Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On-Demand Audio Streaming Hits Record High, Is Up 62.4% Over Last Year (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the growing-affinity dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: A new report from Nielsen out this week paints a picture of the booming on-demand audio streaming business, pointing to a significant increase in consumers' use of streaming services and record numbers of streams being served. According to the mid-year report, which focuses only on the U.S. market, on-demand audio streams surpassed the 7 billion figure for the first time ever during March of this year. That's audio streams, to be clear -- not just music. That is, the term "audio" also includes non-music streams like spoken word recordings and podcasts -- the latter of which has also seen rapid growth. Nielsen isn't breaking out music versus non-music streams in this new report, but a prior figure from the measurement firm stated that monthly podcast consumption had doubled over the past five years among adults. Still, the rise of streaming music services like Spotify and Apple Music have surely played a role in reaching the new milestones. Says Nielsen, streaming hit a high point of 7.5 billion weekly on-demand audio streams during the week ending March 9, 2017. That's the first time the figure had ever topped 7 billion, setting a new record. In addition, on-demand audio has been streamed over 184 billion times so far in 2017 -- a huge 62.4 percent increase over the same time period in 2016.

38 comments

  1. omfg boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    omfg u dorks r boring bc ur talking ab streaming music rather than listening 2 music

    dont u dorks have better stuff 2 do like getting jobs n going outside???

    u ppl r so lame n boring

    do something productive 4 once dorks

    my god u ppl r pathetic n ur site is lame

    1. Re:omfg boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, this site is so lame that you keep refreshing the front page to be able to post your template troll post in all the threads.

  2. On-Demand Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Donald Trump is a traitor, and so are his supporters.

    1. Re: On-Demand Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      omg u ppl r so dorky n lame

      go outside or something like that n do something useful

      im gonna b at the bar w/ my bff 2night while u dorks still r posting here

      im a girl btw n this is as close as u ppl r getting 2 a female ever

      im also much smarter than u dorks but ull mod me down bc u r jealous that u cant be w/ me

      c u dorks l8r

    2. Re: On-Demand Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having tits doesn't make you a female.

  3. Clearly by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly the problem isn't people illegally downloading music, it's developing a business model that works, is consumer-friendly, and profitable.

    I honestly don't even remember the last time I downloaded a song/album illegally. Pandora and YouTube (Yes, I understand some of these videos are illegal) have been my gateways for the last 5+ years.

    1. Re: Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Or, more likely, the RIAA cracking down on BitTorrent and other sources of piracy has driven people back to obtaining their music legally and paying for it. Pirating music is stealing it, and once it's harder to steal music, people become paying customers again. It's as simple as that.

    2. Re:Clearly by bignetbuy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Between services like Spotify, Apple iTunes, Amazon, Digitally Imported, and others, music is available on-tap and for pocket change.

    3. Re: Clearly by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You think anyone gives a shit about the RIAA. Think again.

      The only reason is that it's simply more convenient to open YouTube and listen to whatever you want to listen to than to download something and hope it's not some asshole disguising gay porn as some Rhianna video. YouTube quickly takes care of such problems.

      The only reason people reach for "official" sources is that the price is the same but the quality is higher. That's pretty much all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like you're saying the same thing as the parent...just using it as an opportunity to soap-box your perspective... Pirating is harder (barely). Streaming is easier and finally works. What's the difference? In reality, there is none.

    5. Re: Clearly by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Nope, it doesn't work like that. People generally don't respond that way to obstacles, they just work harder to find ways around them.

      But what happened with music is that streaming services like Spotify are so inexpensive, so convenient and have such enormous libraries that it's just so much easier than pirating. THAT's how you get people to pay again.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    6. Re:Clearly by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

      [...]music is available on-tap and for pocket change.

      You think this encourages musicians to make a living of music? If it is available for pocket change, only those with 100M+ views / listenings are profitable. I remember a local artist who had 800,000 listenings of his most popular song on an online music service got paid something like 700$. You think it's enough? Do you think this guy will still record his music and give it for pennies to online music services?

    7. Re:Clearly by bignetbuy · · Score: 1

      We aren't talking about artists making a living. We're talking about the availability and popularity of streaming services. Stop trying to shovel your agenda into this thread.

  4. You know what else you can stream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds!

  5. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Now that the RIAA is cracking down on piracy from things like BitTorrent, people are back to paying for their music legally. What a surprise that when piracy goes down, sales go up.

    1. Re:No surprise by phlll · · Score: 1

      Nah. Simpler to subscribe than search.

    2. Re:No surprise by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wait, pay? Who pays for music?

      Kids these days, do they have too much money?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:No surprise by enjar · · Score: 2

      I grew up in the waning days of vinyl, the rise and fall of the cassette, and then the eventual move to CDs. I used to save my pennies to get something in one of those forms, or at least buy cassettes for dubbing or recording off the radio. A new recording was at least $15, maybe $20. That was a lot back then, so I'd spend a lot of time going through used record stores. We now spend $15/month on Spotify family, so basically $4/person for access to a catalog so deep it even surpasses my young teen dreams. The best part is that it Just Works ... I find something I want to listen to, I can stream it or save it local to my device, and no ads, DJ's talking over the songs, and as much as I want, plus everyone has their own playlists so I can listen to what I want but I don't have to try to share with tween music or what my wife likes.

    4. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. For me it is the Google Play Music family plan - same price $14.99 month for 6 users. Cheap for the huge library of music, integrates great with Chromecast audio and other cast enabled devices, allows download to your phone so you don't use data when using your phone to play music over your car stereo, etc. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to CDs or dedicated MP3 players or whatever.

  6. Did it really double ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or can the increase be attributed to contributors intentionally mis-entering their information?

  7. Omfg ru 4 real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get all my tunes from youtube 4 free 4 years

    ikr??

  8. Nielsen is outdated... by flogger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was chosen to be in their survey. Lucky me. I informed them that I have no TV (Haven't since 1984 - Go figure.) I still wanted to take part in the survey since I so use services like netflix, amazon, etc. THey refused to let me be part of their data gathering... The days of regular media are gone. Nielsen refuses to let it go so they can perpetuate the importance of advertisers.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Nielsen is outdated... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      You did not match their target demographic profile (i.e., partially, people with TV's) and thus were simply statistical noise to be ignored. The fact that they tossed you from the survey is simply an indication that they were doing their job properly.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:Nielsen is outdated... by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

      Nielsen refuses to let it go so they can perpetuate the importance of advertisers.

      Well, yes, that is their business model. They are in bed with the rest of these antiquated media monoliths. All of them will hold on until it's ripped from their cold-dead-hands...

      Here is an interesting read from a few years ago, "Industry pros are asking if Nielsen botched radio ratings — and inadvertently forced stations off the air." https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

    3. Re:Nielsen is outdated... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing something - Nielsen is gathering data to answer specific questions. When they call you, and ask you questions, and rule you out, that means you have no useful input for the specific questions they need answered right now.

      If they ruled you out because you don't have a TV, the chances are they wanted to know what ad supported content you were watching on TV, so that people who make ad supported content have some idea what percentage of people who watch ad supported content were watching their ad supported content.

      You saying "I've cut the cord, I never see ads now" basically means you can't answer that question (except in saying "None".)

      Likewise if a car company wanted to know what percentage of car drivers want to switch to electric vehicles, and they called you, and you said "Actually, I use public transport", you may be able to give useful answers to a question about the most popular way to get around town, but not about whether to make more electric cars vs ICE cars.

      People get upset about Nielsen because they think Nielsen just wants to know what's popular. They don't. That's not what they're trying to find out.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  9. Lower album sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. So less incentive to add filler songs, since songs are listened to "a-la-carte"

  10. Economics by Comboman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without piracy, the RIAA would still be trying to sell music on shiny plastic discs for $25 a pop at your local Sam Goody. Innovation only comes from the necessity of competing in a free market, not from government-granted, market-distorting regulations (i.e. copyright).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Economics by houghi · · Score: 1

      Download would be available. At a -pay-per-play basis or at a much lower quality., like ringtones or at the same price as you would pay for a CD for only one device

      On the plus side, music would have been so much better as they would have invested their money in the artists instead of in marketing and legal fees. (Ok, I might have made that last part up)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Economics by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true. Without that copyright, Spotify and Pandora would not be paying the music producers/distributors anything. Reasonable balance here is the key.

  11. As long as data plans are decent by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    We need all the data and as long as it stays decently large for cell phones why wouldn't people pick music they like and be able to be super specific. I also listen to audio books on demand and podcasts because I hate listening to crappy radio DJs. I can't stand the personalities and how they play up being soooo dumb on the air.

  12. RIAA and streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, no. It's convenience and it's the way people prefer to consume their music.

    All of the same RIAA bullshit is still there. And artists are getting screwed even more so.

    Nothing has changed much in that regard. The recorded music industry only changed the medium and now we can buy a la cart songs instead of a CD with one good song and 9 to 10 fillers.

    The model I have seen work is artists GIVE away their music (sometimes unofficially) so that folks will come to their shows and buy merchandise.

    The recording is considering a marketing expense. And a few of them just let fans do all the heavy lifting of recording (even giving them access to the sound feeds) and distribution. Phish is an example.

    1. Re:RIAA and streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And artists are getting screwed

      This is why I don't use Pandora or any of those.
      Occasionally I will watch live or rare performances on YouTube, but streaming music is a total rip off for musicians.

    2. Re:RIAA and streaming by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The model I have seen work is artists GIVE away their music (sometimes unofficially) so that folks will come to their shows and buy merchandise.

      That was pretty much the ONLY model prior to ~1945. Musicians made almost nothing on the sales, and made it all on performances. The years post-WWII until now were the abberration, not the "you earn when you perform" model that was around for literally thousands of years (and was figured out by monster groups like the Rolling Stones and others).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:RIAA and streaming by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      The recorded music industry only changed the medium and now we can buy a la cart songs instead of a CD with one good song and 9 to 10 fillers.

      While this has always been a problem with some artists....it seemed back in the day, when I bought albums, I'd not buy one unless it had 5+ good songs on it.

      Perhaps today it is more telling of the dearth of talent out there?

      Also, sadly, the song at a time lends itself to the death of the "concept" album, like Dark Side of the Moon, Tommy, Sgt. Peppers, Pet Sounds, The Wall....etc.

      It is kind of sad really....often I'd buy an album, that I knew had some songs I liked, but since it was all packaged, I played the entire album and got to where I discovered and really came to enjoy the deeper cuts.

      With streaming...you find yourself only getting 1-2 songs and listening to them over and over, but possibly missing out on the gems that are in the deeper cuts.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:RIAA and streaming by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Um, no. It's convenience and it's the way people prefer to consume their music.

      All of the same RIAA bullshit is still there. And artists are getting screwed even more so.

      Nothing has changed much in that regard. The recorded music industry only changed the medium and now we can buy a la cart songs instead of a CD with one good song and 9 to 10 fillers.

      The model I have seen work is artists GIVE away their music (sometimes unofficially) so that folks will come to their shows and buy merchandise.

      The recording is considering a marketing expense. And a few of them just let fans do all the heavy lifting of recording (even giving them access to the sound feeds) and distribution. Phish is an example.

      Umphrees McGee actually has it down to a science. Phish's method is just a copy of what the Grateful Dead did for years (but then again, so is their entire band of Trust Fund Kids)...

  13. Attention! Man on Internet has no TV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attention! Man on Internet has no TV!

    Really, don't you even read, like the Onion?

    Captcha: superior

  14. NPR is a big winner with podcasts by Bruinwar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This American Life

    Wait Wait Don't Tell Me

    Radio Lab

    & many dozens of others...

    Good stuff, available when you're ready to listen. The advertising revenue for these shows have seen a massive increase (according to Ira Glass of This American Life). We've entered into a new era of audio & visual entertainment choices & quality.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  15. Compressed All To Ratshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And why on earth would anyone ever want to have anything to do with streaming compressed all to ratshit garbage?

    Just shows the number of tone-deaf people in the world.