Vinyl Sales Outstrip Digital Downloads

Read this earlier.. Awesome!
 
One thing to note; this is based on revenue and I would suspect the average price paid for an album on vinyl is around £20 vs average price paid for an album downloaded would be <£10.
 
Although vinyl is making a comeback. I would also argue that fewer people are "buying" digital media and are instead using streaming services like Spotify and Deezer for their music.
 
Vinyl has gone from " death spasm" sales figures to now being the " cool" format to have.
My young teenage nephews "audition" titles on spotify then hunt down a Vinyl copy.
There are requests in for good turntables for christmas and they seem to have done their research as they are specifying weight of decks, ortofon cartridge numbers and phono stage types.

I never thought I would see this, but there you go.
Its a total flipover...my whole house, " flac" streaming " bitperfect" music system has been called the " old guys" system....they want Vinyl.
 
Although vinyl is making a comeback. I would also argue that fewer people are "buying" digital media and are instead using streaming services like Spotify and Deezer for their music.
Exactly but there is no story in that.
 
All this thirst for vinyl means that second hand cds are the biggest bargains out there right now!
 
The trend used to be that Digital Downloads out sold CD and CD out sold Vinyl. But that has all been flipped on its head. And I think the reason is Network Streaming.

But I also feel in the near future there will be a day of reckoning for Network Streaming. That is too much like owning a copy without having to pay for it. In fact, it is better than owning a copy because you have world wide access to the music you have selected.

So, I suspect there will come a day when, in one model, you will have to pay additional for Play Lists, because that really is like owning a copy of the music. Will I know what it is to be a kid on a limited budget, I can also understand that Artist are not happy making pennies on Streaming while CD and Digital Downloads slump. Artist have to pay the rent just like everyone else, and the deserve fair compensation for their work.

So, either the overall price of Streaming will go up, or they will come up with a model that is more like radio, and if you want more personal selections like Play Lists, you are going to have to pay for them.

But yes, I think it is Network Streaming that is killing sale of all media.

Steve/bluewizard
 
@BlueWizard / Steve

I generally agree with you... but the problem is if prices rise, then many people will just go back to pirating everything. At least £10 a month gives something back to the artist ... the reckoning that's needed is more between the artists and the rights holders.
 
Streaming on its own is unsustainable when you think about it.
It cannot sustain either the music or video content creation industries with everyone taking a slice of a 10 pound monthly fee.
It can only exist as an optional alternative revenue stream or it prices itself out of existence.
 
Agree with Sounddog, we are moving to a culture of micro billing for each use and that relies on the cost being small enough that consumers are not overly concerned about using the service. As soon as an item becomes too expensive then it will be pirated so the only solution is to make it cheap enough for the majority of consumers. CDs, downloads and vinyl sales will not sustain the music industry going forward.
 
This is great news for vinyl enthusiasts like me.

As for Streaming I don't think they have there model right just yet. £10 a month isn't a lot but I think there is room for more pricing options for different size packages. I don't think they are catching people who don't want everything. Don't over complicate it as a start maybe 2 or 3 different prices maybe as follows:

£4.99 to add 5 new albums a month to their collection, only download 10,000 tracks total.

£9.99 to add 10 new albums a month to their collection, only download 50,000 tracks total.

£14.99 for unlimited albums a month, unlimited track downloads and highest quality streams.

For me I have Spotify Premium and love to listen to new/older albums first on there, then go and buy the vinyl. Streaming has given me a way to listen to more music, it has replaced radio as my means to hear new and old music as a sort of recommendation service, which I can then go and buy the vinyl if I like it. Some artist need to get over them self's about Streaming services and embrace how it is helping the music industry in a lot of ways. Yes it isn't perfect but listeners will get there music how they like on the media they want (look at vinyls recovery and napster in the early 2000s). The industry should work with Streaming services to give a better service for the consumer and as they say a fair way for the artist to get paid.
 
As I said, I believe there is a day of reckoning coming for Streaming Services. I just don't see it as a sustainable model, not if artist are going to be remotely compensated fairly.

One of the tests for Fair Use, though that is a different issue but it serves as an illustration, is whether the use serves as a substitute for the original. I believe Streaming is a substitute for the original. Why buy the Cow when you can get the Milk for free?

Streaming would like to place itself in the role of Radio in the age of the Internet. The problems is, with radio you are at the mercy of what the station programs. You don't get a choice in the matter. A Top 40 Station rolls through the Top 40 hits all day long. If you want to hear one specific song, you have to wait for it to come up in the list, and if you want to hear it again, you have to wait until it comes up again.

But Streaming allows instant access to any song, any time, and from anywhere in the world. That sounds to me like you have bought the song without paying for it. If you put it into a play list, then you don't even have to specifically request an album or a song, just start the Playlist rolling, and you have instant access to the songs you have collected in the Playlist. Again, that sounds to me like you have bought the song without paying for it.

I don't know what the new model is, but I do believe at some point it has to come. Especially with general sales of music falling.

So, at this point, let's add perspective. If you are paying £10/month of Spotify (or whatever it is) that is roughly the equivalent of buying ONE album per month. But if that is your only source, or primary source, of music listening, then you certainly consume more than ONE album per month. I fact, you usually listen to that much is a single sitting.

But it is not the listen that matters, it is the control. Radio was, within context, random; Streaming on the other hand is specific. You choose specifically what you want to listen to and when, and to me, again, that sounds like you bought the music without paying for it.

Just rambling.

Steve/bluewizard
 
I agree Steve.

Streaming is here to stay for the current time, that may change as technology inevitably changes over time. And as you say a day of reckoning will come, it will take one supplier to change the game and they will all follow. I see it going in much the same way as Mobile Phone contracts and tariffs. When one company changes they all follow. At the minute I think they are all trying to get as many people on board with one fee to make it as simple as possible, then I would assume in a few years time when they have a large customer base they will split out the features to different price brackets.
 
Here is the model I would suggest. This is somewhat modeled of the original SLACKER streaming service. Though it has changed now, they used to have a long list of Genres and Sub-Genres. For example, I could choose Blues, then within Blues I could choose Delta Blues, Electric Blues, Chicago Blues and so on. Once I made the final genre selection, music in that genre would play endlessly. That is like Radio in the Internet Age, also a good way to encounter new music with a genre.

The extension of that is I could pick one album, say - BB King - and it would play that album and after that album played, it would continue to play music modeled on the style of BB King. Again, like Radio in the age of the Internet.

I never had a paid subscription, but that model served me well, and I'm not sure if you got Play List with a paid subscription.

So, as long as you use that Slacker model, it does resemble radio. You don't have complete control.

But once you add a playlist, it becomes too much like buying the music without paying for it. So, I propose you get one basic 25 song (or whatever) Playlist with a paid subscription, and to create more play lists, you pay for it per block. For example, you could by in blocks of 25, 50, or 100. Though 100 could be one list of 100 or 10 lists of 10 each. It is a license to playlist 100 songs. The money from those listed songs would go directly to the Artist. Though perhaps a small commission to the Service for managing the lists.

Artist would be compensated extra money for how long they remained in a play list and how many times they were played from a play list. Though you could rotate music into and out of the play list. If Justin Bieber was in your play list for a day, then he would get the extra compensation for one day of playlist play.

Outside of Playlists, it would be similar to the Slacker model. You could start stream within a genre, after which random music in the genre would play. Or you could hand type in the name of one artist or album, and that one album would play followed by similar music. If you wanted a list of specific artist outside a playlist, you would have to type them in one at a time after each play.

There could be tiered services too. Get a paid subscription with 250 playlist items for a discount. If you buy them up front rather than accumulate them over time. Add another tier if you want better than free sound quality. Another tier of service if you want near CD quality Stream. Another level of service if you want better than CD quality Streams.

Now the only question is, how much does each of those levels of service and playlists cost, and is that a reasonable mount? Keeping in mind, at the current rate on Spotify, you are in essence buying the equivalent of 1 album per month. Which is amazingly cheap for access to virtually every song ever made. When I was buying vinyl, I typically bought easily one album per month, probably more like one every two weeks on average. So, £250 to £500 per year on music. I suspect it was very much the same when people were buying CDs.

Again, that's just a thought. I'm sure smarter minds than me are working on this.

Steve/bluewizard
 
Last edited:
@BlueWizard and @Goldleader80 ... the problem with your suggestions is that you are suggesting people pay the same or more to get less ... these days people won't do that.

Just look at the noise made when companies try to (for example) limits a broadband connection to reduce costs. Even if people would never be affected, once you go from limitless to limited then people will raise an issue.
 
Yeah sounddog I get what you are saying but the Mobile Phone companies have done it. Data started out with no caps. Then once they had a large customer base they gave some rubbish excuse about bandwidth and too much load on the network so capped the data and you could only buy a certain amount each month.

If you look at the options i was saying, £10.99 a month is about what I'm getting with Spotify at the moment. I was highlighting a cheaper option for people who don't need as much, which would increase their customer base.
 
It is about fair compensation to artist, especially if Streaming becomes a real substitute for buying music. And given the tiny compensation that artist get now, it would not hurt them in the least to simply withhold their music from streaming services and force their hand.

I don't remember the details by some black rap artist got millions of plays on Spotify and walk away with the princely sum of about $4000. That's pocket change. It would not hurt them in the least to withhold their music from Steaming. They can force the hand of the industry.

If Streaming really is going to become a replacement for purchasing music, then the price structure IS going to have to change.

As far as I'm concerned, if you Playlist music, you have bought it, you just haven't paid for it.

However, there is one other aspect that is not being considered. Every year the publish a Digital Music Report (can't remember the actual title). From the 2012 report we see an inconsistency.

Digital Music Report 2012 - who gets what?

Summarized and Generalized -

Using a $10 album as the base, with vinyl, the Record Label got $1 and the Artist got $1. With CDs, the Label got about $1.25 and the Artist got about $0.75. With digital downloads of the same $10 album, the Record Label got $5, and the Artist got $0.75. And Record Labels claim they can't make money.

The cost of non-tangible digital music is extremely low. Vinyl had a considerable preparation process in cutting the Master and making Stampers. Then the vinyl had to be stamped, and ship all over the country, and sold in stores. That is tremendous overhead cost. But with digital you simply make essentially free copies with virtually zero distribution costs. True you have to maintain servers at iTune, but compared to literally shipping vinyl albums or CD around the world. A few serves and the people to run them is not that much.

So, non-tangible digital music should be considerably cheaper. A typical $10 album should sell for about $3 or $4, and in doing so, everyone should still make the same amount of money.

Transferring that to Streaming services, they should be equally cheap, and in being cheap, artist and label and publishers should still make fair compensation.

If they did this, if non-tangible digital media was sold at a price that reflected its true cost and a fair profit, it would be so cheap as to essentially eliminate physical media. If you can buy vinly for $30 for a given album or alternatively buy the download of the same album for $3 which do you think most people would pick?

Or if you can buy access to a quality Streaming service for what amount to pennies per album, which do you choose. But note those 'pennies per album' are still more than Streaming costs now.

The new prices have to reflect the very very considerably less overhead and distribution costs of modern non-tangible digital music. I think when that is done, the price, while likely more, can be very reasonable.

As to Pirating of music, that is something of a myth. It has been proven that those who download the most free music, are the very people who purchase the most paid-for music.

If Streaming cost twice as much as it does, it still represent an extreme bargain when you consider I used to spend $300 to $500 per year ($25 to $42/month), and that bought me roughly 20 to 30 albums per year. Yet, Streaming Services, for all intend and purpose, give me unlimited access to just about every song or album ever made, and it is universally available anywhere in the world that has a Internet access.

No, no one wants to pay more. But, if the current Streaming model is going to replace the purchasing of music, then its price structure and operating model will have to change. Like it or not, it is going to have to change.

The more you pay, the more quality, convenience, and features you get.

Steve/bluewizard

PS. All prices in Dollar because the original Digital Music Report was in Dollars.
 
It is about fair compensation to artist, especially if Streaming becomes a real substitute for buying music. And given the tiny compensation that artist get now, it would not hurt them in the least to simply withhold their music from streaming services and force their hand.
There is an argument (not saying I agree with it) asking why its fair that (for example) the Beatles (and even more so their decedents) are getting paid again and again for a few days work in 1969...

Using a $10 album as the base, with vinyl, the Record Label got $1 and the Artist got $1. With CDs, the Label got about $1.25 and the Artist got about $0.75. With digital downloads of the same $10 album, the Record Label got $5, and the Artist got $0.75.
Thats one of the biggest issues in streaming music right there... but thats nothing to do with Spotify, Apple, Tidal, etc. ... thats the record labels.

PS. Steve ... I'm not sure if / how much of your post was quoted from the report you linked to?
 
There is an argument (not saying I agree with it) asking why its fair that (for example) the Beatles (and even more so their decedents) are getting paid again and again for a few days work in 1969...


Thats one of the biggest issues in streaming music right there... but thats nothing to do with Spotify, Apple, Tidal, etc. ... thats the record labels.

PS. Steve ... I'm not sure if / how much of your post was quoted from the report you linked to?

Obviously it was not quoted at all, at best it was paraphrased. And by the way, the 2012 Digital Music Report was my post, so if I quoted, I quoted myself.

As to the Beatles, would you apply that standard to anything else? Why should people make money selling the Bible or the works of Shakespeare, those are both ancient. At some point, copyrighted material does fall into Public Domain. But until that happens, the artist is entitled to compensation for his work.

Also keep in mind that there are a lot of people holding out their hand when music is purchased - Artist, Record Labels, Music Publishers, Sellers, and so on. They each deserve a fair share, but notice I said a FAIR Share. Fair to the Artists, and fair to the consumers.

Steve/bluewizard
 
As to the Beatles, would you apply that standard to anything else? Why should people make money selling the Bible or the works of Shakespeare, those are both ancient. At some point, copyrighted material does fall into Public Domain. But until that happens, the artist is entitled to compensation for his work.
I did say that it wasn't my point of view ... but one I have heard stated.

But life plus 70 years is getting a bit out of control (IMO). Of course if material entered public domain (say) 20 years after first release / publication, then that wouldn't stop the record labels charging consumers for multiple copies on different medium, and perhaps the artists would loose out more.

Selling the Bible is (as you commented before) about something tangible. If you don't want to pay there are dozens of translations available online for free. The same for Shakespeare ... you can choose who's version you buy in book form - a cheap printed Wordsworth edition, a slightly posher hardback copy from Harper Collins or if you feeling fancy then you can get a copy from Folio society. Or you can just download without charge from the Gutenberg Project.

At the end of the day I don't disagree with you in terms of what might be best in theory ... I'm just wondering if your suggestions would work in practice. As they say, the cat is out of the bag and its very hard to put it back in.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom