Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales

Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales(wsj.com)

34 points by alceufc 11 years ago | 56 comments

Something to keep in mind is that music "ownership" may be a generational thing. My parents were members of the silent generation (born in the 30s) and they owned very few physical records. And it's not to say they didn't love music, they did -- but the way they enjoyed music was listening to the radio. So if you had a love of opera and classical music you'd listen to WQXR 24/7 (here in NYC) which isn't too different than a millennial who is into streaming.

As a Gen X member we grew up imitating Boomers by buying music in our youth (see side note below). But something to keep in mind is that unlike digital music, this was very much a tactile experience. This was because you were by the physical album as much as the music itself. And if you look at those albums you realize that the package acts as a mini-poster so it was really merchandise (as much as buying a t-shirt).

Also in a pre-digital age you'd get the lyrics included with the album as well. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but in a pre-Google era getting your hand on the lyrics was something that you'd have to work at if you didn't own the album (you might have to go to a sheet music shop, and those weren't in every town).

So streaming (or what we use to call radio) may in fact be the natural order of things. Part of this may also be that music as a medium isn't on the cutting edge of culture anymore. We tend to forget that from say the 60s until the late 80s music was leading the way as a voice for cultural change, but sadly as rock as a genre is now about 65 years old, and even rap is about 35 years old.

So I think the biggest challenge for the music industry isn't technology at this point, but focusing on how to be culturally relevant again. So it's not about a decline in digital sales, but a decline in connecting with their audience.

Side note: It should be noted that while Gen X did buy records we tend to forget that in the 80s the music industry was terrified by declining sales which were attributed to the youth market spending their money on new things like video games. Of course we loved music as much as previous generations did, but thanks to MTV we were experiencing it also as a streaming medium.

api 11 years ago | |

Might be true, but I can't help but be nostalgic for it. I get the sense that for millennials and younger music is just another kind of light entertainment, take it or leave it. Music for many gen-Xers including myself was practically religion. You loved it so much you built a chunk of your identity around it. You were moved by it. I guess I can't really be sure, but I don't get the feeling people care about music like that anymore.

Of course it might have nothing to do with packaging. I routinely look for new music and I do find gems that move me the way the music of my youth did, but they seem really few and far between. So much of what I hear is so spineless and trite. Of course there is always a temporal selection effect in that only the best stuff of the past is remembered, but it does feel like I really have to dig hard for anything good these days.

At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it. Is that where music is headed?

michaelpinto 11 years ago | | |

I agree, but let me submit this you:

The music that spoke to me was what you would call "college radio" in the mid-80s and "alternative" in the late 80s and early 90s. But if you think about it that was a small niche market and not the mainstream until Nirvana broke through circa 1991. And even then that was a short lived revolution which gave way to the Spice Girls and Britney Spears.

But before you get too nostalgic the realty of that era is that most of the music that people listened to was light weight pop music. That was really the era of "adult easy listening" and hair metal bands, and yet we think of the music that holds up like say REM or something that pushed the limits.

robwilliams 11 years ago | | |

Assuming that this isn't a troll "le wrong generation" post...

> I guess I can't really be sure, but I don't get the feeling people care about music like that anymore.

People in high schools still define themselves around the bands they listen to, don't be so sure to write off the younger generation as apathetic towards music.

> At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it.

Music has been around as long if not longer than sculpture and painting. Art and music are still very popular, even if they're constantly changing.

As for your other comments about music today being "spineless and trite," we're currently in a second golden age of hip-hop and I'm sure fans of other genres will also tell you their music is alive and well.

emilioolivares 11 years ago | |

Excellent comment. I completely agree, music has just ceased to be relevant as the voice of the younger generation. Youtube, social media, video games, and the internet have all replaced music as an outlet for teenagers to vent and express their dreams, frustrations and desires. Listening to rap or rock is just not a way to be a teenage rebel these days.

The internet has also fragmented the public, mega-artists are dead. One hit manufactured wonders rule the airwaves and musicians now cater to a small but loyal group of fans that follow them in the depths of internet and social media.

All hail the internet ;).

iamben 11 years ago |

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The way we consume changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and with change, it means where, how and who profits changes.

I'm all for competition but I feel it's going to end up ruining it for those that consume, and ultimately those who create - in both music and movies.

Spotify is as close to 'perfect' as I think we've seen a streaming service so far. Most, if not all of the people I know who'd prolifically or casually pirated music (but rarely, if ever bought it), now pay for Spotify. Most, if not all those who bought music now pay for Spotify instead. Because it's easier. And it's all there - and it doesn't cost you to experiment and change your mind.

But when artists (Taylor Swift, etc) start leaving because it doesn't pay as much as the heydays, and start moving to services that promise more cash, everything becomes more fractured. The reason people pay is because it's easier that pirating. Napster was easy. Everything was there so you consumed. But no one wants to pay for 5 services / install 5 apps / whatever. So they'll just end up not bothering, and by that point they won't be buying either. And everyone will lose.

notnickwolf 11 years ago |

Try this if it asks you to sign in:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

click170 11 years ago | |

I still get asked to sign in when I view that link, but that's besides the point: I wish paywall'd articles weren't accepted here.

Maybe there is a place for paywalls in this world, I just don't think we should be posting links to them here.

freehunter 11 years ago | | |

The trouble with paywalls is, am I going to pay for NYT, WSJ, Boston Globe, MoneyWeek, Newsday, The Onion, etc, all individually? No. I might subscribe to one paper, but that's not how the Internet works. Even then, I never subscribe to the paper. I get it free at work or at the library or in a hotel.

a3n 11 years ago | | |

Ironic comment, considering what the article is about.

If you don't like paywalled sites, just don't go there. What have you really missed? There are plenty other articles elsewhere.

(Big Music/WSJ) vs (streaming/any other article on any other subject on the internet). Same thing.

steven2012 11 years ago |

I'm curious what the net amount of money going to musicians are, as opposed to the amount of money going to record labels. That's much more important to me, because I don't care if the music labels starve, but if the musicians go broke, then there is no more content. And in this age, it seems strange that there isn't a good way for a musician to completely bypass labels altogether and just release music on their own, in a profitable manner.

Based on the numbers I've seen from posts here, Spotify clearly isn't the answer, it's just another mechanism to drive the value of content to $0. Maybe we'll see Spotify start their own music label and give artists money more directly, the way that Netflix and Amazon Prime are essentially creating their own TV stations.

AshleysBrain 11 years ago |

Note this article is from October 2014.

jleyank 11 years ago |

Judging from the tenor of comments here, the typical user doesn't have to worry about bandwidth limits on their smart device, never drives where the connection's spotty, never flies and stays within one country. Or, I guess, just has a slug of money to pay whatever fees for internet connection arise.

I tend to do a number of these things, so having music "in my hand" is advantageous. I also like to listen to both the hits and non-hits for the artists I like and had a largish legacy CD collection. Most of the CD's I purchase now are mementos of concert trips, especially for the bands that sign what they sell. Ripping the CD's, I get the music that the bands laid down, without the compression artifacts and pitch changes I get from radio. Do the internet services do the same, or are their offerings pristine?

Different strokes and all that, but be careful to add up the cost of continued rental vs. purchase or other forms of acquisition.

Edit: I also prefer to support the artists I listen to rather than middlemen.

prostoalex 11 years ago | |

Both Spotify Premium and Rdio Premium (and I'm sure others, but can only speak for the ones I've tried) offer "offline mode" for whatever your device can hold.

The music will then play even in airplane mode, the only gotcha is that you'll have to come online every 30 days or so for them to re-verify that you're still paying for the service.

ams6110 11 years ago |

Congratulations to the music publishing industry. After years of claiming that we didn't actually own the songs we purchased, we finally decided not to purchase songs anymore.

dreamfactory2 11 years ago | |

That applies to any copyright material - you license it for limited usage (e.g. you can't create copies and redistribute, which is what ownership implies)

PhantomGremlin 11 years ago |

   Straight outta Compton,
   crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube
   From the gang called Niggas Wit Attitudes

A number of years ago I purchased the music video to the above song from iTunes. I paid $2, because I enjoy the song and I think it's "culturally significant".

But today? NO. Not for sale from iTunes at any price? Why not? Does it offend too many sensitivities?

Countless other examples like that. Do you want to buy the music video of the song that won the 1986 Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance? Can't buy that anymore either. Is it because of the words "See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup"?

Why can't I pay someone US dollars to legally "buy" non-DRMed music videos? Everyone in the business complains constantly, but they won't take my money???

zaidf 11 years ago |

I rarely ever purchased music. And yet, thanks to Spotify I've been paying ~$10/mo for the last 4 years. For all the hate it gets, its turned people who rarely ever paid for music into paying for it every month.

dublinben 11 years ago | |

You might be interested to know that your $120/year is several times what the average consumer has ever spent on music per year.[0] It's quite likely that streaming services have already captured all the consumers willing to pay this much. The only growth will come from lowering prices.

[0]https://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/

NeutronBoy 11 years ago | | |

I would never have normally spent $120 per year on music, yet I do for Spotify. I also listen to a ton more music than I would have otherwise, because after my $10 per month its 'free' - if an artist I'm tangentially interested in releases an album, it's likely I'll listen to it. Traditionally, I would never have done that because I wouldn't have paid >$20 for the album.

Excluse 11 years ago | |

IIRC there's a great passage in "Steve Jobs" (Isaacson) that eloquently describes how the iTunes store got people to pay money for music they were previously getting for free.

Here's the Gen-Y version.

joeblau 11 years ago | |

I think the only people that are really angry about Spotify are the artists. It seems like the way their payments are calculated, they get the short end of the stick.

themoonbus 11 years ago | | |

Not that this excuses Spotify, but artists got the short end of the stick in the traditional system too.

api 11 years ago |

So now the race to the bottom continues down to streaming services that pay artists even less.

ghaff 11 years ago |

An interesting aspect of this is that, to my surprise, paying for a Spotify subscription apparently costs more than people historically paid for music:

http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/

I'm not sure if this is the right way of looking at it and I paid more during my peak music purchasing years but it's thought provoking.

I confess that owning my favorite music, at least digitally, is something I feel fairly strongly about. But I can't really unravel my feelings from just the fact that I always have.

mehrzad 11 years ago |

I go to shows, buy vinyl when I can (albeit rarely), and download and stream for everything else. This is what most music junkies do these days, I guess.

alyx 11 years ago |

Personally, I have not bought music since streaming services started covering 90% of the music I listen to.

alanfalcon 11 years ago | |

Personally, I've bought more music since streaming services (iTunes Radio with iTunes Match) exposed me to more music than I normally listen to (i.e. my existing iTunes library). Not a lot more music, but a couple more albums and a dozen more singles than the few new releases I normally would have purchased from my favorite artists. That ability to, on demand, listen to any song I want to listen to... it's too valuable to me to let go of completely even if much of the time I'm okay with listening to whatever comes on a stream.

acheron 11 years ago | |

That's so bizarre to me. I'm pretty much with Penny Arcade on this: "it's basically infinity dollars." [1] I mean, the idea of "owning" a digital file is a bit nebulous, but streaming offers nothing to me.

Though I'm completely the opposite when it comes to movies, where I'm perfectly happy with streaming. So who knows.

[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15

wvenable 11 years ago | | |

It might be infinity dollars but it's also infinity music. As new music gets released you can listen to that too as well as a back catalog larger than you could conceivably own. The concept of renting something is neither new nor strange. Penny Arcade's example is the same for housing, gym memberships, etc.

TheCondor 11 years ago | | |

How many movies do you rewatch? A really infectious song, you'll listen to it tens or even hundreds of times. It's a different kind of investment

Retra 11 years ago | | |

Music is already 'nothing.' Just sounds in the air. But then, life is also pointless if you want to go down that road.

Grue3 11 years ago | |

What do you do with the remaining 10%?