The current economics of the music industry - meagre earnings for artists from streaming services

[Plumplechook]

Interesting article by ex Galaxie 500 member Damon Krukowski breaking down the meager royalties currently being paid out to bands by streaming services and what this means for artists today.

 

http://pitchfork.com... 993-the-cloud/

[Kim Bodnia]

I disagree. Check the story of the new Mumford & Sons, became one of the best selling albums this year thanks in part to online streaming. According to an author, it sold more than Justin Bieber, at some point. If I can find that article I read I will post the link here.

 

In general I'm a partisan of streaming, it's not just the actual cents earnt per stream, it's the extra exposure the band receives and the people who are willing to make a purchase after they like what they heard and after repeated listens over time.

 

Of course, I understand if success is not the same for everyone, all cases are different.

[augurus]

There's a lot of unknown and wide assumptions in the argument, and they're not all conclusive. The math is definitely against Pandora and Spotify. But if you're moving more than enough product, then Spotify/Pandora acts more like New York Times streaming your album, except forever. Spotify/Pandora/etc. may help boost sales, but you certainly should not rely on it to profit nor should you look at it as a main avenue of profit.

 

I'm still a fan of Spotify (but not Pandora), and I still buy albums if I feel an artist deserves my money. I go out to concerts and sometimes buy merchandise I favor. But this traditional act of live music has slowly fallen out of flavor. But only time will tell if it will fall out of favor.

[Vacant Horizon]

There's a lot of unknown and wide assumptions in the argument, and they're not all conclusive. The math is definitely against Pandora and Spotify. But if you're moving more than enough product, then Spotify/Pandora acts more like New York Times streaming your album, except forever. Spotify/Pandora/etc. may help boost sales, but you certainly should not rely on it to profit nor should you look at it as a main avenue of profit.

 

I'm still a fan of Spotify (but not Pandora), and I still buy albums if I feel an artist deserves my money. I go out to concerts and sometimes buy merchandise I favor. But this traditional act of live music has slowly fallen out of flavor. But only time will tell if it will fall out of favor.

 

live music is alive and well. i'm confused.

 

anyway, to me it breaks down like this. the big pop stars some how still make money on album/single sales even though kids steal the music. or, maybe they just go buy it on iTunes. i would include pop alternative in this group as well. then you have the classic rock giants who still sell shit loads of music because the boomers still buy music. they're not in trouble by spottily or torrents. in the middle are bands like wilco, radiohead who have built a following by having a major label stint and building a cult following through touring. there are smaller bands that do this too. then there are the plethora of mor bands that in the past would never have made an album due to technology. finally, streaming allows people to no longer get screwed by buying a shitty CD anymore. and the so called lost sales are not lost. most of them are sales that wouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

of course, there are other niche groups that will always make money selling music...jazz, prog, etc.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

"Galaxie 500's 'Tugboat' was played 7,800 times on Pandora in the first quarter of 2012, for which its three songwriters were paid a collective total of 21 cents, or seven cents each."

 

Just what kind of traditional royalties would 7,800 airplays bring? 7800 sales?

[Vacant Horizon]

the article is interesting in how it explains how these streaming services are to build capital. the only advertisements on spotify are for spotify. weird. how can a company that makes on money and loses money gain capital? as an accountant i've said it a million times. the more money you have the stupider you are investing wise. i guess that's why they need accountants:)

[anthony]

This conversation reminds me of this brilliant comic from the oatmeal