #38

rgbrenner wrote: post #10

Article is bs. they lost 44m in _2014_. Raised 77m last year. They may need to raise more in 2016. Nothing else. No other facts. No info on their balance sheet, etc. Doesn't even know if they're growing, what their revenue or losses for 2015 were. And based on that, Fact thinks that's enough to say they "may be forced to close".

The auditor has clearly stated that it has doubts about the company as a 'going concern'. This is a technical term in auditing that implies the auditor has doubts that the company will survive (i.e, will have to liquidate) another twelve months. It's not a willy nilly "growing company is losing money" type statement, it means there is a fundamental problem in how the company is financed and operated. https://en.wikip…