Napalm Records Removes Content from Spotify

[skyrefuge]

For what it's worth, Napalm has been pretty good about getting their music out there via free MP3 samplers and the like.
People who want to sample their bands can do so easily.

Sure, but once you have it installed, any other sampling method is an order of magnitude less-easy than Spotify. I've almost gotten to the point where if a band I want to check out isn't on Spotify, I'm like "eh, guess I won't check them out then, too much work!" Yeah, that means I'm lazy, but those labels/bands that can capture even the laziest of us are the ones that will be the winners.

If Spotify is supposed to be a promotional tool to expose fans to new music, I don't see why these labels can't offer up a song or two from their albums instead of walking away completely.

First, I'm sure Spotify doesn't see themselves as a tool for "exposure". They're selling all-you-can-eat subscriptions, where they expect Spotify to be your main (or only) source of music.

But yeah, in Century Media's statement, that's actually what they said they'd be doing: pulling full albums, but releasing compilation/sampler albums to Spotify instead. I still don't think that's a great idea, since people have already been conditioned to think Spotify=="all I can eat", and seeing only a limited selection will annoy them, but I guess it's better than nothing.

Neil

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Just a reminder of one of my calculations, if someone listens to one of your albums 100 times over the course of their lifetime, you will actually make *more* via Spotify than selling them a CD (and that break-even point is lowered to 50 listens if payout rates are now 0.3-0.4 cents/stream). So Spotify's payouts really aren't *that* low, the main difference is that the payment is just reeeeeaaaallly spread out over time vs. the up-front payout of a CD-purchase.

The trouble is that this slow-but-steady income drip isn't so useful for large immediate expenses that bands/labels have such as recording-studio payments or tour support. Those require already-full buckets. However, the larger a label's catalog, the quicker they can fill those buckets, because many slow-but-steady streams merge into one sorta-fast-and-steady stream. Of course, this is essentially the label-as-a-bank model that has always existed (making an investment/loan in an album that is repaid over a long term), but Spotify stretches that term to the extreme. To illustrate, let's say 10 labels with one album each on Spotify would have to wait 10 years before collecting enough money to record a second album for their label. If those 10 albums were instead owned by a single label, the label would get enough money in 1 year to record another album, and then another album in the 2nd year, etc. The end result is the same in both setups (enough money to record 10 albums in 10 years) but the timing is different.

From that perspective it seems especially odd that it's CM, MB, and Napalm pulling out, since those are labels with relatively large catalogs in the metal world, so it seems like they would be the best fit for the streaming model, whereas the more boutique labels would be the ones having a tougher time with it.

Neil

+1

 

[AngraRULES]

Spotify doesn't advertise bands for you, you still need to know about them to find them.

Bullshit. Spotify has a great tool called Related/Similar Artists. If that's not enough handholding to get you to check out a band, then you're just lazy or simply don't care to check out the bands.

 

[Cheiron]

Bullshit. Spotify has a great tool called Related/Similar Artists. If that's not enough handholding to get you to check out a band, then you're just lazy or simply don't care to check out the bands.

Righ, but I still contend that Century Media does not require the use of Spotify to get word out about their bands.

Spotify is a fine tool for bands and listeners, not so great of a tool for labels that make their money on album sales.

 

[TribunalRecords]

Yeah, I've been using the generally-reported figure of around 0.16 cents per-stream (to the rights-holder, not the artist) in all the calculations I've been doing on this forum. I guess maybe my posts are too long to read! But yeah, I'm definitely interested to hear how your experience compares, especially since more recent figures indicate that payouts are increasing (up to 0.3-0.4 cents per stream, woo!)



Huh? Spotify has consistently *lost* money, because they pay out a lot more to artists than they take in! Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the vast majority of users (particularly in the US now) pay nothing to listen to Spotify. So in order to pay royalties, Spotify combines the income from ad revenue with user-subscription fees, but it's still not nearly enough to balance what they pay out.

So there is no one at Spotify getting rich by raping poor musicians. Certainly they *plan* to make that happen at some point, but it's not happening yet.

Neil

really? i haven't done much research admittedly (it's just what i read awhile ago about original complaints) but for something with as much hype behind it coming from Europe you would figure they would be making money. There is money being made that is for sure, but who it is seems to be the mystery.

 

[dcowboys311]

Righ, but I still contend that Century Media does not require the use of Spotify to get word out about their bands.

Spotify is a fine tool for bands and listeners, not so great of a tool for labels that make their money on album sales.

Nobody 'requires' the use of it. It's still a fairly new venue. Nobody 'required' the use of the internet either, but look how that's helped.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Righ, but I still contend that Century Media does not require the use of Spotify to get word out about their bands.

Spotify is a fine tool for bands and listeners, not so great of a tool for labels that make their money on album sales.

Do you have any statistic or data showing that CD sales in countries that Spotify is popular in have gone down that directly attribute those losses to the existence of Spotify? You seem to forget that Spotify is not new, it's been around since 2008 and I have heard nothing but praises from label people and musicians alike over the last few years. In fact, that's partly why I am so shocked at all of this. Yeah Spotify isn't available in Germany and Austria (where MB, Napalm, and CM have offices in), but it is huge in Sweden, UK, and other territories it is available in, and nobody had anything bad to say about Spotify then.

 

[nailz]

^---i'd like to see the praises those labels and artists are saying about it ... mostly because I'd like to see how they've adopted the technology.

 

[Akumu]

Yeah Spotify isn't available in Germany and Austria (where MB, Napalm, and CM have offices in), but it is huge in Sweden, UK, and other territories it is available in, and nobody had anything bad to say about Spotify then.

I'm curious: did Century Media/Napalm have any solid plans on removing their material before Spotify was released over here, or was there something particular about the American market that pushed them to do it?

 

[Cheiron]

Do you have any statistic or data showing that CD sales in countries that Spotify is popular in have gone down that directly attribute those losses to the existence of Spotify?

Data like that is impossible to have.

However, something worth considering is "While NPD found that Spotify service led to a 13-percent decrease in paid downloads, online radio site Pandora actually led to a 41-percent increase in purchased music."

Also, the labels claiming that it is occurring. They could be wrong, but being that we don't have their data, its hard to fully disagree.

Also, don't forget that 4 of the major labels own a substantial stake in Spotify. Thus, they aren't going to be attacking it as a revenue stream anytime soon.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I'm curious: did Century Media/Napalm have any solid plans on removing their material before Spotify was released over here, or was there something particular about the American market that pushed them to do it?

In all liklihood, it's the American market that pushed them to do it in the sense that if they can negotiate better payouts with Spotify, the payouts will be huge since like 20 million Americans signed up to Spotify as of its launch in the USA. We have numbers as a country, and that's valuable if they can make the music buying population work in their favor in terms of higher payouts.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Data like that is impossible to have.

Then stop insinuating that Spotify could kill CD sales and not other things like licensing deals with bands, the economy, etc.

However, something worth considering is "While NPD found that Spotify service led to a 13-percent decrease in paid downloads, online radio site Pandora actually led to a 41-percent increase in purchased music."

I don't really see how that matters. It's kind of a no brainier that Spotify would kill DIGITAL sales, since Spotify is a digital music service that is provided by any CD distributor. It is not a supplement to iTunes, it is an alternative to it. Labels don't earn their money on digital sales (most of it anyway), they earn it on physical product.

Also, don't forget that 4 of the major labels own a substantial stake in Spotify. Thus, they aren't going to be attacking it as a revenue stream anytime soon.

Similarly, don't forget that the major labels are responsible for the distribution of most smaller labels via ADA, Caroline, RED, etc. So the major labels are extremely important to the success of indie labels.

 

[nailz]

Also, the labels claiming that it is occurring. They could be wrong, but being that we don't have their data, its hard to fully disagree.

Believing things because someone tells you its true without proof is a dangerous game.

 

[nomisofsiman]

Reread that. This service makes purchasing music unneccesary and it's the labels who are being greedy for not settling for whatever pennies Spotify throws their way? I'd save my scorn for the so-called fans who think they're entitled to any album, any time, without ever opening their wallets.

I just finally started Spotify the other day. Don't know what took me so long, but I disagree with this take. Yeah, I can see what the labels are having an issue with due to all the music being on there. However, at the same time, all this music you can already find online. It isn't very difficult. I can't tell you how many artists I wanna see what they're like and I just go to Youtube and listen. The thing is though with Youtube, the labels aren't getting SHIT!!! It's uploaded by anybody. Spotify music can't be uploaded by anyone and the labels are at least getting something back, so they're really just fucking themselves over by pulling their music if you ask me. At the end of the day, I think Spotify is an excellent innovation for the music industry...it isn't the enemy.

 

[Prog_Please]

Is there any way to find out how much revenue was generated by 1 (ppusa type) metal band. I know several entities take portions of the money spotify hands out per play, but I'm curious how much this is total per month or year or whatever it pays out in. Just so I can see how much (or little) it actually is.

If its a low as many have made it seem like, why not just put it on bandcamp and have people pay however much they want for it... (rhetorical question, for those who feel the irresistible urge to answer and debate everything)

 

[J. Golden]

Reread that. This service makes purchasing music unneccesary and it's the labels who are being greedy for not settling for whatever pennies Spotify throws their way? I'd save my scorn for the so-called fans who think they're entitled to any album, any time, without ever opening their wallets.

Preach on brother

 

[J. Golden]

I will let you guys know first hand how little i get from a track on spotify when i get my first month's statements from my digital service. we just went live with them and i am interested to see how little it is. i have heard it's less than a penny per song streamed.

It is a fine line and i think where the anger from the labels comes from is the alleged money spotify is making from ads and things like that. If the music is the driving force for the service then in turn it's needs to be paid as such.

Bottom line, time and time again, is this. Money makes the world go round. Money is needed to enjoy the music you do because on the other end of that song you listen to daily is someone trying to put food on their table, etc. Yes, beating a dead horse but the creation of art is never free there is always a cost.

Well said Sir.

 

[Pellaz]

If Spotify offered some sort of embedded mechanism for simply purchasing a high-quality mp3 (or whatever format) for $1/song, I'd already have given them at least one year's subscription fees for songs I've heard elsewhere (like on Sirius/XM) and played there.

Just sayin'......

 

[Cheiron]

Believing things because someone tells you its true without proof is a dangerous game.

Believing what you want, because its what you want to believe, is also dangerous.

I'd like to see some smaller labels come out and say how Spotify has led to an increase in profits, as well as concert attendance.

 

[Justin G]

I just finally started Spotify the other day. Don't know what took me so long, but I disagree with this take. Yeah, I can see what the labels are having an issue with due to all the music being on there. However, at the same time, all this music you can already find online. It isn't very difficult. I can't tell you how many artists I wanna see what they're like and I just go to Youtube and listen. The thing is though with Youtube, the labels aren't getting SHIT!!! It's uploaded by anybody. Spotify music can't be uploaded by anyone and the labels are at least getting something back, so they're really just fucking themselves over by pulling their music if you ask me. At the end of the day, I think Spotify is an excellent innovation for the music industry...it isn't the enemy.

Except that nobody is pushing Youtube as the alternative to buying music, or a "this is all you will ever need" vehicle for music consumption.