Spotify Retaliating Against Apple Music Exclusive Artists, Execs Say… | DMN

Nope… nothing to see here…

The Times dropped the bombshell after digging into the Frank Ocean situation, one that is actively causing the music industry to reinvestigate their practices around exclusives.  “Executives at two major record labels said that in recent weeks Spotify, which has resisted exclusives, had told them that it had instituted a policy that music that had benefited from such deals on other services would not receive the same level of promotion once it arrived on Spotify,” Sisario wrote.  “Such music may not be as prominently featured or included in as many playlists, said these executives…”


Spotify might not suppress search, but that doesn’t mean artists with exclusives get treated equally | Tech Crunch


However, while Spotify has been clear about rejecting one part of the argument against the company, there is another piece of the story that remains unaddressed. Hidden in the details, the accusations are really twofold, including both the notion that

* Spotify directly suppresses tracks from artists that have previously signed exclusives with Apple Music or Tidal in search results.
* And, Spotify indirectly targets artists who have signed exclusives with Apple Music and Tidal but promoting music differently in playlists and banner ads.


Spotify Is Burying Musicians for Their Apple Deals | Bloomberg

New boss, worse than the old boss…

Spotify has been retaliating against musicians who introduce new material exclusively on rival Apple Music by making their songs harder to find, according to people familiar with the strategy. Artists who have given Apple exclusive access to new music have been told they won’t be able to get their tracks on featured playlists once the songs become available on Spotify, said the people, who declined to be identified discussing the steps. Those artists have also found their songs buried in the search rankings of Spotify, the world’s largest music-streaming service, the people said. Spotify said it doesn’t alter search rankings.


Apparently Billboard Doesn’t Want Jay Z at Billboard Music Awards, Pimps for Spotify! @S_C_

Why on earth is Glenn Peoples and Billboard warning artists not to go exclusive with Jay Z’s Tidal?   Is Billboard pimping for Spotify?    We’ve long suspected this. Glad it’s almost out in the open.

Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 2.45.06 PM



The ‘Zero Effect’: Do New Consumption Charts Penalize Compilation Records and Artists Who Window?



New Math $.00666 : Billboard’s New “Consumption” Chart, Free Streams and the End Of Meaningful Metrics?



* MUST READ * YouTube’s Heartbreaking Extortion Of Musicians Begins… | Zoë Keating Explains New Rules

Below is the opener, after that – it gets worse…

“My Google Youtube rep contacted me the other day. They were nice and took time to explain everything clearly to me, but the message was firm: I have to decide. I need to sign on to the new Youtube music services agreement or I will have my Youtube channel blocked.
This new music service agreement covers my Content ID account and it includes mandatory participation in Youtube’s new subscription streaming service, called Music Key, along with all that participation entails. Here are some of the terms I have problems with:

1) All of my catalog must be included in both the free and premium music service. Even if I don’t deliver all my music, because I’m a music partner, anything that a 3rd party uploads with my info in the description will be automatically included in the music service too.

2) All songs will be set to “montetize”, meaning there will be ads on them.

3) I will be required to release new music on Youtube at the same time I release it anywhere else. So no more releasing to my core fans first on Bandcamp and then on iTunes.

4) All my catalog must be uploaded at high resolution, according to Google’s standard which is currently 320 kbps.

5) The contract lasts for 5 years.”

Seriously the whole post is an absolute must read, in full, probably at least two or three times to have it all sink in.


Artist Revenue Streams : Streaming Marketshare By Volume and Revenue (includes YouTube and Spotify) #sxsw

Is this the future of music? We continue to look at artist revenue streams.

Now that we’ve been blessed with a few data sets we’re going to be digging deeper into cross referencing them in the hopes of building a much better overall view of the marketplace for independent musicians. This is especially true in the area of music streaming rates and royalties.

We hoping to provide as much open and transparent information as we can get on artists revenue streams. Through the release of these posts offering per play rates, relative market share of these companies, and the distribution tiers at different unit thresholds we hope artists will use these tools to model a better understanding of their revenue potential on digital platforms.

Service Market Share Streams Market Share $$$
Spotify 61% 69%
YouTube* 32% 12%
Deezer 2% 4%
Amazon Cloud 2% 0%
Rhapsody 1% 3%
Muve Music 1% 1%
Rdio 0% 1%
Xbox Music 0% 2%
MediaNet 0% 1%
Google Play 0% 2%
Nokia 0% 0%
simfy 0% 0%
MySpace Music 0% 0%
Amazon MP3 0% 5%
eMusic 0% 1%
VerveLife 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100%

* These YouTube numbers are not directly comparable to the rest of the numbers as the information comes from a different data set of considerably less titles than the larger data set.

That being said there are still a few important take-a-ways in looking at this data even on a percentage of market share basis. If we doubled the amount of YouTube Streams to match the amount of Spotify streams (48% YouTube Streams and 47% Spotify Streams) the revenue disparity still places Spotify 3x’s higher at 62% of overall revenue market share versus YouTube’s only 21% of market share revenue. Simply said, you have to stream at least 3x’s more on YouTube to equal the same amount of revenue generated from YouTube.

Service  Market Share Streams Market Share $$$
YouTube (x’s2) 48% 21%
Spotify 47% 62%
Deezer 2% 3%
Amazon Cloud 1% 0%
Rhapsody 1% 2%
Muve Music 0% 1%
Rdio 0% 1%
Xbox Music 0% 2%
MediaNet 0% 1%
Google Play 0% 2%
Nokia 0% 0%
simfy 0% 0%
MySpace Music 0% 0%
Amazon MP3 0% 4%
eMusic 0% 1%
VerveLife 0% 0%
TOTAL  100% 100%

Our conclusion is that this is a very compelling reason to remove as much of your music from YouTube as you possibly can and redirect streaming music consumers to Spotify where you will earn at least 3x’s more for the same amount of streams.

Of course, creators and musicians are not given this type of consent over the use of their music on YouTube and the new CMS Services like Audiam exist only to monetize illegal and unlicensed user generated content (UGC) uploads to YouTube, and at significantly lower per play rates than the ones we’ve been tracking that pay 100% of earned revenue.

This just confirms what we’ve known all along. Google not only profits greatly from the illegal and unlicensed uploads of an artists work to YouTube, but artists are more and more powerless over having their work exploited against their will.

Here are some compelling stats on the break down of what percentage of videos on YouTube actually achieve breaking the 1 million play threshold, only 0.33%

CHART OF THE DAY: Half Of YouTube Videos Get Fewer Than 500 Views | Business Insider

Some 53% of YouTube’s videos have fewer than 500 views, says TubeMogul. About 30% have less than 100 views. Meanwhile, just 0.33% have more than 1 million views.

That’s not a huge surprise. But it highlights some of the struggles Google could have selling ads around all those unpopular videos, despite the money it has to spend to store them.

What would be welcomed would be an Audiam like service that also allows artists the ability to use CMS to remove as much of their content from YouTube as they can, and not just have a gun to their head to monetize it or lose the money that is being made from Google monetizing it against their will.

Why does this just feel like just so much more extortion and exploitation?