Apple Music's Reliance on Exclusives Coming Under Fire From Labels and Critics

[EdBuk]

I could careless about these exclusives.. but I'll say this.. having had been in the music business for over 15 years none of the labels know what they are doing. Every one of them are dinosaurs, even the guys at Apple Music have no clue what they are doing. It's all about the quick buck and not actually building a strong foundation where the artists are top dawg.. not the executives. Apple could eventually make this happen but it's going to take a long long time for people to jump on board with both feet.

As I'm sure you do realise, as an exclusive distributor Apple slips into a label role - and by their current model of locking exclusives it could be building IMO towards a slippery slope of them further controlling both music pricing and availability - which can in no way be positive for artist or consumer.

Labels aren't saints - but generally they invest in talent. Apple aren't saints either - but they don't invest in talent, they just appropriate it's creations and monetise it. For example, App Store. Not a model that works well for music - an industry that relies on grass roots promotion and development time before reaching it's peak.

 

[pk78]

Interesting points of view y'all.

I think the bottom line is this: The labels need to be phased out (or at least change their business model radically). They are the one's syphoning the most from the artists. Yes, I understand that they do serve a function in some cases, but that function is less and less valuable in today's market. (I'm open to an opinion contrary to this)

Also, let's raise the streaming cost to $20 a month and double the per stream fee (without the label the $ going directly to the artists will be even more. I'm serious... $10 is insanely inexpensive for access to literally millions of songs. I used to buy 3-6 CDs a month and got around 60 songs (I now buy 2-3 directly from the artist).

As far as exclusives go, I'm fine with a temporary exclusive. Patience is a virtue.
[doublepost=1472076904][/doublepost]

Device, yes. Service, no. And you can buy almost all music either on CD or through several digital stores and play them on virtually all devices.

A couple things here:

1. Yes — the labels keep most of the streaming money and they're the reason it isn't getting to the artists. This is a good point to call out. Streaming services pay the vast majority of their revenue (nearly 70 cents on the dollar) out to rights holders.

2. It's not as easy as "raising the price to $20". It's a matter of supply and demand. If you raise the price to $20, less people will subscribe to streaming services like Apple Music, Spotify, and Tidal. When less people subscribe, more people will steal music. Is it morally and ethical wrong? Yes. Will it happen? Yes.

Many industry experts have argued that streaming services should cost less, not more. The idea is that if streaming was $7-8 per month lots more people would subscribe creating more scale and more money for everyone in the industry (again, taking a bite out of pirating).

3. You buying 3-6 CDs a month is the exception, not the norm. Having consumers paying $120 a year for music (that's the current going rate of $9.99 over 12 months) is far more than the industry was making per consumer in the peak of the CD age.

That is all.

 

[Analog Kid]

"Strong arm tactics effective, but unpopular."

 

[yocko]

Yup im sorry and i know Its ethically wrong (in my country for private uwe dowloading is still legal-ish) but I am a tidal member (for tidal hifi) and I am a huge Frank Ocean fan.
I pay $240 bucks per year to the record industry and I find it unfair these exclusives. So I said **** it and went to piratebay for my frank ocean.
I'm sure Apple is encouraging it but it is ultimately the record company, or in this case Frank Ocean himself that wants to create extra revenue. Fine. But you run the risk that we run back to the pirates where the streaming model had so carefully weened us off.
Tricky in the long run.

 

[Robert.Walter]

This guy doesn't care about indie artists, he's being disingenuous as all he sees is that Apple doesn't want or need his business model or function, and he will be disrupted out of the future constellation of things if things don't go back to how they were.

Further, if Apple pays more to rights holders (assuming creatives become the rights holders), than current traditional media labels do, artists will be beating down the door for Apple to create a label.

 

[rocknblogger]

Yeah, you tell them man! Let's also cry because Game of Thrones is an HBO-exclusive and not on Netflix as well. HBO "should be investigated by the government for antitrust", right?

HBO pays for the production of Game of Thrones where Apple or Tidal don't finance the production of new albums. Two completely different things.

 

[malexandria]

So "exclusive" laugh the pirates that upload these to multiple share sites.

yeah, because everyone wants to be a thief just because they can't get what they want, when they want it. And yeah everyone wants all the maleware and virus risks that come with those stupid "shareware" services. If you are a true fan of the artist you will pay for the music - irregardless of whether it's exclusive or not. I fortunately don't like any of the people doing exclusive deals and I would never sign up again for Apple Music anyway.

 

[poppy10]

But when Tidal did it, it was "OK"? Was that because they didn't have the numbers apple music has?

Nope. Where did you get the false impression that he said it was OK for Tidal? He's laid into Tidal many times. E.G.:

Spotify is trying to convince people to pay for music. What is Tidal doing? TRYING TO MAKE ITS OWNERS RICHER! Saving the pocketbooks of the artists. Who cares about that. Fans are already giving artists tons of money. What is up with the wealth transfer? It’s no wonder the public rejected Tidal.

 

[oldmacs]

Exclusives really do suck for music fans.

Availability is one of the keys to reducing piracy.

 

[Zerilos]

Man Lefsetz has changed his tune. Previously he declared that Apple Music would be a huge failure, now he argues that they'll dominate the market if left unchecked. Honestly, I don't think the guy knows what he's talking about.

 

[Mindbomb2000]

2. It's not as easy as "raising the price to $20". It's a matter of supply and demand. If you raise the price to $20, less people will subscribe to streaming services like Apple Music, Spotify, and Tidal. When less people subscribe, more people will steal music. Is it morally and ethical wrong? Yes. Will it happen? Yes.

Many industry experts have argued that streaming services should cost less, not more. The idea is that if streaming was $7-8 per month lots more people would subscribe creating more scale and more money for everyone in the industry (again, taking a bite out of pirating).

3. You buying 3-6 CDs a month is the exception, not the norm. Having consumers paying $120 a year for music (that's the current going rate of $9.99 over 12 months) is far more than the industry was making per consumer in the peak of the CD age.

That is all.

Great points. I can't disagree with them at all.

 

[pk78]

One more point: everyone is talking about how Spotify/streaming is killing the indies. What has Apple done for the indies? What does it do for indies when Apple does nothing but promote Drake and DJ Khaled for 4 months to manufacture a number one album?

It's a zero sum game with marketing on these platforms. I don't see any exclusive deals with indie acts. It's just the top 1-3% of artists.

If you think Apple is investing in music to help support the art, you're kidding yourself. Apple owned music up until Spotify showed up. There was no investing massive amounts of money into artist videos and documentaries until they had competition. Apple is investing in artists to drive Spotify and Tidal out of business. When that happens, how many exclusive deals will we see? How many music videos will apple be funding?

The industry (and artists) need competition. That means Apple Music and Spotify both need to exist. When Apple uses their massive funds to limit competition it hurts everyone: fans, artists, labels, everyone.

 

[Small White Car]

But what about TV shows ONLY on Netflix or Amazon Prime or HBO?

They made those shows.

If Apple were to start producing its own music I'd have a very different opinion on that than the current situation.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Always someone whining about Apple. Big surprise.

 

[Abazigal]

Always someone whining about Apple. Big surprise.

Just shows that Apple is doing something right.

 

[truthertech]

They are bad news for music fans and the bands and artists who allow labels and music services to engineer exclusive releases of their music deserve just as much criticism.

Why? The entire music industry is about exclusives! What do you think labels are all about? How about major networks having exclusive rights to stream certain sports or Twitter buying exclusive rights to Thursday night football. "Not fair!!!!!" There are a million examples. What an ill informed whiny bunch we have become in America

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I'm already subscribed with Google Play Music. So to get all the exclusives I would have to also sign with Apple Music, Tidal, and Spotify. That's an extra $30 on top of the $10 I already pay a month. No thanks, I'll just pirate whatever exclusive that's not on Google Play Music.

 

[GreyOS]

It's not Apple's fault that other services aren't as competitive. Or that they don't have a PROFITABLE business plan.

So is this supposed to be Apple's fault or the fault of the competition for failing to compete?

Do you see Usain Bolt deliberately slow down in a race just to give the rest a fighting chance? No, you look after yourself first, and continue to surge ahead as well as you can, because no one else is going to look after you.

The people have voted with their wallets. Many like Apple products and don't mind paying whatever price Apple charges for them, and that's how Apple is able to become as rich and successful as they are today. That's all there is to it, and in my opinion, that's as democratic as things can get.

im saying it's potentially apple's fault if they are engaging in anti competitive behaviour. their profits and accumulated wealth deserve investigation. this would have been the case 40 years ago but things have changed

 

[Loge]

3. You buying 3-6 CDs a month is the exception, not the norm. Having consumers paying $120 a year for music (that's the current going rate of $9.99 over 12 months) is far more than the industry was making per consumer in the peak of the CD age.

That's not a good comparison because many who use streaming services are on free tiers. So the average spend on streaming is not $120, but considerably less because of many who are paying $0. Those are the people who may only have bought 1 CD or so a year and brought the average spend down in the past.

 

[Shirasaki]

This entire exclusive rubbish must die.
But heck, people sometimes tend to gain feeling of "superiority" through such "exclusives".
And this practice is pretty common in Japan...

 

[inscrewtable]

Why are the comments sections on this site always such a complete dumpster fire?

It started to go downhill when it became popular to troll Apple, the ability to vote on posts has made it much worse due to a rush of ********s who want to get an early post in to make an obvious comment that will get lots of votes. And I only see it getting worse.

 

[silversin]

Good, more power to them.

It's straight up b.s. I had to take a Tidal subscription for Kanye's album, now I need to take an Apple Music sub for Frank Ocean? Hell no.

 

[Jax44]

Good, more power to them.

It's straight up b.s. I had to take a Tidal subscription for Kanye's album, now I need to take an Apple Music sub for Frank Ocean? Hell no.

Or you could wait a week or two.

 

[attila]

But when Tidal did it, it was "OK"? Was that because they didn't have the numbers apple music has?

Not sure, was it OK? If Kanye West begs Apple (via Twitter, hurr durr), exclusive don't seem to work anyway?

 

[DMH0630]

I'm already subscribed with Google Play Music. So to get all the exclusives I would have to also sign with Apple Music, Tidal, and Spotify. That's an extra $30 on top of the $10 I already pay a month. No thanks, I'll just pirate whatever exclusive that's not on Google Play Music.

The thing is the exclusive is for 2 weeks, so basically you're only pirating because you want it and you want it NOW.

I don't even understand this whole issue, I mean you don't want streaming services to compete on content so on what should they compete? UI? Price? If Apple decided to take the loss and drop the price to 5$ everyone would complain its unfair since they have a huge chest of money.

The TV equivalent of what people asking is basically: every network needs to have every show so I can choose which one I want to pay but thats not how the market works.

Spotify will probably fall not because of Apple Music (although it is increased competition) but because they "allowed" people to think Music is free of charge and now people are obviously saying no to paying for it.