Spotify label royalty

[ApolloFC]

Just so everyone knows, LAST FM totally freaking ROCKS on royalties for artists and it's a very cool service as well as networking and social media site, I vote LAST FM for the best choice to listen to music to help your bands and music scene.

Really? Can you give us a comparison? I used to use last.fm before but for one reason or another just decided to stop using it. I'm currently on Rhapsody since it allows me to transfer to my mp3 player (not to be confused with a smartphone/ipod etc) where as spotify doesn't.

Edit: note to self - read the last post before you post

 

[skyrefuge]

You missed my point. First of all, ALL radio is technically supposed to pay mechanical royalties to artists

I think we've got some mixed-up terms here, and I don't know if it's you, or the rest of the Internet. As I understand it, mechanical royalties are paid for the duplication of stuff that stores music (whether vinyl, CDs, or mp3s), and thus, have nothing to do with radio. What you seem to be talking about is what the Internet calls "performance royalties".

These are now broken down into two separate categories, old-school "performance royalties", and "digital performance royalties". With the former, only the original songwriter gets paid for radio play, while with the latter, both the songwriter and the recording artist get paid. The former is what terrestrial radio pays, and the latter is what satellite radio and Pandora pay. In the metal world this is probably irrelevant even if metal *was* big on commercial radio, because the songwriters and recording artists are usually the same people.

I just wanted to point out that Sirius is a special case, and in terms of royalty payments, is treated more like Internet radio than terrestrial radio (because many people may be surprised to learn that in the last 100 years conventional radio has paid less money specifically to recording artists than Spotify has paid them in the last week).

But yeah, Sirius, terrestrial radio, and Pandora are all "non-interactive" services, while Spotify, iTunes, and Rhapsody are "interactive" (on-demand) services, so that's another way to classify them.

Neil

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I think we've got some mixed-up terms here, and I don't know if it's you, or the rest of the Internet. As I understand it, mechanical royalties are paid for the duplication of stuff that stores music (whether vinyl, CDs, or mp3s), and thus, have nothing to do with radio. What you seem to be talking about is what the Internet calls "performance royalties".

I view performance royalties as a form of mech royalty. Mech royalties are royalties earned from the license (aka the rights to the publishing/song and not the recording) being reproduced. A "performance" is the intangible reproduction of that license.

You could argue that the two are completely different entities, as publishing companies aren't really concerned with the physical reproduction of a license, and instead focus on making money off the intangible reproduction of a license (like getting a song in a commercial, movie, etc), but I would argue that on the whole, performance royalties are a function of mech royalties. On the whole, songwriters need to establish mech royalty rights in order to establish performance royalty rights. You can't have one without the other or else it gets hairy. If you don't own your own publishing, you can't get mechanical royalties either. Get what I'm sayin brah?

I just wanted to point out that Sirius is a special case, and in terms of royalty payments, is treated more like Internet radio than terrestrial radio (because many people may be surprised to learn that in the last 100 years conventional radio has paid less money specifically to recording artists than Spotify has paid them in the last week).

But yeah, Sirius, terrestrial radio, and Pandora are all "non-interactive" services, while Spotify, iTunes, and Rhapsody are "interactive" (on-demand) services, so that's another way to classify them.

Neil

word!

 

[nailz]

again, the venting isn't to people on this board since we are all avid music fans or else we wouldn't be in here. but it's towards the vast majority of people who treat music not as art, but as just another consumer product to be devalued as much as possible. i started my labels because i love music and it pains me to see how much it's been degraded in the last 12 years.

Maybe it's time for bands to start releasing their own music on their own websites as digital downloads only, for a buy it for however much you feel like, a-la Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, because between piracy and spotify, it doesn't sound like the current model is going to continue to be profitable for anyone. The music isn't being degraded, it has ultimately decided to throw all of it's chips against social and technological progression and now is kicking like a baby duck in the path of a tsunami trying to figure out how to swim in the middle of the ocean because it lost.

If people are not consuming your product in a profitable way, you're not selling it the way they want to buy it anymore.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Maybe it's time for bands to start releasing their own music on their own websites as digital downloads only, for a buy it for however much you feel like, a-la Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, because between piracy and spotify, it doesn't sound like the current model is going to continue to be profitable for anyone. The music isn't being degraded, it has ultimately decided to throw all of it's chips against social and technological progression and now is kicking like a baby duck in the path of a tsunami trying to figure out how to swim in the middle of the ocean because it lost.

As opposed to having labels release it you mean? The problem with that is that it's a tall order. Bands who self-release their music and become successful with it usually have had some previous success with the old model first. Otherwise, getting your music out there is impossible on your own with no resources (that includes money). One of my favorite metal bands Unexpect went the DIY route with a release, and it's always risky business. Yes, they see 100% of the profit (if there was any profit to be earned after expenses of course), but if nobody is there to promote the record, or get the band tours etc, does it really matter if the band is concerned with making money? I know that Unexpect went from making Mike Portnoy's personal "bands to fap to" list to touring with Dream Theater in Europe to not doing anything on this new release so who knows what happened...

 

[nailz]

Bands who self-release their music and become successful with it usually have had some previous success with the old model first.

Right. That's always the first thing I think of when I type out the 2 bands who've done it with fanfare.

Otherwise, getting your music out there is impossible on your own with no resources (that includes money).

Sure. However, I think it's time to change the model of how distributors and labels work then. Maybe it's time to hire a press staff or an ad campaigning agency rather than the labels, or retain the rights and abilities to keep 100% of the profit from product you move from your own distribution practices, or selling digital copies of the CDs at shows.

One thing I suggested but was told was impossible was the notion that if a younger band who was signed could sell QR codes for instant mobile downloads of albums to itunes or amazon (or even their own websites) on fans mobile phones or USB sticks that included artwork at shows, many people have car radios that support these devices, and could listen to the studio cut instantly. It's how the music industry is shifting. The younger demographic, the 18-35s are going digital, less physical. I don't know why bands aren't doing this and it drives me absolutely crazy, because it seems like it would be something that could be easily implemented and pay off in large dividends.

. Yes, they see 100% of the profit (if there was any profit to be earned after expenses of course), but if nobody is there to promote the record, or get the band tours etc, does it really matter if the band is concerned with making money?

Hello, Spotify. ... We're already being told that this streaming media is clearly NOT something that pays out, so why not release 1/2 an album to spotify for people who want to stream, and let those who which to buy, buy it. Frankly, I think it's only a matter of time before Spotify offers a "Right Click/Buy Instantly" option, as well, both for full albums and individual songs. But then it goes back to my suggestion about hiring a targeted ad campaign designed by an ad agency. Spotify would be just one easy online resource to promote your materials. I think for anything to get done anymore, it's going to have to be completely grassroots, a return to IRL street teams and gurilla internet marketing.

 

[TribunalRecords]

Hello, Spotify. ... We're already being told that this streaming media is clearly NOT something that pays out, so why not release 1/2 an album to spotify for people who want to stream, and let those who which to buy, buy it.

This is great in theory, but the problem is we, as labels, do not usually control our digital content being listed/sold. we upload our content and we all go through various companies who are connected to all the different digital outlets world wide for global distribution. each company (like itunes) have rules that we must abide to such as itunes "album only" tracks can only be done with an album with a certain amount of tracks, etc. it's % based.

i know i cannot simply release part of an album to a service, which i am sure is the same for the other labels here or else i would be doing that with spotify. if spotify is truly for the "tasting" then most people would be for that model, but they aren't so it won't happen.

....the times they are a changin'

 

[DustyV]

Well, yea, the payouts suck, but I do think Spotify will be around for a little awhile longer still. I think many labels are testing the waters to see how much money they are able to make. If it's less then satisfactory, then they will proably start pulling their songs(like a couple of labels have already done). I still love the service and will wait to see if other lables that I listen to begin to pull songs before I cancel my service.

In the meantime, as a paying customer, I have really enjoyed spotify over the last several months.....

 

[edgeofthorns]

Just so everyone knows, LAST FM totally freaking ROCKS on royalties for artists and it's a very cool service as well as networking and social media site, I vote LAST FM for the best choice to listen to music to help your bands and music scene.

Lance, how does Rhapsody treat the lables and bands as far as paying out? I'm curious, because I'm a subscriber for my Iphone. I honestly want to support the small, independent labels and bands, so you guys in the biz need to educate those of us that have no unearthly idea.

~Brian~

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Lance, how does Rhapsody treat the lables and bands as far as paying out? I'm curious, because I'm a subscriber for my Iphone. I honestly want to support the small, independent labels and bands, so you guys in the biz need to educate those of us that have no unearthly idea.

~Brian~

Rhapsody pays about $0.00910000 per stream. Last.fm pays about $0.00045500 per stream. Napster pays about $0.01677206 per stream. Although I am sure this is not a set-in-stone standard for all rates, and payouts depend on popularity, the label's main music distributor, etc and I know you asked Lance and I'm not Lance haha.

 

[Pellaz]

Wow, Napster pays 1.67 cents per stream? Why, with a mere 100 streamings, a band could afford to split a cup of coffee at the Waffle House!

 

[nailz]

Wow, Napster pays 1.67 cents per stream? Why, with a mere 100 streamings, a band could afford to split a cup of coffee at the Waffle House!

While 100 streams for $1 makes for a hilarious joke, you have to remember, 2 BILLION people use the internet. Being on Napster allows you the ability to reach 2 BILLION people.

 

[skyrefuge]

Wow, Napster pays 1.67 cents per stream? Why, with a mere 100 streamings, a band could afford to split a cup of coffee at the Waffle House!

That sounds like sarcasm, but it would be much more accurate if you meant it sincerely. If Napster does actually pay out 1.67 cents per track streamed, that would be an insane amount of money.

If you buy an album on CD and listen to it 50 times, the label+artist gets $2-$3.

If you stream the same (10 track) album 50 times, the label+artist gets $8.35.

Of course, that means I find it quite unlikely that Napster actually pays out at that rate, but if they did, it would be the biggest income musicians have ever seen, the complete opposite of something to laugh at.

The point is, it's dangerous to think "that's nothing" just because a number you happen to be looking at doesn't start until you're on the right side of the decimal point. A cup of water weighs a mere 0.521 pounds, but I'm still gonna run like hell if I'm ever in the area of a tsunami warning.

Neil

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Of course, that means I find it quite unlikely that Napster actually pays out at that rate, but if they did, it would be the biggest income musicians have ever seen, the complete opposite of something to laugh at.


Neil

I didn't exactly pull that number out of my ass dude. Don't ask me why the payout rate is like that. However, Napster does not have a free version like Spotify does, so it's not really the same thing when you compare streaming a record 50 times on Napster to streaming a record you bought at the store. I think nowadays the minimum plan for Napster is 10 bucks a month, so technically from a consumer standpoint it's far cheaper to just buy the record and spin it 50 times than have a Napster account dedicated to only a few tracks/albums to be streamed a billion times. And as I said earlier, while it's uncertain, I'm pretty sure payout rates can depend on many variables. I really really doubt any of these services have a set-in-stone one-size-fits-all rate for everything artist/stream regardless of popularity (in terms of plays, not general popularity). It wouldn't make sense.

 

[Pellaz]

That sounds like sarcasm, but it would be much more accurate if you meant it sincerely. If Napster does actually pay out 1.67 cents per track streamed, that would be an insane amount of money.

Yep, that's why I said that. Seems too good to be true, as you also indicated below:

Of course, that means I find it quite unlikely that Napster actually pays out at that rate, but if they did, it would be the biggest income musicians have ever seen, the complete opposite of something to laugh at.

That'd be pretty good eatin', IF your music were available on Napster and people were willing to pay for their not-free ($10/month) service.

 

[Exploding Ned]

Sounds like not all that much has changed thru the years. I seem to remember mech royalties for airplay used to be paid to ASCAP and BMI, and I believe it used to be the same for nightclubs, when bands played cover songs. When I was in broadcasting during the 70s, it was funny to see everyone get in a tizzy when the BMI or ASCAP reps were in the area listening to stations. As soon as one station found out, they'd call around to all the rest of the stations in the area. I guess they probably wouldn't have to do that much anymore since most stations have an online presence as well as their terrestrial base signal. One of the stations I was with back then was notorious for not paying bills. They had the money, but the owner was just a cheapskate. Anyway, apparently they were behind on their BMI royalty payments, so we had to play only ASCAP songs on-air the day the BMI rep was in the area. We all thought it was hilarious. All that jumping through hoops because the owner was too cheap to shell out less than $100.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Yep, that's why I said that. Seems too good to be true, as you also indicated below:

Dude, I didn't make it up!

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Sounds like not all that much has changed thru the years. I seem to remember mech royalties for airplay used to be paid to ASCAP and BMI, and I believe it used to be the same for nightclubs, when bands played cover songs. When I was in broadcasting during the 70s, it was funny to see everyone get in a tizzy when the BMI or ASCAP reps were in the area listening to stations. As soon as one station found out, they'd call around to all the rest of the stations in the area. I guess they probably wouldn't have to do that much anymore since most stations have an online presence as well as their terrestrial base signal. One of the stations I was with back then was notorious for not paying bills. They had the money, but the owner was just a cheapskate. Anyway, apparently they were behind on their BMI royalty payments, so we had to play only ASCAP songs on-air the day the BMI rep was in the area. We all thought it was hilarious. All that jumping through hoops because the owner was too cheap to shell out less than $100.

Yeah people are shocked today that there was a time when clubs had to pay mech to bands for their performances for not just covers, but sometimes even original tunes. That practice is dead now. Well mostly. You'll get the occasional venue that has a "NO COVERS" policy because they actually pay attention to that kind of thing.

 

[1000 Faces]

Yeah people are shocked today that there was a time when clubs had to pay mech to bands for their performances for not just covers, but sometimes even original tunes. That practice is dead now. Well mostly. You'll get the occasional venue that has a "NO COVERS" policy because they actually pay attention to that kind of thing.

There was a club in the western suburbs of Chicago that was forced out of business a few years ago because they got caught promoting cover bands without having purchased an ASCAP license. Dunno how dead that practice actually is.