Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
|
I'm sorry but album sales and singles sales pay better. Many people will buy more albums and singles if there isn't a Spotify. Digital downloads had been going up for years and likely would've continued had it not been for Spotify and other services like it disrupting that market for an alternative that is not as good.
Radio station plays is not a good indicator of actual audience because it's curated music that is subject to the whims of MDs, PDs, and corporate owned radios stations. The audience numbers are something like 200 million but much of the objective evidence suggests people listen to the radio less than they had previously and those who do listen don't listen for the music, they listen for a traffic update while on their way to work or some other destination.
Your article discounts the downsides of free downloading from untrusted places like viruses and the like. I think Spotify and Beats should be charging more for its services. They need to be charging enough to pay the artists and the music creators, promoters and everyone down the supply chain. Saying well Taylor Swift made 6million a year. She is not the only one who is supported by the music she creates.
Spotify isn't even turning a profit on the money they bring in let alone the artists and record companies. These would be great points if Spotify could show that it was a profitable business. However, Spotify is not a profitable business therefore his points don't hold as much weight yet.
Sure you may say no one is paying anything but now people who had otherwise moved to iTunes and Amazon from the free services due to the downsides of using free services and the like have now moved to the unprofitable Spotify/Beats model of music as a service. So Spotify took what was a profitable business and turned it into an unprofitable pennies for clicks business.
