Streaming Services Will Never Become Profitable, Study Finds… | Digital Music News

“The streaming business has to slowly move from a free economy to a paid economy as the sustainability of ad-supported revenue model is a big question mark.”

The grim financial outlook comes as rumors intensify over plans by Spotify to go public.  But just like Pandora, Spotify’s financials remain ugly and are unlikely to improve. “Pandora has never made a profit and we think that the company will never make a profit, unless there is a major change in strategy,” Generator concluded.

READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02/18/profitless

RELATED:

Music Streaming Math, Can It All Add Up?

No, Streaming is not more profitable than Transactional Sales… Not Today, Maybe Not Ever…

Beck on Spotify: “The Model Doesn’t Work. And the Quality Sucks.” | DMN

Pandora Suit May Upend Century-Old Royalty Plan | NY Times

After federal antitrust investigations, both groups agreed to government supervision in 1941.

This system has hummed along for decades. But with the rise of Internet radio, publishers have complained that the rules are antiquated and unfair. They point to the disparity in the way Pandora compensates the two sides of the music business: Last year, Pandora paid 49 percent of its revenue, or about $313 million, to record companies, but only 4 percent, or about $26 million, to publishers.

“It’s a godawful system that just doesn’t work,” said Martin N. Bandier, the chairman of Sony/ATV, the world’s largest music publisher.

The wider music world has been galvanized by the issue of low royalties from fast-growing streaming companies.

For songwriters, Ascap and BMI have also been among the most reliable institutions in the music industry, and few want to see them go. But Rick Carnes, a Nashville songwriter and president of the Songwriters Guild of America, said that while these organizations had served him and his colleagues well, the Justice Department agreements that govern them were outdated and must be changed.

“This is a horse-and-buggy consent decree in a digital environment,” Mr. Carnes said. “There’s no way that works now.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/business/media/pandora-suit-may-upend-century-old-royalty-plan.html?

CCC-NYC.ORG | RALLY & CONCERT FEB 25 2014 feats David Byrne, Marc Ribot, Mike Mills, John McCrea, More!

About CCC-NYC

The New York City Chapter of the Content Creators Coalition is a new group united with the national CCC behind the idea that creators of cultural content need to join forces in order to ensure fairness and dignity for artists in the digital age. If the past fifteen years has taught us anything, it’s that artists cannot depend on industry professionals or journalists or fans to advocate for them—we must speak up for ourselves.

The group is enacting bylaws and seeking nonprofit status so we can operate and address these issues over the long-term.

Statement of Principles:

1) We believe in an Artist’s Control Of Their Work; that it’s the right of any creator of cultural content to choose when, how, and whether their work is distributed for commercial gain, monetized with advertising, or otherwise exploited.

2) We believe in the Ability to Opt-Out of services; the right of artists, writers, and other creators of cultural content to refuse, individually and collectively, to participate in business models that threaten our livelihoods.

3) We believe in Fair Pay; the right of content creators to a fair share of the wealth our work generates.

4) We believe in Collective Representation; the right of all creators of cultural content to aggregate our power to protect our livelihoods and our art forms.

Join Us!

If you are a NYC area creator of cultural content and would like to get involved, please contact us at cccnewyorkcity@gmail.com (or the form below). We want you at our meetings and events. You can also follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

If you are outside the New York area, please visit the national CCC website: www.contentcreatorscoalition.org.

7 royalty cheques that’ll make you lose your faith in the music industry | AUX

How little does the music industry pay artists? Shockingly little. Spotify, the dominant streaming music source in the U.S., is leaking money. They reportedly dole out 70 per cent of their revenue to royalties, and while that number seems high, consider this: each song stream pays an artist between one-sixth and one-eight of a cent. One source claimed that, on streaming music services, an artist requires nearly 50,000 plays to receive the revenue earned from one album sale. Ouch.

Indeed, things are getting dire. And here are seven examples of how bad things can get.

READ THE FULL STORY AT AUX:
http://m.aux.tv/news/100455-7-royalty-cheques-that-ll-make-you-lose-your-faith-in-the-music-industry

Jean Michel Jarre: ‘Artists are the collateral damage of the tech giants’ | The Guardian UK

The ‘monsters’ of Google, Facebook and the tech giants need to work with musicians, the electronic music star said, to develop new ways of protecting creative property.

Jean Michel Jarre has called on music artists to work with the world’s most powerful technology companies, urging them to explore new ways of making money for their work.

“We are the people creating the future – not manufacturers of computers or cables. We are the extraordinary,” Jarre told the Guardian. “[The lack of enforcement of] intellectual property is not just a problem for artists from Europe and America – it’s a global problem . It’s one of the strongest elements of what democracy is all about.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE GUARDIAN UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/jean-michel-jarre-smartphone-google-creators

RELATED:

Google, Advertising, Money and Piracy. A History of Wrongdoing Exposed.

Two Simple Facts about Technology and Piracy : iTunes Vs. YouTube

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally?

The Music Industry’s YouTube Problem | Music Ally

“Google are not music people, and that scares me.” This single quote from Colin Daniels, of Australian independent music firm Inertia, summarised a whole conference worth of anti-Google unrest at this year’s Midem, which spilled over onto YouTube too.

Whenever a YouTube exec appeared in a panel session, they were put on the defensive about the company’s approach to music and creators, often by pointed questions from audience members – and on one occasion, angry heckling.

After the last year of Spotify taking constant flak over streaming’s value to artists, at Midem that company was being praised – “everyone there are music people,” said Daniels before making his Google comment in a session on indie label strategies – while YouTube (and, more surprisingly, Facebook) were being attacked.

Music good, Big Tech evil. We’ve been writing about this clash for years now, but it was more open and more emotional than we remember at any previous Midem. Yet we also found a more positive, if challenging takeaway from this year’s conference: the music industry can shed its victim status and make these Big Tech platforms work better for rightsholders and creators.

READ THE FULL STORY AT MUSIC ALLY:
http://musically.com/2014/02/07/music-allys-midem-recap-the-music-industrys-youtube-problem/

RELATED:

Meet the New Boss: Google’s Kent Walker Shows Us What Monopoly Looks Like

Kent Walker’s Grooveshark Problem

Worshiping the Great God Scale: Google’s Four Great Lies as read to you by Kent Walker

If Spotify is saving Swedish music sales, why aren’t indies celebrating? | The Guardian UK

It’s often hailed as a model for the future of digital music, but the reality is that many smaller labels can’t survive on streaming

When Swedish independent artist/producer/songwriter and label owner David Elfström Lilja checked his admin page on Phonofile, his distributor, the other day to find out how much he had made from his latest single Worlds Collide in its first few weeks of release, his heart sank. For 18,035 streams he had received 8.70 SEK (£0.80). Meanwhile it had sold two copies on iTunes, for which he received 36.37 SEK (£3).

“No one can say that streams don’t cannibalise sales, cause I can’t imagine those streams wouldn’t have generated at least a few sales [if people couldn’t stream it unlimited times],” he reflects.

It’s worth noting that 2013’s 5% rise of music sales in Sweden represents a slowdown, as sales rose by 13.8% in 2012. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in Sweden that doesn’t know about Spotify by now, so perhaps we’re getting closer to the point where the market is saturated, when all those willing to pay for it are already paying (the company recently dropping listening limits for free users is not exactly helping to push people towards paid subscriptions). And yet revenue levels are nowhere close to where they were in the early noughties.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE GUARDIAN:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2014/jan/30/spotify-swedish-music-deles-streaming?

FCC Shelves Pandora’s Bid For South Dakota Radio Station | Billboard

In a setback to its music licensing plans, Pandora has received word from the FCC that for the time being it is no longer processing its application to transfer ownership of the broadcasting license for KXMZ, the Rapid City, South Dakota radio station it acquired last June. Pandora had hoped to take advantage of the lower rates that internet streaming services owned by terrestrial radio stations enjoy.

READ THE FULL STORY AT BILLBOARD:
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/legal-and-management/5869791/fcc-shelves-pandoras-bid-for-south-dakota-radio

While Artists are Bitching About Spotify Royalties… Google, YouTube and Grooveshark are in the Getaway Car…

While artists bitch about low payments from Spotify royalties,  YouTube,  Grooveshark and The Pirate Bay pay artists less or even nothing.  The reason Spotify pays so little is because it’s forced to compete with illegally operating, unlicensed sites who pay nothing at all. Artists need to focus on the big picture.

Spotify has become the symbol of inequity for artists in the digital age, and we’re not saying artists are wrong to focus on the Spotify royalty payments as an example of this inequity. We’ve written our own criticisms of Music Streaming Math and our doubts that Spotify could ever actually scale to be a sustainable business for both artists and labels.

Whatever the criticisms we may have of Spotify it is important to note that they are legal and licensed with secured rights.

The truth is that Spotify is only a symptom of a much larger disease.  The actual cause of the inequity is mass scale, enterprise level, corporate sanctioned piracy for profit. Ad Funded Piracy is the primary mechanism by which the work of artists and musicians has been devalued to fractions of cent and here’s how it works.

Imagine creating a business where you could profit by attracting every fan of every musician and band.

Imagine not requiring any licenses or permission from any of the musicians and bands.

Imagine selling advertising based on not only the overall popularity of the musicians and bands, but also from providing free streaming and/or downloads to the music of the musicians and bands.

Imagine not having to pay musicians and bands and keeping all of the advertising (and/or subscription/access fee) money.

GOOGLE:

One of the most accessible points of piracy starts at Google search and they can absolutely do more to assist legal and licensed businesses that pay artists. Digital Music News recently reported that “Google Receives Its 100 Millionth Piracy Notice. Nothing Changes…” As we’ve seen with Google’s swift retribution to Rap Genius, search can very effective to discourage or remove bad actors from the legitimate marketplace (When it is in Google’s business interest to do so!). Google is also tracking over 200,000 known domains engaged in active piracy. This seems like an easy problem to solve.

Not only did a series of research studies by the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab identify Google as one of the primary companies feeding advertising to pirate sites, but there is actually a longer darker history of Google assisting illegally operating business online.

Artists don’t get paid anything from pirate sites profiting from advertising revenue. This is the big one, those who pay nothing at all but distribute the most music at the highest volumes.

YOUTUBE:

YouTube is a company that was intentionally founded and designed to profit by ripping off artists, musicians and creators. These practices are well known from court documents published by sources such as Daily Finance.

It appears that much of the music on YouTube may still be generating profit for YouTube but not so much for musicians. East Bay Ray of the Dead Kennedy’s details the state of things here on NPR.

Even when YouTube is paying, they are paying half as much (or less) than Spotify on a per play basis.

GROOVESHARK:

We’d love to hear from artists (musicians and songwriters) who actually have their music legally licensed on Grooveshark. And, for those who do, we’d love to see what some of those royalty statements look like. We can’t imagine that Grooveshark is paying better than Spotify and that’s only for those artists who may actually have a valid license from Grooveshark.

As of this writing Grooveshark is still embattled in a number of lawsuits, which at one time included every major label. Essentially Grooveshark designed their business to be like an audio and music only version of YouTube. We detailed their practices in the post “Grooveshark, Notice and Shakedown”.

We don’t know how much money Grooveshark is making, but it’s enough to put the companies founders on the Forbes 30 Under 30 List… It seems that it is the (new boss) gatekeepers controlling the money and once again it is the artists themselves getting screwed.

PANDORA:

As of this writing Pandora has abandoned it’s ill conceived attempt at legislation that would have reduced artists royalties by 85%. But let us not forget that the arguments used by Pandora for attempting that move were also motivated by the downward economic pressure placed on artists whereby the majority of music consumption is happening with no compensation at all due to various forms of Ad Funded Piracy.

Welcome to the Exploitation Economy.

We suggest that artists focus on the disease that is creating the symptoms of businesses like Spotify.

RELATED:

Google, Advertising, Money and Piracy. A History of Wrongdoing Exposed.

Lou Reed and Dead Kennedys Go Public Against Ad Funded Piracy with Facebook Posts


Spotify, YouTube, Streaming Services Are Killing Digital Downloads | TIME.com

Since the iTunes Store launched in 2003, digital music sales have been viewed as the music industry’s saving grace in the face of declining physical album sales and rampant online piracy.

“What we were thinking about was having full track download sales somehow replace the lost revenues from the rapid decline of physical [sales],” says Larry Miller, a music business professor at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. “What wasn’t so widely anticipated five or six years ago was that full-track download sales would begin to decline as rapidly as they have this year, especially given how nascent the streaming services still are.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT TIME:
http://business.time.com/2014/01/03/spotify-and-youtube-are-just-killing-digital-music-sales/?iid=biz-article-mostpop1

RELATED:

Music Streaming Math, Can It All Add Up?

No, Streaming is not more profitable than Transactional Sales… Not Today, Maybe Not Ever…