There is a reason why Billboard changed its Hot 100 formula to include streaming (both on-demand and passive internet radio). This is USA data only.

opps. Keep in mind that 30% is a % of TOTAL DIGITAL REVENUE ONLY (doesn't include physical CDs revenue).

The title should be: Streaming is now ~30% of DIGITAL recorded music revenue for labels


http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indus...08074862.story

With Youtube and VEVO added in 27.4% could increase to ~30%.

Subscription: 13.1%
Digital Performance: 14.3%
Youtube/VEVO: 2.6%

Total of streaming: 30%






Digital Performance Royalties:

SoundExchange is the non-profit performance rights organization that collects statutory royalties from satellite radio (such as SIRIUS XM), internet radio, cable TV music channels and similar platforms for streaming sound recordings. The Copyright Royalty Board, which is appointed by The U.S. Library of Congress, has entrusted SoundExchange as the sole entity in the United States to collect and distribute these digital performance royalties on behalf of featured recording artists, master rights owners (like record labels), and independent artists who record and own their masters.

But only digital though? physical sales of albums seem not included

impressive

Such a high number seems rather doubtful with the very low revenue each stream nets the labels, especially given that the #1 on-demand song usually garners less than a million streams... but I suppose it makes sense with the sheer volume of streaming services and songs available.

It's still far better to be an albums artist; 10 million copies of 21 would have brought many, many times more revenue than the 7 million copies sold of RITD, for example.

What about the whole debacle with record labels buying views on Youtube/VEVO?

Easy explanation:


http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indus...08059892.story

In the latest "de-spam," YouTube subtracted 1.5 million views from Sony and Universal's channels. That may sound like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 1.3 billion it subtracted throughout its entire video library.

That leaves us with 1.9985 billion views still unaccounted for.

The answer comes in the second way that YouTube changed its view count. The company recently decided to remove view counts for videos that are no longer live on the channel, or so-called "dead videos." For Universal and Sony, that meant thousands of music videos that over the past three years slowly have migrated to the VEVO channel, which is jointly owned by the two companies. A senior label executive confirmed the migration.

In a strategic move, Universal, Sony and EMI in 2009 jointly put their music videos in the VEVO basket with the belief that by aggregating the videos, they could command better advertising rates as well as grow viewership.

That meant high-profile videos that once lived separately on the Universal and Sony YouTube channels have been relocated to Vevo. As a result, the views that those videos received during their time on the dedicated label channels were taken away in YouTube's latest "clean up" effort.

In other words, those views happened; they weren't "faked" or even double counted when they went on to Vevo. But because the videos are no longer on the channel, YouTube considers them "dead videos." They still live on in YouTube, just under a different channel

I don't think this is a good sign for album sales.

Of course not, we all knew that they would have declined even in 2011, if not for Adele. They're at a low point, but I feel as though they may recover at some point, to some extent - why would labels want the most expensive packaging they offer to dwindle into nothingness? They will try to recharge the albums market again at some point.

This should bode well for streaming:


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...30108streaming

If you are a singles artist you are presumably bringing in multiple hits, not just one; the gap isn't so big. Plus it's a lot easier to get a big hit than a diamond album nowadays. Times are changing!

I thought Streaming doesn't make that much money

So for it to now make up 30 percent of their revenue

streaming should be at around 50% of total digital revenue in the very near future:
Look at the growth rate


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...annibalism2012
Growth of Paid Downloads vs. Streaming, 2012 vs. 2011



A. Paid Downloads: 1.336 billion. Up 5%.
(iTunes, Amazon, etc.)

B. Spotify Subscribers: 5.2 million. Up 86%.
C. Spotify Active Users: 20 million. Up 100%.
D. Deezer Subscribers: 3 million. Up 114%
F. Pandora Listening Hours (per qtr): 3.56 billion. Up 67.9%.

Albums would sell more if the labels didn't crook people with the digital copies. I mean, they charge $16 for some of the albums when all you're doing is downloading it off of Apple's and Amazon's servers. At least you can see where the cost is going if you buy the physical versions.

That's the point though; those who can bring in massive amounts of album sales on a regular basis, like Taylor Swift can in the US, are more valuable to the industry than those who get a few big hits per era. Even most singles artists very rarely reach 30 million singles sold in one album cycle; at $1.29 the gross revenue from that is about $39 million (before retailer fees and other expenses). However, an albums artist who crosses 5 million worldwide would bring in a gross revenue of about $50 million or perhaps more (also before other expenses). All in all, it would probably be better to be an Adele-type seller than a Rihanna or Katy sort of seller, financially speaking. Of course, that also brings into account which is easier on average to sustain for long periods of success- singles sales, or album sales?

Not this shade Rihanna's last album is approaching 4 million and Unapologetic will pass 2 million soon.

It's not shade, it's a pretty well known fact that she sells far more singles. I didn't say she was a bad albums seller either, I simply noted her with another person who sells a very high volume of singles - if you didn't notice, the other girl has an album approaching 6 million.

That's after 3 years though Rihanna does that in a year

With two out of six releases, mind you. (Not counting the unfinished current era)

I don't know why it matters anyway, since both are some of the better album sellers. I was just comparing them to Adele because they're the best singles sellers right now.

That doesn't surprise me. I mean, I don't ever see myself paying for a service like this, but I see the appeal for casual listeners.