The EVILS of VEVO

[KENNY DA COOKER]

Doug Morris credits his grandson with the inspiration for Vevo, the website that in two years has turned music videos from a promotional expense that an embattled industry was finding harder to justify into a source of digital income that executives talk of in the same breath as Spotify.

Vevo, a venture of Sony Music, Vivendi’s Universal Music and Abu Dhabi Media Company, told the FT this week that it plans to take on MTV by getting music videos and related programmes on to television screens through internet-connected devices or even a channel of its own.

Mr Morris, chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment since this summer, expects Vevo’s revenues to rise from $50m in 2010 to $300m next year, hailing its success as evidence that record labels are not as digitally flat-footed as critics maintain.

It was born out of frustration with music video economics a generation after MTV launched, he says as he recalls finding his grandson consuming music videos online.

“I’m watching him watch In Da Club, [produced] by Dr Dre, and I see all these ads coming up alongside,” he says. Mr Morris, then running Universal Music, asked a colleague how much they were making from the ads and was told: “Nothing”.

He threatened Yahoo, MTV.com and others that Universal would take its videos down if they did not pay up. The tactic worked, but by 2008, when Google’s YouTube had become the dominant online video site, neither side was happy with the revenue being generated.

 

[fukkyalifestyle]

So, wheres the evil part? If anything this helps the industry and it helps artist.

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

So, wheres the evil part? If anything this helps the industry and it helps artist.

anything to do with showviz is evil, inherently.

 

[Zach Lowe]

I'd rather the majors have official videos with reliable quality than leave it up to people to post recorded MTV/BET footage

like why is this only available in 240p

 

[KENNY DA COOKER]

So, wheres the evil part? If anything this helps the industry and it helps artist.

Vevo was created by the industry to monetize videos on YouTube...and funnel the revenue from Ads back to the labels

artists the majority of whom don't own their intellectual property DONT EAT OFF THIS REVENUE....

 

[fukkyalifestyle]

Vevo was created by the industry to monetize videos on YouTube...and funnel the revenue from Ads back to the labels

artists the majority of whom don't own their intellectual property DONT EAT OFF THIS REVENUE....

This could be a new revenue stream tho if they are smart enough to try and get it in the contract to eat off of vevo. Some of these independent dudes probably seeing some small checks from it.

 

[L&HH]

Vevo was created by the industry to monetize videos on YouTube...and funnel the revenue from Ads back to the labels

artists the majority of whom don't own their intellectual property DONT EAT OFF THIS REVENUE....

how do you know the artists don't get any of this revenue?

 

[KENNY DA COOKER]

This could be a new revenue stream tho if they are smart enough to try and get it in the contract to eat off of vevo. Some of these independent dudes probably seeing some small checks from it.

dude.....the rate the artists get is ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST CENT....lol

and that's not even NET.........they still gotta split revenue with youtube, the label and publisher


http://amarudontv.com/2013/05/02/do...s-are-25-35-cpm-how-much-do-the-artists-make/

Vevo’s advertising is fairly stable with average CPM (cost per thousand) rates of $25-$35, which is in line with forecasts by Credit Suisse for 2013 that expect premium online ads to cost $32.60. It generated nearly $300 million in revenue in 2012, according to a Wall Street Journal report. VEVO, which is owned by the major labels, announced at the Business Inside: Ignition Conference last November that the company would pay $100 million dollars in royalty revenues in 2012. The company also reports from 3.2-3.75 billion video views a month (40-45 billion views a year). Rockonomic did some simple arithmetic and divided the revenue by the views. Ta-da! Based on grade school math, artists stand to earn anywhere from $0.00222 to $0.0025 per stream. - See more at: http://amarudontv.com/2013/05/02/do...uch-do-the-artists-make/#sthash.WkbbkHOo.dpuf


Video: “Int’l Players Anthem (I Choose You)” Artist: UGK ft. Outkast Plays to date: 365,094 Estimated royalties to date: $810.51 – $912.74 - See more at: http://amarudontv.com/2013/05/02/do...uch-do-the-artists-make/#sthash.WkbbkHOo.dpuf

 

[thernbroom]

Vevo was created by the industry to monetize videos on YouTube...and funnel the revenue from Ads back to the labels

artists the majority of whom don't own their intellectual property DONT EAT OFF THIS REVENUE....

and that's the labels fault

 

[KnickstapeCity]

Video: “Baby”

Artist: Justin Bieber

Plays to date: 835,174,296

Estimated royalties to date: $1,854,086.94 – $2,087,935.74



But then again the article said the musician only receives 5% of that.

 

[thernbroom]

Video: “Baby”

Artist: Justin Bieber

Plays to date: 835,174,296

Estimated royalties to date: $1,854,086.94 – $2,087,935.74



But then again the article said the musician only receives 5% of that.

well they did sign a contract so how are going to blame the lables

 

[L&HH]

and that's the labels fault

This isn't true though. Artists do get money from streams, there was a thread on Young Chop discussing how Chief keef gets money from streams. How much is a different story but they do get paid

 

[thernbroom]

i could care less if these artists get paid or but to blame labels in 2014 is just stupid...get a lawyer and get your shyt together but instead these artists keep signing these stupid 360 contracts

 

[Mac Casper]

So, wheres the evil part? If anything this helps the industry and it helps artist.

The evil part is that they're promoting a platform that isn't available to independent artists, plus the censorship and globalist agenda

 

[KENNY DA COOKER]

how do you know the artists don't get any of this revenue?

low royalties, opaque payout rates, declining record sales and suspicion that the major labels have cut deals with the streamers that leave musicians out of the equation, anger from the music business’s artier edges is slowing growing

San-Francisco-based Zoe Keating — a tech-savvy, DIY, Amanda Palmer of the cello — has blown the whistle on the tiny amounts the streaming services pay musicians.

Though she’s exactly the kind of artist who should be cashing in on streaming, since she releases her own music, tours relentlessly, and has developed a strong following since her days with rock band Rasputina, only 8 percent of her last year’s earnings from recorded music came from streaming.

The iTunes store, which pays out in small amounts since most purchases are for 99 cent songs, paid her about six times what she earned from streaming. (More than 400,000 Spotify streams earned her $1,764; almost 2 million YouTube views generated $1,248.)

“The record labels could make a case that they don’t need to share royalties with artists whose sales don’t cross a certain threshold. If you’re Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber, you have no problem. But otherwise, you would get no royalties. The nature of these deals are that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/20/its...how_streaming_music_kills_jazz_and_classical/