Does Sirius and “Piped in” Airline Music Lead to More Music “Discovery” than Pandora?

Readers of this blog know that there is a raging debate over the rates that artists are paid by Streaming and Webcasting services.    But underpinning that debate is the notion that certain webcasting services and streaming services help people discover new music and are thus giving something of value back to the artist.  It occurred to me that I have a big enough song catalogue that we could actually look at the question try to measure if these services lead people to new music or just sort of spin what is most popular and familiar.

So in my own catalogue there are 5 songs that were genuine radio hits on multiple radio formats.  At least here in the US.   As individual tracks they also tend to be in my top ten sellers. They were also released commercially as singles.    They are:

Low

Teen Angst

Get Off This

Take The Skinheads Bowling

Eurotrash Girl

(Pictures of Matchstick Men is a Status Quo cover and I don’t get granular statements for that track).

There are also another dozen tracks that were minor hits, regional hits,  or garnered significant but fleeting radio play.  I deal with these and “On-Demand” services in a subsequent posts.

So the question I attempted to answer is  “What percentage of spins on these service are NOT the top 5 hits?”   This is not necessarily the only way to look at the question.  This is perhaps the bluntest of measurements.  However it is interesting to actually look at the data rather than just make unverified claims.   (For balance I’ve also asked a friendly yet sometimes adversarial fellow blogger to look at my raw data and ask the question differently.)

Here are the somewhat surprising results.

Percentage of spins that are NOT my top 5 hits.  Webcasters and Broadcasters only.   On Demand Streaming services like Spotify or Rdio are not considered.  

Sirius XM 46.13% broadcast
Airline Radio 46.02% broadcast
College Radio 32.15% broadcast
Live 365 31.36% webcast/broadcast
Pandora 18.18% webcast
Rhapsody radio 16.02% webcast
Terrestrial UK 8.90% broadcast/webcast?
Terrestrial Radio US 3.47% broadcast

Here are the big surprises.   Sirius XM although relatively few spins, tends to play more stuff out in the “long tail” of my catalogue than every other source.  And Airlines?  how did that happen?

Pandora which loudly boasts of it’s music genome project ends up in the middle of the pack.  Further 4 out of 5 spins on Pandora are for “Low” my biggest hit.  The only other service that spins Low as much is US terrestrial (85% of all spins).   However there is one caveat with Pandora.  The other 20% of the time the spins are more evenly distributed throughout my catalogue.  At least relatively speaking.   I mean the number two played track is an obscure outtake  from Kerosene Hat “Sunday Train.”  I assume that is the music genome at work.  So 20% of the time Pandora acts as claimed as a music discovery service.  At least with my catalogue.  Second caveat.  This is just within my catalogue.  It’s entirely possible that in aggregate Pandora as claims plays more indie music and artists out in “the tail” of popularity.

Percentage of Spins that are the track  “Low.”  Webcaster and Broadcasters. 

Terrestrial Radio US 85.26% broadcast
Pandora 79.82% webcast
Rhapsody Radio 63.75% webcast
Terrestrial Radio UK 39.56% broadcast/webcast?
Live 365 28.97% webcast/broadcast
Airline Radio 25.09% broadcast
College Radio 24.99% broadcast
Sirius XM 24.96% broadcast

About 20% of the time Pandora seems to really play some obscure tracks. Kudos!

Pandora plays

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

We’d just like to say a very big thank you to both Lou Reed and the Dead Kennedys who publicly posted to Facebook this week our posts showing how they are being exploited by major brands and big tech internet advertising corporations.

LOU REED FACEBOOK POST:
https://www.facebook.com/LouReed/posts/10151804045145953

DEAD KENNEDYS FACEBOOK POST:
https://www.facebook.com/deadkennedys/posts/10151784946510638

In the recent weeks we’ve heard from Aimee Mann, Pink Floyd, Thom Yorke, Blake Morgan, Lou Reed and the Dead Kennedys on various issues negatively effecting artists in the “digital economy.”

These artists have presented their concerns ranging from Spotify royalty rates, Pandora’s dishonest attempts to cut  their currently mandated rates by 85% and of course Ad Funded Piracy which pays artists absolutely nothing.

In each of the cases addressed above artists are speaking out against the exploitative practices of corporate interests destroying the ability of professional musicians to maintain sustainable careers.

Change happens when artists speak up and speak out.

8 Takeaways from today’s IP Subcommittee Hearing

Artists and Creators or all types, this is what you are up against, and we’re not even kidding. Wish we were… this is a Must Read.

Music Technology Policy

Every now and then you get a gift from the ether–today’s hearing “Innovation in America: The Role of Technology” at the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet was no exception.  It’s hard sometimes to convince lawmakers and staff that “yes, they really are that self-centered” when speaking of the groovier-than-thou Big Tech community, so it’s always nice when Big Tech does it for you.

First of all–get it straight that it is highly unlikely that anyone on today’s panel uttered a word that was not approved somehow by Google or its intermediaries. And certainly not one word was uttered that would give Google any heart palpitations (or as they say in the mountains, “agida”).

Having said that, I think the testimony of the witnesses at today’s hearing can be distilled into a few recurring themes, although I encourage anyone who thinks I’m oversimplifying to read the transcript…

View original post 797 more words

Steal a Little: Piracy & the Economy via The Illusion Of More

I’ve wanted a sailing yacht for years but have never been able to afford one — until now. Thanks in part to a report on piracy and counterfeiting by the GAO and this explication by CCIA (Computer & Communications Industry Association) lobbyist Matt Schruers, I now have a plan that will put me at the helm of the sloop Larceny by the Summer of 2016. And the best part is the whole family gets to collaborate to make it happen. According to my rough calculations, all we have to do is steal groceries like a Dickensian gang for three full years, and we’ll save enough for a substantial down payment on the boat. I’m thinking Beneteau 45ft, but if any seasoned mariner out there has a recommendation, let me know.

READ THE FULL POST AT THE ILLUSION OF MORE:
http://illusionofmore.com/piracy_and_economy/

Repeat after me… “Artists are Innovators!” via VOX INDIE

Testimony from copyright hearing highlights what’s at stake for content creators

On Thursday (July 25th) the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held another hearing on copyright reform, “Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights,” with the following witness invited to testify:

Sandra Aistars, Executive Director, Copyright Alliance
Eugene Mopsik, Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers
Tor Hansen,Co-Founder, Yep Roc Records / Red Eye Distribution
John Lapham, General Counsel, Getty Images
William Sherak, President, Stereo D

Unfortunately, to some in the press–who the witnesses were seems to have overshadowed what they may have actually said. In The Washington Post Andrea Peterson bemoaned the lack of “innovators” on the witness list.

READ THE FULL POST AT VOX INDEI:
http://voxindie.org/house-hearing-copyright-reform

Spotify is Right on Ad Funded Piracy and YouTube

We were very pleased to see this statement by Spotify’s in house economist Will Page (and sorry if we missed it before) :

“Copyright infringing websites are big businesses … 2/3 of piracy sites have advertising, and 1/3 also include credit card logons. This competition is real: consider how ad pricing is distorted by those unlicensed sites who offer more scale and no content costs.”

This is exactly what we’ve been saying and are glad that we can find some common ground between artists and streaming/webcasting services.  Ad supported  piracy reduces revenues for both artists and legitimate licensed services.

We’d also like to note that one Spotify executive pointed out to us the inconsistently in artists pulling their music from Spotify but keeping their music on YouTube.

They are both on-demand streaming services but YouTube is a much less artist friendly service.  Artists don’t seem to realize these facts:

*Spotify appears to pay more than YouTube.  A lot more (see my songwriting statement below).

*Spotify relies on licenses from rightsholders.  Whereas YouTube often relies on  the legally questionable premise that it’s “users”  make the songs available on YouTube and thus aren’t responsible for getting a license.

* If artists control enough of their rights  they can remove their music from Spotify.  Try that with YouTube.

*YouTube is essentially the  largest on-demand music streaming service.  If Artists are being underpaid by these services  the logical place to start is with YouTube not Spotify.

*YouTube sounds terrible compared to Spotify.  It sounds like every song has a flanger on it. ( Sorry this is just my pet peeve.)

(Ed note:  And then there is the matter that YouTube’s policies on comments and free speech.  These allow YouTube to be a platform for every conceivable form of hatemongering. Do you really want your kids going to this site?)

spotify vs pandora

Poll: Ad Agency Giants Unite for More Innovative Brand Sponsored Piracy?

Music Technology Policy

Some of you may have seen the story about the merger of Omnicom and Publicis the huge global advertising agencies.  When the House IP Subcommittee holds hearings about “innovation”, they will hopefully be interested in the effect of this merger on brand sponsored piracy.  We have noted in the past that Omnicom clients (particularly Chiat Day clients) have been particularly nonresponsive on explaining why they support online theft of music and movies.  Plus, who can forget the Chiat Day “Arists vs Artists” campaign.

Poll by Damn the Science!

View original post

Why Spotify is NOT the Enemy of Artists, and Who Is…

Spotify has been taking a beating in the press lately and we understand why. We have offered our own criticisms which mostly revolve around royalty rates and transparency. But we’ve also stated that Spotify is a symptom of a much larger disease of illegally operating, infringing businesses who make millions individually and billions collectively while paying absolutely zero to artists and rights holders.

As much as we disagree with Spotify over their rates and PR spin on several issues, we also recognize that they are legal, licensed and pay out royalties as they have been negotiated. Artists are able to opt out of Spotify individually (and also if their label permits).  It is for these reasons that Spotify are NOT the enemy.

However this begs the question, if Spotify are not the enemy, who is? Well, as we stated above it is the massively deceptive Ad Tech businesses who have been financing mainstream music piracy for over a decade. This is the Silicon Valley internet tech lobby (lead by Google) who seek to dismantle and destroy copyright protection for individual creators.

Yes, we hear a lot of lip service about how these people say they are really pro-copyright and pro-artist, but when every meaningful action and suggestion is to the contrary of protection and compensation of the artists work and labor it all rings a bit hollow. We now know after a decade plus of internet/tech snake oil salesmen there is no magic bullet and that “touring and t-shirts” is an admission of the failure of these online businesses to provide sustainable earnings for creators.

Piracy is NOT Promotion

Exploitation is NOT Innovation

In our ongoing “Exploited By…” series of posts we illustrate how major Fortune 500 companies, represented by Madison Avenue Advertising Agencies have been, and continue to finance the destruction of the creative community.

So we say this…

Let us focus first on the many who pay nothing at all to musicians while pocketing 100% of the Profit. Let us focus our energies on the illegally operating companies and corporations who have made infringement for profit their business model.

We are encouraged to see Spotify also take up this mutually beneficial fight against those companies and business who have so greatly devalued the work of musicians as well as impeding the growth potential of legal and licensed companies to create sustainable models for all stakeholders.

Will Page a Spotify spokesperson had this to say in The Register UK:

“Copyright infringing websites are big businesses … 2/3 of piracy sites have advertising, and 1/3 also include credit card logons. This competition is real: consider how ad pricing is distorted by those unlicensed sites who offer more scale and no content costs.”

This is the first step towards making real change that will remove the bad actors from the marketplace and move towards a sustainable ecosystem for all legal and licensed stakeholders.

We’ve commented before that we believe that Spotify is unsustainable at current rates. It is also worth noting that Spotify pays significantly MORE than YouTube, a business that was founded and built on the premise of infringement for profit. Although YouTube and Google have made improvements in their services for rights management they still fundamentally devalue the work of artists hiding behind the DMCA.  Google and YouTube also continue to create and distribute anti-copyright and anti-artist propaganda asserting that any “remix” of an artists work is “fair use.” It is not.

In the end Spotify needs to increase it’s revenue per stream so it can increase it’s royalties per stream to be sustainable for artists. The number one way to do this is to capture the millions or even billions in advertising revenue that are financing illegally operating and infringing businesses that pay artists nothing.

In closing, the enemy is not so much those who pay so little offering artists both consent and compensation, but more so those who are paying nothing at all and deny the artists consent.

Exhibit A:

Lou Reed Exploited By American Express, AT&T, Chevorlet, Chili’s, Lysol, Pottery Barn, Vons, Domino’s Pizza, Netflix, Galaxy Nexus and Ron Jeremy!

Stealing is Good for You Says CCIA and GAO: A match made in heaven

More Silicon Valley nonsense. Essentially the CCIA asserts that stolen goods don’t harm the economy because the money eventually gets spent somewhere… can’t beat logic like that.

Music Technology Policy

Washington lobbyist Matt Schruers, who works for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, is floating a paper released by the Government Accountability Office (“Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (GAO-10-423)).

So you get the context, the Computer & Communications Industry Association is a very well funded lobby shop in Washington that is (was?) one of the big backers of the Internet Radio Fairness Act through its membership in the Internet Radio Fairness Coalition and is prominently mentioned in the Google Shill List.  I fully expect them to be major opponents of Ranking Member Mel Watt’s performance rights legislation that could be introduced as soon as next week.  The CCIA also funds a variety of studies that try to tell us things like stealing is good and the movie business is a “fair use industry” whatever that means.

The GAO…

View original post 2,014 more words

FOIA Request Shows That GAO Is Still Stonewalling on Sources for “Stealing is Good” Report

Essential reading in response to the current attack on creators rights. So WHO exactly is going to take responsibility for this nonsense?

Music Technology Policy

[This post appeared earlier in 2011–but given the rogue sites debate that demonstrates just how much money is being made from online theft, understanding who influenced this GAO “report” that found that “stealing is good” is even more necessary.]

Some of you may remember the report by the Government Accountability Office that studied the problem of online theft of artists’ work and discovered that no one was able to prove anything and that everyone failed to take into account the positive effects on the economy of theft–in other words, stealing is good.

The report, specifically the April 2010 Government Accountability Office publication “Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (GAO-10-423) was required under by the PRO-IP Act (P.L. 110-403), specifically Section 501(a) of the Act directed the undertaking of a “a study to help determine how the Federal Government could…

View original post 2,058 more words