Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Let's look at those stats.
There is an application out there called Spotify which lets you listen to loads of stuff for free. You can pay for it, but 95% of people who use it don't.
Every label signs up as a good way to get their stuff out there.
For about 1 billion plays, you get given a cheque for £14.
Every label withdraws their artists and goes back to sitting in the shed in order to work out how they can be rich like they were in the 80s...
especially when labels own shares of the streaming companies...
plus from what i hear, 7digital are selling A LOT of tracks via Spotify. Interestingly Hype Machine sells a lot of downloads too, which is why labels haven't 'harshed their chill'
I read a good piece about people earning more out of Spotify than early figures suggested, but it was still majors getting the larger cuts.
But really, the whole industry has changed and no matter how loyal us lot might be, the average person I know couldn't give two shits about artwork / supporting a band / seeing a band live if it's the choice between paying £10 for a record or clicking on a Torrent / streaming it for nothing.
I use 7digital a lot. I think a quarter of the records I bought in 2009 were their £5 album of the week deals they have. I don't mind paying that to take a risk on a record that's getting good write ups on here
streaming is here to combat piracy, bring people into a legal framework and compete with illegality. it's not meant to replace the old business model but i'm sure it will but all in good time.
not quite clear whether this 'warners' talking or their MD making threats (maybe just for US market?). still lotsa warners catalogue up there so nothing happened immediately.
is that 7digitals version of A LOT or the majors version of A LOT as I'd imagine they aren't the same thing?
there's just no revenue in it, only an advert to try and get synchs going - and that's still a rarity.
what's more surprising is how stupid labels (majors and indies) were to grasp at a business model which gave them 1000 of the revenue of a paid download. They're clutching at straws, but they're clutching the wrong one!
That's how it works, right? It's just a big thing plugged in somewhere? I'm all over the techno side of things.
plugged directly into the back of your PC.
like the other majors?. Word on the street is that Warners are thinking of bidding for EMI so they'll follow suit.
People hark on about the old home taping argument and how it's not any different, it is similar in the respect that people hear the product before purchasing but in the case of spotify you're doing the equivalent of giving the punters the cassettes to tape the recordings with too.
The truth of the matter is quite simple, if the product can't bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of marketing and manufacture the model doesn't work. Sync's are reducing in value over time so thats not even a medium term answer.
The cost of producing and manufacturing has come down, the cost of advertising on formats that are relevant now such as the internet has come down. Artists and labels can take advantage of this but remuneration comes after sales which happens in every other walk of industry, buy buy big advances and exec wages, don't spend money on promotion unless its in keeping with probable returns, too many people in the machine where the old system favours them short term and its a long term problem. Everyone knows this anyway because its common sense.
I can stream albums and artists I'm interested in and if I like it I go and buy the CD. Surely millions of other people do this? And surely the labels can see the benefit of this? I only listen to Spotify in work, I cant listen to the tracks on my MP3 player on the move so if I want them, I'll go buy them.
assuming this is the end. considering the large majority are on the free service, there's no real money in it, and for all you can say about illegal filesharers using now using spotify as an alternative, there are people who bought music and now buy less because spotify is so convenient and they don't mind the adds. It's been running for a while, clearly Warner have not seen any reason to stick with it.
i lost some of the sympathy I had for the labels when they raised the prices on iTunes (i use amazon and 7digital but still)- initially just for the popular songs, which is fair enough, but to raise the prices of all the songs now is bad form.
If they can't see the benefits of consumers having their own personal 'radio channel' then they're far more stupid than we give them credit for.
How many times have radio listeners been put off buying singles because they've been overplayed on commercial radio stations? How many people make time to search out good music, but appreciate the 'recommendation' tools on sites like amazon, emusic and spotify.
It's just another instance of major record labels refusing to break business models from 'The Good Old Days'. If they carry on with this stubborn, fist-brained mentality they're going to destroy the music industry.
I really don't understand how other companies streaming their music is damaging their bottom line. It might not be a sustainable business model for Spotify or We7 but that's absolutely no business of Warner. Surely the most sensible option for any record label, is to set a price per listen that is similar to radio and then just rake in the cash. If anything vaste libraries of streaming music available online is only going to benefit the majors as it exposes their back catalogue to people who might not have heard it.
There's nothing to lose unless you're an idiot.
Don't stop me from listening to the Michael Buble discography... anything but that.