Soundcloud Has Lost $70 Million in the Last Two Years - Is Streaming Music Doomed?

[NogbadTheBad]

Bandcamp is more of a sales platform for artists rather than a streaming site, apparently its still profitable.

[Fracktured]

You have to understand corporate profits and budgets to understand what losing 70 millions actually means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nycsteve]

He's JKL2000 and always claims to not know what anything modern is, its his shtick.

Sure , the highly evolved orangutan. I've heard the term streaming in relation to video and music. If Pandora is music streaming a helper at work was running that all day from his phone with a small extra speaker. I wasn't impressed with selection or sound. I have no interest, don't know if Pandora is free or paid. I wouldn't pay for it. I prefer cds which I convert to mp3 and play into a stero off a Sansa or creative flash mp3 player. I will also download archived shows from The Dividing Line internet radio site and play those. I don't live in a cave but am very slow to adopt new delivery platforms. I still use a flip phone and hope never to have to own a smart phone. They look like they're addictive time eaters. I understand thuer usefulness in certain occupations but the majority of people buried in their phones are pissing away their time out of choice not necessity. Virtual v.s. reality.

[BrianG]

I believe there will be sustainable streaming music sites. They've been trying to be profitable for only maybe 15 years, so be patient.
At our radio station, we pay for a premium Spotify account. I get band references from the promoters, lables, hypers and hipsters, and look up the artist on Spotify, Bandcamp, Soundcloud or the label's website. If I like the music, I stream it on my weekly radio show (actual FM over the air radio is still alive, folks!) then announce the band and website for the listener to follow up. If we substitute receiving LPs at the station for Spotify, it's the same as the old model. Only with much much more variety.
Spotify gets our monthly subscription. They pay the artists micro-cents. But the artist gets exposure due to the streaming sites and, in my experience with cultural artists such as Niyaz, Afengunn, Taraf de Haidouks and Anoushka Shankar, they see their chances of success increase with this exposure. More music sold. More people at concerts.
Some streaming sites such as Pandora and even YouTube do not have high enough quality of stream so we cannot use them over the air. CDBaby offers clips and other sites do not offer entire songs. Personally I use TuneIn radio for streaming because there are actual shows put together by people whose taste I respect (Delicious Agony, KCRW, Aural Moon).

[Steve F.]

They pay the artists micro-cents. But the artist gets exposure due to the streaming sites and, in my experience with cultural artists such as Niyaz, Afengunn, Taraf de Haidouks and Anoushka Shankar, they see their chances of success increase with this exposure. More music sold.

Why would you believe that anyone will 'buy' music when they are already paying for a service that let's them stream a lot of music as much and as often as they want?

Where is there any inducement to buy anything already featured on Spotify? What is the advantage for buying it? You already have unlimited access to it.

If you see the rationale for this, please tell me because I don't see anything that would make anyone think that, other than wishful thinking.

[WHORG]

It's hard to get someone to pay for a monthly Spotify account when you can easily obtain just about any music you desire off the pirate/torrent sites . . .

The problem is file management. All the college kids I speak with have no problem stealing music at all - but hate all the file management, multiple devices, etc - - - they'd much rather have a streaming model to cut down on media hassle.

Almost every young person I meet on campus hates CD's - - - high-school kids too. Once you understand this trend - the reality sinks in . . . CD's are doomed.

My solution would be to have a streaming service like Spotify ($10/month), with all the features contained therein. If you really like a particular track, the system would allow you playback for (let's say) 5 listens - - - after that you get the option of purchasing that track for a nominal amount (like iTunes, BandCamp, etc). That's where the artists can sustain themselves . . .

Let's see what happens.

[Gerhard]

Why would you believe that anyone will 'buy' music when they are already paying for a service that let's them stream a lot of music as much and as often as they want?

I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, and have stopped buying movies almost entirely. However, even though I can stream a lot of music on Amazon Prime (and I also use free streaming sites like progstreaming, allstreaming, Bandcamp and Spotify non-premium) I buy music I really like, even if I can listen to it for free, for a few reasons.
1) I like to own it, in better quality than streaming, whether in physical or digital format,
2) I want to support the artists (and vendors) I really like,
3) I don't trust that it will always be available to stream (I've noticed titles become unavailable for free streaming on Amazon Prime),
4) I don't always have wi-fi available, or an unlimited data plan, for streaming away from home

I'm not sure if I spend more or less buying recorded music now that I stream, as well, but I still buy quite a lot. Maybe I'm an exception.

[rcarlberg]

This does not compute. First you say:

the system would allow you playback for (let's say) 5 listens - - - after that you get the option of purchasing that track for a nominal amount (like iTunes, BandCamp, etc). That's where the artists can sustain themselves . . .

But then you ALSO said:

The problem is file management. All the college kids I speak with have no problem stealing music at all - but hate all the file management, multiple devices, etc - - - they'd much rather have a streaming model to cut down on media hassle.

As Steve says -- why would they BUY music if they don't want the physical medium, can't even be bothered with the management of digital files?

[Gerhard]

After 5 free streams you purchase the right to continue streaming it?

[Steve983]

When all art is available for free on the internet, at the click of a button, and becomes so totally devalued, will anyone bother making any new art at all I wonder? This is the way technology is taking us I fear.

[WHORG]

This does not compute. First you say:But then you ALSO said:As Steve says -- why would they BUY music if they don't want the physical medium, can't even be bothered with the management of digital files?

Yeah - the kids I speak with hate CD's, files - anything that requires physical or digital management . . .

I'm just throwing something out there that could possibly be more profitable for the artists too - - - a "middle ground" solution of sorts.

A lot of kids also bitch about the $10.74 (with tax) for Spotify - - - that's beer & weed money . . .

It's a mixed bag all around - - -

[WHORG]

After 5 free streams you purchase the right to continue streaming it?

Maybe after 5 streams on your subscription - the song locks you out unless you "purchase" it, and own it permanently as an actual download - - - but then you get into the file management issue . . . or piracy issue again.

I meet kids constantly who have absolutely no apprehension about media piracy in the least - - - they view it as "not their problem" if it's so prevalent and available out there, so they do it.

I meet DJ's all the time with entire libraries of pirated material - - - thousands of songs - - - it's awful.

[BrianG]

Why would you believe that anyone will 'buy' music when they are already paying for a service that let's them stream a lot of music as much and as often as they want?

Where is there any inducement to buy anything already featured on Spotify? What is the advantage for buying it? You already have unlimited access to it.

If you see the rationale for this, please tell me because I don't see anything that would make anyone think that, other than wishful thinking.

Hi Steve - I can never tell when you are being facetious or actually asking a question. I will assume the latter here, expecting the best.

People still do buy music and will in the future. Industry skeptic and entrepreneur David Byrne believes it and so do I. Never write off an entire industry, such as LPs twenty years ago, or mp3s in 1998 when Napster imploded. Young people may hate CDs but why are they buying LPs? My listeners still buy CDs and now LPs because streaming requires too much maintenance. "What to listen to?" "I hate that song they just played." "I just want to hear the music I bought". Physical sales may decrease to the point where labels crater, but some will make it under a new business idea. Spotify does not provide the cover art. Spotify music quality is not great. It's difficult to play Spotify on your home theatre system. Spotify may not be around in five years. Spotify screws the artists. People actually think about these things when buying music vs. streaming. As WHORG says, let's stick around to see what happens.

[Steve F.]

^ ^ ^
regarding my query:
I am being 100% serious above.

Are there some people who will buy music no matter what? Yes.

That's not what I am discussing.

Here is what I am saying:
People who pay $10.00 a month for Spotify will not buy music that appears on Spotify. Why should they? They get all the advantages of owning for their $10.00 a month via streaming. They can listen as often as they like. They can listen to one song over and over again. What is the inducement to buy when the end result of the stream is the exact same thing as buying?

That's what I am saying.

Thanks for your note and sorry you couldn't read my intentions in my post. Sometimes being a wise-ass has its disadvantages.

[Scott Bails]

When all art is available for free on the internet, at the click of a button, and becomes so totally devalued, will anyone bother making any new art at all I wonder?

Did people make new art before it was commercialized?

[Rune Blackwings]

what is Soundcloud? I never heard of it. *ducks*

[Steve F.]

Did people make new art before it was commercialized?

Define "commercialized".

Artists used to have patrons. That's a form of commercialization.

[Scott Bails]

Define "commercialized".

Artists used to have patrons. That's a form of commercialization.

Some did, but not all. Some just created art because that's what they did.

[Steve F.]

Some did, but not all. Some just created art because that's what they did.

Back in the day - let's say the 1300s - 1800s, the average person could not afford to be an artist, as the average person was spending every waking moment working to feed themselves and shelter themselves and family.

Leisure time - as we know it today - basically did not exist for most.

So, an artist was someone who was either already wealthy and could afford to indulge themselves or they had a patron or they stopped being an artist.

[BrianG]

^ ^ ^
Here is what I am saying:
People who pay $10.00 a month for Spotify will not buy music that appears on Spotify. Why should they? They get all the advantages of owning for their $10.00 a month via streaming. They can listen as often as they like. They can listen to one song over and over again. What is the inducement to buy when the end result of the stream is the exact same thing as buying?

That's what I am saying.

Thanks for your note and sorry you couldn't read my intentions in my post. Sometimes being a wise-ass has its disadvantages.

Cool Steve. I am learning more about people every day.
For my above reasons, I believe physical recorded music will outlast digital in enough situations to justify continued market presence by most labels. The library at our station has over 90,000 titles (including a huge Cuneiform selection, thank you!). It allows our hosts to create shows based on similar artists, the artist's catalog, and their knowledge of the music. A big database on a computer would not be the same, and most of our hosts would leave the day we got rid of our physical library.
Young people on the other hand are very adaptable. Most can switch easily between old LPs and their iTunes library. College students who join our station often show up on the first day with a iTunes playlist, and end up playing CDs for their show. The library has a "wow" factor but they know their digital playlist. We old timers feel confident that the future station members will maintain the library, but also expand new ways our station can broadcast. We are not stuck in the past, we just don't want to give up on it.

[Rarebird]

Back in the day - let's say the 1300s - 1800s, the average person could not afford to be an artist, as the average person was spending every waking moment working to feed themselves and shelter themselves and family.

Leisure time - as we know it today - basically did not exist for most.

So, an artist was someone who was either already wealthy and could afford to indulge themselves or they had a patron or they stopped being an artist.

Your quite right on that.

[Esoteric]

I am with Steve on this although our parent label don't feel the same. Their opinion is that as illegal sites will have stuff up in the blink of an eye anyway, you may as well have on the legal sites where contracts are in place. The thing is though I don't think all who listen to music will necessarily go and hunt out the illegal places at the drop of a hat, particularly a more mature market, but places like Spotify are perceived differently and if you are signed up free or premium then customers are happy to go down that route and not necessarily buy physical or downloads, the big drop off for us has certainly though been downloads since streaming came in , more so than physical . I don't doubt the service for customers, it's a win, win, nor for the major labels who get huge advances to supply content (and also part own Spotify) the losers are most certainly the artists (who get next to nothing unless you are streaming millions and millions) and the labels , with the exception of the majors and a few of the very large indys , who I suspect get big advances too.

[JJ88]

The thing is though I don't think all who listen to music will necessarily go and hunt out the illegal places at the drop of a hat, particularly a more mature market, but places like Spotify are perceived differently and if you are signed up free or premium then customers are happy to go down that route and not necessarily buy physical or downloads, the big drop off for us has certainly though been downloads since streaming came in , more so than physical.

Totally agree. Time and again the music industry shows that it does not understand its loyal customers.

I remain dubious as to whether streaming should ever have started up in the first place. I can see the merit in it as a promotional tool; that's really the only way I've used it, where sometimes an album will be put up officially for streaming before its general release. But otherwise, no.

[Steve F.]

I am with Steve on this although our parent label don't feel the same. Their opinion is that as illegal sites will have stuff up in the blink of an eye anyway, you may as well have on the legal sites where contracts are in place. .

Here's my feeling.

When it's stolen, I don't have to administer it.

When it's on Spotify, it's nearly the same as stolen in terms of the money we receive, but I have to administer it and give the band 50% of it and the workload of doing so is awful and daunting when balanced against the severely low amount of money.

For me, personally, I'd rather people just steal it. Then I don't have to deal with it work-wise in any way and it's between the thieves and their conscience.

P.S. Yes, the money really is that bad from Spotify that I would say this and genuinely mean it.

[klothos]

It's hard to get someone to pay for a monthly Spotify account when you can easily obtain just about any music you desire off the pirate/torrent sites . . .

The problem is file management. All the college kids I speak with have no problem stealing music at all - but hate all the file management, multiple devices, etc - - - they'd much rather have a streaming model to cut down on media hassle.

Almost every young person I meet on campus hates CD's - - - high-school kids too. Once you understand this trend - the reality sinks in . . . CD's are doomed.

^one of the absolute best posts ive ever read here on this forum concerning the current state of the industry, sad as it is