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.

10 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 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
    2. 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. Artist pay? by wangmaster · · Score: 3

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

  5. 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
  6. 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.