Live data from Hacker News

Release day economics

uniformmotion.tumblr.com

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Release day economics

#61
post #32

The Earbits guys (frighteningly prolific bloggers) wrote about Spotify recently: http://blog.earbits.com/online_radio/spotify-replaces-piracy... "The service may do a good job fighting illegal file sharing but it also does a great job of eliminating any motivation to buy an album that you can listen to through the service." In Europe Spotify's been available for a while. I was in on the beta when their catalog was a…

I think one of the issues is not that file sharing has reduced the general perceived value of music to 0 and the best you can sell people now is convenience and ease of use which is what people are really paying for on things like Spotify rather than the music itself.

Re: Release day economics

#62
post #59

I like these posts as well, as its a window on the economics of their information content (in this case music). They didn't mention how long it took them to come with this album, but since the web site says they added a drummer at the end of 2010 and this album was done in April of '11 we will call it 4 months work of three gentlemen best case, and if they really only finished it here at the end of August it would be…

I don't have any numbers, but I strongly suspect music sales tend to drop off pretty quickly: a big splash (if you're lucky) that will quickly slow down to a trickle. So IF you make back all your investment in the first year (obviously not guaranteed), the rest may still be fairly small. If you don't make it back in the first year, you might never make it back.

Average drop off is around 60% week over week. This did not used to be the case however. Your window for selling is about 3 weeks right now unless you miraculously have a "deep" record with a lot of singles.

But that is expensive to market.

Re: Release day economics

#63
post #33

I didn't see any mention of songwriting royalties, which can be very significant if they also write their own music. The songwriter/composer of a song (not a recording of a song, but the actual melody, lyrics) gets a performance royalty each time a song is played in "public" (internet and broadcast radio, in the elevator, at a bar, etc). This is the royalty BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC collect. If the song is recorded and s…

Labels are starting to collect money outside of record sales. It's becoming much more common for artists to be signed to "360-degree deals", which is what the record companies came up with when album sales started to drop off. They take a cut of everything the artist does - merch, shows, etc.

Keep in mind they also finance the tour, publicity, radio tours, promo, websites, fan clubs, etc.

A lot of artists that don't need all-rights deals can afford to run all that themselves and so they sign 270 or 180 deals, a la White Stripes, Metallica, etc.

Outside of recorded music, most of the other revenue streams are 50/50 splits and non-recoupable.

Re: Release day economics

#64

Zero knowledge about the music industry here, how about a subscription based startup? I even have a name for it - asongamonth.com. Any signed up solo artist/band promises at least a song per month and you as a listener pay half a dollar or a dollar a month as subscription per solo artist/band. You can chose to pay for only the bands you like, switch them whenever you want to.

So.... Columbia House?

Re: Release day economics

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication seems to be that the major labels get some fixed percentage of Spotify's revenues. I have no idea if this is true or not.

They do indeed: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-14/spotify-wins-over-m... In addition to the percentage cut, they're also shareholders.

Yes, the labels get minimums and breakage if they are not reached.

Besides, non-RIAA acts often use RIAA companies for catalog management, publishing and/or distribution. Even Radiohead was distributed by Sony.

Re: Release day economics

#66

I like these posts as well, as its a window on the economics of their information content (in this case music). They didn't mention how long it took them to come with this album, but since the web site says they added a drummer at the end of 2010 and this album was done in April of '11 we will call it 4 months work of three gentlemen best case, and if they really only finished it here at the end of August it would be…

Don't forget the costs associated with creating an album. The studio time required to record the album s cheaper than it used to be, but still substantial. Some of them may have needed new instruments etc. The costs are higher than missed opportunity. They would have needed real cash in the bank to get started.

Re: Release day economics

#67
post #32

The Earbits guys (frighteningly prolific bloggers) wrote about Spotify recently: http://blog.earbits.com/online_radio/spotify-replaces-piracy... "The service may do a good job fighting illegal file sharing but it also does a great job of eliminating any motivation to buy an album that you can listen to through the service." In Europe Spotify's been available for a while. I was in on the beta when their catalog was a…

To anyone who had a computer in the past 5 years, recorded music is not worth anything. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

If you want to make a pledge to keep paying for buggy whips, go right ahead. I'm sure there are people who would argue that buggy whips have intrinsic value -- but the market for a buggy whip right now is basically nil.

Same thing with recorded music. If you want to make money as a musician, you don't make it through recordings, you make it through extortionate "public performance" licenses, by doing concerts (and selling $30 t-shirts), or by offering experiences that people can't get elsewhere (pay $50 a year and get access to my website where I post about my tour and post unreleased samples and occasionally mail you a trinket, or whatever.)

I also don't understand the undertone of righteous indignation at Spotify's existence. I can listen to the radio, where songs are played gratis. I can record those songs (legally!) for my own personal use as much as I want. The only difference with Spotify is that I don't physically push "record", and that's the kind of semantic difference only a lawyer would love.

Re: Release day economics

#68

I always like music industry posts showing up on HN as it's my view that the startup industry is in some ways like the music industry of years past. Competition is fierce. Most start out working on their (startup or music) product part-time until the product becomes popular enough that it is a "hit". At that point the entrepreneur may be lucky to end up funded ("signed") which will help their ability to pursue their…

Definitely agree - it seems like the music business in the early days (Elvis / Sun Studios) where lots of smaller players are trying for the big hit and the market is still fairly fragmented.

Also, the success ratio sounds similar to the early days of the music business - a lot of people plugging away, only a few will make it.

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out!

Re: Release day economics

#69
post #33

I didn't see any mention of songwriting royalties, which can be very significant if they also write their own music. The songwriter/composer of a song (not a recording of a song, but the actual melody, lyrics) gets a performance royalty each time a song is played in "public" (internet and broadcast radio, in the elevator, at a bar, etc). This is the royalty BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC collect. If the song is recorded and s…

the compulsory rate in the US right now is 9.1 cents for songs up to 5 minutes in length, and 24 cents for ringtones. syncs right now go from free to maybe 50k, unless it is a massive song (thing the Beatles) in a massive campaign or feature. the average network tv sync right now is prob around 5 grand all-in, meaning 2.5k goes to the owner of the sound recording copyright (the label or artist) and 2.5k goes to the o…

Just to add a little more detail:

> Music publishers can take anywhere from 10% (for an admin deal) to 50% (for a co-publishing deal). Bigger percentages involve advances (recoupable payments against future royalties), but also much longer terms (5-10+ years).

Note this is for the publishing royalties only (not performance rights)

And on @alex1'- post:

> The label will own the song recordings, not the artist.

This would depend on the contract, though it's true that in most cases today the label would own the recording.

In some cases the artists choose to sub-license the recording to the record company, in which case he/she/they retain rights to the recording.

Finally, as is well known now artists often get an advance from the record company on signing a contract. This advance however is deductible from any earnings the artist would receive. Sometimes the advance is used to pay for the recording or equipment or even to finance a tour (the tours are usually not financed by the labels, aside from the 360 arrangements someone else mentioned.)

No-one has mentioned the artist manager fees - I'm not sure of what the figures for that are, but I think they range from 10% up to 50% (of the advance) in some very rare cases.

In short, in most cases making a living as a musician/recording artist is hard to impossible. Many semi-successful indie bands don't earn much more than a minimum wage job, with perhaps similar long-term prospects. If you make it big, you're rich but anything else is not a great existence. Oh, and the record companies often struggle too (both majors and indie these days.)

Re: Release day economics

#70
post #28

Consider for a moment this alternate viewpoint. What if submitting a song to was kinda like submitting a blog to . You don't get paid for blogging, but if you produce enough good content, you can create an audience and then sell them other things later on. Smart bloggers give out their content for free, then charge for premium services and products like consulting, books, podcasts, screencasts, merch, etc. Seems like…

Plenty of artists do that, but some prefer to keep their content behind a pay wall, to use the same analogy. Both are viable models and should be respected.

I'm not sure how much giving content away for free is a viable model. It depends on the meaning of viable; it isn't viable financially, but it can be a worthwhile sacrifice if you think that more people reading your content is going to mean more people are going to pay for it. More often than not, that's not the case though; a lot of the content we access is free, and the author won't get remunerated for it.

This is great for consumers, but it makes it a lot less interesting for producers. I'm not sure yet what the impact of that is going to be, but I suspect that it could mean a decrease in the quality of content overall, which would be detrimental to everyone.

Post reply on HN