Apple Establishes New Streaming Deal With Warner Music Group, Will Pay Lower Rates

[Carnegie]

Sorry - but I disagree. Having worked in the industry and know many people who are in it - they make pennies. Some TOP artists might make some decent change from streaming. But their nut comes from concerts. But the major majority of artists make barely anything on streaming.

IE (from a friend of mine and latest numbers)

Spotify pays $0.00437 a stream, Apple Music pays $0.00735. So based on the model of 20 tracks, 14 cents for the entire album.

And that's in total - not just the artist's cut.

What do they get per listen when someone buys a song, either a physical copy or a digital copy?

And what portion of what consumers pay do rights-holders get when a physical or digital copy of music is sold?

And how much do recording rights-holders get (since that, rather than what publishing rights-holders get, is what is at issue in the OP and represents the bulk of the total that rights-holders get) when an artists' song is played on terrestrial radio?

There are good things add bad things, from rights-holders' (and artists) perspective, about the shift to the streaming model for music delivery and monetization. One good things is that, while low-priced streaming services may mean less revenue for rights-holders on a per-listen basis, it will likely mean more listens. So the total revenue for rights-holders may increase. The big picture end result may be: People listen to more music (on what they perceive to be better value terms) and rights-holders make more money. Best of all for society: More music gets consumed.

 

[samcraig]

What do they get per listen when someone buys a song, either a physical copy or a digital copy?

And what portion of what consumers pay do rights-holders get when a physical or digital copy of music is sold?

And how much do recording rights-holders get (since that, rather than what publishing rights-holders get, is what is at issue in the OP and represents the bulk of the total that rights-holders get) when an artists' song is played on terrestrial radio?

There are good things add bad things, from rights-holders' (and artists) perspective, about the shift to the streaming model for music delivery and monetization. One good things is that, while low-priced streaming services may mean less revenue for rights-holders on a per-listen basis, it will likely mean more listens. So the total revenue for rights-holders may increase. The big picture end result may be: People listen to more music (on what they perceive to be better value terms) and rights-holders make more money. Best of all for society: More music gets consumed.

For many non top tier artists, the model isn't very sustainable for them. It's a good thing artists are passionate people.

 

[Carnegie]

For many non top tier artists, the model isn't very sustainable for them. It's a good thing artists are passionate people.

That's long been the case, as it should be based on the aggregate wants and needs of society. Only a relatively small number of people are able to make a fortune playing basketball or golf, or acting, or painting, or making music. More are able to make a living doing those things, but the number is still limited.

That said, the streaming model will likely make wider distribution of their creations more accessible to lesser known artists. I also suspect that, eventually, the streaming model will make artists less reliant on labels and thus more able to keep more rights-revenue for themselves.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

Havent you heard? The old Taylor is dead

LMAO!

 

[itsmilo]

LMAO!

Finally someone got it

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

That's some weird chip on your shoulder.

All of the news articles about that whole thing... it was all fake news.

Taylor Swift is fake news.

 

[jdillings]

I predict a new Tumblr letter from T-Swizzle....Apple, look what you made her do

 

[Mirice99]

Your spite is misplaced. Look into the labels and their business model.

Sorry if facts hurt those who so blindly devoted to Apple

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Sorry if facts hurt those who so blindly devoted to Apple

If you think that the problem is whether Apple (and other streaming services) pay out 58% or 55% of revenue in royalties and not the 90% take the labels keep (97.5% by the time you factor in RIAA accounting rules) or policies such as breakage fees (originating with vinyl records that broke in transit but continued into CDs and even digital download eras) or opaque practices of handling royalty advance overages from the streaming services then only one of us is "blind." Record label contracts and accounting are crazy. Record labels need to go the way of the dinosaurs. Better equipment for home studios reduced the need for a label's support in production. Apple and companies like them, first with iTunes and now Apple Music, are doing the same with distribution (albeit with Indie aggregators). As online tools (including discovery services in those streaming services) and communities get better for promotion hopefully we can finally say goodbye to labels.

 

[0098386]

All of the news articles about that whole thing... it was all fake news.

Taylor Swift is fake news.

At this point I can’t tell if you’re a parody account. Cheerio.

 

[Cigsm]

You literally just made all of that up LOL. Taylor swift pulled her entire catalog from streaming while releasing the highest selling 1 week sales of an album in 10 years.

No, they don't make more now. They make significantly less. Having the most streamed song on Spotify for an entire week only nets about $2500.

And yet none of them have been successful without streaming. Sorry, but streaming is the norm now. It would be like refusing to be played on the radio back in the '80s or '90s. You simply couldn't have become successful without it. Every industry has their necessary evils.

Artists use to take more profits from their albums. Now they're only paid for the songs which are played. This can still make them insane money. More than they would have selling albums, as now you don't just get paid 1 time but every time someone listens to a song.

But they're also realizing they need to do more if they want the mega-millions to roll in. Touring is becoming a bigger part of how the big acts make money. I don't see anyone complaining that streaming is causing their favorite artist to come to town more often.

The big names now even richer than ever before. Streaming isn't hurting them. And the truth is the smaller acts never saw huge album sales before anyways. The current state of streaming opens those small guys up to people who would never have paid to check out their album but are now paying them by listening to their songs. In this way it has spread the wealth across more small acts than in the past. On average people are listening to more than double the number of artist they did 10 years ago, and that's great for the music industry.

 

[Cigsm]

LOL at you thinking labels are giving $1 million contracts these days lolololol

10% sounds very low, royalty rates are generally about double that I'd say. But nevermind - artists signed to a major label get an non-refundable advance. Meaning they get a cheque of, say, $500K or $1M and they commit to produce 3 albums with the label.
Giving away advances is the most efficient way for the labels to secure the rights for rising artists... but it is also very risky. Labels end up losing money on 80% of the artists they have paid an advance too i.e. 80% of them do not recoup the advance. Record labels are in some ways imilar to private equity. A few "exits" finance the whole structure.
[doublepost=1504790644][/doublepost]

Look at the US or UK top forty now. How much do you think these guys are making? How much from download and CDs? Streaming has restarted growth in the music industry. Label's margins are tighter than ever. Artists are abolutely benefitting from streaming, saying otherwise is absolute nonsense!

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

You literally just made all of that up LOL. Taylor swift pulled her entire catalog from streaming while releasing the highest selling 1 week sales of an album in 10 years.

No, they don't make more now. They make significantly less. Having the most streamed song on Spotify for an entire week only nets about $2500.

A single week of sales from a marketing stunt isn't indicative of long-term sales in the way every other artist experiences them.

If it was such an amazing boom for Taylor, why did she return her albums to streaming? If she thought sales would remain high, why go back?

Back in 2014, Taylor made $280k - 390k off just 1 song on Spotify. Add on royalties from the dozens of other streaming services, iTunes and CD sales, radio royalties and more and she's right where artists were previously.

The biggest difference is that now a single song can make huge money, where in the past sales were driven by entire albums. Consumers were forced to take a bunch of garbage songs for the ones they wanted most and pay a higher price for it.

It's funny as we see how the unbundling of a single song is similar to unbundling of TV channels. In the end, everyone gets less for their offering. Expect your favorite TV channels to make far less money if unbundling continues, and because of it produce lesser quality and quantity of content.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

At this point I can’t tell if you’re a parody account. Cheerio.

Bye Felicia.

 

[Cigsm]

Why do you just make things up? No, artists aren't making anywhere near what they made pre-streaming. Which trickles down to songwriters, producers etc.

In the past, singles where were artists made their money. The single is dead now.

A single week of sales from a marketing stunt isn't indicative of long-term sales in the way every other artist experiences them.

If it was such an amazing boom for Taylor, why did she return her albums to streaming? If she thought sales would remain high, why go back?

Back in 2014, Taylor made $280k - 390k off just 1 song on Spotify. Add on royalties from the dozens of other streaming services, iTunes and CD sales, radio royalties and more and she's right where artists were previously.

The biggest difference is that now a single song can make huge money, where in the past sales were driven by entire albums. Consumers were forced to take a bunch of garbage songs for the ones they wanted most and pay a higher price for it.

It's funny as we see how the unbundling of a single song is similar to unbundling of TV channels. In the end, everyone gets less for their offering. Expect your favorite TV channels to make far less money if unbundling continues, and because of it produce lesser quality and quantity of content.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Why do you just make things up? No, artists aren't making anywhere near what they made pre-streaming. Which trickles down to songwriters, producers etc.

In the past, singles where were artists made their money. The single is dead now.

And yet, artists are making more now than ever before. We should feel so bad for the potential millions these millionaires are missing out on. Poop Taylor Swift it barely making ends meet and on the verge of having to live on the streets.

 

[Cigsm]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with streaming and everything to do with more partnerships and touring.

And yet, artists are making more now than ever before. We should feel so bad for the potential millions these millionaires are missing out on. Poop Taylor Swift it barely making ends meet and on the verge of having to live on the streets.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with streaming and everything to do with more partnerships and touring.

The point is that artists aren't struggling these days. They're still millionaires making millions of dollars a year and keeping themselves well into the 1%. You act like streaming music is putting musicians out on the streets.

 

[Cigsm]

I like how you think Taylor Swift isn't an outlier. For every assist there's 10,000 artists you haven't heard of who's revenue has been significantly cut.

The point is that artists aren't struggling these days. They're still millionaires making millions of dollars a year and keeping themselves well into the 1%. You act like streaming music is putting musicians out on the streets.

 

[0098386]

Bye Felicia.

Pardon? How strange.

 

[Carnegie]

Why do you just make things up? No, artists aren't making anywhere near what they made pre-streaming. Which trickles down to songwriters, producers etc.

In the past, singles where were artists made their money. The single is dead now.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with streaming and everything to do with more partnerships and touring.

According to the RIAA, U.S. music industry revenues were up significantly in 2016 in both retail and wholesale terms. The YoY gain was the biggest in around 20 years. This is for recorded music, not considering touring revenues.

Total revenues are, of course, still well below what they were 20 or so years ago before digital distribution (and, of course, piracy) took its toll. The decline hasn't been the result of the shift to the streaming model though, it was - at least in part - the result of the availability of digital distribution. In 2016 the streaming model finally took hold - it generated more revenue than digital downloads and physical sales combined - and that seems to have been a positive. I'd expect U.S. music industry revenues to increase again in 2017. The trend may finally be reversing thanks to the streaming model.

How that revenue gets divided up between rights-holders is another matter. But that too isn't a problem created by the shift to the streaming model. That's been an issue, from artists' perspective, for a long time. Some of them have agreed to give up substantial portions of their earnings rights in exchange for, e.g., help in getting their music out there. If anything, the streaming model may eventually help some on that front.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I like how you think Taylor Swift isn't an outlier. For every assist there's 10,000 artists you haven't heard of who's revenue has been significantly cut.

The smaller name acts actually make more money these days than they did when CDs ruled. There use to be a significant investment in checking out a new band's music (buying an entire CD). Now, when your friend tells you about a band, people don't get turned off and not bother because it'd cost $15 to check them out. They can stream and give a new band a listen. This frequently results in future sales and at very least play pay.

There have been a number of studies that have shown the number of artists people now listen to have greatly increased. This is thanks to the ease with which people can find and listen to new groups on streaming services.

Where an indie band may remain known by very very few before, now they have a way to increase their audience.