Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Saved the Record Labels

bloomberg.com

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#31
post #5

You see record labels promoting new albumns on posters and billboards - with the call to action being to listen on Spotify. How can that make financial sense if they're not even getting a penny a stream?

Back in the 70s, most artists made little or no money from touring. You played live to promote your album, which made you the real money. Today, it's the opposite. Your album is practically worthless, but it might persuade people to pay $60+ to see your arena tour. The album is effectively a free sample of the "real" product, the live show.

The recording industry isn't stupid, so most major artists are now signed on "360 deals" - the record label gets a share of everything, from streaming to tickets to merchandise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#32
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the article is people do pay to listen to Taylor Swift on Spotify. Now, and more so predicted in the future.

I don't think Spotify's revenue model allows for billing per song? FAFAIK people's listening habits have no impact on their Spotify bill, so it's more accurate to say that people pay for having access to Taylor Swift's songs. It's the catalog that drives the revenue, not the listening metrics. I'm sure the metrics are important for Spotify's market position, as they drive its licensing fees and negotiating position.…

Spotify does indeed pay artists per song stream. The rate is between $0.004 to $0.008 per stream, and a "stream" is counted every time someone listens to a song for at least 30 seconds.

https://qz.com/1519823/is-spotify-making-songs-shorter/

https://qz.com/quartzy/1438412/the-reason-why-your-favorite-...

Incidentally, this model incentivizes artists to release shorter songs and to squeeze more songs into albums.

https://pitchfork.com/features/article/uncovering-how-stream...

https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/are-rap-albu...

And an artist's new release isn't just competing with their old releases. It's also competing with releases from other artists.

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#33
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes financial sense by being a loss-leader product, which the make up with tshirts, ticket sales, lunch boxes, and whatever the kids buy from singers these days...

yeah but don't the artists make that money? I thought it was the albums etc. the record companies made the money on. Of course they probably also put the promotional stuff of the billboards into a list of things the artist needs to pay them for.

>yeah but don't the artists make that money? I thought it was the albums etc. the record companies made the money on.

That's changed the last 1-2 decades or so. Popular artists get what's called a "360 deal", so the company gives them money ahead, and they get all their profits across merchandise, albums, tv appearances, online stuff, concerts, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spend more on Spotify than I ever did on buying music, so someone’s winning

Conversely, I used to spend $75-100/month on CDs and downloads before I signed up for Spotify Premium, so I do save money. People like me are probably outliers in the grand scope of streaming vs buying, though. I still buy a lot of music from sites like Bandcamp, to support artists directly, especially after learning how small of a cut the artists get from streaming services. Someone's winning from the average person…

I switched to buying Vinyl at Shows, and Bandcamp CD releases directly from non mainstream artists.

I always thought services like What.CD were actually good for the industry--as it was essentially an on-ramp onto trying new genres and artists from like-minded enthusiasts. Spotify's charts don't seem to do anything for me, and my exploration is actually lower than before (subbed for around 4 years now...?)

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#35
post #24

Sounds something like "reduce search and purchase friction and people will stop pirating your stuff". Seems like the fragmentation for video streaming is heading in the opposite direction. Too many different providers, and too much unwanted behavior, like the Netflix autoplay anything you hover over feature. Is there a "amount of pirate downloading" history chart somewhere?

A common story - when we started making bigger money we started buying games. True among my circle of friends.

Ditto. I started buying the albums that I used to listen to on YouTube.

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they pool all payments, then portion out according to the share of plays compared to the total number of plays on the platform. That obviously favors popular artists, but it is a reasonable way of portioning payment, based on absolute popularity. Exactly as with traditional record sales, highly popular artists get the lion's share of the total revenue. In that sense, they payment scheme behind Spotify is absolut…

No. Reasonable is to split each individual sub proportionally to the artists listened by it. If I listened only to Gojira and Satyricon this month - I want them to take my mpney and spotify their cut, not Cardi B.

I would prefer that arrangement as well, and I don't know if the reason for not doing it is technical, or because of contracts with the big labels.

It may be a deal with the devil to let Spotify continue to exist, as the labels could easily crush them.

And you can already support your favorite artists directly, by going to their shows, buying their merch and buying their music on Bandcamp. Some artists even use Patreon now, which is a sort of interesting return to the days of artists working for wealthy patrons.

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, I used to spend $75-100/month on CDs and downloads before I signed up for Spotify Premium, so I do save money. People like me are probably outliers in the grand scope of streaming vs buying, though. I still buy a lot of music from sites like Bandcamp, to support artists directly, especially after learning how small of a cut the artists get from streaming services. Someone's winning from the average person…

Back in the noughties, the British record industry talked a lot about "fifty quid blokes" - professional middle-aged men who would leave work on Friday, go into HMV or Borders and buy a couple of CDs, a DVD and a book, totalling about £50. They were very well known in retail and were catered to with music magazines like Q, Mojo and The Word. They were hugely important to the record industry (hence all the classic roc…

I don't think we're ever going to return to a revenue level similar to the 90s, honestly I think that was a historical aberration caused by a number of supporting factors.

In the early 90s, more people in the west had more disposable income, production had become all-digital (lowering production costs), and CDs cost next to nothing to make compared to stamping vinyl or making cassettes, so the profit margins were bigger. There was also the explosion of pop music, especially boy bands with gigantic fan bases. CD players were inexpensive and started to come as standard equipment in cars. At the same time, storage capacity and processing power in the average PC was inadequate for storing uncompressed CD quality audio and playing back compressed audio, respectively. Of course, usable lossy audio codecs were very much in their infancy, and CD-R drives were still very expensive, slow and unreliable. Not to mention the lacking state of mobile devices at the time, if anyone even had a mobile phone at this time, it was very likely to be on an old-fashioned analog network.

It was the perfect environment for big record industry profits, but by the late 90s/early 2000s, we had Napster, affordable CD-R drives, increased storage space, processing power and internet speeds, and of course properly viable lossy codecs. Pandora's box was opened, and now matter how they try, the big labels can't close it back up again.

I don't think segmentation is the solution, you can't get people to accept tiered pricing based on usage, the $10 for unlimited usage like a library is the entire reason people love streaming services. I think what they can do is add higher subscription tiers with bonus features, higher sound quality, personalized content that isn't just made by an algorithm. Maybe they could even do exclusive access to new releases, but that may result in backlash from "basic" subscribers who feel like they're getting cheated out of content.

In the end, perhaps it's just an uncomfortable shift towards less income from records sales/plays, and a bigger reliance on touring and merch sales. I know a few bands that use Patreon as a sort of "pay what you want" fanclubs, where you get early access to various content at lower tiers, and things like Skype chats or guitar lessons at higher tiers.

Re: The Internet Saved the Record Labels

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Reasonable is to split each individual sub proportionally to the artists listened by it. If I listened only to Gojira and Satyricon this month - I want them to take my mpney and spotify their cut, not Cardi B.

I would prefer that arrangement as well, and I don't know if the reason for not doing it is technical, or because of contracts with the big labels. It may be a deal with the devil to let Spotify continue to exist, as the labels could easily crush them. And you can already support your favorite artists directly, by going to their shows, buying their merch and buying their music on Bandcamp. Some artists even use Patre…

I always assumed it was to account for the non-paying listeners (i would rather this was done through a budget - e.g. 20% of listeners are not paying so upfront take 20% of my money to pay for them - then do a fair calc on splitting users revenue by their listens).

I think effectively record labels can say something like this to spotify: hey 70% of music listened to is the charts by non paying members, what are you doing to protect our investment?

i dont know if its a simple as that but i can imagine there are very particular shapes to listening behaviours/

Post reply on HN