UK Indie Labels Say Apple Music Free Trial Could 'Literally Put People Out of Business'

[TallManNY]

I suspect that iTunes downloads will tank as soon as Apple Music launches. By tank I mean a sudden drop off of sales by 20%, maybe more. Also other services, like Spotify which is paying them per stream of music will probably see their traffic drop dramatically. Let's say Spotify also see's 20% less usage during this trial period (many iOS users will load Apple Music and try it out for at least a few weeks, maybe switch over permanently or at least until trial period ends). It seems that some of the indie labels are so cash flow constrained that they can't afford to lose that revenue for three months even if there will be streaming revenue coming (which will probably take another month or two for Apple to collect and distribute). They can opt out of Apple Music and their content won't be on it. But their customers will be listening to Apple Music and decreasing their purchase of songs on iTunes and their use of Spotify, Pandora, etc.

Until the revenue from Apple Music kicks in (and it will as the terms are just as good as the other services), this is going to be a huge issue to bridge. I guess the Indies don't have the capital to make it through the Summer.

 

[superleccy]

Lol, whilst I'm glad you've come to your senses.... it's worth noting that the ONLY reason your post garnered a response from me is because I couldn't handle your snide and pompous "some people are so clueless" comment. It annoys me when people put out their paltry opinion as fact, then sneer at others... like you did. Thus.... my attitude & lack of respect for you. Make sense? You get what you give. Want polite conversation? Give it to others! Want to get smacked down a few notches? Come on here with your nose in the air, pretending your opinion is the only one & insulting the intelligence of those that disagree with you.
We can have a do over though... just PLEASE, in the future restrain from that type of antagonizing insulting commentary, yeah?

No. Some people on this thread are definitely clueless about the topic they are discussing.

 

[PJL500]

I don't understand how the labels are "losing revenue" during the 3 months? Are they claiming that downloads will cease entirely during those 3 months? If so, that's a bit of a stretch. It's akin to the movie industry claiming that each pirated movie equates to one lost sale (when they know full well that someone pirating a movie doesn't mean they had any intention of buying it).

An overall revenue drop of 10% over a 3-month period can be enough to put many small business's out of business. This Apple grab could easily cause such a drop or probably worse. Yes Apple should pay (maybe not full price) to distribute independent label content as a promotion for the new Apple streaming service... .

 

[randallpjenkins]

It's completely laughable that the same music industry that couldn't see "downloads" coming claims this will bankrupt them.

 

[skinned66]

I'm sure to lose sleep over this.

 

[ScottishDuck]

Indies are being asked to decide to either let people listen to their music legally for free for 3 months or be kicked out of the entire iTunes ecosystem. If you somehow think that won't impact them monetarily you are delusional.

 

[Night Spring]

Indies are being asked to decide to either let people listen to their music legally for free for 3 months or be kicked out of the entire iTunes ecosystem. If you somehow think that won't impact them monetarily you are delusional.

For what it's worth, RollingStone reports that Apple denies that allegation.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...s-of-thuggish-treatment-of-musicians-20150618

 

[IvanX]

Most rumours seem to be suggesting the Beatles and AC/DC will be among the big name holdouts who won't be signed up to Apple Music when it launches. Apple have said there will be over 30 million songs available to stream from launch but there are over 43 million songs currently available in the iTunes Store. Will they kick out those extra 13 million songs from iTunes because the artists have not signed up to Apple's all-inclusive ecosystem?

Much ado about nothing. As per http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/19/anton-newcombe-tweets-apple-music/

"Update: As we suspected, this appears to be a misunderstanding on Newcombe’s part. An Apple spokesperson told Rolling Stone that it is not threatening to remove music from its iTunes store if artists don’t agree to it’s streaming terms."

It is a ban, since they can't come back unless they play by the rules.

As per above post I have already made, there will be no ban. However, it's not a ban if 2 sides do not come to an agreement and, as a consequence, content of one side is no longer offered on the other side's platform.

 

[Skoal]

I'll give the free trial a go and dump it the minute I have to pay. I'm not interested in renting music!

 

[mitzkahdrinnen]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. You suggest it's an all or nothing – "give up your existing job to only work for Apple, and then not get paid for three months"... That's surely not what's happening here? Surely the record labels already have jobs, and are being paid for it – Apple is simply saying 'hey, sign up with us as well, and AFTER 3 months, on top of what you are earning now, we will pay you X%'...

i agree with you on this, the speed of the announcement really shouldn't effect any label, if anything, a smart label would try to appeal for some free metrics and/or programmatic promotion, rather than wait until the soma tween queen goes 'wah'

 

[milo]

Note I said a single not an album. Radio plays and exposure as well as the normal income from single sales ready for my album that comes out, oh about three months after September.

Still risky, it could help the album that's released later or it could turn out to be the most listened to track on the album with most of those listens making squat for the artist.

Although now it looks like Apple is paying artists during the trial so it's a moot point. Glad they gave in.

 

[Skoal]

Thanks to that unstoppable bad creation Taylor Swift Apple caved! I find it very hard to have any sympathy for this "artist" when she herself is milking every fan for every penny she can grab.

Why do people buy her crap? Moreover, why does she feel entitled that people should pay for her crap over and over? If you've paid once that's all she deserves!

 

[iopcritter]

You seem to have missed the point or misread the article.

What if I told you I'll hire you for a job with a really great salary, but I can't pay you for the first three months. Would you do it? Could you afford it? Or would you literally be homeless if you took the offer?

Unless these artists are signing up to be exclusively on Apple Music, then they have all of their pre-existing revenue streams intact. If their livelihood and ability to stay in business depends on the initial 3 months revenue from this new service, then they need to rethink their career options...

 

[Skoal]

Unless these artists are signing up to be exclusively on Apple Music, then they have all of their pre-existing revenue streams intact. If their livelihood and ability to stay in business depends on the initial 3 months revenue from this new service, then they need to rethink their career options...

Exactly and that's my main issue with people trying to compare this to some small business owner trying to supply a restaurant etc.

Apple is givin individual artists the ability to advertise their music in a way unheard of before for most artists. Especially the kids who have had no way to get their music out there prior. YouTube is great but it's not music specific like iTunes/music. 3 months of free music for people to learn about you. If they like it they either buy or sign up.

Music is but one part of Swifts money making ability. Her name sells all sorts of rubbish that fans will buy.

 

[TrueBlou]

As someone who works with an indie artist (and used to roadie with the band he used to be in) I can sum up my thoughts on this in one succinct word.

Pish.

 

[Doc C]

I agree that artists should be free to decide whether or not they sign up to this new service but they shouldn't be blackmailed with a ban from iTunes if they decide to not allow their music to be streamed.

Are they going to ban big artists like the Beatles and AC/DC from iTunes if they refuse to sign up to Apple Music or are they just attempting to bully smaller artists?

Wait - it's ok for the artist to make a business decision to decide who they want to work with but its not ok for Apple to do the same?

While I think that the artists deserve to get paid (thus applaud the reversal of direction by Apple), I don't think that either party should be held to a different standard.

On the other hand, I would love to see Apple take a completely different angle and tell the artists to dump the labels, publish through Apple directly, let Iovine/Dre/Reznor manage the production side of things and let the marketing magicians at Apple do their thing. For the typical starving artist (assuming Apple changes the terms to 50-50), they would earn noticeably more; for someone who had a single that goes gold in the U.S. (500K sales), net difference could be over $250K.