Spotify is now the No. 2 revenue source for the major music labels, a source close to the company tells us.
I'm sure it was "a source close to the company", LOL...
can you find an quote for me in that article where they actually state how much spotify is paying labels? I couldn't find it, maybe you can...
too funny... they make a headline and than don't actually report the claim in the article... they note how much Apple has paid...
Quote:
iTunes paid approximately $3.2 billion to record labels in 2011,
but never actually say how much Spotify paid in 2011... wanna show me that number?
my guess is somewhere around $320 Million or roughly 10% of what iTunes is paying... 10%... but hey... maybe I'm wrong... just show me where in that article they actually state what Spotify is paying labels...
what a worthless piece of spin...
faceplams gladly removed, with apology, if you can quote where in that article they state how much they've paid labels...
What are they spinning? You think they are intimating that Spotify is the future, everyone move over to Spotify and stop buying music? Maybe they are...
I posted the article because I find it offensive that Spotify is the 2nd leading source for revenue to labels and yet the artists make peanuts off it. Yes, I know that's a Label/artist issue but I find it offensive nonetheless.
I don't have much of a dog in the hunt because other than my own music, I don't really like much else enough to want to buy it anyway, so I don't.
Still, I want the ARTISTS, Content creators to make money from people who do want to buy or pay for music that moves them. I fear it's a losing battle, I HONESTLY DO.
sventvkg... I am in agreement with you... but they are making a case that if they are paying labels they are paying artists well (both untrue).
1) The link you provided is propaganda and spin because...
2) the claim is COMPLETELY unsubstantiated... and
3) Nowhere in that article is there an actually dollar amount listed of how much they are paying labels!
So, again, please find for me any evidence in that link that actually supports their claim and more importantly an actual PAY OUT amount to put their claim into perspective IF it is even true (which it very well may not be).
I don't think Spotify is the second highest source of revenue for the labels BY FAR... it may be the second highest source of Digital Distribution Revenue... but we don't even know that...
so... to recap...
but if you can find the info above, in the link to the article you listed, I'm all apologies...
the labels will be making it from all the money brands are pumping in.
McGuinness on Spotify:
"Spotify ultimately is a good thing. [But] is it a means of monetizing distribution for product or is it a promotional medium? At the moment I'm inclined to treat it as a promotional medium. If we have to choose where to put records on their debut we're unlikely to give it to Spotify. I'd rather give it to a DJ on a great station. We have arrangements like that around the world with people we've worked with over the years. Spotify has yet to become popular with artists because artists don't see the financial benefit of working with Spotify. That's partly the fault of the labels, and the labels partly own Spotify - and there's sufficient transparency. I see no reason why the basic Spotify model should not be part of the future. It is essentially honest so it's to be encouraged. I'd like to see it everywhere and adopted everywhere, quite honestly."
To be honest, I don't think he quite gets it yet.
interesting that @ 38.45 a guradian journalist asks the Q which is what the answer above referes to.
in the reporting the quote in miss-quoted by the guardian journalist.
"That's partly the fault of the labels, and the labels partly own Spotify - and there's sufficient transparency."
should read
"That's partly the fault of the labels, and the labels partly own Spotify - and there's insufficient transparency."
if you want to skip, skip to 15:20 for a reality check.
__________________ . Great music and mixing isn't making a three minute portal to Exit reality. it's making a three minute portal to Enter it.
Why would the journalist misquote him on purpose?.....hmm.
well, I bet I can find you a link between spotify and the guardian media group in no time at all.
I found this quote in a few places too, and I think they were all miss quoted.
I'd have to recheck all those though. just to be sure. it seemed that way,
because once I read it once, I read the piece on a few sites and they all seemed the same.
then I came across the video which the quote must have been written at. sooo
here you go.. one half of the equasion. This is the Guardian Media Group who run Love Live in the UK.
and that journalist in the video is probably the source who's miss quoting. nice huh ?
you can see they have a tie in with Spotify.
LoveLive is the leading source of music content and associated services for brands, broadcasters, channels, digital platforms and labels. We combine unique access to music rights with digital and marketing capability to deliver the most authentic and compelling music content and campaigns for our clients
Formats
Our Format business creates wholly owned, authentic and engaging music formats for TV, Web and Mobile. Recent formats have been licensed both in the UK and Internationally. LoveLive also owns Europe's largest independent rights cleared music video catalogue of over 1,000 live performances.
Brands
We combine strategic insight, killer content and targeted distribution to deliver measurable earned media and enhanced paid media performance. Our portfolio includes some of the most recognisable international brands and platforms in the world.
Artists & Labels
Artists and Labels work with LoveLive to create new AFP opportunities, Live Stream concerts (ad funded or Pay Per View), create promotional and product video assets and build and manage their digital properties.
LoveLive continues to grow Ford project 'Bands in Transit' through a recent partnership with the Guardian - a strategic move to further amplify the content into 2012.
Live Music Catalogue
Rights Clearance
Branded Content
Strategic Planning + Campaign Creation
Live Streaming
AV Production
Social Media Management
Digital Development
Online, Mobile, TV Distribution
Talent Booking
Coca Cola among others are on board with spotify. so if the labels part own spotify, and these brands are paying money to spotify, the labels will automatically be making.
they will no doubt be potentially making second order deals with U2 etc, so that U2 go on Spotify.
that's how I read the backroom deals.
I read what McGuinness is saying )here) as being on (top) of all this.
so McGuinness is saying, even though all these backroom deals have been going on,
I still can't get any info on the deal the labels have with spotify.
hence "insufficient transparency"
also remember that part of his contract with spotify will entail non disclosure clauses.
so U2 will be ok, but We2 will be sold down the spotify river of irrelevance.
Coca Cola among others are on board with spotify. so if the labels part own spotify, and these brands are paying money to spotify, the labels will automatically be making.
they will no doubt be potentially making second order deals with U2 etc, so that U2 go on Spotify.
that's how I read the backroom deals.
I read what McGuinness is saying )here) as being on (top) of all this.
so McGuinness is saying, even though all these backroom deals have been going on,
I still can't get any info on the deal the labels have with spotify.
hence "insufficient transparency"
also remember that part of his contract with spotify will entail non disclosure clauses.
so U2 will be ok, but We2 will be sold down the spotify river of irrelevance.
I posted an interesting talk from Gerd Leonhard in the seth thread.
he makes some interesting points about killing something too fast.
but one problem is the larger something builds the less power people have.
it needs keeping a close eye on though. it's complex now, and the total rounded
view of how an Artist needs to opperate in a connected world is not simple to grasp,
for the more independent minded.
So I'm a little confused.
The Guardian Newspaper, which many have cited as an impartial commentator on the music industry, is linked to Spotify?
yes. love live is a guardian media group initiative and a sponsor or co-interest
is spotify. media groups have a code of impartiality in regards to reporting,
but are rather more partial to their commercial interests.
even the BBC have a commercial wing. BBC America is commercial.
I know all about the BBC, but they aren't promoting cheap or under priced content.
The main Guardian newspaper is of course covered by a code of ethics and impartiality, but a lot of the power of these media organisations is concentrated on their opinion pages.
For example, my local technology news site just this week recommended The Guardian website as a completely reliable and impartial source for technology news.
Hmmm, but maybe it isn't.
Spotify is losing investors money every year. They are expected to start making profit in the next few years - according to independent sources, IF everythnig goes well for them. This article is BS designed to sway public opinion towards subscription model. Just a regular piece of marketing propaganda. That's why there are no numbers in the article - in reality Spotify is in red at the moment.
Spotify is losing investors money every year. They are expected to start making profit in the next few years - according to independent sources, IF everythnig goes well for them. This article is BS designed to sway public opinion towards subscription model. Just a regular piece of marketing propaganda. That's why there are no numbers in the article - in reality Spotify is in red at the moment.
yup... hence you can smell the desperation in the tech spin machine...
For example, my local technology news site just this week recommended The Guardian website as a completely reliable and impartial source for technology news.
Hmmm, but maybe it isn't.
yes .. well it would be nice if they could get their quotes straight.
None of the entities here are individually evil, nor do they colllectively "add up" to evil, unless you are creating your own flimsy definition of the word.
Music business subforum hyperbolic inanity at its best. If you label Spotify -- a completely legal, legitimate, music streaming service -- as "evil," then your usage of the word loses all value. I hate to throw the term zealot around lightly, but this is truly fanatical talk that greatly diminishes the credibility of those engaged in it.
Spotify is not evil; no one is forced to offer their music on Spotify. It is a service that can be used -- or not. If you don't like their terms, you don't provide your music to their library. Spotify is not a monopoly, and cannot use its monopoly power to hinder competition: anyone with the resources can establish a competitor to Spotify's service. If a competitor's service offers better terms to its content providers, said providers could simply remove their wares as soon as possible from Spotify's service and offer them only to the competitor. This is the basis of lawful business. Spotify is a lawful business.
Negotiate for better terms from Spotify. Give your favor to its current or future competition, if the competition is more equitable. But do not call them evil, for in so doing you insult only yourself.
None of the entities here are individually evil, nor do they colllectively "add up" to evil, unless you are creating your own flimsy definition of the word.
For the definition in this context, look to Google:
why do labels take a cut on song productions done by artists?
They obviously have to offer something in return, or self recording artists wouldn't sign the deal.
Worldwide distribution?
Access to mainstream radio and tv?
An advance to go towards artist debt from making the recording?
None of the entities here are individually evil, nor do they colllectively "add up" to evil, unless you are creating your own flimsy definition of the word.
For the definition in this context, look to Google:
How in the world does Google's motto possibly relate to wrongly calling the conglomeration of Spotify, Tunecore, and Techdirt evil? You'll have to explain this one a little better for me.
Location: In an undisclosed bunker working on the music of the next generation.
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksandvik
Excluding 360 deals, why do labels take a cut on song productions done by artists?
Labels generally speaking are the copyright owners of the work. That's why when you see a album it says (C) Universal Music and not (C) Madonna or whatever. As copyright owners, they generally get all the power of copyright owners. The artist can't bypass the label and make separate deals with entities like Spotify. That is actually copyright infringement.
The recourse is whatever was written in the contract with the artist. This usually is where the compensation a royalty or a flat payment in the case of most session musicians.
But the people who write these contracts work for the label, so the contracts will naturally be biased towards the label's interests, and give them a lot of leeway on how they sell and market the music. It's also worth noting that the vast majority of these contracts are for current and future music, ie. you can't simply back out of one after you sign it, the label "owns" you as a musician. This might work in some musicians benefit though depending on the law of the country (ie: it's harder for the label claim it is a "work for hire", when you can't quit).
__________________
Sincerely,
freetard, esq. Musician & Producer, Freetard Records
Labels generally speaking are the copyright owners of the work. That's why when you see a album it says (C) Universal Music and not (C) Madonna or whatever. As copyright owners, they generally get all the power of copyright owners. The artist can't bypass the label and make separate deals with entities like Spotify. That is actually copyright infringement.
The recourse is whatever was written in the contract with the artist. This usually is where the compensation a royalty or a flat payment in the case of most session musicians.
But the people who write these contracts work for the label, so the contracts will naturally be biased towards the label's interests, and give them a lot of leeway on how they sell and market the music. It's also worth noting that the vast majority of these contracts are for current and future music, ie. you can't simply back out of one after you sign it, the label "owns" you as a musician. This might work in some musicians benefit though depending on the law of the country (ie: it's harder for the label claim it is a "work for hire", when you can't quit).
If an artist is stupid enough to sign off their artists rights concerning their songs, what could I say...
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Musician & Producer, Freetard Records 
