I realize that it's expensive for the streaming platforms but am surprised that it would be enough to make up for lost sales.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
It’s official: Hip-hop has more hits, as chr tightens
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
I realize that it's expensive for the streaming platforms but am surprised that it would be enough to make up for lost sales.
And, while YouTube and the others insert ads, the revenue does not cover the licensing costs.
Lost sales? You mean for on demand or for the streams of OTA radio stations?
Except for paid subscriptions, there is no working business model for streaming that overcomes the licensing costs.
Here's an article from last year on the subject. Part of it has to do with how far down sales had fallen.
https://nypost.com/2018/04/24/music-streaming-is-now-the-industrys-biggest-revenue-source/
As the article states, music revenues today are still lower than they were at their peak in 1999.
Revenues are down 31.6% from 1999, and then there's that phrase "there's a structural fault in the system"... Yikes.
What has changed is that record labels now do 360 deals with their artists, so they now share in touring or songwriting revenues.
They didn't have access to that in 1999.
This wasn't the case with iHeart Christmas Classics, but I hear commercials most of the time. Or can.
I was referring to lost sales for the record companies. It must be pretty hard to have a gold or platinum record if no one is buying!
Funny you should mention that. The RIAA, who give out those plaques, has come up with a formula where so many streams equal a sale. Don't ask me how they came up with this, but as a result, they still do the Gold & Platinum thing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/02/music-sales-are-music-pr/459378/
So do the artists still make the same money for a platinum record?
I don't know about that. That depends on their royalty percentage. I would guess the answer is no.
https://news.iheart.com/featured/ih...et-boys-dna-album-release-party-how-to-watch/
https://www.iheart.com/music-awards/
https://www.iheart.com/alter-ego/
How about concerts how much does a music festival/concert covers the licensing costs. I know Iheart has been doing concert promotions ads for the top pop stars in recent years on their Owned stations and Iheart app to get fans to the stadiums though. Not sure on how they cover royalties and licensing though.
It's all synergy. They have built a very unique model. It's good for artists, labels, and radio.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-revolutionizing-pop-radio-803279/
Now Rolling Stone does a similar editorial on the state of CHR Pop radio and how its stars are releasing singles.
Now Rolling Stone does a similar editorial on the state of CHR Pop radio and how its stars are releasing singles.
It's more of a decision for labels than anything, because they're the ones who decide what songs are sent to radio. The radio stations will play whatever tests well, and if four Ariana Grande songs are getting good research, they'll play them in some rotation. If a label puts out a weak single, and radio finds there are better songs, they may pass on the label single, and cost that artist a hit. While the fans of an artist will fill their personal playlist with as many singles as they can get, radio stations have to balance the needs of that artist's fans with the fans of other artists.
It's not strictly a CHR thing either. Artists are releasing multiple singles in country as well. They'll sometimes put out corresponding videos at the same time for YouTube and other visual platforms. At one time last year, Florida Georgia Line had multiple singles charting at radio, including their duets with BeBe Rexha and Morgan Wallen. The only problem is it crowds out other artists from the Top 30. So if you're not one of the mega stars, you may not get as much airplay.
It's not strictly a CHR thing either. Artists are releasing multiple singles in country as well. They'll sometimes put out corresponding videos at the same time for YouTube and other visual platforms. At one time last year, Florida Georgia Line had multiple singles charting at radio, including their duets with BeBe Rexha and Morgan Wallen. The only problem is it crowds out other artists from the Top 30. So if you're not one of the mega stars, you may not get as much airplay.
I know my fellow baby boomers will disown me for linking any current pop star with the iconic band of the '60s, but haven't we seen this on radio before in the Beatlemania days of 1964?
Yeah, but with one or maybe two artists. Today, in many current based formats where artists can "drop" a new song at will, we have many artists and their labels doing this.
From the POV of the artists and labels, this is now their new retail. In the past, they might rush release an album. Now fewer people buy albums, so multiple singles mean more music for their fans. Also, since artists and labels get a royalty from the streaming of their songs, the more music available, the more money coming in the door.
The problem is that there are two distinct on-demand classes. One is the hard-core artist fan, who will eagerly follow every song being released, and create an initial pop in listening streams.
The other is the larger group that likes a genre and the artist, but does not hang on every tweet, post and tune that drops. They'll be hard pressed to assimilate too many new songs in a short period without getting tired of the artist.
Artists can now produce major hits without going to a multi-million dollar studio. There are cases of songs being put together while the artist was touring, and after some final remixing and sweetening, it is ready to release. No wait for 10 to 12 songs for an album. No wait for album art. Videos can be made with already stock footage and a couple of lip sync scenes and ready to go by yesterday.
The issue for radio is that playing too many new and unfamiliar songs, even if by big artists, reduces the appeal of a station. And if you play too many currents by an artist, the recurrents that are still loved and the gold that gives variety just won't ever be played.
I do what may be one of the only couple of equivalents of the old TM "HitDisk" services that remain today. There are some core... deep core... artists that have new releases or a collaborations with other big artists as often as twice a month. But, as I track the songs, only 4 or 5 a year are what you would call "big hits". This is the approach of throwing stuff against the wall to see if any of it sticks. In other words, there is no better way to understand if a song will be a hit than to simply release it.
The way we deal with those two things is a short term add. An official add of a new song to the playlist is a commitment to stick with a song for a period of time.
But if a big name releases a hot song, a station might play it and even promote it heavily for a day or a few days, and then stop, without officially adding it to the playlist. That basically kills it as a charted song, but serves the purpose for the artist and the station, and it's usually done with the co-operation of the label. The station gets something promotable, and the artist gets the attention.
- Status