slayZ
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 3,232
|
Post by slayZ on Nov 18, 2014 19:11:23 GMT -5
Sony May Pull Songs From Free-Music Services After Taylor Swift Disses Spotify Taylor Swift strikes again. Sony Music Entertainment artists including One Direction, Pitbull, Calvin Harris and Carrie Underwood could be dropping out of free-music streaming queues, in the wake of Swift’s company pulling her entire catalog from Spotify. The decision by Swift’s Big Machine Records to yank the pop star’s music from Spotify has prompted Sony Music Entertainment to reconsider whether it will continue to license songs for free, ad-supported music services, according to Kevin Kelleher, EVP and CFO of Sony Music. After Swift spurned Spotify, “a lot of conversation has taken place over the last week in the light of that,” said Kelleher, speaking at Sony’s investor relations day Tuesday, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. “The key question is, are the free, ad-supported services taking away from how quickly and to what extent we can grow those paid services?” Kelleher said. “What it all really comes down to is how much value are the music company and the artist getting from the different consumption methods.” At the same time, Sony is “very encouraged” by the rise subscription-based streaming services, Kelleher added. Last week, Google announced YouTube Music Key, which will offer more than 30 million songs — including Taylor Swift tunes — for an intro price of $7.99 per month (versus a regular $9.99 monthly). Sony said it expects revenue for the music group to be $4.8 billion to $5.2 billion for the 2017-18 fiscal year. That would be flat or up to 8 percent growth compared with $4.8 billion projected for the 12 months ending in March 2015. variety.com/2014/digital/news/sony-music-may-pull-songs-from-free-music-services-after-taylor-swift-disses-spotify-1201359194/Not Taylor revolutionizing the industry. What kind of Katniss Everdeene? :'(
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,074
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 18, 2014 19:14:56 GMT -5
OMG, is streaming going to come to a halt? :o
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Nov 18, 2014 19:21:45 GMT -5
Sure worked the last time the major labels fought the internet.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 18, 2014 22:28:57 GMT -5
OMG, is streaming going to come to a halt? :o No, the bigs are just going to force people into fewer services that they own bigger pieces of. It is all about the labels maintaining control and right now they can dress it up in wanting to be fair to the artists. Pulling out of ad-based services entirely isn't the answer. The people who switched from pirating to ad-based streaming aren't going to start paying for music just because Sony pulls out of Pandora and Slacker. They'll just go back to pirating. What Sony would be doing here is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Pandora (31% of the streaming market), iTunes Radio (8%), Spotify (6%), that's almost half of the streaming streaming services market that offer free, ad-based streaming, and I'm sure the figure is over 50% once you ad in iHeartRadio, Slacker, Deezer, and any other legal streaming service that Sony would be pulling their product out of.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2014 22:45:14 GMT -5
Sure worked the last time the major labels fought the internet. This is a very different situation. Doesn't mean it will work, but yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 18, 2014 22:45:32 GMT -5
I don't think this is a wise move at all. While I obviously sit on the side that artists should be paid fairly for their work, I think now that streaming has become as popular and widespread as it is, to attempt to undo it won't make people suddenly go back to buying music digitally again. Streaming has convenience and ease and people had a taste of that. They're not going to be pleased in giving that up.
If anything, I think this is a place for the artists to actually act and stop signing with major labels. I don't necessarily think streaming HAS to be bad but it seems like the common factor in most problems artists and musicians face comes down to the actions of the label in how they respond, or fail to respond to trends.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 18, 2014 23:37:23 GMT -5
This doesn't bother me; I honestly didn't realize so many people preferred the free option to paid. To get almost all the music you want with no ads, no restrictions on what you can play and the ability to download songs to your phone seems like a steal for $9.99. I've never had any hesitation about paying for premium...
====
I do, however, think this whole deal is such a stunning testament to Taylor Swift's popularity. Taylor's move will likely cost fans more money, and they seem totally fine with it!
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 18, 2014 23:48:10 GMT -5
I do, however, think this whole deal is such a stunning testament to Taylor Swift's popularity. Taylor's move will likely cost fans more money, and they seem totally fine with it! Taylor's fans were going to buy her album anyway, it's the casual listeners that think her single is catchy but don't want to throw away $12 on a whole album of Taylor songs that will be impacted. And as long as it is only affecting a few artists songs, the vast majority will not even notice. It's when whole labels' catalogs disappear from streaming services that people will be pissed. But those pissed off people aren't going to go buy the music that gets yanked, they're going to google "Calvin Harris Motion MP3 Download" and have thousands of sites to get his album for free from, as opposed to the possible monetization ad-based streaming allowed the labels. We are now 15+ years out from when Napster came along, there is an entire generation of music listeners who have never paid for music, and they aren't going to start now.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 19, 2014 6:41:37 GMT -5
Sony and everyone, including myself, should DEMAND that people pay for the music they listen to. Nothing new here. Hopefully things will turn out better in the future.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 19, 2014 8:38:58 GMT -5
Sure worked the last time the major labels fought the internet. lol
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 19, 2014 8:40:43 GMT -5
Sony and everyone, including myself, should DEMAND that people pay for the music they listen to. Nothing new here. Hopefully things will turn out better in the future. so you're against radio?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 19, 2014 8:46:16 GMT -5
Sony and everyone, including myself, should DEMAND that people pay for the music they listen to. Nothing new here. Hopefully things will turn out better in the future. #PostsFrom2000
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Nov 19, 2014 9:09:35 GMT -5
This sort of thing is inevitable. Ad-based streaming has a limited life. I also see fees for paid streaming going up at some point too as streaming gains more and more of a hold on how music is listened to. It is basically the streaming business model adjusting to satisfy the music industry.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 19, 2014 9:40:12 GMT -5
Sony and everyone, including myself, should DEMAND that people pay for the music they listen to. Nothing new here. Hopefully things will turn out better in the future. so you're against radio? Somehow I don't find radio as a way of consuming music but yea not against it
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 19, 2014 9:51:32 GMT -5
Somehow I don't find radio as a way of consuming music but yea not against it Sure it is, it's just a different form of ad-based streaming. The radio station sells ads to pay for the license to play the songs for you to listen to without having to pay for it yourself. It's really not that much different from Pandora.
|
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,624
|
Post by renfield75 on Nov 19, 2014 9:52:25 GMT -5
This sort of thing is inevitable. Ad-based streaming has a limited life. I also see fees for paid streaming going up at some point too as streaming gains more and more of a hold on how music is listened to. It is basically the streaming business model adjusting to satisfy the music industry. And as fees for streaming go up, artist royalty rates will stay the same and artists will eventually sue the labels for cheating them and keeping the bigger chunk of streaming money for themselves. Technology changes but it's always the same old song...
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 19, 2014 9:57:23 GMT -5
Royalty rates are determined by the contract signed. I have no sympathy for artists who sign away creative control of their work to labels for a pittance in exchange for the potential for fame and then feel like they are entitled to more because they made it big. The labels aren't there to make money for artists, they're there to make money for their shareholders.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 19, 2014 10:05:20 GMT -5
Somehow I don't find radio as a way of consuming music but yea not against it Sure it is, it's just a different form of ad-based streaming. The radio station sells ads to pay for the license to play the songs for you to listen to without having to pay for it yourself. It's really not that much different from Pandora. I guess it's mostly that you can yourself decide what to listen to -> that shouldn't be free for consumers
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 19, 2014 10:43:18 GMT -5
Somehow I don't find radio as a way of consuming music but yea not against it I don't see Radio being any different than Spotify with ads, or any streaming service with ads...other than radio can reach way more people because everyone has one. Not everyone has streaming apps
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 19, 2014 10:44:55 GMT -5
Royalty rates are determined by the contract signed. I have no sympathy for artists who sign away creative control of their work to labels for a pittance in exchange for the potential for fame and then feel like they are entitled to more because they made it big. The labels aren't there to make money for artists, they're there to make money for their shareholders. Couldn't agree more. Artists blame Spotify, streaming services, when it's their label that negotiated the contracts with those services. And Labels love it when that happens because it deflects the real issue.
|
|
Flip
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2013
Posts: 4,914
|
Post by Flip on Nov 19, 2014 10:48:59 GMT -5
Omg no :( that's a bad idea. Especially Calvin Harris, the king of Spotify, can make a lott of money on streaming.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,480
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Nov 19, 2014 11:24:19 GMT -5
Sony and everyone, including myself, should DEMAND that people pay for the music they listen to. Nothing new here. Hopefully things will turn out better in the future. Hi, welcome to 2001. Sneak preview: this doesn't work out well. It's not surprising that the industry would prefer to shoehorn people into streaming-based subscriptions, but fact is is that there is a market out there that will not do this, but would use a free service. The question is, would the additional revenue from those who would subscribe when forced to make the choice be bigger than what would be lost from those who would go back to using youtube and illegal downloads? This reminds me of when I read Tommy Mottola's autobiography last year and he described his (and a lot of other executives') shock that people would be willing to download a low-quality mp3 off Napster for free rather than pay for high-quality audio. You have to accept that not everyone places the same value as you do on certain things. In a strange way, this isn't a discussion that has much significant value on this board, or any music forum, because it aims for the most casual of the most casual. You want to think that everyone values your product (or "art" if you feel self-important) the same way as you. Tough luck bubba, that ain't true. Anyone trying to bring [insert successful act here] into the discussion is missing the point, this is talking about a different group.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 19, 2014 12:32:21 GMT -5
In Northern Europe people have very different view about this.. here iTunes and download has never taken off and Spotify and YouTube are the number one way of consuming music (not talking about radio here). It's not wrong to try to courage people to pay 9 dollars per month to get the unlimited access to music. Also, I'm pretty sure that we will see a video premiering for people using YouTube Music Key only in the near future. Here is how young people consume music on internet in some markets: As you can see Spotify and Youtube are basically EVERYTHING in Finland, only 3% download songs from iTunes or similar sites.
|
|
Pink Pvssy
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2012
Posts: 1,785
|
Post by Pink Pvssy on Nov 19, 2014 15:44:18 GMT -5
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,074
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 19, 2014 18:16:28 GMT -5
I don't agree with that. I think that artists should be paid for how many times their songs were played... BUT it should all be evenly, and they should up the rates more.
|
|
cartman2002
5x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 5,716
|
Post by cartman2002 on Nov 20, 2014 16:11:18 GMT -5
in the end, Do you think Sony Music Entertainment will remove their music catalog from Spotify and other free music services?
|
|
|
Post by tommymonster44 on Nov 21, 2014 7:56:40 GMT -5
I don't agree with that. I think that artists should be paid for how many times their songs were played... BUT it should all be evenly, and they should up the rates more. I see this opinion so much, but how is Spotify supposed to up the rates? They have been painted as this greedy corporation that withholds money from artists, but the company actually makes no revenue. Every cent of income is either paided off to artists or invested in the future of the service. They could raise the rates and include more ads, but would that not slow down the expansion of the service in the long run? If they raise the rate to $13 dollars, for instance, and another streaming service advirtises $9, people would move on to the next new deal. I think the true reason why labels are scared about streaming is because they don't want to end up like book publishers and amazon. Publishers bought into Amazon's plan of selling their books extremely cheap to gain market share, and now what? Now, Amazon is the one in control, and is in such a powerful position it can essentially choose contracts and withhold selling books if the publishers "misbehave." What the labels really want is to stay in control of their product, in my opinion.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 21, 2014 8:28:47 GMT -5
I think the true reason why labels are scared about streaming is because they don't want to end up like book publishers and amazon. Publishers bought into Amazon's plan of selling their books extremely cheap to gain market share, and now what? Now, Amazon is the one in control, and is in such a powerful position it can essentially choose contracts and withhold selling books if the publishers "misbehave." What the labels really want is to stay in control of their product, in my opinion. www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_02/b4162054151330.htmThis article from 2009 is about Netflix's relatively new at the time streaming movie service. It really isn't so different from the on-demand music services today, and in many ways helped to create the idea that you should be able to have an all-you-can-eat subscription to entertainment. The studios weren't happy with Netflix then any more than the labels are in love with streaming services today. They know streaming is where consumption is heading but they want to be able to control the product (and more importantly the amount of money they make from the product). The advantage that the labels have is that people feel a personal connection to their favorite artist, so they can trot out a popular artist to kvetch about how unfair everything is for the artist when really the one who is concerned about the money is the CEO of Warner Brothers or Sony.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 24, 2014 10:47:42 GMT -5
I think the true reason why labels are scared about streaming is because they don't want to end up like book publishers and amazon. Publishers bought into Amazon's plan of selling their books extremely cheap to gain market share, and now what? Now, Amazon is the one in control, and is in such a powerful position it can essentially choose contracts and withhold selling books if the publishers "misbehave." What the labels really want is to stay in control of their product, in my opinion. www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_02/b4162054151330.htmThis article from 2009 is about Netflix's relatively new at the time streaming movie service. It really isn't so different from the on-demand music services today, and in many ways helped to create the idea that you should be able to have an all-you-can-eat subscription to entertainment. The studios weren't happy with Netflix then any more than the labels are in love with streaming services today. They know streaming is where consumption is heading but they want to be able to control the product (and more importantly the amount of money they make from the product). The advantage that the labels have is that people feel a personal connection to their favorite artist, so they can trot out a popular artist to kvetch about how unfair everything is for the artist when really the one who is concerned about the money is the CEO of Warner Brothers or Sony. If you're arguing in favor of music streaming services, Netflix is not the example you want to provide. It only provides you access to a limited library of content (and, recently, the more buzzworthy emphasis has been on TV - which uses Netflix to build fanbases for shows and thus cares less about lost revenue - than on movies) and doesn't put movies up right when they first release. It also regularly rotates content on and off the platform. It's definitely not "all-you-can-eat." It's "we very curate a very limited array of content, almost none of it new, that we're allowing you to eat." If you want to see a movie when it's fresh, you either have to see it in theaters, buy the DVD or illegally download it. If you want to see a particular old movie at a given point, you might have to buy it as well. Spotify makes all that instantly available to everyone. Yes, the rise of Netflix proves that content creators *DO* have to get on board with a shift in the marketplace, but it does not provide any reason to believe that they have to agree to an "all or nothing" Spotify model. If anything, it tells them that they can support streaming *AND* remain very selective about which content they distribute via that mechanism. If you were tell Taylor Swift she could adhere to a Netflix model -- receive a F-ton of money to put Fearless up this year, Speak Now up next year and Red up the year after -- I'm sure she'd be more on board.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 24, 2014 11:08:22 GMT -5
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_02/b4162054151330.htmThis article from 2009 is about Netflix's relatively new at the time streaming movie service. It really isn't so different from the on-demand music services today, and in many ways helped to create the idea that you should be able to have an all-you-can-eat subscription to entertainment. The studios weren't happy with Netflix then any more than the labels are in love with streaming services today. They know streaming is where consumption is heading but they want to be able to control the product (and more importantly the amount of money they make from the product). The advantage that the labels have is that people feel a personal connection to their favorite artist, so they can trot out a popular artist to kvetch about how unfair everything is for the artist when really the one who is concerned about the money is the CEO of Warner Brothers or Sony. If you're arguing in favor of music streaming services, Netflix is not the example you want to provide. It only provides you access to a limited library of content (and, recently, the more buzzworthy emphasis has been on TV - which uses Netflix to build fanbases for shows and thus cares less about lost revenue - than on movies) and doesn't put movies up right when they first release. It also regularly rotates content on and off the platform. It's definitely not "all-you-can-eat." It's "we very curate a very limited array of content, almost none of it new, that we're allowing you to eat." If you want to see a movie when it's fresh, you either have to see it in theaters, buy the DVD or illegally download it. If you want to see a particular old movie at a given point, you might have to buy it as well. Spotify makes all that instantly available to everyone. Yes, the rise of Netflix proves that content creators *DO* have to get on board with a shift in the marketplace, but it does not provide any reason to believe that they have to agree to an "all or nothing" Spotify model. If anything, it tells them that they can support streaming *AND* remain very selective about which content they distribute via that mechanism. If you were tell Taylor Swift she could adhere to a Netflix model -- receive a F-ton of money to put Fearless up this year, Speak Now up next year and Red up the year after -- I'm sure she'd be more on board. All You Can Eat doesn't mean that you have access to everything ever made. It means that you can have as much of what is available for one price. I never said that Netflix had everything available for streaming, but for what is available, I'm not paying for individual content. I'm not saying that the labels have to make everything available to stream immediately, but this type of subscription consumption is where the entertainment industry in general is headed.
|
|