Music sales down? Really?

[Mr 50]

Just saw that iTunes sells 15,000 tracks per minute (http://uber-facts.com/2013/07/30/every- ... -internet/)

15,000 tracks per minute! That equates to 21,600,000 tracks per day.

For arguments sake, let’s say each track is £0.50 (probably more), then this means £10,800,000 per day in revenue.

I saw an industry video the other day where it outlined that most artists will get the same monetary amount from selling 2 tracks on iTunes as they would get from a full album purchase on a major label before the huge internet music surge over the last few years.

I’m sure there’s some holes in this somewhere, but it’s interesting nonetheless

[titchbit]

yeah but consider the number of people that are pirating the music. there are a lot of other factors, such as the obvious fact that the number of listeners has broadly increased since a few decades ago. Also why is this in production?

[JBE]

The reason why you would make more selling on itunes over a major label, assuming of course the label isn't selling your tracks on itunes themselves, is because the label takes almost all of the album sales. I mean after all, they did give you that contract that you have to pay them back for. Cause it's really not a contract, just a loan with outrageous interest.

The one major issue with the iTunes statistics is that I'm pretty sure they have stuff up there for free. Even if it's free it's counted as a purchase. So they are a bit inflated from that. Also the tracks that get sold are generally the crazy popular people being marketed like crazy through the radio and tv and what not. These people are usually signed to big labels already and it's the labels selling the tracks on iTunes, not the artist. Considering iTunes takes a cut of the sales the same way a label does, the cost is being split even more. So in the end the Artist still probably doesn't see shit from those sales either. If iTunes already takes 50%, assuming the major labels don't have some kind of special deal, then the label is only getting about 25 cents. After they take their cut I'm sure the artist is probably lucky to get a nickel.

Either way, in the end the person actually creating the music is still getting royally screwed. It's absolutely disgusting how this crap works.

[titchbit]

that's why it's all about performing and DJ'ing to make money these days.

[Mr 50]

The reason why you would make more selling on itunes over a major label, assuming of course the label isn't selling your tracks on itunes themselves, is because the label takes almost all of the album sales. I mean after all, they did give you that contract that you have to pay them back for. Cause it's really not a contract, just a loan with outrageous interest.

The one major issue with the iTunes statistics is that I'm pretty sure they have stuff up there for free. Even if it's free it's counted as a purchase. So they are a bit inflated from that. Also the tracks that get sold are generally the crazy popular people being marketed like crazy through the radio and tv and what not. These people are usually signed to big labels already and it's the labels selling the tracks on iTunes, not the artist. Considering iTunes takes a cut of the sales the same way a label does, the cost is being split even more. So in the end the Artist still probably doesn't see shit from those sales either. If iTunes already takes 50%, assuming the major labels don't have some kind of special deal, then the label is only getting about 25 cents. After they take their cut I'm sure the artist is probably lucky to get a nickel.

Either way, in the end the person actually creating the music is still getting royally screwed. It's absolutely disgusting how this crap works.

'the 2 track the same as an album from a few years ago' was based on selling it through a label, not direct, but regardless, I know what you mean.