Selena Gomez’s ‘Lose You To Love Me’ generated 600k views on Genius’ website on release day alone, generating a 75% click-through rate. Then Google added a OneBox for the track, which Genius says dropped its click-through rate from 75% to 5%.
PledgeMusic founder Benji Rogers has responded to criticism of the crowdfunding company’s liquidation this week in London. That criticism was based on the fact that Pledge had filed papers for its wind-up hearing in June, at a point when artists were being led to believe a sale might still be possible for the company….
Meanwhile, people are digging back into PledgeMusic’s past financial results – this blog post on music blog My Emu is Emo for example – to explore how and when it all started to go wrong.
Stuart Dredge over at Music Ally is reporting Spotify’s losses widened to $600 million last year. Read his article here. I just wanted to point out that some significant portion of these widening losses are due to currency swings. March 29th 2016 Spotify announced a $1 billion US denominated convertible debt deal with […]
Spotify’s average per-stream payout has fallen by 16% since 2014, according to a new dataset published by artist-rights blog The Trichordist.
The figures are based on 2016 streaming data for an independent label with around 150 albums available digitally, which is compared to a similar study in 2014.
According to the analysis, Spotify generated $0.00437 per stream for the label in 2016, down from $0.00521 in 2014. Yet Spotify accounted for 69.6% of the label’s overall streaming revenues: its per-stream rate may have fallen, but its scale still makes it the major earner for this particular catalogue.
(Additional context: if Spotify users have become more engaged in its service over time, listening to more music by more artists, that would be a factor in the falling average per-stream payout. When Spotify relaunched its artists portal in November 2016, it stopped publishing its own figure for average per-stream payout to all rightsholders.)
The DoJ isn’t the only target for criticism: Google is also under attack, at a time of already-inflamed tension between the company and music rightsholders.
NMPA boss David Israelite recently made explicit reference to the DoJ’s “career lawyers who were never elected nor confirmed to their positions, led by a lawyer who previously represented Google”, while lawyer Chris Castle returned to a regular theme for his Music Technology Policy blog: the links between Google and the US administration and Barack Obama’s “miserable record on protecting the property rights of creators to Google’s benefit”.
Fascinating story by the erudite Stuart Dredge on YouTube’s Motown-style training camps for YouTube “stars” with this eyepopping quote:
A session on music soundtracks generates a heartfelt group grumble about YouTube’s Content ID system, which music rights holders can use to “claim” videos using their songs, then either get them taken down or collect their advertising revenues.
“Nine times out of 10, content creators haven’t done anything wrong … There’s no penalty for abusing it … Some people claim just to nick your monetisation,” are among the comments from the group. A fortnight later, YouTube announced plans to change the way Content ID works to ensure creators don’t miss out on revenues if they’re hit with a wrongful claim.