Mobile Games - another saviour of the music industry?

Ever since the spectre of digital music began to haunt the music industry, any number of saviours have stepped forward to try to halt the loss of earnings felt as a result of illegal downloading. We've had the 360 degree record contract, social media, streaming and even the return of vinyl.  With the announcement that Taylor Swift has signed a deal to launch a mobile game, there's a sense that the music industry is likely to be rescued by a band of heroes as opposed to a singular figure.

Pop stars having mobile games makes a lot of sense; you can license your music for use in the game, promote yourself to a young, growing audience and create easy, click through sales opportunities.  However, it may not all be plain sailing, as documented by Perez Hilton, Katy Perry's first attempt at a game wasn't so successful and reminds us that quality can still count when it comes to attracting an audience.  Perhaps the most important point here, though, is that only a very few music artists will have the audience appeal necessary for a games company to want to do a deal with them.  It's not like games developers are going to be rushing to sign up artists from indie labels - though I would love to be proved wrong on this one.

Taylor Swift and Apple - BFFs after all

Way back at the dawn of time, Apple Music time that is, Taylor Swift had a beef with Apple Music.   This wasn't her first run in with a big corporation.  She had previously taken on Spotify and withdrawn her music from their service because she felt what they paid the artists for the music devalued it.  Her battle with Apple was a similar one and eventually forced them to change their policy.  They now pay artists for tracks played during a user's three month free trial period of using Apple Music.   Now that Apple have bowed to her demands, Taylor Swift's music is streamed exclusively on Apple Music - forcing fans to sign up to the service if they want to stream her music. On top of this, if fans want to watch video of her most recent tour, they will also have to sign up to Apple Music.  Her 'DVD' of her 1989 tour is being exclusively streamed on the service.

What does all this show? The power of the artist?  The power of the institution?  A reduction in consumer choice?

Is Jay-Z the musicians' champion or Universal's heavy hitter?

Lots of intriguing stuff around Jay-Z, Universal, Taylor Swift and others happening recently.  It all began a few weeks ago when one of the Jay-Z's companies bought Aspiro, a Swedish music streaming company that runs the streTidal.  Flashback further and we remember that Taylor Swift removed all her music from Spotify, claiming that it didn't place enough value on music.  There was lots of speculation around why else she may have done this, including rumours that it was an effort to increase sales of her 1989 (which it did) and that her music would appear on Google's new streaming service, Youtube Music Key. 

This week her back catalogue (her previously recorded music) has turned up on Tidal, which should make the service much more appealing to consumers.  It needs to be given the competition that now exists on the streaming market.  As well as market leader Spotify, we now have Pandora, Youtube Music Key and Apple's soon to re-launch Beats Music.  Tidal is also banking on audiences being drawn to the better quality audio of its service - CD quality, HD sound.  It's monthly subscription is £10 more expensive than Spotify's so the content has to be better.  They seem to be trying offer the audience a more immersive experience as well with music videos and exclusive interviews also available.

What makes this all the more interesting is a big meeting held around the time of the Grammys.  Jay-Z gathered together some of the biggest music artists to discuss a way forward for the music industry.  According to this Forbes article, they may have discussed artists taking control without record labels. It could be that Tidal is a service that would allow artists to do so. The reason artist make so little from services like Spoitify is because the record label takes such a big cut.  Alternatively, he may have just been helping out Universal as all the artists there, bar Madonna, are Universal artists and Jay-Z is also a Universal artists (the label he controls, Roc-a-Fella, is a subsidiary of Universal).  The Forbes article is well worth a read - all two pages!

How Much Do Artists Make From Spotify?

Time Magazine has created an interesting Spotify earnings calculator where you can see how much major artists earn through being streamed on Spotify.  It's well worth looking at as evidence for the debate over whether streaming is really the future of music distribution. As we know Taylor Swift removed her music from Spotify, claiming that the amount paid doesn't place enough value on her music.  In the past the musician Billy Bragg has claimed that the problem isn't with how much Spotify pays per stream ($0.06 - $0.84 according to Time) but the percentage that the record company takes before the artist gets paid.