Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Music Industry Had a Fantastic 2017, Driven by Streaming Revenues (fastcompany.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Global recorded music revenues soared by $1.4 billion in 2017 largely due to the increased adoption of music streaming services among consumers, reports the Music Industry Blog. Global recorded music revenues reached $17.4 billion in 2017, putting it just a hair below 2008's $17.7 billion in revenues. That means that most of the decline in recorded music revenues over the past 10 years has now been reversed. Streaming was the largest driver of that growth, accounting for 43% of all revenues. In 2017 streaming revenues surged by 39%, topping out at $7.4 billion.

41 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Weird by rdwulfe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They said streaming would be their downfall. Funny how that isn't true, huh?

    1. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Weird how this industry's P&L generally mirrors the overall economy?
      Economy good, folks buy food and music.
      Economy bad, folks buy food.

    2. Re:Weird by worf_mo · · Score: 2

      They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this. Until it sunk in that they couldn't charge people only once for their music, but monthly.
      I don't use any music streaming service - I prefer to pay for an album (CD or mp3) and then listen to it and keep it for as long as I please - but apparently these services appeal to a lot of people. And that is fine - I can see the convenience of having access to a large music library.

    3. Re:Weird by youngone · · Score: 1

      Home taping is killing music.
      the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone...
      The content companies have never understood their customers and have always feared change.

  2. on the legal front... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    lawsuits against evil pirates will continue unabated.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  3. And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ask the artists how much of that streaming revenue went to them. There is more than one kind of pirate.

    1. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Pirates with lots of money are called corporations, not pirates.

    2. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It's not very expensive to distribute and advertise music.

      If it was very expensive to distribute music then it would also be very expensive to send HTML, CSS, Javascript, JPEGs and PNGs.

      As for advertising, it depends on how and where you advertise. It's also less required than a decade ago since whatever platform you use, you get recommendations depending on what you bought before. That's free, targeted advertising.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      probably a lot more than their share on CD sales.

    4. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For pretty much 99.99% of man's history, musicians only made money by performing. It was the advent of recorded music and radios back around 1920 that changed it. No surprise we're swinging back to the way it historically was - money for performance, not ad-infinitum royalties. This is also true for pretty much ALL art - the painter sold the painting once, the sculptor sold the sculpture once. The musician or actor sold their performance once (the musician and actor, however, could repeat their performance later in time, unlike the painter who would have to create a new painting).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Ask the artists how much of that streaming revenue went to them. There is more than one kind of pirate.

      My sympathy for the artists is becoming more limited as time goes on.

      It's not exactly hard to sell digital music. If you think you can do it without a record company, go for it.

      If you can't, then I guess the record companies are adding some value.

    6. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by schweini · · Score: 1

      But why, though?
      The record labels used to provide a complex and valuable service to artists (studios, physical distribution, promotion)
      All of these seem way easier to do for small companies, or even the artists themselves, thanks to the advancements in technology and communications.
      So why are the record labels still skimming so mucho money of the top? Why hasn't a fairer smaller label disrupted the market yet? Why don't more artists self-publish or self-distribute?

    7. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I only listen to independent artists and believe me they are NOT paying for those placements.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      That's why it should be called "Recording Industry" not "Music Industry". In Canada, RIAA Local 2, a/k/a CRIA, changed it's name to "Music Canada" but only pricks call it that. It'll be CRIA and CRIAA if you want to be funny.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    9. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by youngone · · Score: 1

      And how does your analogy relate to something like a photographer.

      It doesn't. That has no bearing on the argument which is still correct.

  4. Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    In a few years, will they stop selling music and go streaming-only?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      How is that a bad thing? If all music is available on demand, it pushes ISPs to roll out high-speed wireless in all areas due to customer demand. Pay your reasonable fee and have access to any music you want at any time. Granted, with the death of Net Neutrality it opens up the possibility of ISPs favoring their own streaming services...but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.

    2. Re:Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      That's a bad thing because it requires you to pay a fee that will never end for both your music and your connection.

      If I pay 99 cents to get a tune and put it on my iPod shuffle, it's mine forever.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Bad news for us by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      So somehow you're okay with living in a world where you never own anything, you only ever 'rent' things? Someone else owns it all, and they're the only ones who have any actual wealth? You PAY, PAY, PAY forever and ever? Think about what you're saying.

    4. Re:Bad news for us by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      .but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.

      The market should self-enforce Net Neutrality. The problem is that market forces don't apply in an oligopoly/monopoly situation.

    5. Re:Bad news for us by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      They never sold the music, you only got the rights to listen to the media you got. Even cassette tapes were subject to US copyright law. Legally, you could not make a copy of it, you could not digitize it. Given that there was no DRM, and the vast majority of copies (pre-digital) were for personal use, the music labels rarely went out on a witch-hunt against people making copies of the vinyl onto cassette so they could listen to it in their car.

      We may have had the illusion of owning the music, but for better or worse, we never did.

    6. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      You've never owned the music. At best, you owned physical media (that were subject to theft, degradation, or destruction) with a license to play the content for yourself only. Additionally, that content was limited to the format in which it was recorded. Through streaming services you have access to the entire library for which the service is licensed, in the most current format, without risk of loss due to theft or physical damage. You can play that content on any supported media device; for example, Pandora is supported on smart tvs, Android, iOS, OSX, Windows, and Linux. Some services even allow you to purchase (licenses to) digital copies of individual songs for offline play...and all this for a nominal fee that is approximately half the cost of a full album.

    7. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      Unless you purchase it through a service that could go out of business and you lose your device and/or backups of that media. Spotify is a great example of the best of both worlds. You set up your library, download the songs, and take them wherever you want. For roughly the cost of 2/3 of an album per month, you have access to the entire Spotify library without concern of theft or device/media failure. As long as you have Internet access you can recover your library. Seems like a fair deal and a fair compromise that ensures media creators are compensated for their work.

    8. Re:Bad news for us by Holi · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has internet access all the time. If I sail past the islands I'd be outta luck then.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:Bad news for us by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yeah be sure to enjoy your 'digital only' copies of things that can be yanked back from you with no notice, I'll continue to enjoy my nice old fashioned physical media that you'd have to break into my house to take from me, along with my paper books and other 'physical' things I own. I think 'streaming' is just another scam and you're all falling for it.

    10. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, then, a service that combines both streaming and offline play will be best for you.

    11. Re:Bad news for us by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      So you don't give a fuck if you're paying EVERY SINGLE TIME you want to hear something? And if they decide they don't want to offer it anymore and you wanted to hear it again, that's just too fucking bad for you, tough shit, listen to what THEY want you to listen to? Are you really this dumb?

      Go look up "feudalism". You're the 'serf'.

    12. Re: Bad news for us by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a specific case you are referring to? I'm familiar with Sony v. Universal City Studios in the 80's, which was about using VCRs to record television. I'm not familiar with any US Supreme Court case involving Title 17 of the US Code / Copyright. There is nothing in the Copyright law that I know of that explicitly allows you (or disallows you) from doing so.

    13. Re:Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between physical ownership and digital ownership.

      Let's take a 256GB USB flash drive as an example. It takes the same room and weights the same thing wether it's empty or filled with books, music, TV shows and movies.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I "own" the music in the way that I can do whatever I want as long as it's for myself, i.e. I cannot upload it, use it commercially, etc.

      But I still own it, compared to someone who's paying a monthly fee and can see the music disappear from the library without warning.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  5. Artist pay? by wangmaster · · Score: 3

    I wonder what artist pay looks like in this same timeframe. Both mode and median values.

    1. Re:Artist pay? by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I don't know any musicians who are in it for the money. When i was playing professionally, I'd rake in 8 to 14 dollars a night. Enough to buy new strings and eat an early morning breakfast at Dennys. But you do get laid a lot so, there's that.

  6. They'll still complain about so-called 'piracy' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    You know they will. They'll still scream and cry and throw temper tantrums about 'piracy' and how much it's cutting into their revenues and how it's 'hurting the artists the most' (which is a lie). Because the recording industry is a prime example of capitalism gone bad.

    1. Re:They'll still complain about so-called 'piracy' by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      Revenues have gone up and so they will claim that it is therefore their right for revenues to always go up (which is what thay've done in the past) and that anything (technological, cultural, etc) that comes along and disrupts their ever-increasing profiteering should be legislated against. Just watch.

      The music industry is a hive of scum and villainy and a great example of why capitalism should be kept at arms-length from regulation and politicians.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  7. Re: What to expect then? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    According to RIAA logic used in lawsuits, without piracy revenues should have been $30 vigintillion.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  8. How about that by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Make it available at a reasonable price, and people will pay. I seem to remember a few of us mentioning this occasionally.

  9. Just imagine ... by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    Imagine how much more they could have made if it hadn't been for all that piracy and illegal filesharing^W^W^W^W money wasted on legal action against their best potential customers.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  10. Re:How about that giving it away? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Well except for all the people pirating the free section of Spotify, showing just how much of a lie, "make it affordable" really is.

    https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/18/03/23/234234/spotify-says-2-million-users-hacked-apps-to-suppress-ads-on-its-free-service#comments

    And? What is your point?

    Those are the people who would never pay, and they still haven't. Loss: $0.

    Meanwhile, sales booming, because streaming.

  11. 6.4% by tomxor · · Score: 2
    From the same source: https://musicindustryblog.word...

    If you exclude the "superstars" you know... the people who are already stinking rich, and instead focus on the other 99.9999% of actual musicians then it's (43 + 9.3 + 3.6) / 3.6 = 6.4%

    Pretty low, but I honestly was expecting sub percentage :P basically unless you are a superstar you have no leverage and almost all of the profit goes to the mob unless you deal directly with the consumer or specialise in live music.

  12. Fantastic Streaming Revenues by aglider · · Score: 1

    Despite supposed piracy! Interesting!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  13. But Tomorrow, They'll Complain ... by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 1

    They'll complain that piracy steals so much from their revenue that they are in danger and more aggressive copyright laws are needed.
    Are politicians dumb or complicit ?

    --
    Totof