Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Sees First Revenue Increase Since 1999
Zaatxe writes with a bit of news about the music industry; sales are slightly up (basically flat). From the article: "The music industry, the first media business to be consumed by the digital revolution, said on Tuesday that its global sales rose last year for the first time since 1999, raising hopes that a long-sought recovery might have begun. The increase, of 0.3 percent, was tiny, and the total revenue, $16.5 billion, was a far cry from the $38 billion that the industry took in at its peak more than a decade ago. Still, even if it is not time for the record companies to party like it's 1999, the figures, reported Tuesday by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, provide significant encouragement. 'At the beginning of the digital revolution it was common to say that digital was killing music,' said Edgar Berger, chief executive of the international arm of Sony Music Entertainment. Now, he added, it could be said 'that digital is saving music.'"
Because CDs aren't digital. CD sales are declining, and being replaced by the sale of lossy files. I wonder how much more money they could be making if they'd just sell folks lossless music on the open market (not just iTunes) since at least that's all that keeps me buying a CD or three a year (I own way too many CDs personally, and stopped buying music until discovering Bandcamp and easy lossless downloads rekindled my desire to find new stuff).
Make no mistake about it, the music industry still DREAMS of going back to the days when they could charge you $15 for a CD that you had to buy just to listen to one lousy song. Turn your back on them, and they WILL try to go back to a similar model.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Just you wait! Five years will pass and the RIAA will claim this event was the result of the six strikes ISP rule. Given enough time, a little historical revisionism is all it takes to cascade the "truth" to your favor.
Life is not for the lazy.
Only happened because the music industry absolutely refused to sell DRM-free music for a decade. No one wanted to buy music that could go obsolete when the store went away.
I own way too many CDs personally, and stopped buying music until discovering Bandcamp and easy lossless downloads rekindled my desire to find new stuff
Yes, I've commented on bandcamp many times on Slashdot and have been using it for years now. Actually when this article came up I was listening to an album released on 06 February 2013 by a relatively unknown artist half a continent away. They're asking $7 for a 6 track album which I find to be a little pricey but the music is good. I think I'll listen to it a few more times before I decide if I want to buy it. That's something you'll never find the RIAA doing and although I'd found bands that did it on their sites and a few independent labels do it but Bandcamp centralizes it. I've seen independent labels just dump their whole catalog on Bandcamp so it must do something for sales (Boston's Top Shelf Records just did it and I've been enamored with Slingshot Dakota who I had never heard of before).
I think Bandcamp is close to how an ideal music market should operate. Their selection algorithms and rating listings needs serious work but everyone can play and you select your quality when you download.
My work here is dung.
Last time I checked, CD's are digital. Did that change? Are CD's now analog?
Actual quote from executives there. Then they prosecuted, lobbied, internationally legislated any and all innovation out of existence. And they wonder why they have such trouble generating revenues from new markets.
I think these numbers are still better than they deserve. Burn in hell, executives.
I wonder how much more money they could be making if they'd just sell folks lossless music on the open market
Most people don't understand what this even means, let alone actually care. All they know is availability and cost, along with how many songs they can fit on their iDevice.
"Because CDs aren't digital."
Uh..yes, they are.
Funny how the initial release of Napster coincides with the start of the music industry's doldrums (1999).
Anyone else think this may be due to a poorer quality of music signed with the labels? I know everyone always thinks things were better 'back in the day', but that doesn't make it not true.
"At the beginning of the digital revolution it was common to say that digital was killing music," said Edgar Berger, chief executive of the international arm of Sony Music Entertainment. "Now, he added, it could be said 'that digital is saving music."
"At the beginning of the digital revolution it was common to say that digital was killing the music industry," said Edgar Berger, chief executive of the international arm of Sony Music Entertainment. "Now, he added, it could be said 'that digital is saving the music industry."
FTFY
This is where they just don't get it. Music has never been in danger. Nothing in the industry has or will stop people from making and performing great music. They aren't concerned with saving music, just their cut of music.
For once, that's not incompetence on the part of Slashdot's editors. I think it's actual sarcasm.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
...with the turbulence created from "CDs aren't digital" whooshing over the ACs heads.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Revenue from albums? Actual sales are way up and have been for years:
Here's the 2012 report:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report
Overall sales
2012, 2011, Gain
1,661 , 1,611 , 3.10%
Even album sales are up in that report.
Here's their Canadian one from 2009 (couldn't find the US one)
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100204007048/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2009-Canadian-Industry-Report
Same thing, total tracks sales are way up, album equivalent are also up. (See the 'overall album sales' +2%).
The price hasn't gone up, so the only way revenue has gone up, is if Apple and Walmart and the rest have paid out more of their income for the music.
I wonder how much more money they could be making if they'd just sell folks lossless music on the open market
Most people don't understand what this even means, let alone actually care. All they know is availability and cost, along with how many songs they can fit on their iDevice.
Exactly.
I hear this repeated in every thread on a geek site about music revenues, but it's so plainly silly. They're leaving hardly any money on the table by not selling lossless music on the open market, because only a vanishingly small minority of consumers have a clue what lossless music even is, let alone care enough to pay extra for it.
So many geeks really, really need to either get out into the real world, or at least watch some non-geeky TV shows (or, heck, even the non-geeky people in the geeky shows; Penny in Big Bang Theory is a decent example...), to see how the vast majority of America's (and the West's in general) population thinks. It has very little to do with studying all the technical aspects of something and deciding carefully which choice has the greatest benefit for the least cost.
Until they do this, they will continue to be frustrated and baffled by the things that succeed and fail in markets, and what's even offered. (Once you understand how people think, you may still be frustrated, but at least you'll be less baffled! :-D )
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
What's this "(not just iTunes)" in the summary, do they sell lossless DRM-free music on iTunes? If so, that's amazing! We can't really whine about the music industry then, any geek on slashdot should be able to hack together some VM or Wine to run iTunes, possibly easier than ripping a CD.
I wrote this about a year ago. Copy/pasting because it's still relevant.
So, claims are regularly made suggesting that the music industry is failing, usually followed by claims that tougher laws are needed to protect the hard working people in the music industry.
Â
Small problem - it's not true.
Â
The music industry is not in as bad a situation as claims would suggest.ÂHere are some interesting statistics:
Â
Music publishing revenues are on an upward trend.
Worldwide Music Publishing Revenues (2006 - 2011)Â
http://grabstats.com/statmain.asp?StatID=69
$8.0 billion (2006)
$8.3 billion (2007)
$8.6 billion (2008)
$8.9 billion (2009)
$9.1 billion (2010)
$9.4 billion (2011)
Â
Live music (concert) revenues are on a upward trend.
Worldwide Live Music / Concert Revenues (2006 - 2011)Â
http://grabstats.com/statmain.asp?StatID=70
$16.6 billion (2006)
$18.1 billion (2007)
$19.4 billion (2008)
$20.8 billion (2009)
$22.2 billion (2010)
$23.5 billion (2011)
Â
The entire industry's revenues (*)Âare on an upward trend.
Worldwide Music Industry Revenues (2006 - 2011)Â
http://grabstats.com/statmain.asp?StatID=67
2006 ($60.7 billion)
2007 ($61.5 billion)
2008 ($62.6 billion)
2009 ($65.0 billion)
2010 ($66.4 billion)
2011 ($67.6 billion)
Â
* The "entire industry" isÂdefined as "Revenues are for record labels, music publishers, recording artists, performing artists, composers, concert venues and merchandise, companies; includes revenues from sales of physical recordings, digital music services (online and mobile), music publishing and live music."
Â
Â
What is most interesting about these numbers is it supports what I have felt for a long time - the major players in the music industry have realized that CD sales are nice but that's not how to get rich - the big money (almost 2.5 times the money...) is in concerts. That is why acts like 'N Sync and Britney and Beiber and U2 and Lady Gaga and damn near everyone are regularly on tour. They've realized that people are spending more and more on actually going to the concert to experience the music. They realized that to be financially successful means touring a lot. CD sales makes one wealthy but a concert tour makes one rich.
Â
These numbers show that the music industry isn't failing. It isn't even shrinking. The _industry_ is growing, across the board. Yes, there are individual companies that might be suffering and there are individual bands that are suffering and there are probably specific geographic regions that are suffering but the industry, as a whole, is thriving - it is growing.
Â
One thing I do agree with the music industry, however, is that the internet is a big reason for this - we just disagree on the direction their profits are headed...
It just threatened the Corporate Mafia that controlled every aspect of music and its distribution.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Make no mistake about it, the music industry still DREAMS of going back to the days when they could charge you $15 for a CD that you had to buy just to listen to one lousy song. Turn your back on them, and they WILL try to go back to a similar model.
The people who once wanted to charge you $15 for a CD still want to charge you $15 for a CD. If you actually read the article, it's not the "big five" or any of the RIAA members that they're talking about movin' on up. Instead it's distributors like Apple’s iTunes Music Service, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Rhapsody and Muve Music. Google will join them eventually. But you're not going to see UMG, Warner, Sony/BMG, etc because they're still fighting these models. It's just turning into a really slow and long and painful turnover process as the money changes hands. Singer songwriters and performers are learning they don't need big labels as their music will pretty much advertise itself on social media and YouTube. That means the only big guys feeding off them are the distributors listed in the article. Time will tell if the distributors will hang around or continue to undercut each other (since it doesn't appear to be contractual and exclusive like label contracts). But one thing is for sure: more money is making it into the hands of a more diverse group of musicians. And the industry is more diverse and healthier because of that.
My work here is dung.
No one gives two fucks about lossless audio except us nerds and anyone that makes music.
So sell a lossless copy and make more money from nerds. Profit.
The diversity of available music is greater now than ever, as the industry has been evolving, albeit painfully for the older labels. Artists can make a living through hard work, not necessarily through CD sales alone. Hell, some bands make more money from merchandise than from music (I'm talking to you, KISS). This has been true since at least the 1990's when my band the Dharma Bums made a killing on t-shirts and realized that's where the money was.
Never once has the industry blamed CLEAR CHANNEL for fucking up music distribution. Yet through their domination of local radio, nationally, Clear Channel calls the shots, picks the hits, and generally limits the availability of interesting music by focusing on the "stars" it decides to popularize. This is far more insidious than dropping $100 off at the radio station so the DJ will play your new 45.
After Napster came out, the industry stopped selling CD singles and raised the price of CD's to $18 retail. This had a stronger dampening effect than free music downloads, as many of the people who were exposed to new music through downloads would eventually by cd's to support their new favorite musicians. Plus, one cannot claim that 1 episode of free downloading = 1 lost sale, as many downloaders would never purchase music to begin with (financial constraints, stick-it-to-the-man, live concerts not available for sale, etc). Yes, scientific studies showed that music sales went UP in college towns where Napster was popular.
I'm encouraged by new arrivals like BandCamp, SoundCloud, Gobbler, and other new musical tools for the web -- but discouraged by the shitty pay musicians earn from streaming dis-services like Spotify. As a hobbyist musician with many friends in the industry, I recognize that it's hard to make a living doing what you like doing, but for many of them, they have no choice -- music drives creatives to create. And that is what we should support -- the human spirit, not some fucking RIAA executive making $80k/year by prosecuting grampas and teenagers.
Let us not forget that the RIAA and MPAA have forced taxes on all Americans for blank media -- cassettes and CD-R's -- because they assume we're "pirates" who are stealing from them. Nevermind the fact that blank optical media is used for storing computer data that may not have any relevance whatsoever to their claim. Nevermind the fact that I'm more inclined to make cd's of my own songs than to dupe the latest Rihanna (will NEVER happen, boys, cuz I think she sucks #TaintedLove). The RIAA and MPAA have been nursing the public's teat for a long time -- it's time for them to grow the fuck up.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
In my younger days, I purchased vinyl 45 RPM singles for hit songs, and LP records for albums. For the car, most people used 8-track cartridges. They sucked, because the tape slides against itself internally, causing "wow and flutter". They also wore out as the lubrication was consumed. I was unusual because I'd record them to cassette tapes. Soon the 8-track got a bad reputation, and people switched to recording their own cassettes. The industry cried foul - we were "stealing" from them. Rather than selling multiple 8-track cartridges (due to wear), they only sold a single cassette or LP, and users would freely copy them. Oddly enough, sales rose.
When the CD came out, the industry raised the price about 50%, claiming it cost more to produce than vinyl records. We accepted that "fact", and repurchased most of our music collection.
A funny thing happened - the CD-R arrived. Suddenly we could make copies of a music CD for $1. People felt screwed. We knew the record companies screwed the bands, and we knew they were overcharging us, but charging 15 times the cost of a CD-R pissed a lot of people off.
Soon, we had a CD at home, and perfect copies at work, in the car and at the girlfriend's house. Wear it out? No problem - burn another copy. Find a new artist? Burn a copy for a friend. In theory, you'd think this would have caused a massive sales drop, since the earlier formats wore out and the CD did not. Yet, while the industry argued they were losing sales, it turned out to be the period of highest sales in history.
Then Napster and MP3 players appeared. Suddenly the industry was in a panic. The MPAA began an aggressive attack on downloaders, and sued anyone they could find as a scare tactic. Even though past history showed that sharing was a form of viral marketing, they wanted to kill it - perhaps because they have little control over it.
To my ears, nothing wrecks a song like Autotune (sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me) compressed to MP3. Most new music sounded too processed and too compressed. In a sea of over-processed crap, I'm finding it hard to find music I want to buy. So I don't.
The music industry doesn't understand the people like me buy music because my music-geek friends would share. Without that discovery vector, I'm simply not exposed to anything I'd buy.
Place nail here >+
The report celebrates the music industry as the innovator, which not only gets the internet, but is essentially the “engine of the digital ecosystem”. Sadly, this self-boasting image seems to fall apart at the stitches. When IFPI wants to censor search engines, or make ISPs filter the net, it becomes obvious that they still haven’t learned anything from their own last 10 years. Users go to search engines to pose questions, get answers and do a selection according to their own needs. People pay for the internet connection to access people and content which they think is useful for them. I find irresistibly funny that IFPI thinks it knows better what people should be happy with as a search result. It is insulting though that IFPI thinks it knows better what people should be doing online than those, who pay for the access itself. But these fallacies are also warnings, that they couldn’t break those habits that nearly killed them in the last decade.
Because if they think those people who have the money that crave for, should change, instead of them providing a better service, then they are wrong. This is why facing the past’s bad decision would help a lot. If you cannot look into the mirror and say: these were the things we fucked up: we wanted to dictate the terms of access instead of listening to what our consumers wanted; we thought they were notorious pirates who could only be forced to pay by lawsuits, and we were wrong, because we now see that people are happy to pay even if they cannot be forced to do so. Absent of such self-reflection the industry will keep repeating the same mistakes. But it is not only them, who are losing by these mistakes. Artists and fans, the music and the culture also loses. Maybe it is time to be a tad more honest and self-reflective, dear IFPI. But at least try to keep your own story straight. Make sure you hire an editor who is able to spot when you contradict your own story. It also helps if you don’t contradict published research with references to unpublished data
Good luck next time.
"Subscription services are the fastest growth area in digital music, with subscriber numbers up 44 per cent in 2012 and revenues up 59 per cent in the first half of 2012." VS "Illegal free music remains an enormous obstacle to future growth of legitimate music markets." - I wonder what are the growth expectations of the industry if those enormous obstacles were removed? Exponential, they claim elsewhere. How realistic is that?
"Ifpi estimates that around one-third of internet users globally (32%) still regularly access unlicensed sites" VS "Pirate services are clunky and old-fashioned compared to the legal services available. they’re being usurped by mass consumer migration to smartphones and access to millions of tracks from legitimate subscription services. consumers can also tap into their social network and see what their friends and family are listening to. The pirate option just cannot offer that complete consumer experience." - They forgot to ask themselves: why people are still using those clunky and old-fashioned services even if so many excellent, legal and _free_ options exists. They claim better enforcement and not better legal services would solve the problem, despite the fact that they offer the proof to the contrary in their own report. Strange.
"The shift to the cloud could be as significant for the consumer as the shift from physical product to digital consumption. It provides a level of convenience around our content that is increasingly difficult for unlicensed services to replicate." VS "On January 12, 2000, MP3.com launched the "My.MP3.com" service which enabled users to securely register their personal CDs and then stream digital copies online from the My.MP3.com service. Since consumers could only listen online to music they already proved they owned the company saw this as a great opportunity for revenue by allowing fans to access their own music online. The record industry did not see it that way and sued MP3.com c
My price isn't $1/song, it's $0.1/song.
I'm boycotting ALL music purchase until it reaches $0.1/song.
And yes, I'm aware that Russian music sellers are at or below that price point, and NO, I won't use 'em, because I've also read that the Russians don't compensate artists except in the merest token sense. The only legitimate US sellers are selling at around $1/song.
I also DO NOT pirate music. The music industry can either get $0.1 from me or 0. I don't *need* music.
I wonder how much revenue they could get at lower prices?
--PM
CDs in NZ topped out at around $35 for new releases before the supermarket chains started taking the market away from record stores, and online sales started growing. I do think you've got your exchange rates around the wrong way though. The NZ dollar hasn't been valued that high since before the days of CDs, and perhaps even cassettes (which certainly weren't priced at $20 in the pre-CD days - I recall buying them in the late 1980's for $7.99, although the top prices may have been $9.99 or $12.99 (and later rose to $20, when the exchange rate with $US was around 0.6).