One topic that has been circulating the online news channels this week is the issue over streaming music, a hot discussion that has arisen ever since the rise of Spotify, a service embraced by many record labels in an attempt to combat the ever increasing rise of illegal downloading and torrenting.
But it’s not been all rosy. Thom Yorke, of Radiohead fame, removed some of his solo material from Spotify in a protest over how little artists get paid per stream (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23313445). According to that report, streaming still only accounts for 13% of worldwide sales, but is the fastest growing field. Artists are reluctant to say how much they get paid by streaming services, but it is deemed to be far less than they get for actual downloads, which stands up as the revenue generated from advertising around free streaming is much less than cold, hard digital cash for a download.
In another article covering online musical, it is revealed that, post-festivals, artists who do not have their material on streaming sites, find the ratio of sales to illegal downloads is less than those who have them on streaming sites (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/23372783), meaning if people can re-discover a new artist they heard first on a streaming site, they are then more likely to purchase the song rather than torrent it.
Traditional Consumption
I am very traditional in my music consumption. I still prefer to own my music – be that digitally or physically – rather than stream it as it’s then mine to do what I want with. I prefer to sample music via YouTube as I find the need to download software for streaming sites unnecessarily clunky. But I can see the benefits of streaming as a means of trying out new songs and hearing ones you may not necessarily want to pay for, with lots of 89 pences quickly adding up for people who like their music but don’t have bundles of cash hanging around.
Benefits to Artists
Though streaming is seen as being beneficial to artists, is it? Which is the most likely scenario? People interested in a record just listen to it on a streaming site as and when they want to and never own the track as they don’t need to, giving the artist a very small return; or not having it available for stream and so they have to buy it themselves, rewarding the artist more; or does this latter way mean more people would rather download it illegally than slap down 89p, meaning the artist gets no revenue at all?
Releasing singles earlier
Take a current track recently added onto YouTube – the new MKS song ‘Flatline’. I’ve listened to it a few times on YouTube but it’s not yet available to download. I’m happy to wait for it to be available for download but there will be lots who don’t want to wait and will either rip it or torrent it. Would there be an advantage for record labels to start releasing new singles earlier and help combat piracy?
It’s an interesting balance between music availability, cost and access and one that streaming companies, the artists, and consumers will be battling it out for a while yet.
I would love to hear your comments on streaming and artist revenue below!
0 comments:
Post a Comment