NY Post: Apple offers royalties to labels and publishers that are half of what Pandora pays

5. PapaSmurf posted on 07 Mar 2013, 17:04 14 1

Pity. The standard is 22 cents, and Pandora pays 12. Apple has $136 billion and they want to offer 6 cents. What greedy bas----- they are.

7. timtimity posted on 07 Mar 2013, 17:14 15 1

Record label: The offer you've made is far too low.
Apple: You should be grateful. Dealing with Apple is an honor.
Record label: Get out of my office.

10. JeffdaBeat posted on 07 Mar 2013, 18:16 4 4

Here's the twist. Apple (and Amazon and Google) pay artists far more than Spotify and Pandora. My band gets 70% of what we sell on iTunes (same with Amazon and Google), but only get a cent or two from Spotify or Pandora.

Now, what do you think your average label pays their artists for CD sales?

15. Slammer posted on 07 Mar 2013, 19:36 5 0

Well Jeff,

If Apple gets their way, you should expect even less in your pocket. As a musician myself, I consider this a major insult to us. This will drive down the payout even more. The record labels are already the evil dealer. Now you have Apple bargaining down to placate their bank. Guess who is going to get the shaft? I'm no fan of how the labels work but I'm certainly not a fan of being a low paid prostitute either.

John B.

• This comment is posted in response to #10 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #10 Hide

23. JeffdaBeat posted on 07 Mar 2013, 21:28 1 1

Alrighty, so here's the deal. I don't often rag on labels. The reason why labels pay their artist almost nothing per album sold is because the label is the one that fronts the money for the recording. Indie labels will pay upward of $50k while majors can pay upward of $200k (probably more). They front that money and the artist has to pay it back, hopefully through sales.

Now you say if Apple gets their way, we should expect less. Maybe Apple from a few years ago when iTunes was the only successful place to download music (legally). Nowadays with Amazon and Google in the mix, they can't break the rule they created. Otherwise, bands will take their music off of iTunes and direct them to other online stores.

You say that Apple taking royalties from labels is an insult? Remember back in the day when labels had to pay to get their music into Best Buy, Tower, or Virgin? I pay pay a company called TuneCore $50 a year to put my music on iTunes. I'm sure Best Buy was charging labels far more than that to put music in their store...yet this is an insult? For $50 my unsigned band can have our music hypothetically downloaded by anyone in the world and Apple is insulting us? Folks can say what they want about Apple, but iTunes is probably the BEST thing that could happen for independent and unsigned artist. It gives you a store front that reaches across nations.

If you're a signed musician, more power to you. If you're signed to a major label, even more power to you. You were going to get f**ked regardless of Apple paying royalties to your label. Your label wants their money back and will do what they can to recover it through your sells. The only way you make money is touring or merch. But for artists like me who have a great following, but aren't signed, iTunes is amazing and we even make a good amount of money even with Apple taking 30%. Some successful artists are getting so tired of dealing with labels, they are going unsigned. They control their music. Control their costs. And don't have to deal with paying everyone. If you're tired of your label, but you have a huge following, stop paying the middle man.

On the flip side...go with Pandora. Enjoy the few cents they pay you per song.

• This comment is posted in response to #15 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #15 Hide

31. Slammer posted on 08 Mar 2013, 16:58 0 0

Jeff,

I gave you a thumbs up because your comment was genuine and candid. However, I question the value you have placed on the 70/30 relationship.

30 percent to Apple seems steep when you factor in that they aren't contributing to YOUR hard work. You could easily place your art on Facebook or YouTube for a lot less and potentially have the same results.

You are doing all the booking of gigs, providing merchandising, sound, lights, recording and cutting of CDs, legal tender of rights and protection, PR events, contractual requirements, marketing and promo shots Etc. Yet, Apple gets 30%? And, if you are paying others to do what I've listed, then that makes it worse dude.

No label deal here due to the nature of direction. My band is a cover act. Add to the fact that my age kills all dreams of going any further. But, I have spent countless hours in studios over the years and have shared the stage with some well known artists. Artists where their music is still heard today thanks to well written material and subsequently, the power of the labels.

You should be very afraid of the music industry right now. It's in bad shape and in chaos. While I do have reservations of the label companies, I will be perfectly frank here. I can't really blame them. They don't have anything to sell long term. There is no way in hell that my Nieces and Nephews are going to be listening to current billboard songs 20, 10, or even possibly 5 years from now. So, while eliminating the middle man is an option, your 30% contribution to a company that is doing nothing in promoting and supporting your act in the essentials I pointed out, is equally paying a middle man that many of my artist friends have acheived for much less.

My friend is touring with Daughtry as Guitarist, Keyboardist and co-writing. Amazing opportunity. Done through YouTube and networking through American Idol. Never would've happened through itunes. Itunes is great for post notoriety. But, the labels have the power and control to push the acts to mass market. Apple isn't going to stop what they're doing and push Jeffdabeat. They just want their 30%.

However, I do wish you well. Enjoy gigging while you can.

John B.

• This comment is posted in response to #23 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #23 Hide

12. Droiddoes posted on 07 Mar 2013, 18:23 0 0

This EXACTLY.

16. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 07 Mar 2013, 19:56 2 0

AAPL hit a 52 week low a few days ago. Where are the analysts who swore it would be over $1k at the beginning of this year?

27. _Bone_ posted on 08 Mar 2013, 02:59 0 0

Jumping on the Google bandwagon it seems.

9. joey_sfb posted on 07 Mar 2013, 18:00 3 2

Hogging all the wealth in one place is greed. They don't spend the money in advertising, in research, like their competitor which will result in money being pass back to consumer.

Smaller companies earn less each day when dealing with mega corporate like apple till they can't sustain themselve, they eventually fold and mom and dad is back on the street.

This is the result of an unbalanced economy. Powerful Mega Corp that require regulation to set things right.

Can you still be their Fanboy if you don't have money to buy their products?

13. Droiddoes posted on 07 Mar 2013, 18:27 1 0

I have to disagree with you on apple not spending money on advertising. I am constantly seeing ads by them advertising "new" features that have been Android standards for years (noise cancelling mic, panorama shot etc).

21. joey_sfb posted on 07 Mar 2013, 21:05 1 0

Recently they did advertise. When they are doing well in 2008 to 2010. They are a snob and believe in free product endorsement.

138 billions hogged up in one place not benefiting anyone!

• This comment is posted in response to #13 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #13 Hide

17. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 07 Mar 2013, 20:00 1 0

Greed is never acceptable. While there's sound business practices, hoarding money and grossly over charging for products is never the right way of doing things.

If you knew anything about how capitalist societies function, you'd know that the money needs to continue flowing, not sitting in off shore banking accounts, waiting for the end of days or whatever other crazy reason Apple insists on saving it for.

22. wumberpeb posted on 07 Mar 2013, 21:16 0 0

Agreed. Easy to hate them but they're probably just low balling it to start, all part of the bargaining process...

...but it's still Apple. Someone's going to cave, and it likely won't be them

28. PapaSmurf posted on 08 Mar 2013, 05:28 0 0

Gallito, please stop.

25. Taters posted on 07 Mar 2013, 23:37 0 1

Um Apple made their 100 billion from bucking economic rules. Why do other companies have to follow them when Apple doesn't. Apple has money and the comoanies should ask for more.

29. Hemlocke posted on 08 Mar 2013, 05:38 1 0

Sorry, economics just doesn't work that way. Greater economies of scale = less dollars spent. That's why the SGSIII costs roughly what the iPhone 5 does to produce, even though the 5 should cost much more to build. Reversing the situation, Apple could build the SGSIII for less than what Samsung can because of Apple's economies of scale.