“If you’re not a music industry executive, you probably haven’t spent much time perusing the documents from the recent UK Copyright Tribunal’s decision on online royalty rates for music publishers. But some people have, and they’ve turned up evidence that Apple is maybe planning to introduce ad-funded music on iTunes,” Stuart Dredge reports for Tech Digest.
“The Tribunal’s decision quotes witness evidence from iTunes VP Eddie Cue, where he states that Apple would only pay advertising revenue where ‘that revenue is earned as a result of an advertisement, sponsorship or a click-through link located on a Licensed service … and only where the Licensed Service is offered to the User at a price which has been artificially depressed to reflect such revenue,'” Dredge reports.
Full article here.
U2 brought to you by Depends.. good enough for Bono, good enough for you.
Nothing but horseshit.
If the consumer benefits from cheaper music downloads and the writer/composer of the works benefits from an additional income, then they have my blessing.
BUT if the extra income goes to them fat bastards who in turn keep most of the money and pass very little to the writer/composer then I would be prepared to start a campaign to stop advertising on the itunes site!!!!!
Nothing against Apple inc, just them fat bastards openning yet another income channel.
Say it ain’t so…
I’m off to trade in Horses now, there will be alot of beggars out there!
Nuthin but bug fixes and a security update.
Sounds like hedging really. Cue didn’t want to say advertising sucks, wastes people’s time and space and the industry is just a middleman on information that they corrupt so he just said we won’t advertise in x,y, z ways.
I’d rather pay more for non advertised products but I’d be paying less because advertising is a tax on everything. The industry is also one of the more ethically challenged, purveyors of such wonderful stuff as junk mail.
Couldn’t agree more with Red Hot Rider (LOL!) and CrabApple.
Totally agree with Crabapple. Those music distro exec’s have been sucking on the tit for far too long and not doing anything around the house. About time they were weened.
Sounds exactly like what Apple already does with Google.
@Crabapple,
Yes of course you’re right, but the music industry is one of the last public bastions of mafioso and I don’t see them going away, or wanting to change the status quo anytime in the near future.
To some extent it’s up to the up-and-coming musicians and song writers to partner with knowledgeable business partners who are not industry “connected”. The truth is that this is going to be much easier said than done for a long time to come. The indie movie industry is a good example of the good and bad that comes from going it alone. As that industry has grown the final results are that, to a large extent, an indie movie maker is still stuck with distributing through “established channels” if they want the dispersal required to make the money that will inspire and enable them to keep making movies.
Ad funded iTunes is an obvious way to make more money for the music labels without jacking up the price to the end user, but it’s interesting to contemplate how much farther the current .99/song would go without the blatant middle man. An earlier MDN post indicated that Apple sent off .70 of every music purchase, and that about 13% of that went to the artist, and the rest stayed with the company holding the label, which comes to about 87% that stays with the people who are responsible for “managing” “their” artists, and making sure that their artist’s product gets a wide dispersal. Is distribution such a mystery science that only a select few can figure it out, or is it that you simply are not allowed to get you’re music out without going through the establishment.
In a free country with relatively free enterprise these possibilities should make us consumer really stop and think. Ulltimately, anything that continues to make money is not going to change.
MW: “policy” – Ultmately policy is in the hands of the people who pony-up the dough. So as I see it capitalism can still be a beautiful thing if we want it to be.
Bloggers planning ad-funded Mac News Site?
Oh. Wait . . .
Anyone remember our album FLAUNT IT from 1986 where we put adverts between each track?
Atari Baby!
I am not interested in having commercials before my music tracks.
That is like saying Apple might open a brick and mortar store.
Mr. Peabody: 13% of 70% is 9.1%.
Apple does get $0.29 of the $0.99. But Apple is also responsible for the infrastructure to deliver the music and collect the payments. And Apple also has to put up with the labels (at least for now). Apple should put more effort into independents – that will make the labels and middlemen fade away even faster.
Security Advisory!!!
http://secunia.com/tests/Secunia.mov.zip
Justified:
Right on the money. You nailed it.
There are quite a few black pots and kettles to go around.
“Is distribution such a mystery science that only a select few can figure it out, or is it that you simply are not allowed to get you’re music out without going through the establishment?”
Mr. Peabody,
Actually the “mystery” (or problem as it might be) of distribution is that one MUST go through the establishment. The establishment IS the channel. The establishment IS the network.
Right or wrong, that’s the predicament of the music business.
<quote>Security Advisory!!!
http://secunia.com/tests/Secunia.mov.zip
</quote>
darn ..dont click on the link given by My Precious kaspersky detected a virus
goog goes up or down on ad rev, appl could go to 500 on this news just like goog. appl actually delivers a product, goog only delivers a service…
Darn, Apple still hasn’t fixed this SEVERE security issue yet? It’s beeb several MONTHS!!!
Oh! What a horrible scandal. Ad funded music… You mean like RADIO!
No one benefits from more ads.
This is not new, this has been Apple’s stand for years. If a product or service generates Ad revenue then the price to the customer for that product or service is reduced to reflect the revenue generated by the ads. This as been Apple’s position since the e-World days.
It does not mean that Apple is going to start ad sponsored free music. But, it might mean that Apple is looking to bring more of a traditional record store positioning to the labels for iTunes. Were by Apple would except differential wholesale pricing on the music, But Apple would require them to provide Advertising & marketing Dollars for promotion of their Artists and the Songs/Albums in iTunes, just like the labels pay music retailers for posters, flats, end cap, special or wall display space etc (most retailer earn more in promotions income from the Labels then they make from actually selling the music itself). Apple would then use the Advertising income from the labels to off-set the final retail pricing of the music. In simple terms let the labels think they are getting what they want control of iTunes pricing. But, in the end Apple would just equalize everything by off-setting the higher prices with the advertising revenues from the Labels.
The Labels don’t understand the value of the current Apple EMI deal. They just want to suck every penny out of on-line customers as they can. Not because it’s good business but, because they (the labels) think they are entitled to do it, after all if you use the internet you’re guilty of stealing the money from their pockets. Which is a crock of sh*t. Current 8 biggest Labels need to go out of business or the Government needs to close them for rackettearing violations, price fixing, and conspiracy to defraud. Then all rights should return to the performer in full without attached restrictions. But, this is just my opionion.