3 ms·

Lots of record labels (mostly independents) are definitely unhappy with this as well. The biggest one to speak out is beggars group[1]. [1] https://news.ycombi

Lots of record labels (mostly independents) are definitely unhappy with this as well. The biggest one to speak out is beggars group[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304

Steko 11y ago
I'll suggest this is all a fairly straightforward negotiation ploy. Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop. What then are these independent's doing? I'd suggest since there is no money at stake in the first 3 months they are holding out to pressure for slightly better terms (and a couple headlines never hurt sales) and then will jump on in 3 months once the money is actually flowing. You'll note that there will always be many people in the 3 month free trial, Swift isn't threatening to hold her album out forever (or her other music!) to stop the supposed bad business model, just for the 3 launch months when guaranteed revenue zero. Kudos to these artists for knowing where their leverage is and using it though! Apple has a couple options: (1) just eat it, prolly what happens. (2) they can pay up a bit but the big labels would be steamed at getting a worse deal than independents so that isn't happening. (3) pay everyone a little bit more for the launch months. This might happen but the clock is ticking. (4) they can make these artists sit out longer than the initial 3 months. That compromises the quality of their service though. Still they might do it, hoping it would pressure them to signing up for the release. (5) they could weight the streaming for awhile so that holdout artists appear less than they might normally. I expect this might happen but if they do this hopefully be done openly ("we're rewarding our launch partners"). (6) go back in time and do a 3 month beta rollout so money is at stake when you do the big rollout with the new phone.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  What makes sense for the major labels doesn't necessarily make sense for the artist. Major labels have billions in net worth and have invested heavily in the stock/equity of companies such as Apple, Spotify etc etc. They could care less about the royalty pennies that drip out the bottom to feed the artists. They're getting rich on equity. The independents on the other hand don't have this luxury.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  >> Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop. What then are these independent's doing? It's very simple. The biggest portion of a records sales are going to come int he month or two after release, after the big marketing push. If an indie releases a record during those 3 months they are going to lose a ton of potential revenue. For a small record label that can be terminal. They're running on fumes they can't take the hit like the majors.
  - Steko 11y ago
    I think release in the window is a good point but the point of streaming services is to mitigate this by shifting a much larger percent of income to back catalog. I also take issue with characterizing streaming income as a "ton of revenue" (perhaps you meant actual sales sales in which case somewhat irrelevent here?) while everything I've heard over the years is how streaming revenue is a small fraction of artist revenue, especially independents. Here's numbers from a pro-spotify independent artist [1]: $1,359 from spotify, that's apparently a career to date number. http://www.popmatters.com/feature/193667-why-its-time-to-stop-hating-spotify/ http://www.popmatters.com/feature/193667-why-its-time-to-sto...

Steko 11y ago

I'll suggest this is all a fairly straightforward negotiation ploy. Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop. What then are these independent's doing? I'd suggest since there is no money at stake in the first 3 months they are holding out to pressure for slightly better terms (and a couple headlines never hurt sales) and then will jump on in 3 months once the money is actually flowing. You'll note that there will always be many people in the 3 month free trial, Swift isn't threatening to hold her album out forever (or her other music!) to stop the supposed bad business model, just for the 3 launch months when guaranteed revenue zero. Kudos to these artists for knowing where their leverage is and using it though! Apple has a couple options: (1) just eat it, prolly what happens. (2) they can pay up a bit but the big labels would be steamed at getting a worse deal than independents so that isn't happening. (3) pay everyone a little bit more for the launch months. This might happen but the clock is ticking. (4) they can make these artists sit out longer than the initial 3 months. That compromises the quality of their service though. Still they might do it, hoping it would pressure them to signing up for the release. (5) they could weight the streaming for awhile so that holdout artists appear less than they might normally. I expect this might happen but if they do this hopefully be done openly ("we're rewarding our launch partners"). (6) go back in time and do a 3 month beta rollout so money is at stake when you do the big rollout with the new phone.

rorykoehler 11y ago
What makes sense for the major labels doesn't necessarily make sense for the artist. Major labels have billions in net worth and have invested heavily in the stock/equity of companies such as Apple, Spotify etc etc. They could care less about the royalty pennies that drip out the bottom to feed the artists. They're getting rich on equity. The independents on the other hand don't have this luxury.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
k-mcgrady 11y ago
>> Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop. What then are these independent's doing? It's very simple. The biggest portion of a records sales are going to come int he month or two after release, after the big marketing push. If an indie releases a record during those 3 months they are going to lose a ton of potential revenue. For a small record label that can be terminal. They're running on fumes they can't take the hit like the majors.
- Steko 11y ago
  I think release in the window is a good point but the point of streaming services is to mitigate this by shifting a much larger percent of income to back catalog. I also take issue with characterizing streaming income as a "ton of revenue" (perhaps you meant actual sales sales in which case somewhat irrelevent here?) while everything I've heard over the years is how streaming revenue is a small fraction of artist revenue, especially independents. Here's numbers from a pro-spotify independent artist [1]: $1,359 from spotify, that's apparently a career to date number. http://www.popmatters.com/feature/193667-why-its-time-to-stop-hating-spotify/ http://www.popmatters.com/feature/193667-why-its-time-to-sto...