Don’t know the name of the song you want to hear? Amazon’s new Song ID feature has the answer.
The smart speaker revolution is upon us. Last month, a new study from Adobe Analytics found that more than 1/3 of American consumers, 36% to be exact, own one or more smart speakers. That figure is expected to grow substantially in the coming months, and even further in the years that follow.
The upside to the popularity of smart speakers is that it leads consumers to listen to more music more often. A study by AudienceNet at the end of 2018 found that homes with smart speakers listen to 50% more music than homes without and that those same homes are 49% more likely to listen to music for more extended periods. They also listen to more playlists.
But there’s a problem: Many consumers don’t know the title of the songs they hear on the radio, and even more don’t know the artists who sing them.
When someone wants to hear a song on their smart speaker, they must ask for it. For Amazon devices, users often say, “Alexa, please play __________.” The device then searches for that song or artist and plays the track it believes the user wants to hear. It’s a great system that is far quicker than pulling a record from a shelf and placing it on a turntable or popping a CD into a boombox, but it only works if the consumer knows exactly what they want to hear.
Let’s say someone wanted to hear “Let It Go,” the popular song from the Disney film Frozen, but they couldn’t remember the name of the movie. That person could ask Alexa to play “Let It Go,” but there are at least 42 songs on Amazon Music and Spotify with that title. Which one would it choose? If it chose another version than the desired one, what could the consumer do?
To aide in educating consumers about the music they love, Amazon has introduced ‘Song ID.’ When enabled, Alexa will announce the title and the artist name before playing each song while you’re listening to a radio station, playlist or new release on Amazon Music over your smart speaker.
The optional feature for Echo devices can be enabled or disabled by voice at any time by asking Alexa to “turn on Song ID” or “turn off Song ID.”
In addition to making consumers aware of what they’re listening to, Amazon also hopes ‘Song ID’ makes users more comfortable talking to Alexa. The software does not have much a personality itself, but users who trust the device are more likely to use it for other things, such as ordering products from the Amazon store.
The new feature is live today across Amazon Music in the U.S. and works on Echo devices, says Amazon.
The latest report from the Recording Industry Association of America shows consumer interest in premium streaming music subscriptions is on the rise.
Numbers can be deceiving. When asked to discuss their growth, streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music will often quote their global user statistics instead of those related to a specific country or continent. That isn’t necessarily wrong by any means, but it can lead consumers and investors alike to perceive a company’s standing in a different light.
In January, Spotify announced it now welcomed over 200 million users every month. That figure, which refers to the platform’s total global user count, included 96 million paying premium subscribers. No further details were given related to where paying subscriptions came from, nor has any similar information been provided to the media since.
A new report from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has shed a bit more light on the streaming market. According to the study, 50 million US consumers paid for streaming music services in 2018. Use of such platforms rose 33% over 2017’s numbers, and it’s likely to grow further still in 2019.
“Tremendous output from the artist community fueled a historic milestone of 50 million subscriptions to music services, which in turn helped drive U.S. music’s third consecutive year of double-digit growth,” RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a statement.
“Rejuvenation in the industry means more opportunities to find and break new artists for fans to enjoy,” Glazier said.
Additional data found in the report reveals that 75% of music industry revenue now comes from various forms of streaming. Physical sales of vinyl records continued to increase, up 8% to $419 million, the highest level since 1988.
Unfortunately, other forms of physical media were not as successful. Revenue from CD sales are down almost 34%, to $698 million; music video sales fell more than 28%, to $28 million; and sales of “other physical media,” including cassette tapes, was off nearly 22%, to $9.6 million.
Total music revenue for 2018 totaled just under $10 billion — a significant recovery from the low of $6.7 billion in both 2014 and 2015 — but the industry is only back to a level close to what it was in 2007 when the total was $10.7 billion.
The RIAA did not comment on how the rising popularity of streaming services is impacting the lives of artists. The most popular performers have reported big earning from Spotify and the like, but many smaller and mid-size artists have found it harder to rely on recorded music to pay their bills.
Regardless, it appears the streaming boom will continue for the foreseeable future. Follow HaulixDaily on Facebook and Twitter for more industry news and insight.
The New Zealand based study finds piracy “isn’t driven by law-breakers” anymore.
Piracy was supposed to end with the dawn of streaming. Entertainment analysts predicted that having the vast majority of movies, music, and television a few clicks away at any moment would remove any need for digital piracy. After all, who doesn’t have a Netflix and Spotify (or similar subscription services) account in 2019?
The solution to piracy was never as simple as people like to believe. Studies show that streaming has changed consumer behaviors, but as more services become available with exclusive content from major stars, a new issue is emerging. Paying for Netflix and Spotify here in the United States will set people back about $25 a month. For some, that figure is not a problem, but others cannot afford it. Add to this, the rising popularity of Hulu ($10 a month), Amazon Prime Video ($8.99), HBOGo ($10), and DC Universe ($7.99), as well as upcoming streaming services from companies like Disney (likely to cost $10 or more per month), and the price associated with seeing everything is getting pretty high.
That figure is so high, in fact, that many consumers cannot afford to keep up. According to a new study commissioned by New Zealand telecoms group Vocus Group NZ and conducted in December 2018, while the enhanced availability streaming provides is having a positive effect overall, it’s also leading some consumer to pirate.
“In short, the reason people are moving away from piracy is that it’s simply more hassle than it’s worth,” says Taryn Hamilton, Consumer General Manager at Vocus Group.
“The research confirms something many internet pundits have long instinctively believed to be true: piracy isn’t driven by law-breakers, it’s driven by people who can’t easily or affordably get the content they want.”
Speaking strictly to film and television, the majority (75%) of those surveyed said that free-to-air TV services are their weapons of choice for viewing content, with 61% utilizing free on-demand channels offered by broadcasters. Around 58% of respondents said they visit the cinema, with paid streaming services such as Netflix utilized by 55%.
The results of the study are mostly positive. Piracy seems to be declining, but as competition for consumer dollars in streaming grows, illegal downloading may see a resurgence. That goes for film, television, and music alike. Access over exclusivity is best for everyone, but it often means less money for creators. Is there a solution that makes everyone happy AND lowers the likelihood of piracy? We don’t know.
“The big findings are that whilst about half of people have pirated some content in their lives, the vast majority no longer do so because of the amount of paid streaming sites that they have access to,” Hamilton added in a video interview with NZHerald.
More than 1/3 of American consumers have smart speakers in their homes. The future of audio consumption is here, but artists may face unforeseen problems in the coming years.
As Bob Dylan famously sang, “the times they are a .” Just four months after it reports that 14% of American homes had smart speakers in them, a new study from Adobe Analytics has found that more than 1/3 of American consumers, 36% to be exact, own one or more smart speakers. That’s massive growth in a small amount of time, and the market will likely expand further in the months ahead.
The 2019 Adobe Analytics Voice Report surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. consumers over the age of 18 from January 28-31 of this year. It found smart speaker ownership leaned more heavily towards males, with 43 percent of men claiming to own the devices compared to just 29 percent of women.
Overall, the age group ranging 35-54 dominated ownership, with 47 percent claiming to have a device. The 18-34 group followed with 40 percent, then the 55-64 group with 37 percent and the 65-and-over group claiming 25 percent ownership.
How the gift-giving holiday season impacted ownership was not studied, but it likely played a factor in the growth seen across all demographics.
Other findings in the study include more people reporting that they are using their smart speakers for playing music (74 percent, as compared to 70 percent in August 2018) — the most popular use of smart speakers overall. It’s also most likely that people keep their devices in their living rooms (64%), but bedrooms (46%) and kitchens (32%) are popular locations as well.
All this information is a good thing for artists and labels alike. A study by AudienceNet at the end of 2018 found that homes with smart speakers listen to 50% more music than homes without and that those same homes are 49% more likely to listen to music for more extended periods. They also listen to more playlists.
But there is something else to consider here, and that is how artists will promote themselves as smart speakers continue to become commonplace in homes around the world. Throughout the history of recorded music, an artist’s image and branding has been the primary way to build familiarity with consumers. However, smart speakers strip away the importance of image and place an emphasis on names, which will inevitably force artists to choose names that are original and easy to recall. Will it also force bands with highly stylized names to change? Will H09909 (pronounced ‘horror’) or Fever333 have to rethink their promotional strategy? Only time will tell.
There’s also a question about how the algorithms smart speakers use will sort artists with similar names. If someone asks Alexa to play music by The Red Trees and there are two or more artists with that name, which artist gets chosen and why?
The same can be said for songs. There are at least 42 songs titled “Let It Go” available on Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon music right now. If I ask to hear that song without knowing the artist associated, which version gets played and why? Will smart speakers learn our tastes and make a guess based on past behavior? Will it choose the most popular version?
There are a lot of questions to be answered, but the fact remains that smart speakers are good for music overall. Smart speakers encourage increased listening, and that means more streaming royalties for artists, as well as more chances for new artists to be discovered.
We are planning to discuss marketing tips for voice-activated tech in the near future. Follow Haulix on Facebook and Twitter for more information.
SoundCloud is joining Spotify as the latest streaming giant to offer distribution services.
SoundCloud is joining Spotify as the latest streaming giant to offer distribution services.
A good CEO can change everything. With the right person in power, a company can go from the brink of failure to being widely considered an essential component of its industry in a relatively small amount of time. They can also change public perception, raise awareness, and discover new revenue streams that do not alienate users or further complicate a product.
SoundCloud CEO Kerry Trainor cannot is unstoppable. Two years after reports of the platform’s demise began to circulate throughout the industry, Trainor’s guidance has helped the company bring in over $100 million in revenue annually, as well as many significant updates that have raised the profile and utility of Soundcloud to new heights.
Trainor’s next move may change everything. This week, SoundCloud announced the beta launch of SoundCloud Premier, a distribution service that will allow artists to upload their music to numerous streaming platforms, including Apple Music and Spotify. The company hopes the service, which is the first to be built directly into a streaming platform, will make SoundCloud a kind of ‘mission control’ for artists on the rise. Musicians can now choose from their uploaded tracks and albums and distribute to all major music services while keeping 100% of their rights and payouts (SoundCloud takes nothing) and getting streamlined payments directly from SoundCloud.
SoundCloud Premier is available at no additional cost to all eligible Pro and Pro Unlimited subscribers who are 18 years of age or older, creators of original music, have zero copyright strikes, and at least 1,000 monetizable track plays. Eligible creators can expect eligibility notifications via email and in-product notifications over the next few weeks.
In the meantime, you can learn more here. If you think you’d be eligible but haven’t gone Pro, you can upgrade now, and the company will contact you if/when you qualify. In addition to one revenue stream that reigns supreme, you’ll get the pro tools to level up your career, so that you can grow your audience and make even more music to distribute.
Making a living from streaming has never been easy, but it just got a little harder.
Streaming royalty rates are not rocket science. You can learn rocket science, but understanding how platforms royalty payments is something only a select few industry professionals understand. There are no rates that apply to everyone, nor is there a universal rate paid by every service. Majors have different deals with streaming platforms than everyone else, but even the deal each label makes with each platform is different.
With all that in mind, it is hard to accept any figures given by a single party as indicative of all streaming deals. What may be true for them may not be the same for anyone else. Still, looking at data with all the information behind it understand can shed some light on the realities of streaming royalties in 2019.
David Lowery’s The Trichordist blog recently gathered information on streaming performance and payouts. The data detailed below is isolated to the calendar year 2018 and represents a mid-sized indie label with an approximately 250+ album catalog now generating almost 1b streams annually. from one mid-size label with 250 releases. Here are the top 10 streaming services based on the royalty rate they are paying:
Rank
Name
Royalty Rate
1
Amazon Unlimited
$0.01175
2
Napster
$0.01110
3
Tidal
$0.00927
4
Deezer
$0.00567
5
Google Play
$0.00543
6
Apple Music
$0.00495
7
Amazon Digital Service
$0.00395
8
Spotify
$0.00331
9
Pandora
$0.00155
10
YouTube Content ID
$0.00028
You can view a full list of services and streaming rates on here.
Writing about the current rates and changes, The Trichordist wrote:
The Spotify per stream rate drops again from .00397 to .00331 a decrease of 16%. Apple Music gains almost 3% for an total global marketshare of about just under 25% of all revenue.
Apple’s per stream rate drops from .00783 to .00495 a decrease of 36%. We need to state again, that 2018 saw a massive shift of revenues from downloads to streaming and no doubt this expansion of scale, combined with more aggressive bundling (free trials) as well as launching into more territories was bound to bring down the overall net per stream.
Apple Music still lead in the sweet spot with about 10% of overall streams generating 25% of all revenue (despite the per stream rate drop). Spotify by comparison has nearly triple the marketshare in streams than Apple Music but generates less than double the revenues on that volume.
The biggest takeaway by far is that YouTube’s Content ID, (in our first genuinely comprehensive data set) shows a whopping 48% of all streams and only 7% of revenue. Read that again. That is your value gap. Nearly 50% of all recorded music streams only generate 7% of revenue. Apple Music and Spotify combined account for just short of 40% of all streams and 74% of all income.
Readers should also keep in mind that we as consumers don’t fully understand the cost of operating these platforms. One can argue that artists should make more for their music, and we fully agree, but we also admit to not fully knowing the cost involved with offering on-demand streaming of virtually all recorded music to hundreds of millions around the world. Spotify, for example, has thousands of employees operating in offices around the planet, as well as hosting fees, marketing costs, and development work.
The information above may be disheartening for many independent artists and smaller labels, but that’s not the worst of it. There seems to be no means for those outside the major label systems to negotiate their streaming deals with any of the bigger platforms. That could change if the rates grow even worse, or if a group of artists chooses to band together, but at this point, we know no such efforts in the music ecosystem.
Some can argue that participating in these platforms is not a requirement, which is true, but that idea reveals a key misunderstanding of how the music industry works in 2019. Artists may not be required to share their music on streaming platforms, but those who choose to avoid them altogether have an incredibly difficult journey toward recognition ahead of them. Streaming is now the primary way people stream music, and most listeners do so through one of the portals mentioned in this article.
With streaming’s dominance likely to continue for the foreseeable future, not agreeing with the royalty rate offers made by streaming services is not a viable option for the vast majority of performers. So, what can be done?
If you have a solution, or if you have information related to this story that you feel should be included, please email james@haulix.com. We would love to hear from you.
Spotify playlists are shaping the future music business, but reaching the curators of the most influential lists is often incredibly difficult. We can help.
Spotify is, by far, the world’s largest music streaming service. The company currently boasts 191 million monthly users and the music of over 2 million artists. They add nearly 20,000 songs per day.
Spotify also leads the industry from a development standpoint. Nearly every significant advance in music streaming technology over the last five years has started with the company, from offline access to direct upload distribution.
While the company is continuously taking steps to empower artists on their platform further, they have fallen short in doing the same for users. Listeners can choose to ‘Follow’ artists they love, but as of this moment, the tool has little use aside from automating the occasional push notification when relevant content becomes available on the platform. It’s not constant, however, as many fans never received notifications when the artists they follow release new music.
And if that’s true, which it is, then what is the purpose of the ‘Follow’ button?
It would benefit fans and artists alike if Spotify created a ‘Followed’ feed. This feature would operate much like a newsfeed on Facebook, except (ideally) in a more efficient manner. Users would use the feed to browse a timeline of updates regarding artists they have followed. This would include releases, as well as any supplementary information the platform allows (tour dates, new merch, playlists, etc.), listed in chronological order.
The advantages of adding this feature include:
Higher likelihood of engagement with new releases for smaller artists
Incentivizes more artists to promote their presence on Spotify
The ability for the platform to ‘suggest’ other artists based on taste
Would open the door to allowing additional supplemental content offerings in the future, such as news updates, video releases, etc.
The cons are…Well, the cons are nonexistent.
A ‘Followed Artists’ feed is a win-win for everyone involved. Spotify no doubt has a long list of developments in their production pipeline, but this one feels like its long overdue. Is there any chance we will ever see it, or something similar, brought to life? Only time will tell.
Hello, everyone! It’s a thrill to learn you’ve found time amidst your busy day to spend a few minutes on our blog. Everyone seems to be talking about Taylor Swift lately, so it only seems right that we chime in with our two cents as well. We are fans of her music, even if not everyone on our staff is willing to admit that fact publicly, but we cannot help being a little unhappy with the real reasoning behind her move against Spotify. Read on to find out why.
This blog exists to promote the future of the entertainment industry, and to do that we need input from people like you and your entertainment-loving friends. If you have any questions about the content in this article, or if you have an artist you would like to see featured on this blog, please contact james@haulix.com. We can also be found on Twitter and Facebook.
Taylor Swift has been the talk of the music industry for a little over two weeks at this point, and if her marketing team continues their efforts our obsession with her every move could easily stretch into December. This is certainly good for Taylor, who has a new album on shelves and a world tour in 2015 that needs to move tickets, but it’s also good for the music business. Why? Because the things Taylor Swift has us talking about are the same topics we have been needing to address as an industry for some time. Streaming payouts are low, but the general consensus is that more and more people are embracing them as their main source for new music. How do we fix this? Can it be fixed? I don’t know the answer to either, but over the weekend we learned a little bit more about the reason for Taylor’s sudden disappearance from Spotify earlier this month.
Speaking publicly for the first time since Swift pulled her catalog from Spotify, Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Taylor Swift’s record label Big Machine says that her music was pulled from Spotify because the streaming platform refused to restrict her new release to its premium paid service. “We never wanted to embarrass a fan,” Borchetta told Nikki Sixx during his Sixx Sense syndicated radio show Friday. “If this fan purchased the record, CD, iTunes, wherever, and then their friends go, ‘Why did you pay for it? It’s free on Spotify.’ we’re being completely disrespectful to that superfan who wants to invest.”
To clarify, Borchetta is referring specifically to Spotify’s free service, which allows non-paying users to enjoy the content offered on the platform without committing to pay a monthly fee for access. It’s not streaming itself he’s against, which is exactly why Taylor’s music can still be found on services like Rdio or Beats Music. Their catalogs are only available to users who have paid a fee for access. The payout to Swift per stream is still low, but it is above zero.
“We determined that her fan base is so in on her, let’s pull everything off of Spotify, and any other service that doesn’t offer a premium service,” said Borchetta. “Now if you are a premium subscriber to Beats or Rdio or any of the other services that don’t offer just a free-only, then you will find her catalogue.”
These statement differ from the reasons Taylor Swift initially offered for removing her music from the popular streaming service. When news originally broke of the removal, Swift told the press:
"If I had streamed the new album, it’s impossible to try to speculate what would have happened. But all I can say is that music is changing so quickly, and the landscape of the music industry itself is changing so quickly, that everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment. And I’m not wiling to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music. And I just don’t agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free. I wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal this summer that basically portrayed my views on this. I try to stay really open-minded about things, because I do think it’s important to be a part of progress. But I think it’s really still up for debate whether this is actual progress, or whether this is taking the word “music” out of the music industry. Also, a lot of people were suggesting to me that I try putting new music on Spotify with “Shake It Off,” and so I was open-minded about it. I thought, “I will try this; I’ll see how it feels.” It didn’t feel right to me. I felt like I was saying to my fans, “If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it, and it’s theirs now and they don’t have to pay for it.” I didn’t like the perception that it was putting forth. And so I decided to change the way I was doing things.”
The above is a beautiful and well-worded sentiment about the value of creative expression and the desire to have some control over how people access your work. That said, it does not address the financial aspect of things quite as much as Borchetta’s quotes to Nikki Sixx. This is surely due in part to Taylor’s desire to speak honestly with fans about her own feelings towards streaming, but it’s hard to feel like the initial comments did not also attempt to mislead industry insiders as to the real reason for the change. It was never about how the art was reaching fans, but rather whether or not a pay wall was put in place between fans and the art. Spotify tried to offer fans a direct link to the music that did not require money and they were stopped. Beats, Rhapsody, and Rdio charged people first and then gave them access. It may be a saying as old as time itself at this point, but ‘money talks’ feels relevant once again.
What I find interesting about all this nonsense regarding streaming is the fact neither Taylor Swift nor anyone who works with her have made comments about YouTube. The video streaming platform, which does not require financial contribution of any kind for access to content, has music videos, as well as videos featuring song streams that are taken from phase of Taylor’s career. You can chart her entire existence in the public eye on YouTube, for free, from anywhere with an internet connection. Unlike Spotify however, there is never really an option to support the artist you’re listening to. There is no merch store tie-in, and the payouts for video streams is not exactly something to write home about. Spotify has at least tried to make it easier for artists to promote themselves and hustle merchandise through their platform. What makes YouTube better?
Considering the fact Taylor Swift has yet to pull her music from other streaming services, let on alone sites that offer ‘free’ access, it seems all this fuss over her so-called bold decision to leave Spotify is little more than another successful attempt at fueling the PR engine that keeps the young songwriter’s career in the headlines. Will she see a tiny loss of income as a result of not sharing music on Spotify? Maybe. Will it matter in the grand scheme of things? No. The attention to her music generated by this press blitz will more than cover any lost wages, and even if it doesn’t Taylor has millions at her disposal already. Money talks, but only when Taylor allows it to do so. She is controlling the conversation right now, and that is really what matters most. I just wish she would use to benefit more people than herself.
