Apple declares WAR on Spotify: iRadio bags streaming rights Apple is reportedly finalising plans for an internet radio station that will launch the fruity firm into a bitter conflict with streaming music services offered by Spotify, Google and Pandora. Cupertino has signed a deal with Universal Music Group granting Apple the rights to UMG's recorded music but not to any music …
Parent quote - "Lady Gaga was reported to have received just over £100 from Spotify in 2009 after her song Poker Face was played more than a million times.
How does that amount compare to a million listens on terrestrial radio?"
Not only that but how much did her record company receive? Is the service not paying its fair share or is the artist simply not getting their fair cut of the share?
The payment to an artist from Spotify is split into two different parts:
1. 10% roughly goes to the collecting agency that represents the composers of lyrics and music. This is then paid to the artist by the collecting agency at regular intervals.
2. The rest goes to the record label, who in turn pays a portion of it to the artist, but this is of course entirely dependent on what the contract between the artist and their label looks like. Some artists get close to 90% of the Spotify revenue, some get less than 10%.
Spotify does not go public with how much they pay to each label per "listen" or "hit", nor do the labels. It is known that the payment is not consistent between labels though. Each label has their own deal with Spotify and they are quite secretive about its contents, making research into the field a bit challenging.
In Sweden 2012 the rate was unofficially reported to have been between four and six "öre" each time a tune was listened to. (An "öre" is roughly 0,001 Euro, provided I get my commas right). In small country like Sweden, a popular song could have around 300.000 hits per day back in 2012. Over all, Spotify has become the number one revenue post for artists in Sweden.
The rate varies from year to year depending on Spotify's success, and back in 2009 it was pretty abysmal compared to 2012. The payment to lady Gaga is an oft-quoted figure that represent one of the payments from the swedish collecting agency, STIM, during 2009 and is hardly representable of what Spotify revenue in total means to an artist today.
Well here is an example of the royalty rates for Radio play in the UK http://www.jazzservices.org.uk/index.php/jazz-business-copyright/performance-royalties
One play of the song could easily reach a multiple of million people on Radios 1 and 2 so 100 quid for a million plays is actually over charging a little if you compare it to radio rates. Though they probably factor in an on-demand premium to charge Spotify more.
Am I reading this right, if I were to have a 3 minute song played just once on BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 I would get a check for £39.46?
And...if I own a music venue and get a band in to play, I still have to pay the PRS even though I can pay the band directly? I'm all for supporting artists and making sure they dont get ripped off, but the PRS seem to be taking the piss here!
Also, slightly different, but those short 15 second Tesco adverts with a blast of a well known tune, do the artists get money for that or is it too short to require payment?
Taking the piss, what are you on about?!
These hard-working, job-creating, up-standing PRS (Personal Returns (before) Sound) folks of Britain are looking after the little guy, don't you know!
For every £12 CD the little guy is allowed 12p (uppitiness has to be STOPPED!) and seeing no-one buys CDs anymore, that's stopped that outlay.
We decide if you have the right to play a song, not the law! If you paid for it once then paying for it again shouldn't be a surprise!!
"... those short 15 second Tesco adverts with a blast of a well known tune, do the artists get money for that or is it too short to require payment?"
They certainly should. For every piece of music played on a radio commerical, the advertiser has to supply appropriate PRS details. Part of former job was to ensure that this was indeed provided. Compilation albums such as Now... were a nightmare, and clever dance-orientated ones that mixed several tracks for one 20- or 30-second spot were horrible.
We once had 11 sets of PRS details for ONE 30 second commercial!
I struggle to see the point really - in music radio at least. With something like the 'TuneIn radio app' you can have access to an apparently bottomless list of radio stations, real or virtual only that cater to just about every shade of audience taste in music and presentation style imaginable. I find the idea of a single service that seems likely to stick to the usual, tired formula of pushing a mix of whatever they're most financially incentivised to promote (usually repeatedly, ad bloody nauseum) incredibly unappealing. And if anything puts flashing blinking web ads in the shade, its in-line audio ads.
This post has been deleted by its author
The only rates that subscription-supported streaming will ever be able to pay are rates that are practically indistinguishable from "nothing". We will have to see how much ads will cost on the Apple streaming service to know if the income it generates will be any more generous than that of Spotify or Pandora.
That was pretty much the idea behind Spotify, people would go onto buying music after hearing it - however, sales generated in this way were much lower than anticipated and IIRC, Spotify no longer bothers with running an online store.
For several years I have made most of my music purchases based on what I hear on Pandora. It does a good job of identifying music I like but have never heard of and is the most effective music sales tool I've experienced. Even though I use iTunes for purchases I can't see me getting away from Pandora for exploring, I think they've nailed it.
Credit it where it is due Google's All Access radio is very good. The success of Apple radio I think will partly depend on how quickly they launch outside of the US. I used to love Pandora, but gave up with it once it stopped working in the UK. I am also hoping they bundle radio with the music match sub.
1) Top Artists need to notice that there are a lot of great "not signed artists" available to people. If I don't want to listen to Lady Gaga, with Spotify, I don't have too and those we are told are the best or were only available for us through music industry screening process are now competing with people just as dedicated and talented as them.
2) Digital media is cheap to produce and make available than physical media, you no longer get the benefits of limited store shelves to artificially inflate record sales. "Top Artists" get the benefit of priority play on the radio, but with streaming radio (and paid service) I don't have to listen to people I don't want to (and I am pretty damn open on the range of music I like).
3) I enjoy the low monthly payments for access to nearly all the music I want and listen too. It won't drive to go out an buy the CD, but I feel no need to go pirate it either.
I hope we don't see a divided music base requiring subs for certain develops just so we can get our full range of music (although it feels that way sometimes), but I certainly enjoy the streaming so far.
who's just so not interested in this? Crap music, played by crap artists over a tinny little loudspeaker ...
I think Lady Gaga's $100 royalty says a lot more about Spotify than it does about Lady G. IRadio will have nothing to do with paying the Artists, it's all about Apple and the music companies. It's ironic really that Apple the computer company stole their name and logo from Apple the record company ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
