Re: Ricks Spotify link

[Daryl Shawn <darylshawn@gmail.com>]

Good point here, Andy.

Assuming that people are streaming complete albums (and perhaps that's a 
whole other discussion - but me, I stream albums), then one should 
divide the streaming figures by 10, the average track count per album.

Furthermore, if a person likes an album, they'll stream to it multiple 
times. With a track download, or a cd sale, there is that one single 
purchase. With streaming, you'll see revenue each time it's played, in 
perpetuity (if that even exists with anything related to recorded music 
or the 'Net). I use streaming services almost exclusively to listen to 
music, and there are some albums I've listened to dozens of times, and 
will keep doing so. I may not have approached 100 times very often - 
with Rhapsody's one-US-cent-per-play model, assuming ten tracks per 
album, it will take 100 album listens to reach the price of an album 
download on iTunes - but over years, I may.

And of course, as with all virtual media, there is no cost associated 
per unit, as with a physical CD.

Finally, I believe that as streams replace tracks, people will feel less 
inclined to "steal" (I use that loosely) tracks through P2P or whatever, 
and more inclined simply to listen on their choice of streaming service. 
It's simply easier to search a catalog and play instantly than trolling 
through the web, downloading, then playing. I remember seeing discussion 
on Twitter from Zoe Keating and Matt Stevens (right, Matt?) about the 
number of times their tracks had been downloaded through torrent sites, 
it was quite stunning.

I do hope that Rhapsody's payout model, the highest of the streaming 
services, wins out over Spotify. But that chance may be slim.

Daryl Shawn
www.swanwelder.com



> hi Matt,
>
> Well, maybe it's better to compare Spotify to radio
> rather than purchasable media.
>
> How much do you get paid "per listener" from a radio show?
>
> Or compare it to having a vid on YouTube.