Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Streaming leads music industry first growth in 20 years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Streaming leads music industry first growth in 20 years

    I think this is big news... 68 million paid subscribers as of today

    Streaming brings music industry first growth in nearly 20 years



    [quote:1nke0wn3]The recorded music industry has enjoyed its first significant growth since the dawn of the Internet age, as streaming led digital to overtake physical sales, a global trade body said Tuesday.

    Recorded music revenue expanded by 3.2 percent in 2015 worldwide to $15 billion, fueled by an extraordinary growth in subscriptions to streaming services, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

    The growth is the first uptick in the music industry at a more than marginal level since 1998, when sales grew 4.8 percent year-on-year.

    But the industry is still down by one-third since the late 1990s, when Internet service became mainstream in developed countries and listeners flocked to music sites, both legal and illicit.

    The rapid growth of streaming services such as Spotify -- which allow unlimited, on-demand music online -- led digital music to surpass sagging physical sales for the first time last year.

    The industry federation estimated that 68 million people around the world had digital subscriptions, compared with just eight million in 2010 when it started keeping track.

    Streaming revenue grew by 45.2 percent in the past year alone, nearly matching sales from digital downloads on iTunes and other sites.

    Yet the industry did not cast an entirely rosy picture, saying revenue was still far below potential.

    "The value of music is still not being fully recognized. Today, there is a real spirit of optimism across our industry, but we are a long way from declaring 'mission accomplished'," Stu Bergen, the CEO for international and global commercial services at Warner Music Group, told reporters on a conference call.

    Without singling out YouTube by name, the industry federation took aim at "user-upload platforms" as a persistent drain on the industry.

    Some 900 million people essentially listen to music for free through advertising-supported sites, yet the revenue generated for the music industry is barely a quarter of that through streaming subscriptions, the annual report said.

    - Huge growth in China -

    The industry's growth came amid a massive spike in sales of licensed music in China, where revenue grew by nearly 64 percent.

    China has long been notorious for piracy but major labels have made inroads and tech giant Apple has rolled out its new Apple Music streaming platform in the world's most populous nation.

    But Edgar Berger, chairman and CEO of international for Sony Music, said that China should be one of the top markets for music consumption -- as it is for movies -- and not number 23 as at present.

    "The biggest potential in the world for music growth is in China," Berger said.

    The labels credited China's government with keeping its word on stepping up the legal framework against piracy.

    But Frances Moore, chief executive of the music federation, voiced hope that China would also move ahead and set up its first system of performance rights, through which broadcasters pay to use songs.

    - Japan, Latin America also expand -

    The health of the music industry varied widely by country, the result not only of business trends but of the particular crop of local artists.

    Japan, the largest market after the United States, saw music sales grow by three percent -- reversing several years of steep declines that contributed to dragging down the global industry.

    The growth was the result in part of the introduction of streaming including Apple Music to Japan where, in sharp contrast to most of the world, some three-quarters of sales are CDs or, to an increasing extent, vinyl.

    Latin America was the fastest-growing region, with revenue jumping 11.8 percent on soaring interest in streaming.

    Argentina alone saw sales rise by more than one-third although Brazil, the region's largest country which has been beset by economic uncertainties, saw a small dip.

    France and Germany were the other major markets that saw contractions, although in Italy sales jumped by 25 percent.

    The music industry got a shot in the arm last year from British ballad singer Adele's "25," the fastest-selling album in years.

    The album, which came out on November 20, sold 17.4 million copies worldwide in 2015 , nearly five times as many as the runner-up, Ed Sheeran's "X," when not factoring in streaming, the industry group said.
    https://www.yahoo.com/tech/major-rise-g ... 52778.html

    [/quote:1nke0wn3]

    However, YouTube is killing these profits...

    YouTube’s deals with Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music have either expired or will this year, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

    Last month, the Recording Industry Association of America slammed YouTube in a separate report, saying it doesn’t pay its fair share of royalties despite surging usage. That report revealed the music labels derived more revenue from vinyl than all the ad-supported YouTube consumption created in advertising revenue.

    The IFPI report is expected to add to the noise surrounding ad-supported services by showing that just 4 percent of global revenue, or around $600 million, is derived from ad-supported platforms, of which YouTube is by far the biggest.

    By comparison, paid subscription services generated an estimated $2 billion in revenue in 2015.

    Total paid-music subscribers grew to 68 million in 2015, up from 41 million the previous year, the IFPI report will show. But that’s dwarfed by YouTube’s 900 million users.

    “The main concern is the fact that ad revenue is not climbing in line with views,” said a top industry source. “The value of a stream is dropping and we want to make sure there’s a floor in the per stream rate.”

    YouTube’s chief business officer, Robert Kyncl, has been making the industry rounds to explain how the music business can better monetize its advertising on its platform. Kyncl’s has been preaching that “free is the future, ad supported is the future,” one source said.

    “To date, Google has paid out over $3 billion to the music industry — and that number is growing significantly year on year,” YouTube said in a statement to The Post.

    “Only about 20 percent of people are historically willing to pay for music. YouTube is helping artists and labels monetize the remaining 80 percent that were not previously monetized.”

  • #2
    Interesting At first 68 million paid subscribers didn't seem much to be, but I realized that each one can listen to to so many albums from different people...streaming is definitely the future...and although I've grown up in the modern digital era, I'll always appreciate unwrapping a CD case, playing it and looking at the pics/lyrics from the booklet..
    Follow Me On Instagram

    The FIRST user to have a thread beat Mariah on the Ukmix Hot 100

    #KING

    Comment


    • #3
      Some 900 million people essentially listen to music for free through advertising-supported sites
      That still is messed up. Music should not be free.
      “B**** come here! B**** come here! B**** come here!”

      “I’m staying right here.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mikerocha
        Some 900 million people essentially listen to music for free through advertising-supported sites
        That still is messed up. Music should not be free.
        It's the point where we are sadly.
        Yeah streaming is the future, but it also devalues the value of music. It will be interesting what will happen in the future with music as a whole. Since the fact such a big catalogue of music can be accesed for basically free by millions of people, will they even ever want to pay for music again, and yes, how many? I am very curious how things will change and develop the coming years, since I feel a lot will have to change to be able to stay in some way profitable for customers, artists, songwriters and recordlabels.

        It also mainly has to do with that people basically were free to illegally download basically everything, while the amount of music we could acces also grew. The fact the industry basically let piracy happen the way it did, really hurts them now and streaming as a whole is a logical sequel to the events that happened the last years.

        Comment


        • #5
          Someone should stop Youtube and the free tiers of spotify and others... this is what's killing the industry

          Comment


          • #6
            youtube is the devil.. you can easily download everything and anything from there. it needs to be shut down.

            btw vinyl is the future.
            My Chart

            Comment


            • #7
              Youtube can't shut down, stop the madness! As long as the internet is a thing, people will always be able to download illegally, leave yt alone.
              My tits are made of silicone, just like the Earth and sea...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CrazyCrazy
                Youtube can't shut down, stop the madness! As long as the internet is a thing, people will always be able to download illegally, leave yt alone.
                yt is blocked in my country, haven't been browsing it since 1802 - when it used to be popular
                My Chart

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stevyy
                  Originally posted by CrazyCrazy
                  Youtube can't shut down, stop the madness! As long as the internet is a thing, people will always be able to download illegally, leave yt alone.
                  yt is blocked in my country, haven't been browsing it since 1802 - when it used to be popular
                  Aw so that's why you're hating, you're bitter. Poor Germans.
                  My tits are made of silicone, just like the Earth and sea...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CrazyCrazy
                    Originally posted by stevyy
                    Originally posted by CrazyCrazy
                    Youtube can't shut down, stop the madness! As long as the internet is a thing, people will always be able to download illegally, leave yt alone.
                    yt is blocked in my country, haven't been browsing it since 1802 - when it used to be popular
                    Aw so that's why you're hating, you're bitter. Poor Germans.
                    hatin'? sure! bitter? u fool.

                    [youtube:1dy0rie6]HMQkV5cTuoY[/youtube:1dy0rie6]
                    My Chart

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      lol... without YouTube where the hell are you going to see videos? You know MTV hasn't played them since 1997... right? Plus if MTV did play videos, it would be artists I'm not looking for anyways. YT was the best thing to happen to video in ages.

                      Music should be ENJOYED first more than anything else.

                      But of course, people shouldn't be allowed to actually check new music out on their own... only just should devour what radio stations are paid to shove down your throat.
                      My top 100 artists (2018 edition)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, I'm not sure but literally the place where people watch videos is the place where most of the profits are lost.

                        I'm all up for videos via streaming services like Tidal and Apple music.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          since anything by a major label is copyright protected and blocked on youtube germany, i am used to watching music videos on vevo.de

                          i thought vevo had its own website everywhere...it didn't occur to me that youtube was still a thing.
                          My Chart

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            what's the point of making videos if nobody is going to see them? Plus, artists get paid for views anyways.

                            I think some of you guys don't remember how bad it was in the late 90s at a time where the music industry was raising prices to ridiculous numbers (cd's went up $5-6 just between 1993-1994 and 1999-2000), phasing singles out for 80% of the songs on radio because "why sell the best song for $3 when we can force them to spend $19 on 11 other songs they don't want?" and MTV became more of a "lifestyle" channel and when they did play videos, it was teen pop, hip hop and nu-metal acts I didn't care for,

                            Trust me, it was a hell period. Today you don't need the dictatorship of MTV or radio to decide your tastes for you....
                            My top 100 artists (2018 edition)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am a stan and I stan for basically everyone with a weave and a beard.. so ehm but even I only watch music videos once.. like i haven't watched a music video in months. I can't relate to ppl who actually do watch music videos on a loop. but that's just me. but still ppl like me exist.
                              My Chart

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by stevyy
                                I am a stan and I stan for basically everyone with a weave and a beard.. so ehm but even I only watch music videos once.. like i haven't watched a music video in months. I can't relate to ppl who actually do watch music videos on a loop. but that's just me. but still ppl like me exist.
                                to me videos are mostly useless, but there are still a few out there i like to check for. If MTV went back to playing music to the extent they did 20+ years ago, it would probably be nonstop Meghan Trainor, Bieber and Ariana Grande anyways.... that's fine and all but I'm not that demographic.
                                My top 100 artists (2018 edition)

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by stevyy
                                  I am a stan and I stan for basically everyone with a weave and a beard.. so ehm but even I only watch music videos once.. like i haven't watched a music video in months. I can't relate to ppl who actually do watch music videos on a loop. but that's just me. but still ppl like me exist.
                                  Youtube doesn't just have music videos, you'd be wiping out a massive video platform just because you care about streaming so much, hippies.
                                  My tits are made of silicone, just like the Earth and sea...

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by CrazyCrazy
                                    Originally posted by stevyy
                                    I am a stan and I stan for basically everyone with a weave and a beard.. so ehm but even I only watch music videos once.. like i haven't watched a music video in months. I can't relate to ppl who actually do watch music videos on a loop. but that's just me. but still ppl like me exist.
                                    Youtube doesn't just have music videos, you'd be wiping out a massive video platform just because you care about streaming so much, hippies.
                                    I agree. YT is wonderful. You can get lost on there for hours.

                                    Music should be consumed and enjoyed.... yes, they should be paid, but reaching fans and touching a new audience and leading to people who are going to become lifelong fans and go to your concerts, follow you on Twitter, etc... should be more important and a stronger goal than "sell a million copies of this that nobody will listen to next month" as if it's fast food. Most of the music I dislike are the ones that are treated like McDonalds product, music should be something more than audio junk food that sounds good at 2 am when you're dealing with insomnia and the freezer is broke.

                                    Without Spotify, YouTube, etc..., I wouldn't listen to half the acts I like now because there's not outlets for them on MTV, Idol, top 40 radio, etc...
                                    My top 100 artists (2018 edition)

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by stevyy
                                      since anything by a major label is copyright protected and blocked on youtube germany, i am used to watching music videos on vevo.de

                                      i thought vevo had its own website everywhere...it didn't occur to me that youtube was still a thing.
                                      vevo:
                                      OOPS! THIS PAGE IS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE IN YOUR REGION.
                                      Err! No! YouTube remains the leading platform for videos. But, I have observed that more and more videos are pulled from the site (mostly SME and UMG) or blocked/geo-restricted and the majority of the content that U.S. viewers have access to is not available elsewhere in the world [Official albums as official audio/video files, etc]!
                                      trebor's - 2016 in Country Music
                                      trebor's - 2015 in Country Music

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Streaming is absolutely the way forward. It's finally a cost effective way to legally consume music. People tend to forget that piracy didn't happen just because it could - it happened because a casual music fan simply can't afford to spend £10 a month on every album they want.

                                        We blame the Internet for piracy, but in the years before that people would buy knock off physical copies of albums - less than half the price for the same music. So to me it's not that people were against paying for music, but that it needed to be at a price that the public were happy to pay - and that is what streaming is.

                                        Personally I've never understood why music was so expensive. I started buying music in the late 90s and the standard prices were £4 for a single and £10 for an album. Madness, but that's the basic rules of business - you charge as much as you think your customers are prepared to pay.

                                        Look at when iTunes happened and the impact that had on the industry - making singles available for 99p reinvigorated interest in music. I thought nothing of paying 99p to download and own a song I wanted - and many people felt the same. Digital albums I think are still expensive and that's why streaming is the next logical step: the cost of 1 album gives you access to millions.

                                        I'll never understand why people are against streaming. Streaming is a platform that provides access to your music - music you need people to hear so that they want to spend money on seeing it performed live. Making music should be seen as an investment, a tool that allows you to put on shows and perform. I don't believe you need to make money from music sales (and let's face it, that's why manufactured pop happened) - you make it from ticket sales.
                                        Queuing for Girls Aloud reunion tickets since 2013

                                        #FreeBritney

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          Shutting down youtube?

                                          If it wasn't for Youtube, music videos would lose their relevance for good. It's still the best way to promote singles nowadays. What the hell am i reading here?
                                          "Your actions speak louder than promises/You're inclined to make and inclined to break"

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            Youtube being shutdown Just when you think you've read it all on ukmix.

                                            So many people are too lazy to illegally download these days that they'd probably pay for Spotify if they took away the unpaid service. The rest would probably just not listen to music (or sign up to TIDAL).
                                            late.

                                            Comment


                                            • #23
                                              Originally posted by TiagoRodrigues
                                              Shutting down youtube?

                                              If it wasn't for Youtube, music videos would lose their relevance for good. It's still the best way to promote singles nowadays. What the hell am i reading here?
                                              lol hell yes

                                              YouTube actually helped revive video as a relevant medium after MTV and VH1 slowly phasing videos out between 2000-2005 to where artists were beginning to give up making videos because what's the point of pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into something nobody is going to see anyways

                                              And we've seen from what Prince and his anti-YouTube stance has done for his career... it's put a younger generation off him who actually like some of his peers who you can find footage of. Youngish (15-25) people who would have any interest in his work are put off by his videos nowhere to be seen on YT... whereas they then can find a Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder or someone elses video on there, and a new fan is made whereas they don't care about Prince. The YT thing was the worst career move Prince ever made because not only did it alienate older fans who'd love to go back and watch some of his videos, but it completely shut him off to a younger audience whereas other 80s stars might pick up more millennial age fans thanks to the exposure.
                                              My top 100 artists (2018 edition)

                                              Comment


                                              • #24
                                                I'm struggling to see their definition of growth versus revenue? :-?
                                                You can have growth but it's no use if it doesn't contribute to revenue if people use free music and tiers like Spotify and YouTube :-?
                                                | Ciara | Beyoncé | Janet | Toni | Kelly R | Leona | Tinashe | Whitney | Brandy | Monica | Tevin | Mariah | Britney | Tamia |

                                                Comment


                                                • #25
                                                  Originally posted by menime123
                                                  Streaming is absolutely the way forward. It's finally a cost effective way to legally consume music. People tend to forget that piracy didn't happen just because it could - it happened because a casual music fan simply can't afford to spend £10 a month on every album they want.

                                                  We blame the Internet for piracy, but in the years before that people would buy knock off physical copies of albums - less than half the price for the same music. So to me it's not that people were against paying for music, but that it needed to be at a price that the public were happy to pay - and that is what streaming is.

                                                  Personally I've never understood why music was so expensive. I started buying music in the late 90s and the standard prices were £4 for a single and £10 for an album. Madness, but that's the basic rules of business - you charge as much as you think your customers are prepared to pay.

                                                  Look at when iTunes happened and the impact that had on the industry - making singles available for 99p reinvigorated interest in music. I thought nothing of paying 99p to download and own a song I wanted - and many people felt the same. Digital albums I think are still expensive and that's why streaming is the next logical step: the cost of 1 album gives you access to millions.

                                                  I'll never understand why people are against streaming. Streaming is a platform that provides access to your music - music you need people to hear so that they want to spend money on seeing it performed live. Making music should be seen as an investment, a tool that allows you to put on shows and perform. I don't believe you need to make money from music sales (and let's face it, that's why manufactured pop happened) - you make it from ticket sales.
                                                  I actually agree, I had not looked at things certain ways

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X