Music consumers will continue to have wide options for instant access to their favorite music. Both old and new music apps are finding new ways to make music available to consumers. The desire for on-demand music streaming service is growing faster everyday.
There are now apps for discovering, sharing, listening, recommending and even storing (even though you may not have to) music in the cloud for instant access.
On-demand music is now stronger than ever
A new era of growth for on-demand music is now stronger than ever. The likes of Spotify-the leading music streaming service, Pandora, Vevo, Shazam, Last.fm and Turntable.fm are changing the music consumption industry as we know it. Consumers are getting used to accessing music from different devices. Cloud applications are making it even easier to maintain music libraries. People are now accessing music collection from anywhere with an internet connection.
The paradox of choice
The freedom to choose how to listen to music keeps growing and will even get better with time as technology improves. Consumers have options to purchase digital albums and tracks or subscribe on monthly basis to access unlimited music at anything on most mobile devices. New technology is making it even easier to take your new iPod under water and still enjoy your favorite music underwater.
Do music consumers want to rent their music or own it?
But the big question for most new music service companies is whether music consumers want to rent their music or own it. Alan McGlade of Forbes believes that music consumption is stronger than ever and the bulk of it is in the form of streaming. Alan shares the opinion that discussion of ownership will become irrelevant. Do you want to rent or own your music?
Is the music industry benefiting?
Driving revenues back into the music industry in a huge concern for artistes and producers and Spotify wants to do exactly that through payment of royalties. Spotify has paid over $500m to rights holders since its launch in 2008. The growth of Spotify, Pandora and other popular music streaming services continue to attract controversies about whether artists are making enough money from music streams and whether streaming will be the answer to the music industry’s woes and the fight against piracy.
Ken Parks, Spotify’s chief content officer once said “We have teams of people who engage with artists and artist managers every day, we take input from that community, and we make sure we are aligned. We definitely want the world to view us as the platform that is most attractive to artists.” It’s obvious that behind the scenes, popular streaming services keep negotiating with artists, managers and producers about the fair rates of royalties.
Royalties are now not the only option available to artists, of course compact discs, album and track purchases, concerts and music events are still generating income for artists. If an artist does a good job at promoting his or her music on Youtube, Google shares display ad revenues too. Psy, earned $8 million on the 1.2 billion views for “Gangnam Style,” according to a Google executive in a statement and even that was questionable at rate of roughly 0.6 cents per view.
There are now different options for both musicians and music consumer, but generally when it comes to royalty rates artists have their own opinions. The way on-demand music services pay royalties is still a big debate, but the future of music is certainly heading towards on-demand consumption.