Skip to main content

Where's The Value In A Streaming Music Service

Jimmy Iovine spoke recently about Apple Music and the way that the tech industry is building its audience on the back of artist's work. That's patently not true. The music industry has built an income stream on the back of artist's work and continues to do at a point where the advances in technology mean that their involvement benefits nobody in the production/delivery/consumption of music.
Streaming services currently pay 70% of their income stream to the music industry. The reason why you see and hear artists moaing about the poor payouts they recieve is entirely related to how that 70% is broken down and shared out.
The days when consumers would happily hand over a fistful of fivers for the latest release from their favourite artist are long gone. Napster and Limewire put paid to that. There was a period where artists lost their audience - or at least a portion of it - because those consumers hadf put a value of zero on music. As these were mostly younger consumers there were worrying long-term implications for the music industry as a whole.
The rise of music streaming services, led by Spotify, has achieved something positive. It has re-established a value for music. It's a very different value than before. However, we now know that consumers will pay around $10 a month to rent music libraries. There's the value for consumers.
For musicians and song-writers the question now is how do they retain the largest chunk of the portion of that $10 per month that relates to their work.
The obvious option is to throw off the shackles of the music industry. In the nineties Prince made it clear what he felt the relationship between artists and labels was like when he likened his role to that of a slave.
On-demand music streaming offers the chance for artists to re-cast that relationship. That's the value for artists.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…