Century Media removes all their bands from Spotify
August 11, 2011 | Author Jens F. Ryland
A couple of days ago I received a mail from Century Media stating that they had removed Borknagar and all the other Century Media bands from Spotify. In the two days after this a debate has formed and I’ve seen articles and comments in several zines and newspapers, including The Independent and LA Times. Metalsuck.net is even having an ongoing row with the “Suits” of Century Media on their site. What I haven’t seen yet are any comments from the musicians themselves, so let me tell you what I think of this:
Stepping into this salad I’m still undecided which side I’m actually on. The way I see it, this situation is an ongoing shape-shift of the whole business. And it’s still in it’s early stages, most people and businesses are still confused and have little idea of what is going on and noone can really see the outcome of this. It makes most of the ongoing debate into a blabber of nonsense where nothing constructive comes out. Spotify are hiding the numbers, Century Media is offering critics to come work for them for free and Metalsuck are stating that most bands would be better of with no payment as it would lower the use of drugs! Guys, this isn’t going to renew the music business!
I think I just decided to not side with any of these.
What is this all about then? It strips down to a relation between me as the musician and my audience and listeners. In this equation all the others are mere middlemen. And I want to reach my audience in a way that allows me to keep working as a musician and keeps the audience happy. As simple as that. And it involves some actual income from all the work.
You see, the change has been made already. It came with Napster and the ability to share music and movies around for free. And even though Napster is long gone, this isn’t a problem that has gone away. I would say that my decrease in income has little to do with Spotify, it’s more relying on the Music-industry giants like Century Media and their lacking ability to adjust to the “new” era. I will agree on one thing in this debate; the times where the sales of physical copies as the main income of any artist is long gone.
The lack of interest from the younger generations to pay for the music is in a way annoying, I would have to admit that. The rise of political parties to force this policy is to me a sign of decadence. I would guess there are more important issues to any country then to force music to be a free-ware? But the message is clear.
So we need to talk about business-models. And I’ll agree to one more thing here; both Spotify and Metalsucks have discovered a business-model that not too many are fully aware of yet. Oh wait, did I just “out” Metalsucks? Maybe everyone believes that Vince Neilstein and his team are working for charity? No they are not. Their income is reliant on how many people they get to click on their website and make use of their advertisements. And don’t get me wrong, it’s a business-model I appreciate and make use of myself. The advantages are enormous, the audience gets to use the service for free. Advertisement pays the salary for Neilstein and his people.Isn’t this just the solution to all the problems?
But Spotify are taking advantage of peoples lack of general knowledge about this business-model. You see, the big difference is that a site like Metalsucks are making money of something they themselves created; the articles. Spotify on the other hand are selling something I made and all the other musicians and artists out there. And they’re selling lots of it. And paying back minimal fees. And they are getting away with it because so few people still know what amounts we are talking about here.
Two days ago I saw numbers from Great Britain concerning Lady Gaga. The Independent wrote about one of her hits “Pokerface” being played 1 million times in a given period, giving Lady Gaga the whipping payout of 400£. I think the equation was set up that showed that in order for Lady Gaga to reach the minimum salary in British standard she would have to reach 4,2 Million streams on Spotify. Each month!!
175 000 paying customers in USA alone? Anyone want to do the calculation? And I would also guess that this isn’t even the biggest part of their income, but the adz are. 36 million streams pr month (in USA alone)…
This is where the current problem lies. What seems most strange to me is the utter lack of knowledge about this in the music industry. I do believe that this is now being thoroughly looked into though, by some heavy-weight players like national music organizations, the bigger labels and now also getting attention from investigative journalists.
As you probably understand by now, I’m no big fan of Spotify either. Although I will acknowledge that what they’re doing now have great entrepreneurial value. They are Pioneers into the new era of music industry, but I would guess that their offices suffers from a bit of panic. What is the nature of a process like this? If I were to launch a streaming system that actually paid something to the artists, still without charging the audience. How long would Spotify be able to compete with that? And I hope for their sake that they understand this. They will not have much time to react.
People are making money on web, and I’m amazed that so many find that hard to believe. This is what creates possibilities for companies like Spotify.
My revelation of the future doesn’t exclude the traditional labels like Century Media. But it requires a huge reorganization. And please guys, stop saying that the physical copy will be the main source of income in the future. It will not even be the main source of income next year!
—————Jens
Artisan – Borknagar – ICS Vortex – Sarke
34 Responses to “Century Media removes all their bands from Spotify”
Leave a Reply
Two points that seem to be missed in all this:
1) Society has become full of the belief in their own entitlement.
2) If it’s all so great and you’d “pay more” for the service, then why the hell don’t you just buy the album? Because you’re a lazy git.
First point, it sickens me to read all this BS about how the music has got to be more accessible and cheaper. What’s being ignored is the fact that this is a business, not charity. Jens, you are not simply an artist, you are a business man — this is your work, and you should be getting paid for it regardless of the mode of delivery. Period. End of story.
The reason that services like Spotify even exist is because people have become so caught up in the belief in their own entitlement that they actually believe that they have THE RIGHT to have the music. What they are blind to, is the fact that it’s a privilege, not a right. And with a privilege there is a responsibility. In this case, that responsibility is to pay the people who give it to you (meaning the musicians who create it).
Unfortunately, it’s no longer just music that is getting shafted by this entitlement mentality, now it’s books and movies and loads of other things.
Entitlement issues are at the heart of most problems; someone has an all-consuming belief in their right to something, so they do all in their power to make sure they get it — as cheaply as possible, because (heaven forbid!) they should have to actually shell out money. But there is no such thing as a free lunch; someone, somewhere, at some time, is going to have to pay. Even in a barter society you are trading something for something.
Second point, I keep reading all these people say they have the premium service and they would gladly pay more for it…well, if you’re willing to pay more for it then why are you bitching about the price of a CD or an LP?! Why not do as you say and actually support the bands by buying the CD/LP? The argument then is that “it’s so much more convenient.” Convenience. Yeah, it’s convenient because you’re too damn lazy to get the other formats. They like to say garbage like, “well I can have 5,000 songs at my fingertips!” Sorry, do you actually listen to all 5,000 songs at the same time? No? I thought not. It’s not actually going to kill you to take a CD in the car with you…just thought I’d point that out.
I am so sick of this entitlement attitude. They all claim they are supporting the musicians, but then they turn around and rip you off.
Yeah, thank you.
————Jens
Just found this blog…excellent for a first read. Thanks.
From my point of view there is an underlying issue that has nothing to do with music or the “suits” at Century Media. It has more to do with standard business. That is to say the labels have a right to withhold music from Spotify if a solid and (somewhat) neutral agreement is not found. I think it is the responsibility of both the label. artists, and Spotify to work together to come to this business agreement. I am a businessman. I take part in transactions of this sort every day in my given career. If I’m not happy with the pricing/dividends being presented to me I work to negotiate a better contract/agreement. If one cannot be met then I pass. The point here being that each side should have a say in what is being presented, reviewed and agreed upon. For Century Media in particular, they have the responsibility to counter offer and negotiate with Spotify to find a suitable solution for both Century Media, its artists, and Spotify. If Spotify does not want to “play ball” when it comes to these negotiations then they too will fall eventually. This fall will be caused by labels and music biz execs banding together until a mutual agreement can be found.
Long story short Jens I agree that each of these parties has a responsibility to artists, and fans alike.
It would be nice to be a fly on the wall to see what occurred during this negotiation process between Century Media and Spotify.
Thank you
And I agree with you and your ideas, “fly on the wall”- would be great
———–Jens
[...] about his band’s music. Today it’s Jens Ryland of Borknagar, a band on Century Media, sounding off in his own blog (actually published last [...]
At Radical, we’ve taken a different approach. While other internet radio services make a symbolic nod toward independent artists by including a few tracks, Radical Indie provides a free, worldwide, full-featured, internet radio service dedicated fully to unsigned musicians and bands to showcase their music, without limitations. Radical Indie is now open for musicians to upload their music in advance of a launch later this year.
Radical Indie is a sister service of Radical.FM – check us out.
Read the press release – http://bit.ly/ocVp2N
Usually I don’t allow such self-commercializing, but as you’re very much on topic I think it’s a good comment
—————Jens
To add my 2 cents (after just having discovered this blog, which is excellent btw):
I’ve been enjoying my Spotify Premium subscription very much since I got it. It’s a very good way to discover old joys and new pearls. It’s also very convenient. I wouldn’t mind paying double for this service at the least if I had the guarantees that the artists get payed their dues.
With the rise of digital media, I haven’t been playing my CD’s at all, but have been enjoying my vinyl collection even more because of it. The reason for me to buy an album is for the whole package, which includes all the artwork. So why not enjoy it more in the big vinyl kind of way, instead of the small CD artwork. The whole listening experience is much more a ritual that way, where you take time to listen to an album in front of your stereo.
I try to hunt down the LP releases of my favorites on Spotify, and order them from the artist’s label (or websites) if possible.
A thing that I’ve been seeing (and which I hope will become more widespread) is the inclusion of a high quality digital download code to a vinyl record. Ulver did that with their latest release (At least, if you ordered it through the label). This allows me to put the digital version of the album, guild free, on my iPhone. This encourages me a lot more to buy the album, and saves me the trouble of looking for a digital version (with a bit more guild).
Keep up the good work.
CW (from the NL)
Hei and welcome
Good feedback, there are som many ways to go about with this if only the companies had some imagination.
————Jens
Very nice post! I also agree that if labels are willing to be more creative with their releases then they can prevent pirating and unfair practice. One of the main reasons I bought the ICS Vortex album rather than buying the digital version on iTunes was because it came with a t-shirt. Small but effective incentive while being affordable for the label and the fan!
Something that I’m missing in this whole digital music debate is more discussion about the record labels and the distribution companies, and more specifically, what they bring to the table in the digital era. Thing is, I’m not an artist, so I’m not really qualified to analyze this, and it would be great to have the input of someone with a little more experience. What kind of services do they provide to you as artists, that you value so much as to give them the vast majority of the income your music brings?
Production costs must have gone down very much in the last few decades. I know people who have more advanced studio equipment in their bedrooms than most pros had twenty years ago. Distribution costs are near zero if you opt for digital distribution (which, undisputably, is the future). Creating artwork isn’t all that expensive either. Legal protection, for sure, but how big are the legal risks? I would guess a lot of money goes into advertising and marketing as well, but the power of music sharing can be incredibly good marketing as well. The biggest advantage, it seems to me, is to be able to get an advance so you can survive during the (often long) time it takes to actually make an album, and support for the costs involved in going on tour. These costs are probably prohibitively large for a new band, but already established should be able to carry them. What I’m getting at here is that in essence, with the digital era, the record companies are being reduced to venture capitalists – their only job is to provide financing and take the risk. And which other venture capitalist takes a cut that’s as big as the record label’s? Can you see yourself walking into the Dragon’s Den offering 95% of the proceeds if they finance your next album?
So, please tell me, from an artist’s point of view, what it is that the record labels provide to you that’s worth their big cut. What it is that I have missed. Because this doesn’t make sense to me. If my analysis is anywhere near correct, it would seem that a service similar to Spotify but open for artists to publish their own records, really could be a way forward in eliminating all the middle men and ensuring that what we pay for music actually goes to the musicians themselves!
It’s a very big and important issue you rise here Danni, far to big to answer shortly like this. You are asking about the mechanics and dynamics in a whole industry and I can tell you it’s an answer that involves marketing, distribution, sales, production, logistics, bookholding and more. People spend 3 years in school to learn this, I really don’t want to start explaining it all to you from scratch. Maybe I should try to make a post about this, lets see.
What I can say is that traditionaly you couldn’t get away without a label. And as the business is changing, this is constantly being reviewed, but you also need to remember that most musicians are not entrepreneurs, they are only creative when it comes to music. Business and mareketing isn’t something they know much about. And then the easy solution is to get a contract. What we will see in the future is labels that will have to renew their thinking and approach to the business and offer the artists other solutions and platforms to make money. The 360 deals are just that, but they are more suited for the real big acts. And the labels that can’t renew their business- approach will soon be left behind, I agree with you there.
————–Jens
Metal bands are ok with youtube. They put out cool merch which fans buy. I love cds and cool merch. Figure out decent & consistent working livestream tech; then charge a modest price $5.00 or so. I enjoyed watching a portion of Wacken from STL-MO, for free & I’d have paid 5 bucks. If we want to help our fav bands who are not slaves make an honest living, then lets help create and support other cash streams.
I think that they should ban free services like spotify, they steal income from artist, end of discussion. Saying that its good for business is utter bollocks. SPOTIFY IS THEFT!
You’re probably the same kind of person who thinks sharing music with your friends is theft
You make an interesting point about Spotify making money from other people’s art, and perhaps having to re-think their payment structures, but shouldn’t we put it another way. I have the CDs for the albums “Borknagar”, “The Archaic Course”, “Quintessence” and “Empiricism” that I bought years ago. So hopefully the band would have got a cut out of that. However, nowadays, those CDs are filed and boxed in my attic, as I’ve been using Spotify as a premium subscriber for a couple of years and was simply finding my CD collection to be unmanageable and requiring more space than I had available. I listen to all of my music through Spotify now, whether through the desktop client, the iPhone app, stream using Airtunes (despite having well over 5,000 CDs collected over the years and now in the aforementioned attic). Up until Spotify was around, when I listened to those Borknagar albums on my iPod or computer, they weren’t getting anyhting except that one-off cut from the purchase.
Now, when I listen to those albums on Spotify, I am contented to know that every play is now counting for something, and I am enjoying the music just as much as ever, as well as being able to enjoy new Borknagar releases. This helps to keep the band on my radar and keep an eye on Last.fm for any potential gigs in my area, where I will undoubtedly buy a ticket, buy at least one t shirt at the merch stand, have a few beers and have a great night. I’ll probably bring a friend with me too, after sending him or her a Spotify link to check out the music. At least I could do this, until Century Media decided to go down this route. With this new development and a huge reduction of your presence on Spotify, are you not worried that the band won’t be as easily discoverable to new fans, and your current fans aren’t going to be able to listen to their old favourites since they’re boxing up their CDs?
Of course I am! And so my point in this all is that the music industry will have to adapt to this kind of use of music and all the new technology and platforms, but the model provided by Spotify at this time is insufficient and not to anyones advantage BUT Spotify. My favorite solution would be a platform just like Spotify where the artists would actually get a cut and the audience could keep using the music in this way. My argument in this article is more or less that none of the sides are correct, and we need a solution to this that hasn’t yet been presented to us.
————Jens
The figures for Lady Gaga are not recent. They’re more than a year old, and were widely used to discredit spotify’s model. Since then, revenues for artists have increased quite a bit. Norwegians Kaizers Orchestra reported this summer that they were earning about 15000 NOK a month now. Up from 180 NOK last year. Still not much for a band to live off, but as the number of users increase, so will the revenue.
(the article on Kaizers said they were recieving 5 øre pr song, up from 0,13 øre last year)
I personally think spotify should be charging more from the users. Unlimited access to musik for the price of one cd a month? I’d pay more than that.
Well in some way i think stuff like Spotify and iTunes should be removed. Or atleast remake it, so that you can hear one or two songs of an album, and then you can say “Well is this something for me?” If yes, go to your nearest record store and buy it, and if not then stop caring about it then.
And the thing i don’t like about iTunes, and buying music online in general, is that its not really showing your support. I’d much rather stand with the physical disc, have the booklet in my hand and read the lyrics thats printed in there! People my age, 15, doesnt give a shit about that anymore and it disappoints me.
BUT i do think that it’s fucking stupid that they remove the music? And that THEY, as jens said in the article, can make money of something that artist spend months, sometimes years on creating, and then the artist gets a minimal payoff..
Just my two cents, sorry for ranting like that, but stuff like that really makes me mad.
its funny, i had never heard of borknagar before i checked them out on spotify about a week or two ago and i thought it was really awesome(so did my wife). My thoughts on it were that it seemed like something i would want to support, you know like buy shirts and go to shows when they come around. im disappointed that i cant listen to it on spotify, but i guess there is always youtube…
or Last.fm and so on and so on.
————-Jens
i would also like it to be said that i think borkangar is awesome and the next time your in dallas i will be there!
No one is arguing Spotify should be the ONLY source of income, but why deprive your fans who use the service? It’s one outlet of many to make money. The reality is spotify JUST launched and should grow, so why not have your bands on there?
It was not our decision mate!
———-Jens
What I’d like to see is bands putting a donation button on their page. I’ll be honest in saying 99% of the time it’s far more convenient for me to copyright infringe and download the album from an unofficial source. That doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to pay for it, it just means that this was the most convenient method. But because bands don’t have anyway to give them money without purchasing something, I can’t just give me money because I’m a fan and want them to continue their work.
Other interesting idea might be an all you can eat music website setup by bands. Say every user pays 100 Euro a year (more then most people will pay for music) and can download as music as they like. Something like what.cd but you pay a subscription.
I also completely dislike services like Spotify because it’s riddled with DRM, you can only stream music and can never own it. It also makes money by ripping off artists.
Interesting ideas.
———-Jens
Or say, trying stuff like Kickstarter to fund albums.
I think labels (and other middlemen) have become irrelevant with the internet. Most fans now feel that they’re basically there to steal money from the bands they love, which is probably another reason people feel disillusioned with buying CDs through labels since there’s no data on how much is actually going to bands. The the feeling of distrust is universal in the music industry I think.
Good article Jens. I’m a little old fashioned, so I have not jumped into Spotify or any service like that. Buy the album, support the band. That’s how it should be.
Consumer standpoint alert:
) and only buy what i liked. (wich is how it should be, I don’t buy anything on the guess cd’s should be no exception)
I have no comprehensive knowledge of how the artist benefits from Spotify but i do know apart from the ocasional CD its the only thing i use.
Since internet’s download phenomina i’ve completely stopped buying cd’s on the guess (yes i used to download, deal with it
Recent years i’ve stopped downloading but started using services like Last.fm, Grooveshark and Spotify (for all of wich i have or had payed subscriptions i might add), and most cd’s from new bands i listen to today are bands i found on said services.
So even if direct income from spotify is nothing to write home to mommy about its still exposore for CD’s and Concert sales. At least thats how it works with me because apart from these subscription based services there’s not a force in the universe thats going to make me “buy” music on services like iTunes. I wan’t a cd, preferrably with all sorts of collectors crap and limited things.
I think Century Media is committing an oops in their shorts, but i guess thats just the way it is.
I agree with you. Especially “Spotify on the other hand are selling something I made and all the other musicians and artists out there” is a very good point. I strongly believe that Spotify must have known all along that ads and a few paying customers would never be enough to pay the artists. I may be wrong, but I think that the strategy for Spotify has been to get a massive number of customers and then sell out
OH, exit-strategy theory! Good one, I didn’t think about that. But I do believe that Spotify are earning quite good from this, but refusing to pay the artists. And I think that’s also why Century Media have withdrawn all bands from there, to force them to pay better.
———–Jens
Yes, I don’t doubt that they are earning money, but it can not last unless they can pay the artists.
Compared to music downloads, how much do for example Borknagar earn when I buy a CD?
No easy answer for that I’m afraid, territories, discounts…
———–Jens
Everybody who sells music in whatever form is doing the same thing as Spotify. So i have the odd issue or two with that argument actually.
The only thing Spotify is apparently doing is keeping more money to themselves which is a practice one could disapprove of.