The Future of Digitally Streaming Music

In an increasingly digital world it is no surprise that the music industry has changed drastically in terms of the way people are listening. There is no doubt that in order to keep up, the industry was forced to adapt to a society that has become accustomed to instant gratification. As a result, music apps were created and made available to the masses. Among the most popular of these apps are Spotify and Pandora. These allow music fans to listen to countless songs and artists either for free or with a monthly subscription. Although there is no question whether these music apps are able to gain revenue, whether or not they will ever make a real profit is the central issue.

According to a report from The Recording Industry Association of America, digital sales from music services such as Spotify, Pandora, and Rhapsody were up 39 percent from 2012 in 2013, (Friedlander). Meanwhile, “Permanent digital downloads (including albums, single tracks, videos, and kiosk sales) declined 1.0%,” (Friedlander). Physical shipments also declined as well, dropping 12 percent from 2012. Obviously, it is clear that digital music services are rapidly rising in popularity and usage. With more and more subscribers each month, these services are beginning to overshadow permanent downloads from industry giants like iTunes. In fact, these trends are so threatening to iTunes’ services that they have recently released their own version of a digital streaming service in the form of iTunes Radio. However, it has not been able to compete with Spotify or Pandora. They are currently rumors that Apple is formulating another plan in their fight to stay on top of the music industry.

            In a recent article from Digital Music News, writer Paul Resnikoff states, “

If the future of music is streaming, then it’s a disastrously unprofitable one.

Generator projects massive increases in streaming usage and paid subscription, but no recognizable way to profit from it,” (Resnikoff). No matter how popular digital streaming becomes, if the companies involved never make a profit and shareholders are forced to take these financial blows, the future of these seemingly successful companies remains uncertain.

(Photo from Digital Music News)

            The reason for the lack of profit is made clear in an article written by Ben Sisario for The New York Times blog. In this article, Sisario discusses the current financial situation for Pandora and Spotify. He states, “Both are losing money, and for largely the same reason: the cost of music royalties,” (Sisario). What is interesting about this is that Pandora and Spotify go about paying royalties in different ways. Pandora pays their fees through federally regulated channels. On the other hand, Spotify negotiates with record companies directly. However, neither method seems to be better than the other as both companies continuously fail to make a profit.

            Although some of Pandora’s revenue does come from paid subscribers, they rely mostly on advertising. Yet, they cannot successfully make enough from these advertisements to cover the steep cost of royalties. In recent years, Pandora has been fighting to lower the cost of music royalties. Although there was a bill created, they were not able to make it pass and therefore Pandora finds themselves again without a solution. 

            In the case of Spotify, there does seem to be some hope for profits in the future. As Sisario points out in his article, “It’s possible that Spotify’s licensing costs could go down in the future, as record labels monitor its progress; they could decide to make changes to ensure that Spotify thrives and can keep sending over its royalty checks,” (Sisario). It appears that their method of dealing directly with record companies and music distributors could potentially pay out in the long run. Of course, that is not currently the case.

            In the video below, the CEO of Pandora discusses the aspect of profitability for the company. It is evident that the cost of royalties is among major concerns for this digital streaming service.

<object data='http://www.bloomberg.com/video/embed/JQNgp1dLS9yD2fzN3lU3BQ?height=395&width=640' width=640 height=430 style='overflow:hidden;'></object>

            As the majority of people today use digital streaming to access and listen to music, it is easy to see the success of services such as Pandora and Spotify. Of course, it becomes questionable how long a company can stay in business if they continue to fail to make a profit. Do you think that Pandora and Spotify have a sustainable future in the music industry?

Kelsey Scriven

Sources

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02/18/profitless 

http://76.74.24.142/2463566A-FF96-E0CA-2766-72779A364D01.pdf  

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/pandora-prepares-for-q1-earnings-JQNgp1dLS9yD2fzN3lU3BQ.html  

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify-rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/

Works Cited

Friedlander, Joshua P. News and Notes on 2013 RIAA Music Industry Shipment and

            Revenue Statistics. Publication. N.p.: RIAA, 2014. Print.

"Pandora Prepares for Q1 Earnings: Video." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 23 May

            2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Resnikoff, Paul. "Streaming Services Will Never Become Profitable, Study

Finds…."Digital Music News Streaming Services Will Never Become Profitable Study Finds Comments. N.p., 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Sisario, Ben. "Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in

Royalties." Media Decoder Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in Royalties Comments. The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Is Promotion and Marketing Always the Key to a Successful Album?

With the constant change in technology and the rise of new artists, the music industry has been more competitive than ever.  It is no lie that our generation has a tough time staying focused because of all the daily distractions, and record labels and artists are trying to keep our attention.  Traditional campaigns continue to work for certain artists, but some artists are taking a different approach.

An album release date is an extremely important date in an artist’s career.  They work months and even years on an album, so they utilize many strategies to prep their audience and get them excited.  When an artist is making a comeback after years of no new music, like Justin Timberlake, promotion and marketing is vital to get him back in the public eye.  Promotion for Justin Timberlake’s new album, The 20/20 Experience, was everywhere that it was hard to miss.  Kyle Anderson, author of the article “Beyond Beyonce” states, “The 20/20 Experience included a spot on the Grammys, a weeklong residency on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, and cross-promotional ads with Budweiser.”  JT’s campaign was huge, and it was well-received by his audience because he was spread across many different platforms. This traditional approach helped to make his album a success, but Beyonce used a completely different approach to make her album just as successful.

Beyonce released her most recent album without any promotion.  She even surprised her fans with 17 videos that went along with the songs.  This strategy worked in her favor for a reason. Anderson says, “Beyonce has massive leverage. David Bowie has massive leverage. This is not something an emerging or middle-class artist can do.”  Since Beyonce has constantly been in the spotlight and updates her social media to connect with fans, she didn’t need a month-long campaign to get them excited. To sum it up, her presence and fanbase are strong enough to help her records go platinum.

According to “The 'Beyoncé', The 'Drip Feed' & 6 Other New Album-Release Strategies” by Jeremy Allen, Beyonce’s strategy has become known as “the big bang method.”  Allen states, “It certainly didn’t harm sales – ‘Beyonce’ went on to sell 828, 773 copies worldwide in three-days, the fastest selling album in iTunes history.”  This big bang method definitely changes the music game. It’s innovative and fresh and potentially creates more excitement than an album that we know is coming.  As album sales have been declining in the past few years, this might be exactly what certain artists need to get back on top.

Another artist that is following Beyonce’s style is Pharrell.  Forbes recently released an article titled “For Pharrell, Marketing An Album Release Means No Album Marketing At All,” which talks about his plan to have no promotion. With his seven nominations at the Grammys, his performance on the Oscars, and new hit “Happy,” Pharrell hasn’t had to do much to stay in the public eye.  All of his exposure has clearly given him the confidence to release an album without warning.  He pulled a “Beyonce” and announced his album release only a few days before it was available on iTunes Radio.   According to the Forbes article, “Without specifically promoting an album release, over the past few months Williams has positioned himself in the spotlight and primed his audience, allowing him to quickly release an album to fans that are ready and waiting” (Buli).  Fans aren’t overwhelmed by a long campaign, and the switch in promotion (or non-promotion) can be more enticing for them. Pharrell is defying the norm, just like Beyonce, which might be what the industry needs.

Promotional and marketing campaigns have always been essential to an artist and product’s success.  It has become the norm, but only certain artists are brave and fortunate enough to break the pattern.  While JT had success with his campaign, Beyonce had success with her lack of campaign. Without a campaign, an artist takes a big risk, but it could yield outstanding results. Do you think this is a route other artists are going to take in hopes of reaching success with their albums?

Works Cited

Allen, Jeremy. "The 'Beyoncé', The 'Drip Feed' & 6 Other New Album-Release Strategies." NME.COM. 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Anderson, Kyle. "Beyond Beyonce." Entertainment Weekly. 10 Jan. 2014: 15-16.

Buli, Liv. "For Pharrell, Marketing An Album Release Means No Album Marketing At All." Forbes. 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Utilizing Social Media to Build a Brand

Scott Wong

A persons reputation is going to best be defined by their actions and presentation, right? If so, how important is it to maintain a positive reputation? Musicians and celebrities nowadays are learning how to better brand and mold their image to connect with their fans. As social media applications expand into the laptop, tablet, and mobile device markets, they’re bridging the gap between audience and agency; fan and entertainer. More than ever before, it’s becoming the standard for every up-and-coming artists or celebrity to have a social media page for consumers to fans at.

 In a study done by Viacom on millennials, they concluded through a survey of approximately 500 15-29 year olds that artists who were more open about themselves tend to have a stronger connection with their listeners (Hillhouse).There is almost the expectation that in order for an artist to stay relevant, he/she has to be easily reachable. For instance, through platforms such as Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram, the survey concluded that 53% of surveyors felt closer to the artists the more they shared about themselves. Whether it’s an intimate picture on Instagram, or a funny remark on Twitter; the different media channels are helping to humanize the musicians and make them more relatable to the fans.

Is there’s a direct relation between music sales and positive social media clout? If you look at the top 10 album charts of 2013, the year end figures from Nielsen Soundscan has Justin Timberlake’s “The 20/20 Experience” at the top, with 2.43 million copies sold (Lewis). Notable mentions on the list included Eminem’s “The Marshall Mathers LP 2” (1.73 million), Bruno Mars’ “Unorthodox Jukebox” (1.4 million), Drakes “Nothing Was the Same” (1.34 million), Beyonce’s “Beyonce” (1.35 million), all of whom have over 10 million followers on Twitter according to FriendorFollow.com. But when compared to Justin Timberlake’s 31 million followers; the distinction is clear. JT is just on a whole other level. You could argue Justin’s talent and acting has done more to help his sales and image than his tweets, but it definitely can’t hurt when you consider he has just as large of a Twitter following as the President of The United States.  

If you look who else is in the Twitter top 10, Justin clocks in at #10 amongst the likes of Katy Perry (No.1, 51 million), Justin Bieber (No.2, 50 million), The POTUS (No.3, 42 million), Lady Gaga (No. 4, 41 million), Taylor Swift (No. 6, 39 million), Britney Spears (No. 7, 36 million), and Rhianna (No. 8, 34 million). It is worth mentioning that also on the top 10 most followed list are social media platforms Youtube (No. 5, 40 million), and Instagram (No. 9, 31 million). Social media platforms themselves need a channel to interact with their users. The fact that those accounts have the capacity to reach tens of millions of people at the whim of a keystroke is impressive. Not to solely focus on Twitter, but can you name another social media platform that does what it does when it comes to level of engagement?

The level of engagement and intimacy between music producer and consumer matters more today than it has ever. Another artist that’s capitalizing on social media to improve their brand is independant artist Macklemore and his producer Ryan Lewis. The duo made waves this year, opting out of major label deals to pursue stardom on their own. Beating out indie-favorites Mumford and Sons in first week album sales, Macklemore and Lewis has been touted as the latest “indie rags-to-riches” story according to Rolling Stone (Knopper). Their single, “Thrift Shop” sold 6.15 million copies in 2013. The only one of two singles to hit the 6 million sales mark this year; with the later being Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines”.

How is it that a non-major label artist managed to reach No. 2 in top 10 single sales for 2013? We can’t even say his Twitter follow is anything substantial, with only 2.21 million followers. So is it the music? At the time of the album release, Macklemore’s two singles, “Thrift Shop” and “Same Love”, garnered a total of 13 million views (Knopper). Personally, I had “Thrift Shop” playing on repeat for days. I believe it’s catchiness and virality definitely helped propel Macklemore into the mainstream spotlight. From there, his next track to go viral is a bit of a change of tune and touches on a much more intimate issue. The song, “Same Love”, deals with hip-hops homophobic outlook towards samesex marriage. In the song, Macklemore depicts himself as a confused 13 yr-old boy, with difficulty understanding an article his mother sent him about a gay teenager who killed himself. Talk about heavy. From second-hand clothes, to same-sex marriage, is Macklemore’s rise an indication of what the people view as topical issues? And can we expect to see more artists mentioning topical issues in their songs?

Regardless of whether or not social media is for you, the fact of the matter is it’s become a substantial resource for musicians and celebrities. No other platform can give you an audience of millions through a mobile device. It’s been shown that connecting with the fans as a source of content has helped artists maintain relevancy. So for an artist who is looking to break into the spotlight, would branding through social media be the best place to start? Is JT’s top 10 Twitter spot an indication of why the man is still ruling the pop-music industry? And what would you say about an artist such as Kanye West, who doesn’t really utilize social media to connect with his fans, but whose reputation is unmistakable?

Works Cited:

Hillhouse, Allison. "MTV's 'Music to the M Power.'" Blog.Viacom 5 June 2013. Web.

Knopper, Steve. "On the Charts: Mumford & Sons Slip, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis Impress." Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone Music, 17 Oct. 2012. Web.

Lewis, Randy. "Justin Timberlake, Robin Thicke Post 2013's Top-Selling Album, Single." Los Angeles Times 3 Jan. 2014. Web.

"Who Unfollowed Me? | Friend or Follow." Who Unfollowed Me? | Friend or Follow. N.p., n.d. Web.

Miley Cyrus: Transition or Train Wreck?

            Transitioning from a teen artist to an adult performer is not an easy task. We’ve seen artist’s different takes on it in the past.  Female artists often sex themselves up like Britney and her “I’m a Slave 4 U” days and XTina’s “Dirrty” phase. Sexing things up is the rather popular route female performers have chosen to take to prove that they are no longer teenagers.  The transition for male artists has been a lot smoother for artists like Justin Timberlake. Justin Timberlake’s transition has been successful considering he is a well respected artist and had the best selling album of 2013 with The 20/20 Experience(Lewis).Timberlake said good-bye to his boy band days and has earned a loyal fan base all on his own. The most recent pop star trying cross this barrier is the one and only Destiny Hope, better known as   Miley Cyrus, and she has shed her good girl image. We grew up with Miley, considering she’s only a year younger than most of us.  Many viewed her as her character on the Disney channel, which prevented her from showing her true identity. However, now that she’s older, she is trying to break away from that image. Hannah Montana was a likeable show that featured Miley as an innocent country girl.  Now that she’s older, Miley has transformed from girl next door to wild child. By twerking, grinding on Robin Thicke at the Vma’s, posing nude for Rolling Stone, and constantly sticking her tongue out, this girl is trying to tell us she’s grown up. Just recently, she missed a costume change on her tour and performed in her underwear.  Through this evidence, it’s apparent that her attitude, appearance, and her music have all evolved.

            Musical artists can market themselves in many different ways today. As Music Business’ James Donio states, “ Is there a wrong way to market an album? The answer is no”(Anderson). Justin Timberlake promoted his new album with a week long stint at Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, and ads with Budweiser (Lewis). Miley is selling herself as well as her “girl gone wild” image and it seems to be working. The ex Disney star’s controversial “Wrecking Ball” video is the fastest growing video on VEVO(Inocencio). It caught everyone’s eye and had 100 million views in just six days. Apparently straddling a wrecking ball naked, and licking a sledgehammer is the way to gain attention these days.  Her most recent album, Bangerz, received the years largest sales week for a solo woman(Caulfield).Long gone are the days of the bubble gum pop “Party in the U.S.A”. Now there’s highly sexualized songs that are full of profanity, such as the song “FU”. Where oh where has Hannah Montana gone? Miley’s current Bangerz tour is deemed to be too mature for children to go see. The tour is all about embracing her new wild child personality.  The costumes leave little to the imagination, Cyrus constantly simulates sex, and she no longer sings the Hannah Montana songs.  With the shocking set and costumes on her tour, many reviews have stated that it overshadows her vocal performance(Rosen). It seems every Disney starlet wants to get out of the “good girl” image somehow; others do it different ways than others.

            People are constantly hating on her, but she can’t be little old Hannah Montana forever. People grow up, yet she is doing things to the extreme and states that this is just her personality. Has Miley lost her mind, looking for attention, or just trying to tell us she’s grown up? Her actions are more talked about now than her music, it seems that it isn’t even about the music. How can you pay attention to her singing on tour when she’s riding around on a flying hotdog? To my knowledge, no star has gone to these extremes to prove they’ve grown up. Britney Spears and Christina Aquilera had their dirty moments, but nothing comparable to Miley. Miley herself doesn’t view it as a transition as she is quoted, "It's not a transition. People always like to call it a transition, I'm the same human - I have the same heart that I had five years ago. Everything about me is the same. Same skin, same human”(London Newsdesk). As much as she wants to deny it as a transition, there is no old trace of the Miley she used to be. I understand people grow up and develop into the person they truly are meant to be. Miley has gained so much attention during this transition that maybe she doesn’t even know who she is anymore. Or maybe she really is just a wild child that Disney kept under wraps for so many years. Whether Miley wants to call it a transition or not, I think we can all agree on something that we view Miley in very a different way now. What are your thoughts on Miley’s “transition?” Is she headed in a good direction, or is she going to be the next Amanda Bynes?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YR7AEuynqRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR7AEuynqRQ

Works Cited:

Anderson, Kyle. "Beyond Beyonce." Entertainment Weekly 10 Jan. 2014: 15-16.23 Mar.2014

Caulfield, Keith. "Miley Cyrus' 'Bangerz' Nets Year's Biggest Sales Week for a Woman."Billboard. N.p., 17 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2014

Inocencio, Mark. "Ryan Seacrest - Miley Cyrus’ ‘Wrecking Ball’ Sets New VEVO Record -." Ryan Seacrest. N.p., 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Lewis, Randy. "Justin Timberlake, Robin Thicke Post 2013's Top-Selling Album, Single." Los Angeles Times 3 Jan. 2014. Web.23 Mar. 2014

Rosen, Craig. "The Hollywood Reporter." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014

"Latest 10 Miley Cyrus News Stories." Pressparty. The London Newsdesk, 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

3D and Cinema

How many of us enjoy going to the movies? I know I do. To me, going to the movies is akin to going to church. I love the moment the lights go dim for the first previews, and the second dimming for the feature presentation, which is followed by a hush.

Nowadays, there seems to be one trend that movie studios seem to be embracing: going 3D. It seems every big movie that is being released in this era of cinema is Three Dimensional. Features like this include Toy Story 3, Up, and the final Harry Potter films. And classic movies are being re-released in this same style, as well, looking at Titanic, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, or Finding Nemo. Alfred Hitchcock even experimented with 3D while releasing Dial M for Murder, common among 1950s cinema as they experimented with 3D, but the practice eventually disappeared. But I’m sure all of us remember screening the film which is considered to be the Citizen Kane equivalent of three dimensional films: James Cameron’s Avatar.

Now, I’m sure many of us would argue over the critical quality of Avatar’s plot, as it seems similar to a million other movies, such as Pocahontas, or Dances with Wolves, and I can only hope the second one isn’t a copy of Ben-Hur or Gladiator. But the fact remains that this film revolutionized the word of 3D cinema. Cameron had already changed the world of special effects when he released Titanic back in 1997, which won him three Oscars, including Best Director and Best Picture, but it’s hardly compatible with Avatar. This 2009 film separated itself from others that had flirted with 3D by including strong and emotional performances, in contrast to hokey movies such as Spy Kids 3-D or Journey to the Center of the Earth, both of which received negative reviews.

Cameron had also waited for an extensive period of time to begin production on Avatar, having originally written the script in the 1990s, but he refrained from filming, due to his awareness that the technology needed for this film was not available, and if he wanted to release it within a few years after completing the script, he would have to film with regular actors in blue makeup. But just like George Lucas and his revolutionary film Star Wars, Cameron decided to end the waiting process and create the technology, himself, by building new cameras that would finally bring the feature into production. Despite all the hype that surrounded the film before, during, and after its theatrical run, Cameron stressed that the attention should not be paid to the effects, but the story, saying: “The irony with Avatar is that people think of it as a 3D film and that's what the discussion is. But I think that, when they see it, the whole 3D discussion is going to go… technology is advanced enough to make itself go away. That's how it should work. All of the technology should wave its own wand and make itself disappear.”

            After the initial success of 3D in primary release and re-release, many others began to copy the methods of Cameron and company, including legend Martin Scorsese for his family film, Hugo, and Steven Spielberg for The Adventures of Tintin. Cameron also criticized the practice of re-releasing classic films in 3D, saying in an interview with Mike Fleming of Deadline.com: “After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming… Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did.”

            There are many other filmmakers out there who have been resisting the movement towards 3D. Most notably is Christopher Nolan, behind his Batman trilogy and Inception, which he filmed in IMAX, rather than 3D. When presenting his justification for such a practice, he said: “I think it's a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it's three dimensional... You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a '2D movie' is a little misleading.”

            Today, it seems that every major blockbuster film is being released in 3D, as one could imagine the producers are seeking to bring more people to the theaters to see their film, therefore bringing in a few extra bucks. I don’t condemn the practice of making a few extra bucks, sometimes you need to do that in order to pay for everything that you are doing. My personal belief is that this is a pointless practice, as I have not been impressed by 3D films as an adult, in contrast to when I saw 3D films at museums and aquariums as a child. I even remember seeing first two installments of The Hobbit and taking my glasses off for a few scenes because I felt like I was getting the better end of the deal by doing such a practice. What is to become of the future of cinema, in the light of this 3D revolution? It looks like the movie industry will continue with this practice, as it definitely brings more people to the theaters, but I just hope that this doesn’t mean that we are going to see the end of storytelling and the beginning of “effects only” cinema.

Wrenn, Eddie. "Avatar: How James Cameron's 3D Film Could Change the Face of Cinema Forever." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 26 Aug. 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

"Jim Cameron: "Avatar" A Dream Come True." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

"Christopher Nolan’s Dim View of a Hollywood Craze: ‘I’m Not a Huge Fan Of 3-D’." Hero Complex Movies Comics Pop Culture Los Angeles Times. N.p., 13 June 2010. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.