Categories
Industry News News

Apple Music surpasses Spotify in paid U.S. subscribers

Spotify may dominate the global market, but Apple Music continues to grow at an alarming rate.

Apple Music has surpassed Spotify in paid U.S. subscribers, according to a new post from the Wall Street Journal, which further indicates that the war for streaming music dominance is far from over.

The article published earlier this week reveals Apple Music now has 28 million subscribers in the U.S. while Spotify trails with 26 million. The news post also claims that Apple’s streaming music service has been adding subscribers in the world’s biggest music market faster than its rival with a monthly growth rate of 2.6-3% compared to Spotify’s 1.5-2%.

Globally, Spotify remains the streaming champ, boasting over 96 million paid subscribers compared to Apple Music’s 50 million. Spotify has over 200 million subscribers on its free tier as well.

Apple’s main advantage over its rival are the 900 million iPhones in use around the world, each one with iTunes installed and a credit card on file. If consumers grow tired of Spotify or otherwise dislike the service, making the switch to Apple Music is easier than joining any other competitor in the field.

Still, the news that Apple Music has surpassed Spotify in the US comes as a surprise to much of the industry. Spotify has long been considered the Netflix of music streaming, and its recent acquisition of several podcast businesses and services , not to mention the recent Hulu partnership, has positioned the company for additional growth in the years to come. The fact Apple Music has now surpassed Spotify, at least in U.S. paid subscriptions, is sure to make investors a little wary of what the future may hold.

Apple recently announced plans for its own video streaming platform, which it will likely bundle with Apple Music. If that comes to pass, Apple’s streaming division will grow even faster than its current rate, which would shrink Spotify’s lead in the marketplace.

Categories
Artist Advice Business Advice Editorials Industry News News

Pre-Adds (Pre-Saves) are the new pre-orders, but is that a good thing?

Consumers are replacing pre-orders with pre-adds and pre-saves, but is something important being lost along the way?

Fast-rising pop sensation Billie Eilish will release her debut record, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, this Friday, but the teenager’s album is already being considered a massive success. Despite not yet being released, the LP has already accrued more than 800,000 pre-adds on Apple Music, which allows users to register to add an album to their streaming collection before it ships, with Eilish setting a new record for the service.

That volume of pre-adds for Eilish’s album is a sign of how the industry is continuing to evolve. Speaking to Music Business Worldwide, Apple Music boss Oliver Schusser said:

“While most services focus the majority of their efforts around playlists, Apple Music still emphasizes albums because we understand their value as a storytelling tool for artists to create context around their music.

To that end, pre-adds are great early indicators of engagement around an artist and the intention of the fans. To actively pre-add an album, much like the pre-order we invented with iTunes, means that the fan is excited about the content and wants to be among the first to enjoy it the moment its available. That kind of engagement is very valuable to an artist and to us.”

Spotify offers a service similar to Apple Music. The company’s pre-save feature allows users to register to have the album added to their library and to receive an alert regarding the content’s availability. The reliability of the notifications depend on how many pre-saves a user registers, but the content is always added as soon as its made available.

While the figures for Eilish’s album are great, pre-adds and pre-saves are not a perfect replacement for pre-orders. Schusser was right to say the numbers can tell a lot about excitement for a release, and they can also help predict initial performance, but the tools currently available to artists through streaming platforms do not provide context about their audience.

If a user pre-saves or pre-adds an album, what does the artist get? Do they know my name? Where I live? My email address? Do they receive anything other than a counter that tells them I am one of the however many people that have decided to request notification of their release becoming available?

Streaming services also do not offer any data that informs artists as to whether or not consumers who pre-save their release actually listen to it.

The real winner in the rising popularity of pre-saves and pre-adds are the streaming services offering them. By using that functionality, consumers are providing the platforms with additional insight into their listening habits. Their actions are strengthening the algorithms that recommend content and create playlists. Whether they know it or not, consumers are strengthening the services they use more than the artists they’re hoping to support.

Still, streaming is here to stay and there is no getting around that fact. If the industry is lucky, Spotify, Apple Music, and similar platforms will make more listener data available to them as time progresses. That seems more likely than a rise in royalty rates based on recent events, but it’s still not going to happen overnight.

Categories
Industry News News

Spotify, Amazon, and more sue songwriters to prevent royalty rates from rising

Four of the largest music streaming services are appealing a ruling that promises to raise mechanical royalty rates by 44% over the next five years.

How much is a song worth? According to most streaming services, the answer is roughly $0.003 per stream. A new ruling from the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) aims to raise that value to $0.004 per stream, but Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, and Google disagree.

The four streaming giants are appealing the ruling that hopes to raise mechanical royalty rates by 44% over the next five years. Spotify, Amazon, Google, and Pandora have each filed separate appeals, with Apple the only major streaming player choosing to abstain.

The four companies also released a joint statement detailing their decision, which reads, “The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), in a split decision, recently issued the U.S. mechanical statutory rates in a manner that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. If left to stand, the CRB’s decision harms both music licensees and copyright owners. Accordingly, we are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the decision.”

In a statement released today, March 7, the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) said that a “huge victory for songwriters is now in jeopardy” due to the streaming services’ filings.

NMPA President & CEO David Israelite commented:

“When the Music Modernization Act became law, there was hope it signaled a new day of improved relations between digital music services and songwriters.

That hope was snuffed out today when Spotify and Amazon decided to sue songwriters in a shameful attempt to cut their payments by nearly one-third.

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) spent two years reading thousands of pages of briefs and hearing from dozens of witnesses while both sides spent tens of millions of dollars on attorneys arguing over the worth of songs to the giant technology companies who run streaming services.

The CRB’s final determination gave songwriters only their second meaningful rate increase in 110 years. Instead of accepting the CRB’s decision which still values songs less than their fair market value, Spotify and Amazon have declared war on the songwriting community by appealing that decision.”

“When the Music Modernization Act became law, there was hope it signaled a new day of improved relations between digital music services and songwriters. That hope was snuffed out today when Spotify and Amazon decided to sue songwriters in a shameful attempt to cut their payments by nearly one-third.

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) spent two years reading thousands of pages of briefs and hearing from dozens of witnesses while both sides spent tens of millions of dollars on attorneys arguing over the worth of songs to the giant technology companies who run streaming services. The CRB’s final determination gave songwriters only their second meaningful rate increase in 110 years. Instead of accepting the CRB’s decision which still values songs less than their fair market value, Spotify and Amazon have declared war on the songwriting community by appealing that decision.

No amount of insincere and hollow public relations gestures such as throwing parties or buying billboards of congratulations or naming songwriters “geniuses” can hide the fact that these big tech bullies do not respect or value the songwriters who make their businesses possible.

We thank Apple Music for accepting the CRB decision and continuing its practice of being a friend to songwriters.  While Spotify and Amazon surely hope this will play out in a quiet appellate courtroom, every songwriter and every fan of music should stand up and take notice. We will fight with every available resource to protect the CRB’s decision.”


Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) Executive Director Bart Herbison also responded to the companies’ decision, saying:

“It is unfortunate that Amazon and Spotify decided to file an appeal on the CRB’s decision to pay American songwriters higher digital mechanical royalties. Many songwriters have found it difficult to stay in the profession in the era of streaming music. You cannot feed a family when you earn hundreds of dollars for millions of streams.

Spotify specifically continues to try and depress royalties to songwriters around the globe as illustrated by their recent moves in India. Trying to work together as partners toward a robust future in the digital music era is difficult when any streaming company fails to recognize the value of a songwriter’s contribution to their business.”

If the ruling holds, the 44% increase will be only the second substantial increase to mechanical royalty rates to pass in the last 110-years.

Categories
News


Jay-Z’s new album went platinum in 6 days, but how?

This morning the RIAA announced that Jay-Z’s brand new album, 4:44, had already been certified platinum. The accomplishment gives Jay his thirteen platinum plaque for his solo albums, more than any other hip-hop artist in history, but already many are calling into question the math behind the feat.

4:44 was released as a Tidal exclusive on June 30, but in order to gain access to the album through Tidal alone consumers had to sign up for the streaming service within the first day of the record’s release. After that, those wishing to hear Jay-Z’s new record would need to join Sprint, which means a two-year deal for cellular service, in order to access the record.

To put Jay-Z’s six day platinum status into perspective, Beyonce’s Lemonade – also a Tidal exclusive when initially released – took six weeks to earn the same status.

So how did this happen? New rules introduced by the RIAA a few years back state that 1500 streams of a record is the equivalent to a single album sale. If 1,000,000 sales are needed to achieve platinum status then 4:44 would need to have accrued 1.5 billion streams in just six days of release. This is not impossible, especially considering the album’s scant 35-minute runtime, but it would be unusual. Tidal is far from the biggest streaming player in the game, and the same could be argued about Jay-Z’s position in hip-hop. He’s a giant without question, but in 2017 could he really be the most popular, in-demand rapper of them all?

The announcement made by the RIAA does not detail the specifics of how 4:44 reached this impressive milestone so quickly, but some have already questioned whether or not there may be bulk sales involved in the mix. When Jay released his last record, Magna Carta, Samsung famously bought one-million copies to give away through an exclusive promotion. Those sales count just the same as traditional album sales, so the album was essentially platinum before it was even released. Something similar could have happened with Sprint and 4:44 (via Tidal), but there might be some questionable activity found in that deal because Sprint owns one-third of Tidal.

Can a giant corporation buy a million copies of a record only available through a service they own and call them legitimate sales? If so, what does that say about the importance of such accreditation?

In response to questions raised earlier today, July 5, the RIAA released this statement:

We will keep an eye out for additional information regarding the certification of 4:44 and the future of Tidal. Follow Haulix on Twitter so you never miss another headline for us or the many music writers whose work we support through our channels.

Exit mobile version