RIAA: Streaming Music Revenue Increased 25 Percent Last Year, But Cash From Digital Downloads Continued to Shrink

[MacRumors]

Music streaming revenue increased by 25 percent last year and now accounts for 61 percent of all the cash brought in from recorded music in the United States, according to a new annual study from the Recording Industry Association of America (via Variety).

The RIAA study found that recorded music revenues hit a total of $11.1 billion in 2019, up from $9.8 billion the previous year. Of that, paid streaming music services like Apple Music and Spotify accounted for $6.8 billion in revenue during 2019.

That figure rises to $8.8 billion when including ad-supported streaming revenue, or nearly 80 percent of the overall cash made in the recorded music business last year.

The number of paid streaming subscriptions increased by 29 percent, with 60.4 million in 2019, compared to 46.9 million the previous year. That's over five-fold increase in music subscribers since 2015, when the total number of monthly subscribers was just 10.8 million.

Physical sales now account for just 10 percent of the marketplace, according to the RIAA, although the vinyl boom ensured that it wasn't the worst performer in recorded music revenue. Digital downloads have fared even worse, and adding up to just 8 percent of revenue. The RIAA says 2019 was the first year since 2006 that the money brought in from paid downloads was less than $1 billion.

Apple Music's subscriber count last June was over 60 million, while Amazon Music recently claimed it has more than 55 million customers worldwide, although that figure includes a tally over several tiers, including Amazon Music for Prime subscribers and its free ad-supported plan. Spotify announced in September that it had 113 million paying customers.

Article Link: RIAA: Streaming Music Revenue Increased 25 Percent Last Year, But Cash From Digital Downloads Continued to Shrink

 

[Shanghaichica]

It’s sad really. I still buy music in the form of downloads but not nearly as often as I did before I subscribed to Apple Music.

I guess somehow I’m included in Amazon’s music subscriber count even though all my echo’s are set to use Apple Music as the default music service. I never use prime music. It’s mainly Apple Music and sometimes google play music on my google home devices.

 

[Goatllama]

Crap. I mean, they always say the iTunes story isn't going anywhere, so I'm not that worried, really. But I never want to have to rely on an internet connection for music (or most entertainment for that matter). I'll check back in another ten years.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Crap. I mean, they always say the iTunes story isn't going anywhere, so I'm not that worried, really. But I never want to have to rely on an internet connection for music (or most entertainment for that matter). I'll check back in another ten years.

This. I have Apple Music and google play music subscriptions but I still like having my whole music library of purchased songs downloaded to my iPhone. Streaming services are a convenience for me but I like to have something physical to fall back on.

 

[cgs1xx]

I use Spotify because it’s a great music player, has equalizer etc but still buy my favourite tracks off iTunes. I have stopped buying physical albums though unless it’s one of my favourite artists. It still doesn’t make sense why streaming services pay less money even though the number of streams has gone up??

 

[Rudy69]

This. I have Apple Music and google play music subscriptions but I still like having my whole music library of purchased songs downloaded to my iPhone. Streaming services are a convenience for me but I like to have something physical to fall back on.

dont they let you download them for offline listening? I know Spotify does

 

[jayducharme]

And think about who is getting all that money. Unless you're a Bruno Mars or a Taylor Swift, it certainly isn't the artists. If someone buys one of my songs on Apple Music, I get a 70% cut. If that same song is streamed, I get about $.006. Streaming is a great business model for big corporations that distribute the music, but not so much for the content providers.

 

[cmaier]

dont they let you download them for offline listening? I know Spotify does

Yes

 

[ipponrg]

I use Spotify because it’s a great music player, has equalizer etc but still buy my favourite tracks off iTunes. I have stopped buying physical albums though unless it’s one of my favourite artists. It still doesn’t make sense why streaming services pay less money even though the number of streams has gone up??

Licensing, operational costs, and because they can. If people really want to support the artist, buy merch and goto their shows.

 

[mrat93]

Crap. I mean, they always say the iTunes story isn't going anywhere, so I'm not that worried, really. But I never want to have to rely on an internet connection for music (or most entertainment for that matter). I'll check back in another ten years.

Have you not checked in at any point the last 8 years?

 

[Rudy69]

Yes

I know it's not the same as owning your music outright but for most casual listeners it's more than enough. Also Music streaming services unlike the movie services tend to have more or less all the songs

 

[cardfan]

And think about who is getting all that money. Unless you're a Bruno Mars or a Taylor Swift, it certainly isn't the artists. If someone buys one of my songs on Apple Music, I get a 70% cut. If that same song is streamed, I get about $.006. Streaming is a great business model for big corporations that distribute the music, but not so much for the content providers.

Who really cares though? No one twisted their arms to agree to it. If they don’t like it find a different job. Artists are a dime a dozen.

 

[Agent OrangeZ]

And think about who is getting all that money. Unless you're a Bruno Mars or a Taylor Swift, it certainly isn't the artists. If someone buys one of my songs on Apple Music, I get a 70% cut. If that same song is streamed, I get about $.006. Streaming is a great business model for big corporations that distribute the music, but not so much for the content providers.

So... if you sell a song for $1, you get $0.70. To get the same money on streaming (based upon $.006), your song needs to stream 116 times. Well... if a song is good, I personally would wear it out on repeat... or it would get heavy rotation in my playlist... so... my advice? Make great music...

 

[decafjava]

So... if you sell a song for $1, you get $0.70. To get the same money on streaming (based upon $.006), your song needs to stream 116 times. Well... if a song is good, I personally would wear it out on repeat... or it would get heavy rotation in my playlist... so... my advice? Make great music...

Well, doesn't mean some reform isn't necessary here. Anyway, Apple does pay a higher percentage than other platforms to artists both for purchased downloads and streaming.

 

[triangletechie]

I have Apple Music and Pandora, but I'll still buy vinyl and the occasional CD of some of my all-time faves (Led Zeppelin, Metallica, RHCP)

 

[daabido]

Unless you do absolutely everything without a record label, there is no way you are getting 70% of the revenue from iTunes. More like 10%.

How Much Does iTunes Pay Artists? | InvestingAnswers

How much does iTunes pay artists per download? How do modern musicians make money from streaming? From royalties to touring, the answers may surprise you!

investinganswers.com

 

[cylack]

I have Apple music and its great that I can instantly add a song that I like to a playlist and I can listen to my entire music library through my Apple watch at the gym, but having to pay $120 a year for the rest of my life to have access to these songs bothers me.

 

[cgs1xx]

I have Apple music and its great that I can instantly add a song that I like to a playlist and I can listen to my entire music library through my Apple watch at the gym, but having to pay $120 a year for the rest of my life to have access to these songs bothers me.

Exactly.

 

[JoeShades]

I have Apple music and its great that I can instantly add a song that I like to a playlist and I can listen to my entire music library through my Apple watch at the gym, but having to pay $120 a year for the rest of my life to have access to these songs bothers me.

I have my music on my phone, I do not subscribe to any music service. I suggest you do the same if this bothers you.

 

[Rob_2811]

Crap. I mean, they always say the iTunes story isn't going anywhere, so I'm not that worried, really. But I never want to have to rely on an internet connection for music (or most entertainment for that matter). I'll check back in another ten years.

for now...

 

[mw360]

And think about who is getting all that money. Unless you're a Bruno Mars or a Taylor Swift, it certainly isn't the artists. If someone buys one of my songs on Apple Music, I get a 70% cut. If that same song is streamed, I get about $.006. Streaming is a great business model for big corporations that distribute the music, but not so much for the content providers.

It looks fishy at first glance, but someone listening to music three hours per day would be costing Apple more in streaming royalties than they would make from the subscription. I easily hit that on a good work day*. So, if you’re looking for something more like 5 cents per play, Apple could only afford to stream 6 tracks per day. The other interesting thing for you is that I previously spent much less on purchases than £7 per month (70% of a £10 sub), so I’m pretty sure I’m sending more money to artists than I was before.

*I reckon a good half of my streams are while I have my earphones off to talk to someone, so interestingly, if I had AirPods which pause the music automatically, Apple would halve their royalty costs on my account. And people say Tim Cook is dumb...