The Music Industry Says Farewell to Freemium
It is clear that the way we consume media is very different from 10 years ago. In the age of "freemium" music services like Spotify, who actually wins?
We live in a world where any and everything is easily accessible. This is especially true for the music industry. When we don't pirate music, we rely on services like Spotify to make us feel like we are supporting artists. But who is this benefiting besides consumers? Are artists getting their fair share of profits for the work they put into their album making? Are labels gaining anything from the music they put out on streaming services. In this article, Jason Ventura gives his take on the problems that services like this provide.
In this article, Ventura argues that it is not the idea of streaming itself that needs to be eliminated. Rather, the elements of streaming need to be changed in order for it to be sustainable. Higher artist payouts and content limitations are just the beginning of things that can change. What do you think? In the comment section below, share your thought on "freemium" services and how they can be better for all players involved. And do not forget to check out Jason Ventura's article on MusicThinkTank.com.
"At the present state, streaming isn’t sustainable and has not been profitable. The major labels that exist have deals that have been lopsided and are in favor of the larger artists and not the independent. The Black Keys were the latest to leave Spotify, because of the so-called “cannibalism.” The labels have more to gain from Spotify than the artists. UMG has a stake in Spotify and receive upfront licensing fees. Patrick Carney of the Black Keys stated, “There’s a lot of stuff about some of these services that people don’t really know, it’s set up to be little more fair for the labels than it is for the artists, and that’s why we made that decision.”
