Thrash Hits logo

So Century Media have taken their entire catalogue off Spotify….

August 9th, 2011 · 5 Comments

Century Media Says No To Spotify Thrash Hits

We’ve been keen users of Spotify ever since it launched here in the UK in 2009 – long-time readers will remember that we used to run weekly topical Spotify Slaylists based around whatever had caught our eyes or stoked our imagination in the world of rock and metal that week. We plan on restarting posting our regular Slaylists very soon, but sadly they won’t contain any music from Century Media, or any of the label imprints that operate under Century Media, as today the label pulled it’s entire catalogue off the streaming service.

Century Media’s decision comes in the wake of Spotify finally being launched in America on July 14. Even though the service is still operating on an invite-only basis on the other side of the pond, this has led to a dramatic increase in the size of Spotify’s userbase, one that will steadily grow, if the service has a similar uptake in America as it’s had here in Europe. According to the numbers posted by industry-blog Metal Insider, 1.4 million Americans currently use the service, with 175,000 already signed up as premium subscribers. Given that the service launched stateside less than a month ago, those are impressive numbers.

Let’s look at the official statement from Century Media as to why they’re taking this drastic step in full:

Century Media and its associated labels “InsideOutMusic”, “Superballmusic”, “Ain’t no Grave Records”, “Hollywood Waste” and “People Like You” have decided to pull their repertoire from Spotify in an attempt to protect the interests of their artists.

While everyone at the label group believes in the ever changing possibilities of new technology and new ways of bringing music to the fans, Century Media is also of the opinion that Spotify in its present shape and form isn’t the way forward. The income streams to the artists are affected massively and therefore that accelerates the downward spiral, which eventually will lead to artists not being able to record music the way it should be recorded. Ultimately, in some cases, it will completely kill a lot of smaller bands that are already struggling to make ends meet.

At the same time Century Media also believes that Spotify is a great tool to discover new music and is in the process of reintroducing their bands to Spotify by way of putting up samplers of the artists. This way, fans can still discover the great music released by the label.

Physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries where Spotify is active. Artists are depending on their income from selling music and it is our job to support them to do so. Since the artists need to sell their music to continue their creativity, Spotify is a problem for them. This is about survival, nothing less and it is time that fans and consumers realize that for artists it is essential to sell music to keep their heads above water.

Obviously it is ultimately up to the music fan and consumer, how they access their music, whether it is buying, streaming or stealing. There needs to be awareness though, that how you will consume your music has direct consequences for the artists, who we are all trying to support.

It’s not our place to tell labels how to run their business. If Century Media has decided that Spotify is the way to go, then that’s their decision to make. We certainly don’t claim to have the answers when it comes to turning a profit (and as businesses, that’s what labels need to do if they want to survive) in a world where physical sales of records are collapsing, and digital piracy and illegal album torrents are rife. Century Media’s statement certainly makes it clear that physical sales are the label’s top priority, no doubt because it is where they make the biggest profit margins. But irrespective of this, Century Media’s statement does throw up a number of interesting questions.

Firstly, Century Media seems to be aligning the presence of Spotify with falling album sales. We could argue that this argument is a fallacy – album sales are falling everywhere, and they were doing so a long time before Spotify was even a glint in Daniel Ek’s eye. Many would argue that many consumers don’t even use Spotify as alternative to buying physical copies of albums, rather it is more likely to act as an instantly-available alternative to people who would previously download albums illegally.

Secondly, Century Media are obviously unhappy with the revenue the service brings them in comparison to equivalent album sales. Again, it could be argued that the revenue they receive from Spotify, however small it is, is still greater than the revenue Century Media receive from illegal downloads – i.e., absolutely fuck all. Rather than safeguarding artist’s incomes (and therefore, the label’s) by removing their catalogue from Spotify, in the long run Century Media might be hurting them.

Thirdly, Century Media have stated they want to introduce samplers of their bands onto Spotify, so that people can still discover their acts through the service. Again, it could be said that upon discovering said acts on Spotify, only to find out that a mere handful of their tracks are available, users are far more likely to turn to the instant gratification of illegal downloads than they are to point their browser at Amazon and wait 5-10 days for delivery of a physical album, or – Hell’s bells! - to get up away from their computers and bust down to their local record store (assuming they’ve even got one).

Other labels go so far as to evangelise about the benefits of Spotify to them, and use Spotify playlists service to promote their bands. We’ve talked to countless bands who, while they’d prefer it if people bought their music on physical formats with higher profit margins, understand the intrinsic value of simply getting their music out there for people to listen to. There’s a million bands a minute trying to grab listeners’ attentions, and anything a label does that actively reduces their bands visibility is a bad move. Maybe we’re reading a little between the lines here, but we don’t think all of Century Media’s bands are too keen on their label’s decision to back out of Spotify wholesale:

iwrestledabearonce Spotify tweet Thrash HitsWhat do you guys think about it? Is Century Media’s decision to pull out of Spotify wholesale a good business move, or are they dicking with both their own and their bands’ futures? Do you think other metal labels are going to follow suit? Have I wittered far too long about this issue, and you’re all now suffering from a sever case of TL;DR? Whatever the final outcome of Century Media’s decision, all of us here at Thrash Hits will continue urge everyone to support the bands they love through legitimate, legal methods, and we think it’s a shame that we will no longer be able to do so with Century Media’s acts on Spotify.

Tags: News · Sunday Slaylist

  • http://www.facebook.com/braindeaf Rob Lacey

    I like Spotify from a consumer perspective it makes music almost instantly available, I go….”ooh I haven’t heard that in ages” and it saves me the effort of digging out of storage to put on tune while I’m working. So if you already own it and are lazy its free money to artists…I can even cope with the ad breaks.

    But if you look at music you don’t already own how much does a label and/or artist get really. Its pennies, its actually less than pennies. Our MD actually did a test of constantly streaming his own album via Spotify Premium for 4 weeks solid as a test, thousands of plays, the financial return…..less than a dollar. 
    It just doesn’t seem sustainable for any artist to distribute music in that way, and if listening on demand via Spotify doesn’t equate to the profit margin you would have got from selling the marketing and selling physical release it doesn’t seem worth it.

    One last thing….whatever happened to buying a physical release that you can hold in your hand. Where’s the magic gone.

    • http://www.thrashhits.com/ Hugh

      Another way of looking at it is that while it’s less than a dollar, it’s more than he would get from every illegal download. The other ugly truth is that the past is over, and the record industry is going to have to adapt, whether it likes it or not. The internet has flipped the industry’s demand/supply powers upside down – rather than being dictated to by labels as to what music is worth, punters are deciding what it’s worth, and more often than not, the answer is sadly “for free”. Spotify isn’t a be-all and end-all solution, but it and services like it will be part of the puzzle. I still have trouble getting my head round the fact that in Sweden, Spotify makes more money for labels than any other sales outlet.

      I should’ve also pointed out in my blog post that a lot of (but not all) criticisms aimed at Spotify’s renumeration falling below expectations is built on false equations that people listening to streams = “lost” sales. Like it or not, there are plenty of people out there that will happily listen to an album if it’s available to them to listen to “for free” (as in the case of Spotify’s free option), but who would never listen to it if there was a price barrier first.
      As for the tactile pleasure of owning physical formats, while it’s still a major issue for a minority of music collectors, the reality is that it’s not that major a deal for a majority of music consumers.
      Finally, I think I probably could’ve made more of the less measurable aspects of Spotify. It’s a lot harder to place a metric on how a streaming service may have contributed to fan growth, merch orders, ticket sales, and so on, but I’ve got no doubt such things exist.  
      Yadda yadda yadda, all opinions are partially me playing Devil’s Advocate, etc etc. OH GOD, I’VE GONE AN TL;DR’d MYSELF AGAIN

  • http://www.trippywicked.com Chris West

    I just feel sorry for the bands. They’ve trusted the label to work with their music, sell it where they can and expose it to as many new people as possible.

    This is exactly the time when labels should be pushing to get their catalogues on Spotify; when there is buzz and a lot of talk going on about the service.

    This is a 2001 move in a 2011 world and the bands will suffer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/frank.colin Frank Colin

    At Radical, we’ve taken a different approach. While other internet radio services make a symbolic nod toward independent artists by including a few tracks, Radical Indie provides a free, worldwide, full-featured, internet radio service dedicated fully to unsigned musicians and bands to showcase their music, without limitations. Radical Indie is now open for musicians to upload their music in advance of a launch later this year.

    Radical Indie is a sister service of Radical.FM – check us out.

    Read the press release – http://tinyurl.com/dv4bb

    [EDITED]

    • http://www.trippywicked.com Chris West

      Rest assured Frank Colin I won’t be clicking your link. Come here spamming the comments with your self advertising…why I oughta!