Streaming music revenues up 40% globally in 2012

[Paul Markham]

Streaming music revenues up 40% globally in 2012

On-demand services like Spotify and We7 will generate £696m for the global music industry in 2012 - a rise of 40%, new research has suggested.

It means streaming music is the fastest-growing sector of the industry, overtaking downloads, which are due to see an increase of 8.5% this year.

CDs and vinyl still dominate the industry, accounting for 61% of all music sold worldwide.

But sales of physical products dropped by 12% globally, and 30% in the UK.

[Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE]

[lucas131]

people still listen to music?

[Paul Markham]

Sad reading for someone who grew up listening to some of the greatest music of the 20th Century.

[kane]

A while back there was an article I was reading that talked about how the younger generation isn't so stuck on music ownership as those before them and access is more important to them than ownership so they are more likely to pay a small fee for a streaming service that gives them access to a ton of music so long as they can play it on their computer and phone.

[seeandsee]

Time changed, that old charts can't be valid in internet era, its just nuts to use it for commparation

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by kane

A while back there was an article I was reading that talked about how the younger generation isn't so stuck on music ownership as those before them and access is more important to them than ownership so they are more likely to pay a small fee for a streaming service that gives them access to a ton of music so long as they can play it on their computer and phone.

So that doesn't mean owning it?

We never cared about owning a plastic disc, we cared about listening to the music on it.

The part I can't understand is why did a huge industry with so many clever people and so much money.Suffer from online access to their product. While so many people here with less money and no way as clever, swear blind the Internet brought a huge boom to porn. </sarcasm>

[Mike Dutch]

I now pay for spotify and some other services, they got it all, easy to use and relatively cheap. Music as a service will make money

[helterskelter808]

One major difference (between porn and music) is that music was available everywhere offline, whereas porn was relegated to nasty sex shops in bad areas of town or banned outright.

Putting up a page of stolen jpegs in the mid-90s, the total size of which was less than an album of mp3s, was also lot easier than streaming the back catalogue of EMI.

The industry could have done so, and not left it up to the likes of Apple, but they didn't want to do it. They were making vast amounts (as those graphs show) by screwing people with overpriced CDs and, despite the fact that new formats always provide new opportunities and new ways to profit, they never, ever, ever want to change.

Piracy, like tubes, gives people what they want - convenience and a feeling of not being cheated. That doesn't mean free, as the sales of paid digital downloads and streaming now prove.

The people who fixate on piracy as the ultimate scapegoat - in the media mafias and on this board - are dinosaurs with no imagination or creativity who want to go back to the stone age, where 'business' amounted to ripping off and screwing customers, rather than giving them what they want at a fair price.

[Phoenix]

that is fine if they stream it...but it should be tracked and the content owners get their cut.
Call me spotify!!!

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

yes but no, there was a boom of the CDs in the middle of the 90's because at this moment, it was the time to update your collection from vinyls to CD's (100 cd's of classic music for example).
In the beginning of the 2000's this moment was just over, so this not only a problem of napster but it is also related to the market.

Same comment with porn in the late 90's:
At the beginning it was popular, because internet gave an easy way to access it.
Then later people were just used to see porn, so it decreases its interrest.

[LeRoy]

Its still cool to listen to the radio

http://www.insoulwetrust.com/tunein/

Today @ 10am PST

Star Sessions Radio Show feat FRED EVERYTHING and URIAH WEST

https://www.facebook.com/events/269894063125456/

[geedub]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

that is fine if they stream it...but it should be tracked and the content owners get their cut.
Call me spotify!!!

If you're paying a legit service, record labels are definitely seeing royalties.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Mike Dutch

I now pay for spotify and some other services, they got it all, easy to use and relatively cheap. Music as a service will make money

Porn will continue to make money as well. Just not so much.

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

One major difference (between porn and music) is that music was available everywhere offline, whereas porn was relegated to nasty sex shops in bad areas of town or banned outright.

Putting up a page of stolen jpegs in the mid-90s, the total size of which was less than an album of mp3s, was also lot easier than streaming the back catalogue of EMI.

Which would all make sense if people weren't able to buy magazines to jerk off to. So rethink your theory.

The industry could have done so, and not left it up to the likes of Apple, but they didn't want to do it. They were making vast amounts (as those graphs show) by screwing people with overpriced CDs and, despite the fact that new formats always provide new opportunities and new ways to profit, they never, ever, ever want to change.

Piracy, like tubes, gives people what they want - convenience and a feeling of not being cheated. That doesn't mean free, as the sales of paid digital downloads and streaming now prove.

The people who fixate on piracy as the ultimate scapegoat - in the media mafias and on this board - are dinosaurs with no imagination or creativity who want to go back to the stone age, where 'business' amounted to ripping off and screwing customers, rather than giving them what they want at a fair price.

Which is the argument pirates make.

[PR_Dave]

Music and porn are 2 different things, people will pay $0.99 for a song they like because they will listen to it over and over. They won't pay $0.99 for a scene because majority of guys rarely want to watch the same scene over and over.

All you can eat is 2012 and beyond, music and porn.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

Same comment with porn in the late 90's:
At the beginning it was popular, because internet gave an easy way to access it.
Then later people were just used to see porn, so it decreases its interrest.

And we thought giving it away was the best way to get them online.

A decrease in buying, yes. Interest, no way.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by PR_Dave

Music and porn are 2 different things, people will pay $0.99 for a song they like because they will listen to it over and over. They won't pay $0.99 for a scene because majority of guys rarely want to watch the same scene over and over.

All you can eat is 2012 and beyond, music and porn.

People won't pay $30 for 100s of scenes. Especially when they can get 1,000s for free. www.porn.com has some.

Affiliates wouldn't sell scene for $0.99.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Which would all make sense if people weren't able to buy magazines to jerk off to. So rethink your theory.

It was still far less easy to access and (especially) distribute than it was via online. In the offline world a handful of publishers and distributors controlled the market. Online anyone could do it, and there was no barrier to access. No shame in buying it, like there would be entering a sex shop or buying it from a regular newsagent, if it was available.

Which is the argument pirates make.

I don't believe any of the people who criticize piracy are 100% innocent. Everyone has downloaded mp3s, or home taped, or used pictures they have no permission to use. Bet that's different though.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

yes but no, there was a boom of the CDs in the middle of the 90's because at this moment, it was the time to update your collection from vinyls to CD's (100 cd's of classic music for example).

Everyone I know did that in the late 1980's. And it wasn't a transition from vinyl to cd. It was a transition from cassette tape to CD.

Everyone transitioned to cassette tapes in the early 1980's

People do most of their listening in their cars. Very few sit in their armchair with a glass of 300 year old wine listening to classical music.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Which would all make sense if people weren't able to buy magazines to jerk off to. So rethink your theory.

Paul...I've tried over and over to explain to you how things are in the United States.

I LIVE here. I grew up in the 1960's.
And yes. If you lived in New York City you could buy an adult magazine.

In the small town in Florida that I grew up in? HELL NO. Convenience stores didn't exist in small towns until the 1970's. And adult bookstores weren't allowed in the county.

You always underestimate how BIG the U.S. is geographically and how sexually repressed and insanely religious the bulk of the country is.

That is why, once the internet kicked in...the U.S. was immediately the number one consumer of online porn in the world.
There are still plenty of places in the U.S. (small towns across the country) where you can't buy physical magazines and especially videos.. Hell...my small hometown county is still DRY (you can't buy a beer there).

I know it sounds crazy. But you guys in Europe are far more cultural and advanced than the majority of places in the U.S.
That's the thing you always miss when you try to have this argument.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So that doesn't mean owning it?

We never cared about owning a plastic disc, we cared about listening to the music on it.

The part I can't understand is why did a huge industry with so many clever people and so much money.Suffer from online access to their product. While so many people here with less money and no way as clever, swear blind the Internet brought a huge boom to porn. </sarcasm>

No, it doesn't mean owning it. I know a lot of people who take pride in their CD collection. They like people seeing and knowing how many CDs they own (the same can be said for books and DVDs for other people). Some people want to outright own their music and be able to say, "I own 1,000 CDs." or whatever. Streaming isn't ownership, it is rental.

The problem with the music industry, and I worked in it for a while so I saw it first hand, is that it is kind of like the government. They seem to always be a step or two behind when it comes to new technology. Back in 90's when I was in the industry if a band had a top 10 hit it meant millions in sales for the record label because the only way you could own that song was to buy the entire CD. That method had worked for them for decades so they weren't about to budge from it. Had they adapted earlier piracy might not have bit them in the ass so badly.

I can remember hearing one of the marketing guys for the record label I worked for talking about the Internet and how it will never replace record stores because people like the experience of going to record stores. As we can see now that is not the case and it holds true for porn as well. Yes, there are some people who like to go to record stores to buy music, just like there are some people who still like to go to porn stores and jack off in the booths. However, the Internet made delivery instant, convenient and anonymous. Those three factors drove the porn boom and killed record stores.

[papill0n]

now he's a music industry expert

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I know it sounds crazy. But you guys in Europe are far more cultural and advanced than the majority of places in the U.S.
That's the thing you always miss when you try to have this argument.

Aside from this, Paul's from a country where 'real' porn was not even legal till about a decade ago. The magazines he's talking about were very soft core.

And while there were probably many smelly, sticky sex shops in London selling nasty shit under the counter, the situation in the UK was probably worse than the US. No adult bookstores of any kind outside of cities, and even in cities they sold hardcore porn with all the porn censored or cut.

I believe some guy in the UK actually took a sex shop to court over false advertising. They scammed customers by promising hardcore porn, presumably on the basis that people would be too ashamed to complain about being ripped off.

The only way people saw real porn was though Nth generation copies from friends - free 'pirated' porn - because it was not legal in the UK to show even a hard on or any kind of penetration, let alone anything more.

To exploit this ban, companies like Your Choice appeared; based in Holland but (illegally) duplicating and mailing porn from within the UK to avoid the British customs. AFAIK Your Choice licensed the porn they sold, but it's extremely unlikely that all the copycat rivals did. More porn piracy. All before the internet.

[stephane76]

Originally Posted by Mike Dutch

I now pay for spotify and some other services, they got it all, easy to use and relatively cheap. Music as a service will make money

I love spotify premium! They have just about everything i need, and their mobile App is awesome

[kane]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Aside from this, Paul's from a country where 'real' porn was not even legal till about a decade ago. The magazines he's talking about were very soft core.

And while there were probably many smelly, sticky sex shops in London selling nasty shit under the counter, the situation in the UK was probably worse than the US. No adult bookstores of any kind outside of cities, and even in cities they sold hardcore porn with all the porn censored or cut.

I believe some guy in the UK actually took a sex shop to court over false advertising. They scammed customers by promising hardcore porn, presumably on the basis that people would be too ashamed to complain about being ripped off.

The only way people saw real porn was though Nth generation copies from friends - free 'pirated' porn - because it was not legal in the UK to show even a hard on or any kind of penetration, let alone anything more.

To exploit this ban, companies like Your Choice appeared; based in Holland but (illegally) duplicating and mailing porn from within the UK to avoid the British customs. AFAIK Your Choice licensed the porn they sold, but it's extremely unlikely that all the copycat rivals did. More porn piracy. All before the internet.

I grew up in a small town about 30 miles outside of Portland. There was no porn available in that town. When I was bout 15 or 16 there was a small convenience store that came under new ownership. The new owners started selling a few porn mags behind the counter. For a few weeks after this was discovered a few of the local churches actually picketed the store. Eventually they gave up and the store went on selling the magazines. A few months after that the town's one and only video store started renting porn movies. They had about a dozen videos behind the counter.

Aside from those two places if you wanted porn you had to drive at least 20 miles to the next big town. This nation is peppered with places exactly like this only now they can just jump online and get all the porn they want.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Aside from this, Paul's from a country where 'real' porn was not even legal till about a decade ago. The magazines he's talking about were very soft core.

And while there were probably many smelly, sticky sex shops in London selling nasty shit under the counter, the situation in the UK was probably worse than the US. No adult bookstores of any kind outside of cities, and even in cities they sold hardcore porn with all the porn censored or cut.

I believe some guy in the UK actually took a sex shop to court over false advertising. They scammed customers by promising hardcore porn, presumably on the basis that people would be too ashamed to complain about being ripped off.

The only way people saw real porn was though Nth generation copies from friends - free 'pirated' porn - because it was not legal in the UK to show even a hard on or any kind of penetration, let alone anything more.

To exploit this ban, companies like Your Choice appeared; based in Holland but (illegally) duplicating and mailing porn from within the UK to avoid the British customs. AFAIK Your Choice licensed the porn they sold, but it's extremely unlikely that all the copycat rivals did. More porn piracy. All before the internet.

So the UK population jerked off to copies of Escort, Fiesta and the other mags. Or phone sex, or cable TV. Or soft core videos. They didn't not buy to not jerk off to porn of any kind.

And they bought my videos.

In fact mail order was a huge market in those days. Magazines were selling a huge amount via mail order to people who ordered a years supply. Probably to places where getting it from a shop was hard.

No friends didn't pass around copies of hardcore porn. Men didn't go to the local bar and start exchanging copies of Ass Banging Mums with their mates.

Yes there were a few places in the Bible belt that found it hard to sell a copy of Playboy or the softer version of Penthouse. Yet balance that with the World wide access to softcore magazines and places where hardcore was legal. Only problem was they weren't giving away free leaflets to jerk of to so you had to buy something. And it didn't last very long, so every month a new magazine or a new DVD came out. Today for $30 people who do pay can download a years supply of porn.

We can all guess at the real ratios of surfers to buyers. Still in the great days they were rarely better than 1-50 of clicks over all the methods. Yet everyone can tell stories of the BW bill of any gallery on The Hun. It was freeloaders not buying.

At 1-50 overall buying. Access to porn online would of had to be 50 times more than it was, then how many downloaded and didn't buy for months?

Too many only see see one side. Their income. Which is right, still be aware of the flip side.

[ottopottomouse]

How is a graph of ALBUM sales relevant today?

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

How is a graph of ALBUM sales relevant today?

It's not. But it lets him post about how awesome the olden days of porn were again.

[anexsia]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

It's not. But it lets him post about how awesome the olden days of porn were again.

Just waiting for him to pull out a graph showing declining VHS sales and how it's pirate related.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

How is a graph of ALBUM sales relevant today?

The graphs are to show what the Internet did to sales and revenue.



It clearly shows that the rise of the Internet led to a drop in revenue. Compare the high of 1999/2000 to today. Even the 2003 high of digital is dropping. We never bought the albums, or the CDs. We bought the music on them to listen to.

Now do less people listen to music today or do less people pay less to listen to it?

If it were ever possible to get the same graphs for porn, I suspect it would be similar or worse.

I just like pointing out to all you bright people who "Got how to market online". Exactly what you got. You turned a gold mine into a slag heap.

Of course I'm an idiot who never got it. Sitting here pointing out what happened, after taking the dog for a walk, shopping and digging the garden. Sucks to be so stupid.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It clearly shows that the rise of the Internet led to a drop in revenue.

That's one interpretation.

There are others.

1) The Big Five were greedy dinosaurs who spent years fucking over customers and people got pissed off with them.

2) That everyone had now replaced their tapes and records with CDs, so the decline was inevitable.

3) That people didn't want to buy whole albums and wanted individual tracks.

4) People prefer streaming audio to any device so they can have access to everything, rather than carrying around lots of CDs

etc etc

The rise in digital music sales proves people are more than happy to pay for the content, they just don't want to buy physical media anymore.

Some graphs to prove you wrong, the internet has in fact *saved* the music industry. WTF would they do without the new sales revenues the internet has given them?

[Zeiss]

The internet screwed up the music industry and it is still rapidly changing. These numbers will be way different tomorrow. I have experience in this. Been in bands over 13 years now...

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by sexvideosex

The internet screwed up the music industry and it is still rapidly changing. These numbers will be way different tomorrow. I have experience in this. Been in bands over 13 years now...

Hi BANDNAME, I'm from a music label, we'll lend you the money to record and album, promote it and tour it. You get 17 cents from each album. OK?

or

Hi BANDNAME, I'm the internet. You can just record and album and release it globally via me. You can build your own fanbase and sell merch and concert tickets too. And keep all the money. OK?

...

[Zeiss]

I did not say it screwed up the artists. I meant it screwed the businessmen... :D And btw, things are not really like you say they are.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by sexvideosex

And btw, things are not really like you say they are.

That is a very persuasive argument. I like how you use facts, citations and well thought out logic to present your counterpoint.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So that doesn't mean owning it?

We never cared about owning a plastic disc, we cared about listening to the music on it.

yes we did, the album art and notes/photos were a big part of the music buying experience when i was a kid. i hated moving on to cassettes and then CD's. lying on your bed listening to the music, holding the cover, looking at the cover art, reading the lyrics - big part of being a music fan/collector in the days of vinyl. very much like buying a hard cover book versus buying a digital version - the sense of touch, smell, actually bonding physically/emotionally with the product. makes me sad that that is disappearing.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

People won't pay $30 for 100s of scenes.

Yes they will. If you have something they can't easily get elsewhere, they will pay for it.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by DWB

Yes they will. If you have something they can't easily get elsewhere, they will pay for it.

Exactly. In the UK, one of my clients started the very first "babe" tv channel. Been going ten years now and it a household name in the UK. The guys that watch really fall for the girls on it. So every time we launch a new solo site for them, the sales are ridiculous.

It is girls the guys already know from the TV, with a large fanbase and they are doing stuff online that is illegal to show in the UK (can only do tits out on the tv here).

Could sell 30 buck memberships with only 10 films on there and the fans still lap it up.

However, I guess if you were selling 20 year old saturated content of eastern european teens that can be got anywhere else you might think differently.

[OldJeff]

Originally Posted by DWB

Yes they will. If you have something THEY THINK they can't easily get elsewhere, they will pay for it.

Changed that a little bit, but agree in principle

[bronco67]

So that means now instead of 1% of people buying music, it's like 1.4%.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Mutt

yes we did, the album art and notes/photos were a big part of the music buying experience when i was a kid. i hated moving on to cassettes and then CD's. lying on your bed listening to the music, holding the cover, looking at the cover art, reading the lyrics - big part of being a music fan/collector in the days of vinyl. very much like buying a hard cover book versus buying a digital version - the sense of touch, smell, actually bonding physically/emotionally with the product. makes me sad that that is disappearing.

Nice additions to the music, not anything else.

Originally Posted by bronco67

So that means now instead of 1% of people buying music, it's like 1.4%.

Yes record sales up, revenue down. Because of the extra access to the Internet.

Originally Posted by DWB

Yes they will. If you have something they can't easily get elsewhere, they will pay for it.

Yes they will.

For most tastes the product is free everywhere, legal or not. For a tiny few they have to pay willingly or not and these markets are small in numbers of people who like it. Please point me to a mainstream product sector that can't be found for free. Not a brand name.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yes record sales up, revenue down. Because of the extra access to the Internet.

Or, because rather than being forced to buy 20 buck albums with 13 tracks they don't want on, people can now buy one track for 99 cents.

The big five had it too good for too long, they were lazy, they failed to see the trends, they failed to adapt and they fucked up.

Fortunately, they employed some savvy people that 'got' the internet, and now they are smashing all previous online sales records, repeatedly, every single year.

[TheSquealer]

Why isn't Paul Markham running the world yet? He's got the answer for everything and he is very quick to explain why no one gets it but him. Seems like peace in the Middle East or curing cancer would be little more than a slow afternoon for him.

Please Paul, please save this world from itself with your genius.

Wonder how many calls he gets a day from Exxon or JP Morgan, CitiBank, Samsung, Toyota, General Motors, Nestle and others - just begging for him to part with just some of his wisdom and expertise in anything and everything? He probably has to change phone numbers every few days and were a fake mustache when he goes out in public just to have a few moments of privacy.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Why isn't Paul Markham running the world yet? He's got the answer for everything and he is very quick to explain why no one gets it but him. Seems like peace in the Middle East or curing cancer would be little more than a slow afternoon for him.

Please Paul, please save this world from itself with your genius.

Wonder how many calls he gets a day from Exxon or JP Morgan, CitiBank, Samsung, Toyota, General Motors, Nestle and others - just begging for him to part with just some of his wisdom and expertise in anything and everything? He probably has to change phone numbers every few days and were a fake mustache when he goes out in public just to have a few moments of privacy.

I can't show he's wrong so as usual will just do another pointless flame.

Has the Internet raised sales revenue for the record industry?

Simple question and all it needs is a Yes or No or Hate admitting Paul is right.

The facts show more listen to music and pay less for it if anything at all. Just like porn. Or are you going to argue black is white on that. Ask Damian for tips on that. The truthful ones though.

[Robbie]

Paul, looking at your graph doesn't show the "internet" killed album sales.

PIRACY killed album sales. The huge decline is when Napster and Kazaa were giving everything away for free. Guess what...people stopped buying.

That was before a lot of new technology that is available today was here. There was no ITunes or much of any way to buy music online. It was all stolen.

And people were ripping the music onto blank CD's to play in their car.

Piracy fucked the music industry. Not the "internet".

[helterskelter808]

It's an RIAA graph. What do you expect it to say about piracy?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I can't show he's wrong so as usual will just do another pointless flame.

Has the Internet raised sales revenue for the record industry?

Simple question and all it needs is a Yes or No or Hate admitting Paul is right.

The facts show more listen to music and pay less for it if anything at all. Just like porn. Or are you going to argue black is white on that. Ask Damian for tips on that. The truthful ones though.

I'm not going head to head with you. If GFY has taught us anything in recent years, its that Paul Markham is always right and successful and everyone else is wrong, dumb, broke and has shitty content. Oh, and that magic join links work and $3,000.00, $3,000.00, $3,000.00

[kane]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I can't show he's wrong so as usual will just do another pointless flame.

Has the Internet raised sales revenue for the record industry?

Simple question and all it needs is a Yes or No or Hate admitting Paul is right.

The facts show more listen to music and pay less for it if anything at all. Just like porn. Or are you going to argue black is white on that. Ask Damian for tips on that. The truthful ones though.

There are two main reasons for the decline in revenue for record labels. Piracy and digital singles.

As I said above, in the past if a band had a top 10 hit it meant millions of of dollars in sales for the record label because the only way you could own that song was to buy the entire CD for $15 or more. I suppose you could record it off the radio as well, but that was kind of a bitch to do.

Now you can buy the single for a $1 or you can easily snag it off of youtube or any one of a million pirate sites so there is no reason to buy the entire CD unless you really want to.

It really is that simple.

[Colmike9]

Why don't musicians just accept that standards for a record label to sign someone has dropped and you hear so much terrible music nowadays? Just because you have an album out there doesn't mean 1,000,000+ are going to buy it..

I'm not saying piracy didn't hurt it, but it doesn't hurt sales as much as people say.
They should also add in new income sources to that data like Youtube PPC or anything similar with copyrighted music and videos that the record labels and/or artists are monetizing with now. If it isn't much, then that is killing the industry, too, and that isn't the fault of pirates.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Paul, looking at your graph doesn't show the "internet" killed album sales.

PIRACY killed album sales. The huge decline is when Napster and Kazaa were giving everything away for free. Guess what...people stopped buying.

That was before a lot of new technology that is available today was here. There was no ITunes or much of any way to buy music online. It was all stolen.

And people were ripping the music onto blank CD's to play in their car.

Piracy fucked the music industry. Not the "internet".

Piracy never was a threat before the Internet. People copying tape to tape was never the threat to the music industry that the Internet is. And piracy to the downloader Just means free. Give it to them for free and most will not pay. Or is even that wrong?