While it will no doubt be a few more months before the hype surrounding Apple Music quiets to the point of being just another dull roar in the overcrowded conversation about music streaming, there is a new competitor on the block who may soon be making headlines around the globe.
Amazon is no stranger to digital music. The digital retail titan has had its own mp3 store and system in place for years, as well as an on-demand video service, but it has not yet launched any kind of music streaming service. The key word in that sentence appears to be ‘yet’ however, as a series of new reveals from the company have many wondering just how long it’ll be before Amazon tries to claim a piece of the increasingly competitive music streaming pie.
Last week, the Amazon Acoustics collection was released as an exclusive playlist for Amazon ‘Prime’ members. There are 30 recordings available from artists like Joshua Radin, Surfer Blood, and Tokyo Police Club that are available via the Amazon Music app on iOS and Android devices, Amazon’s connected Echo speaker, or online at the Prime Music website. The compilation is believed to be the first in a series of company owned releases that could make their way to the public in the months ahead, and it serves as the one of the first releases of its kind from any digital retailer. The closest competition I can come up with is Spotify’s Session program, and even that doesn’t offer the kind of exclusive content that can be found on this compilation.
Adding further fuel to the Amazon streaming music rumor mill, the company also recently released the Grammy-nominated Transparent soundtrack album as well as it’s own Christmas album featuring artists like Liz Phair, The Flaming Lips, and Yoko Ono. Again, these releases are believed to be a starting point for the company’s future music plans, but the company is keeping quiet for the time being regarding all future efforts.
What does all this mean? I’m not sure yet, but analysts around the industry seem to agree Amazon is doing a lot more in music than they have shared with the public so far. Maybe this means more releases, possibly with the inclusion of video content, but it could also mean the impending launch of yet another streaming music service. The market for such platforms is certainly growing crowded, but that doesn’t mean there is no room for Amazon to enter and make big waves.
Just to give you one example of how Amazon could change the streaming game, let’s look at the company’s ‘Prime’ membership program. Customers who purchase one of these memberships, which run around $100 a year, are given access to Prime’s large selection of free video content for streaming, as well as free 2-day shipping on essentially all purchases. If Amazon could also grant access to a music platform that has a catalog as equally large and diverse as Apple or Spotify that may be enough to lure consumers away from the competition. They wouldn’t be doing so for the love of music, of course, but streaming has never really been about the music. It’s about increasing the bottom line, both for creators and the people who make their music available.
We’ll continue to keep an eye on Amazon and let you know of any new developments that arise. In the meantime, comment below and let us know if you believe Amazon will enter the streaming game in the months or years to come.
James Shotwell is the Marketing Coordinator for Haulix. He is also a professional entertainment critic, covering both film and music, as well as the co-founder of Antique Records. Feel free to tell him you love or hate the article above by connecting with him onTwitter. Bonus points if you introduce yourself by sharing your favorite Simpsons character.
Let us just say, Anthony Fantano is one of our favorite music critics today. He’s a smart guy with a unique way of seeing and hearing the world around him. This commentary is spot on. Dig in.
With the announcement of Apple Music, its streaming service and Beats1 live online radio, came Connect. This direct to fan social music platform should help artists connect with fans as they listen to music. Chandler Coyle of The Coyle Report and Music Geek Services figured out the easiest way for artists to claim their profile, and we’ve created this post to share his knowledge with all of you. Don’t sleep on this information. Claim your account as soon as possible.
On June 30, 2015 Apple will launch their new music service called Apple Music. Included in this new service is an artist to fan social platform called Connect. Apple describes it this way:
Apple Music Connect
Apple Music is for you, the artist, to connect directly with your fans. Share your thoughts and ideas, post demos, remixes, lyrics—really, anything you can imagine—and connect with fans all around the world.
You will want to claim your Connect profile as soon as possible.
I’d like to highlight a few important questions and their answers:
What can I post?
You can post a simple message, share your favorite music from our expansive catalog, and upload your own work, including audio, videos, and photos. All users, whether they are members or not, can read your posts and stream content you upload. However, only members will be able to stream the songs, albums, and music videos you share from the Apple Music catalog.
You can also attach audio or videos that you upload to your existing albums in Apple Music and comment on other artists’ posts or respond to comments on your own posts.
Please note that you must own all rights for any content that you upload to Apple Music Connect (otherwise your access to Connect may be revoked).
Are there guidelines for the content I upload?
Apple Music offers you the opportunity to post content that’s unique and personal. Upload audio (up to 90 minutes), videos (up to 8 minutes), or photos (in JPEG or PNG file formats) in the app with a simple tap.
Audio and videos can be professionally produced or spontaneously recorded on an iPhone or iPad and posted immediately. All the audio, videos, and photos that you upload will be available to members and nonmembers alike.
Step 4 – Claim your profile and become a verified Apple Music Connect artist:
How can I get access to Apple Music Connect?
To become a verified artist, simply request access here.
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.
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.
I spent four years in college learning about the world of business, and in that time no one theory was engrained in me more often than the Law Of Supply And Demand. For those of you who need a little explanation, allow me to borrow definition from our friends at Investopedia:
A theory explaining the interaction between the supply of a resource and the demand for that resource. The law of supply and demand defines the effect that the availability of a particular product and the desire (or demand) for that product has on price. Generally, if there is a low supply and a high demand, the price will be high. In contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price will be.
It’s important to understand that the law of supply and demand is not actually a law, but it is a well known and understood realization that if you have a lot of one item, the price for that item should go down. That said, if you have a lot of one item, but also a high rate of demand for that item, the price should go up. If supply is low and demand is high, the price soars even higher. Grasping this concept is one of the very basic building blocks to any economic understanding.
When it comes to music, the demand for new content has always been high. As soon as we were able to produce media for mass consumption there was an immediate demand that the creative minds of the world continue to deliver fresh material on a regular basis. Radio introduced people to musicians and singers that they would then seek out at record stores or concert halls. Records and the memories created from concert experiences fueled consumer to consumer promotion, which created new fans for various acts who in turn also demanded new content. That process has continued to build audiences and develop talent for over half a century at this point, with social media and the age of streaming simplifying the process in ways people as recently as twenty years ago never could have imagined. There is a drawback to all this simplicity however, and if you ask me it has led to the law of supply and demand becoming something that no longer applies to the world of entertainment.
It’s no secret that streaming has made the vast majority of the world’s music accessible with a few keystrokes or clicks. One might think that would satiate the constant demand for fresh content, but in fact the opposite seems to have occurred. As soon as people dug through all the albums they had ever loved, they began digging into the records they always meant to listen to and never thought to buy. Once that effort grew tiresome, their focus switched to new content. Within a matter of hours, days, or weeks they have experienced everything they were ever curious about in the world of music and are ready to discover what comes next, all for a price that is – generally speaking – less than $15 a month. If they heard something catchy on the radio today, a quick turn to Spotify or Rdio would allow for endless repeat listens, as well as an opportunity to learn more about the artist’s work without making an additional investment beyond the low monthly service fee mentioned above.
..And therein lies the problem.
There is a large amount of music in the world that is waiting to be discovered, and there are numerous artists with international recognition who hope to continue delivering infectious material to their fans. Likewise, there is a growing user base across streaming platforms, and as those numbers rise so does the demand for new content. What never seems to change however, at least not in a way that offers legitimate aide to those creating the music, are the rates charged by streaming services for access to their vast libraries of music. The people behind these companies seem to view their services as something that aides bands by simply existing, and therefore don’t see the need to increase the rate they are willing to pay per stream. If artists don’t approve, they don’t have to join. They also have to miss out on the tens of thousands who use streaming as their primary means of listening to music, but that’s their choice. It’s not a choice as much as it is a shakedown in my opinion, but those are the options.
Let’s say I have a Spotify account and one day, just by chance, I discover your music. I fall in love with the first single, tweet about my excitement (likely without tagging you), and then browse the rest of your catalog within the span of a few short hours, if that. When I’m done you may have a new listener, but someone with that title is not exactly a fan. I enjoy your music, but aside from a few fractions of pennies and a possible social media mention I have done nothing to support you. There may be a store on Spotify with your merch, but whether or not I make a purchase is going to be based almost entirely on the music itself. There is no opportunity for me to engage with you, the artist, even though I am able to dig through everything you’ve released without taking my hand off my mouse.
It’s not just the music industry that is reaching this conclusion, either. Netflix took on demand movie and TV streams to every device a person could own, but in order to continue growing their user base Netflix has had to constantly update their offerings, even going as far as to venture into creating original content of their own. Consumers applauded their efforts so far and, just like before, there is now an increased demand for the high quality content offerings to continue. The same can be said for any Netflix competitor, be it Amazon, Hulu, or something just now being developed. Every platform needs a constant feed of fresh content in order to retain, let alone develop their consumer base.
With increasing demand there should be increased payouts to talent, but that is not what is happening. In fact, a senior team member at Spotify recently claimed the company has no current plans to change the per stream rate paid to musicians. Even if the company raises its rates, which it will more than likely do over time because – again – the demand for more of what they offer exists, artists will likely not see any additional money being funneled to them. To make matters worse, artists will also continue to see a decline in sales from physical releases as the world of streaming grows in popularity, which will only worsen a situation that has already forced countless creative minds to rethink their dreams of making art for a living.
If you think Spotify and services like it may one day go away, you’re just as crazy as those who hold out hope a decent per stream royalty will be unveiled sometime in the immediate future. With marketing moves like their recent Family Plan, which allows users to add people to their account for at a rate of $5 per person, it’s clear Spotify is settling in for a long stay in the world of music. They don’t want to be the leader of music streaming, they want to be the leader of how people experience music, and there are at least a handful of competitors trying to do the same. Their prices will fall as well, which will make music more accessible than ever while potentially having very little impact on how much artists are from those streams. Does that make any sense?
Let’s play devil’s advocate for a minute: You could argue that lowering the cost of access to music will increase the number of people listening on a regular basis, which would increase the amount of songs being played and the amount of royalties being paid out. That’s absolutely true. More people does equate to more spins, which will – over time – add up. Spotify pays right around $0.007 per stream, which would usually mean it took 143 spins for artist’s to earn a single penny on their work. Spotify does not pay on a per stream rate however, even though that would be easiest to calculate. Here’s an explanation of how their system works as explained on their company website:
Every time somebody listens to a song on Spotify it generates payments, but Spotify does not calculate royalties based upon a fixed “per play” rate. Although much public discussion of Spotify has speculated about such a rate, our payouts for individual artists have grown tremendously over time as a result of our user growth, and they will continue to do so.
The royalties artists see on their royalty statements derive from the formula above on a country-by-country basis, and depend upon the many moving variables specified in the formula. Of course, it is possible to reverse engineer an effective “per stream” average by dividing one’s royalties by the number of plays that generated them, but this is not how we measure our payouts internally nor is it a reliable yardstick for Spotify’s value to artists.
An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:
• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music
• Spotify’s # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate
• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries
• An artist’s royalty rate
Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher.
Again, we personally view “per stream” metrics as a highly flawed indication of our value to artists for several reasons. For one, our growing user population might listen to more music in a given month than the month before (resulting in a lower effective “per stream”), while generating far more aggregate royalties for artists. As with any subscription service, our primary goal is to attract and retain as many paying subscribers as we possibly can, and to pass along greater and greater royalties to the creators of the music in our service. Theoretically, another service could generate higher effective “per stream” payouts simply by having users who listen to far less music. We believe, however, that our service and the lives of artists will both be best if the World’s music fans enjoy more music than ever before in a legal, paid manner.
Beyond the numbers above and the persistent public demand for content, let’s not forget the fact streaming services need musicians as much – if not more – than musicians need them. Spotify and services like it are consumers of music, very big ones at that, and they need a constant feed of new music in order to appease the millions of consumers who are seeking entertainment on their platform. Their demand for content should be met with a demand for higher royalty rates, but thanks to having secured separate deals with various major labels in advance of their launch those capable of causing the most trouble for these platforms remain largely silent while the DIY community are left to fend for themselves. You cannot blame the executives at those companies for doing what they could to make a dollar for themselves before streaming became the normal, but at the same time you have to wonder how many of them thought about the repercussion such platforms would have on the indie bands and tiny labels that don’t have exposure, funding, or widespread recognition on their side.
I want to say that a day will come when the law of supply and demand once again hold some sway in the music industry, but right now that seems almost impossible to believe. As long as the people controlling the way people listen to music are not directly engaging with the indie community there will be little hope for change unless musicians and those that support them rally in opposition. This is not a call for arms as much as it is food for thought, but there is strength in numbers and there are plenty of musicians hoping to improve their position in life. At the very least, artists need to make themselves away of the realities of these royalty agreements before uploading their music. If something doesn’t feel right, artists should feel comfortable explaining their desire to stay away with fans. Fans are there to support bands, not a company that uses music to far more money than they ever care to share with the artists behind it, and they will follow their favorite artists wherever they need to in order to engage with their material. No one is following Spotify anywhere simply because they are Spotify, and the same goes for Apple/Beats Music. Music is the true source of power, and it’s high time people remember that.
Hello and welcome to the final Advice column of the week. We did not set out to run a series of in-depth editorials over the last few days, but sometimes content develops in ways you never expected. For this particular piece, we became fascinated with the struggles of signed bands and wanted to shed a light on their troubles to help developing artists prepare for the realities of life in the music industry. 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 and share your thoughts. We can also be found on Twitter and Facebook.
Today I was scrolling through the latest music headlines when I stumbled across a post from my friends at Indie Vision Music that captured my imagination. I Am Empire, a relatively popular rock band signed with Solid State Records, shared a photo on their Facebook page showing a quarterly streaming royalties statement. The image, which you can view below, was not exactly the kind of thing rock and roll dreams are made of:
The band offered an explanation for the image on the original post:
“A glimpse into being an indie artist on an indie label. This I Am Empire royalty statement shows nearly 500,000 internet radio streams/plays on one quarterly statement. Total royalty paid from this portion. $.58 per band member. Spotify streams.. nearly 50,000 streams.. paid $3.35.”
Anyone who keeps an eye on industry news knows that photos of royalty payments like this are nothing new in the world of music, especially in the realm of hard rock. In January of this very year, Darkest Hour guitarist Mike Schleibaum shared a photo of a check for $0.01. “This is what we call, “BIG TIME!,” he wrote on Facebook. "Don’t worry..big news is coming but for now..we got to spend all this cash!”
If you’re an artist dreaming on one day making music your full time career, seeing images like this being shared by some of the biggest people in your preferred genre of music can be incredibly disheartening. People have been saying for years that the music industry is either dead or dying, but it’s a lot harder to brush off as nonsense when you see the types of payouts headline artists are being given on a regular basis. Life should never be about the money, of course, but people must be able to make a living in order to provide for their own basic needs (not to mention the needs of their family).
There is not a lot you can do in the immediate future to change the tide of streaming payouts, but I do believe that we will see that area of the business undergo several more evolutions before it’s more or less ‘figured out. The give and take between the companies responsible for the platform, the labels who signed the talent, and the talent themselves needs to be addressed in a big bad way. Again, that’s nothing you haven’t heard before, but that does not mean it will never happen at all. It will, but things like this take time. You must be patiently pro-active, or in other words doing whatever you can to make the best of things while the powers that be workout the ‘big idea’ stuff for the rest of us. Even if you’re not giving part of your proceeds to a label, the amount of money you’re earning off each stream is a fraction of what you deserve. You have a voice, so the I advice that you put it to use and make your frustrations known. Things won’t change over night, but every bit of fight certainly helps move things along.
You are not helpless or alone in the war against streaming payouts and the ever-shrinking revenue streams made available to artists. The struggle to make a living in music is as real for you as it is for your favorite musicians and the professionals who work with them (most of the time). You cannot change things right away, but you can promote the continued support of live music and ask fans to buy your music whenever possible. Most people do not understand the way streaming payouts work, and because of that fact they sometimes see no difference between buying a single on iTunes for a dollar or streaming that same song through their premium Spotify account. Be honest with them about the realities of streaming and some will come around to the notion it might not be the ‘industry savior’ so many have made it out to be. They will remember your message and make it a point to financially support you whenever possible. Others will never listen, but that’s just life.
The best thing you can do for yourself in this situation is to set an example for others to follow. Support music. Go to shows, buy albums, share photos of your vinyl, tweet at musicians, and do whatever else you can think of to get the point across that you not only love music, but you care about those responsible for making it. Others will notice your efforts and follow suit. If you’re in a band, this means they will follow and support you. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it may work wonders for your career.
