Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Paid $500,000 for Exclusive Access to Chance the Rapper's 'Coloring Book' Mixtape

Mad Mac Maniac said:
That makes the presumption that Apple is going to get exclusive albums "all the time". Or even majority of the time. If Apple get's a couple of 2 week exclusive album each month (and that's still a tiny amount of albums released each month), that's $12M a year spent on exclusives which, while is tiny for apple, I'm still not convinced that will actually create a positive ROI.

I still think that creating the best service and experience is the most important thing. Maybe I'm unusual, but if I already like the service I have I wouldn't switch just because I need to wait 2 weeks to get the latest album.
Click to expand...
Well, Spotify is still having problems turning a profit, so that just goes to show that music streaming is a very cutthroat market, and you need way more than just a good app design to make it work.
 
will this tweet get him into legal trouble or trouble in the music industry?
just wondering
 
Mad Mac Maniac said:
That makes the presumption that Apple is going to get exclusive albums "all the time". Or even majority of the time. If Apple get's a couple of 2 week exclusive album each month (and that's still a tiny amount of albums released each month), that's $12M a year spent on exclusives which, while is tiny for apple, I'm still not convinced that will actually create a positive ROI.

I still think that creating the best service and experience is the most important thing. Maybe I'm unusual, but if I already like the service I have I wouldn't switch just because I need to wait 2 weeks to get the latest album.
Click to expand...
If you're paying the same 9.99 a month, but have to wait 2 weeks to hear a new album every time it comes it, you'll see frustration. I know people that added Apple music along with Spotify because there were artists and other features Apple Music had that Spotify didn't
 
A_A said:
If you're paying the same 9.99 a month, but have to wait 2 weeks to hear a new album every time it comes it, you'll see frustration.
Click to expand...

See this is the part where I just need to shut up. Because I'm not into music. I don't follow it closely. When I hear a "new" song, that means it's probably already been out at least 6 months. So clearly it's aimed at a certain segment of the population that I'm nowhere near.
 
If that Who The Hell Is He got $500 000, then I can only imagine how much Taylor Swift got for her exclusives.
 
triton100 said:
Yeah let's denounce one of the most influential genres of music ever to be created by saying it's not music and is the worst thing ever. A multi billion dollar industry would beg to differ with your narrow mind.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the states, anywhere else not so much.
Multi billion dollar industry says nothing about whether Rap/Hiphop is good music, it could mean that people buying this kind of music have no taste.
Narrow mind has nothing to do with this, I find it rather insulting you say this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robeddie
itsmilo said:
only to be available on every piracy site for free 1 minute later and missing out on all those users willing to "pay" for it on other streaming services. idiots
Click to expand...

Your post makes no sense. How would people be willing to pay for it on all these other streaming services? If you think that loss was anywhere close to what he actually got paid you are seriously misunderstanding the business.

If you take the average of range for payouts it's $.007. Take the $500k plus another $100k for the promotional video and he would have had to had been streamed almost 87 million times in two weeks to break even. If you factor in the canibakization of apple numbers you are looking at even a higher stream count.

Spotify top streamed songs are easy to find and it's easy to see that it requires much longer than 2 weeks to get close to 100 million streams.
Ed Sheeren's current numbers are the only ones that might even make anyone second guess taking the kind of deal Chance got. And that is only accounting for worldwide sales.

We will just ignore the fact that the album was the first streaming only release ever to chart in the Billboard Top 200.

I'm not necessarily a fan of exclusivity deals like this but clearly the deal made sense for Apple and Chance and trying to proclaim either made a bad deal is to ignore the facts.
[doublepost=1489830350][/doublepost]
CarlosQG said:
I'd rather they invested that money on battery technology research or something more... technological.
Click to expand...

They should put you in charge of Apple Music. Spotify should also invest into battery technology research, the kinds of things that push music service subscriptions.
[doublepost=1489830545][/doublepost]
marine0816 said:
Really, all the Torrent sites offered it up for free without paying "Chance The rapper" - dime.. He is the biggest corporate phony organic street rapper of all time..
Click to expand...
Aren't people who pirate music in 2017 while calling musicians and artists corporate phonys really the biggest phonies and hypocrites?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwikat88
Half million for 2 weeks exclusive. Is this really worth it?
I know Apple is rich. Should Apple invest on making Apple product really great?
I don't understand how Apple make the decision to pay half million for this new singer? How they so sure all Apple user will like it and subscribe Apple Music.
 
Half a mil for this crappy rap guy and we still can't have the volume hud out of our faces
 
itsmilo said:
Well enough people do if it isnt on the streaming service of their choice. Who is going to subscribe to multiple services doing the same thing just to get one album? Making albums available on every streaming services gives them at least 0.xy cent instead of nothing



Meant it in general, not just him
Click to expand...
I subscribe to both Google Play Music and Amazon Music Unlimited. Not for exclusives, but I keep Google Music because of the YouTube Red tie in and I use Amazon exclusively on my Echos. I'm sure Apple has some market research that tells them these exclusives help them retain and attract customers.

What is most unbelievable is the large number of people in this thread who know nothing about marketing or how businesses are run in general.
[doublepost=1489849796][/doublepost]
Mad Mac Maniac said:
My point is that I think that this $500,000 "investment" is terrible. Do they expect to get a positive return on investment from that? Will 50,000 months of Apple Music be purchased due to having received this album 2 weeks earlier than anyone else? Not a chance (pun not intended). Even the most loyal of Chance's fans could surely wait 2 weeks (or obtain it illegally), and nobody else was even paying attention. Permanent exclusives (or at least 1+ years) could have a little bit of impact, but not at the rate of $13M a year.... I understand the idea is to get little tiny exclusives here and there to slowly build support from different areas of the market, but I think that's a futile cause. What they need is to provide the best service. Period.
Click to expand...
You are not thinking broadly enough. If I don't subscribe to any music service and I'm thinking about getting one, the fact that Apple seems to get the newest releases from the biggest artists before any other service may be the factor that makes me select them over Spotify. This isn't about a specific artist. It is about Apple being the places to hear the newest big thing first. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordVic
alexgowers said:
Half a million is not a lot of money after tax/corp tax. Lawyer fees. Management percentage. Etc very few people make mega bucks from actual music. A few weeks exclusive never hurt anyone and record labels could be banking some cash if they played along, my mind boggles why they want to discourage it.
Click to expand...
The reason labels want to discourage it is not because of some altruistic notion of getting the music to the people. It's because they don't want their business and interests to take another hit from Apple. The labels desperately want to keep the status quo. Hell, if they could go back to the CD/brick_mortar model right now, they would do so in a heartbeat.

However, everyone knows (even the labels) that the digital cat is out of the bag. From here on out, it's damage control for them. To the labels, they'd rather have anyone other than Apple controlling the music industry. If it were Google or Amazon paying for exclusives (provided they aren't indie artists), they'd be all over that. But no, it's Apple that's paying and they don't want Apple to disrupt the biz. Anyone but Apple.
 
oneMadRssn said:
Downloads aren't "things." People still shouldn't illegally download files when there are adequate legal means of downloading them, but let's not confuse illegal downloading with stealing.
Click to expand...

miniyou64 said:
Voluntarily sharing bits of data is not stealing.
Click to expand...

Tell this to my brother who is a musician and is pissed when he sees people steal his work on torrent sites instead of paying him.

And its not like he is a rich artist and can afford this. Or like he is asking for an arm and a leg. He needs every dollar. If you enjoy his work pay him. Easy as that.

You guys are like the people who say steeling from a big company is not hurting anybody. It is still a theft.
 
MacBH928 said:
will this tweet get him into legal trouble or trouble in the music industry?
just wondering
Click to expand...

There is an excellent chance he violated some form of non-disclosure regarding the terms of his agreement with Apple. However, it's unlikely there will be any negative outcomes, either with Apple or with the music industry at large. Maybe just a heads up that he shouldn't post that stuff.
 
oneMadRssn said:
Where?

Here is the statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506

I don't see the word "steal" or any of its synonyms. Unless you consider "infringe" to be a synonym, in which case that kid definitely infringed my cookie this morning... wait... that doesn't sound right
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. You take stuff that isn't yours to have if you don't pay for it. Whether you call it stealing or not is besides the point. It is illegal behaviour.

Simple really...
 
If I had the money, I'd pay 500 grand to ensure I never had to hear "Chance The Rapper" again. That dude is awful.
 
And nobody cared... How about use the money to make a WebApp, so your service is not tied to the bloated trash that is iTunes on desktop.
 
ftaok said:
The reason labels want to discourage it is not because of some altruistic notion of getting the music to the people. It's because they don't want their business and interests to take another hit from Apple. The labels desperately want to keep the status quo. Hell, if they could go back to the CD/brick_mortar model right now, they would do so in a heartbeat.

However, everyone knows (even the labels) that the digital cat is out of the bag. From here on out, it's damage control for them. To the labels, they'd rather have anyone other than Apple controlling the music industry. If it were Google or Amazon paying for exclusives (provided they aren't indie artists), they'd be all over that. But no, it's Apple that's paying and they don't want Apple to disrupt the biz. Anyone but Apple.
Click to expand...
They are also scared of the artist going the way of Frank Ocean and just becoming an indie musician and having Apple put up a lot of the money upfront for them.

The 3 major label companies also have small investment in Spotify, so they definitely don't want it to fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back