|
digital audio insider |
home about Digital Audio Insider is David Harrell's blog about the economics of digital music. contact Follow the advice of a certain Scottish band to send an e-mail. links music business/tech: Ad-Supported Music Central Analog Industries Ars Technica Apple 2.0 AppleInsider Brad Sucks Blog Broken Record Byte of the Apple CNET Music News Coolfer Digital Music News Digital Noise Duke Listens Epicenter Future of Music Coalition Blog Hypebot Know the Music Biz LA Times Technology Blog The ListeNerd Medialoper MP3 Insider Music Ally Music Machinery Music Think Tank MusicTank New Music Strategies Online Fandom Pampelmoose Penny Distribution Blog RAIN Rough Type Swindleeeee TuneTuzer economics/markets: The Big Picture Core Economics Freakonomics The Long Tail Marginal Revolution Odd Numbers Partially Unexpected The Undercover Economist mp3/music: 17 Dots 3hive Fingertips Shake Your Fist archives January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 |
June 03, 2009 Sony and eMusic: Why the Per-Track Label Payout Might Not Changeby David Harrell
I'll start with some links to other coverage of the recent eMusic news: Swindleeeee has an overview of the new prices for U.S. subscribers, as well as a proposal for the letter that eMusic CEO Danny Stein should have sent to subscribers. Jon Healey at the L.A. Times has a nice post of the evolving eMusic business model. Dave Allen at Pampelmoose calls the handling of the Sony addition to the catalog a fiasco. And the comments to the 17 dots posts about the subscription changes and an eMusic message board post make it clear that many current subscribers are livid. As one of the "grandfathered" long-time subscribers, I'm certainly not thrilled to see my current allotment of 50 downloads for $11.99 a month reduced to 30 downloads, which works out to a 66.67% price increase. But as a self-released musician with several albums in the eMusic catalog, I'm also concerned that the price changes will result in a shift in subscribers' attitudes about how they use their monthly or quarterly download allotments. My contention has always been that the "use it or lose it" aspect of the subscription, coupled with extremely low prices, make it far more likely for subscribers to take a chance on newer or unfamiliar artists. While these price changes will -- in theory -- result in a larger per-track payout to labels (though I'm not convinced it will -- see below), I worry that "Long Tail" artists will see fewer downloads of their material, now that each download is more precious to subscribers. Indeed, here's one subscriber's take: My favorite thing about eMusic was that I would test out albums I never heard before. I've learned about so much great music by taking a gamble and downloading albums based on short previews. With this new pricing I definitely won't be taking that gamble anymore.There's also the "number of tracks per album" issue, which becomes more pronounced with the new prices. Because of eMusic's track-based subscription model, there's always been a wide variation in the "prices" of albums in the eMusic catalog. Classic jazz albums, for example, which have just a handful of lengthy tracks are relative bargains for subscribers, while an indie-rock album with 20+ shorter tracks is relatively expensive. The price increases won't change the percentage price difference between these albums. However, at 50 cents a track (which will be the standard price for new subscribers), the price for a 20-track album equals the default iTunes album price of $9.99, and it exceeds the $5 monthly specials that Amazon MP3 has been running as of late. The Swindleeeee letter suggests "capping" the price of albums at 12 downloads, even if they contain more tracks. Such a cap for selected albums is mentioned as part of the new pricing plan in some of the eMusic message board posts, but I can't find any official details. The price increase was obviously a concession to Sony, though eMusic editor Yancey Strickler also noted in one message board post that the prices extended to many of the grandfathered subscribers simply weren't sustainable, with or without the addition of the Sony back catalog. Yet I'm not convinced that the per-track payout will increase by much, if at all, because of the changes in the subscription plans. As I wrote last week, the eMusic business model is more complex than those of download stores like iTunes and Amazon MP3. Instead of a set wholesale price for each download, eMusic shares 60% of its post-expense revenue with the labels in its catalog, proportional to each label's "paid download share." For the most part, eMusic always refers to the revenue share as opposed to a per-download payment, but dividing the 60% share amount by the total number of subscriber downloads yields the per-download amount. And this is the amount that shows up my CD Baby account, minus CD Baby's 9% commission. (It's not quite that simple, as allowances are made for extra-long tracks and free downloads don't count, but that's the basic formula.) When subscribers fail to use all of their allotted downloads, it increases the per-track payout. How much "breakage" is occurring? My estimate is quite a bit, perhaps more than 40% to 50%, as the 33.5 cents a track I received for Q1 2009 eMusic downloads of my own music exceeds the per-track rate that many subscribers currently pay. Just to be clear, this "health club" aspect of the eMusic business model isn't just speculation on my part -- the company spells it out explicitly on its label relations page: Like any subscription business (such as health clubs, mobile phone plans, and cable companies), our model is based on a consistently substantial percentage of subscribers downloading none or little of their paid allotment. Because these subscribers aren't downloading their full allocation of music, there is more revenue to be divided amongst labels. In other words, this "unused" revenue is part of the gross that is split among labels.Given the new pricing structure, it's safe to assume that, going forward, eMusic subscribers will be paying an average of 45 - 50 cents per download. Yet 60% of 50 cents is only 30 cents (and that's ignoring the deductions eMusic takes before the revenue share), which is less the recent 33.5 cent payout rate I received. So the subscription changes will only result in increased payout amounts if digital breakage continues to occur. Why do some subscribers let their downloads expire? It's probably a combination of inertia, the fact that the download period is 30-days, not a month, so the expiration date changes each month, and perhaps simply not finding enough material they want to download each month. But given the way the Rolling Stones catalog dominated the eMusic charts for the brief time it was available, it seems likely that the presence of more "name brand" artists and albums in eMusic will result in less digital breakage by subscribers. So while subscribers will have fewer downloads available, they'll be more likely to use all of them, which may be enough to offset the effect of the price increase on the final per-track payout to labels. Without significant digital breakage, the per-download payout is bound to be less than 30 cents a track, even under the new pricing model. No doubt some breakage will continue to occur, but it seems likely that the current breakage rate will decrease significantly. Hence, it seems likely that the new subscription plans are more likely to preserve the recent payout amounts I've seen, as opposed to substantially increasing them. So that's my prediction -- higher prices but less breakage will result in a modest increase, at best, in the per-track eMusic payout. I'll update, of course, as I soon as I have any details on eMusic payments for the third quarter of 2009. End note: One final thing to consider is that the labels in the eMusic catalog are essentially competing for market share of download activity, which then translates into the portion of the 60% of the subscription revenue they receive. While the total number of subscriber downloads each quarter affects the per-track amount, if a label's catalog accounts for 20% of download activity, it receives 20% of the revenue eMusic shares with the labels in its catalog. On the surface, labels should be somewhat indifferent the per-track amount and more concerned about the percentage of the downloads their content accounts for. However, because U.S. labels must pay mechanical royalties to music publishers for eMusic downloads, the per-track amount does matter. Selling two eMusic downloads at 20 cents is not the same as selling one 40-cent download, as a label nets with the former 21.8 cents after paying mechanical royalties (9.1 cents x 2) and more than 30 cents for the latter! related: eMusic's Per-Song Payout for Q1 2009, More On eMusic Payouts, Why Music Subscriptions Are Like Health Clubs, Treatment of Longer Songs by eMusic tags: digital music eMusic Sony Music music subscriptions digital breakage link 2 comments e-mail this post Digg this post follow DAI on Twitter |
Subscribe: Add this blog to Del.icio.us, Digg or Furl The Digital Audio Insider Twitter feed: Looking to hire? Looking for a job? Check out the digital audio insider job board. Most Popular Posts The New Music Equation By the Numbers: Using Last.fm Statistics to Quantify Audience Devotion Lala.com Owes Me Sixty Cents Economists, Radiohead, and Bob Mould To Free or Not to Free Price Elasticity of Demand for McCartney The Digital Pricing Conundrum series: Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four THE LAYAWAYS Out Now -- "Maybe Next Year" -- The New Holiday Album: O Christmas Tree - free mp3 Away In A Manger - free mp3 Download from eMusic, iTunes, Amazon MP3, Napster, Rhapsody, Lala.com, Amie Street, or Bandcamp. Listen to free streams at Last.fm. "...about as melodic and hooky as indie pop can get." -- Absolute Powerpop "Their laid-back, '60s era sounds are absolutely delightening." -- 3hive "...melodic, garage-influenced shoegaze." -- RCRD LBL Keep It to Yourself - free mp3 All Around the World - free mp3 Come Back Home - free mp3 Download from eMusic, iTunes, Amazon MP3, or CD Baby, listen to free streams at Last.fm, Lala.com, and Napster. "The Layaways make fine indie pop. Hushed vocals interweave with understated buzzing guitars. The whole LP is a revelation from the start." -- Lost Music "A wonderfully crafted recording built around tasteful songwriting and musicianship..." -- PopMatters Silence - free mp3 The Long Night - free mp3 Download from eMusic, Amazon MP3, or iTunes, listen to free streams at Last.fm, Napster, or Rhapsody. "These are songs that you want to take home with you, curl up with, hold them close -- and pray that they are still with you when you wake up." -- The Big Takeover Let Me In - free mp3 Ocean Blue - free mp3 Download from eMusic, Amazon MP3, or iTunes, listen to free streams at Last.fm, Napster, or Rhapsody. More Layaways downloads: the layaways website Current/Recent Reading and Listening:
It's written as a how-to guide for those looking to become music supervisors, but I found it to be a good resource for musicians (like me) who are trying to get their music used in movies, TV, etc. |