This photo was taken on February 15, 2011.
This photo belongs to
This photo also appears in
License
Privacy
-
This photo is visible to everyone
keyboard shortcuts:
← previous photo
→ next photo
L view in light box
F favorite
< scroll film strip left
> scroll film strip right
? show all shortcuts
-
Photo license:
All Rights Reserved
Comments and faves
.RaMoNs., ilya brook, joshcarlton, revrev, and 52 other people added this photo to their favorites.
balloon in a sock (16 months ago | reply)
It would be interesting to see this graph as units (albums/singles) as well - do you have a source link for the data?
wejhbfjwebfjhqwfhwbefwebf (16 months ago | reply)
So digital peaked in 2005 at about 75% of the CD max? iTunes Store launched in April 2003. There is something seriously amiss here. Rob @bemuso
whatterz (16 months ago | reply)
Apple reports 10bn songs have been downloaded via iTunes since April 2003. If the average song price is $0.99, then the numbers do not add up for digital sales. What about sales from Amazon, Play, Zune and all the other online shops?
The graph also fails to take into account subscription services such as Spotify, Last.fm and Pandora that have changed the way people consume music.
The RIAA are one of the most untrustworthy sources of industry information Bain Music could possibly find!
Thomas Hawk (16 months ago | reply)
awesome sauce.
philoye (16 months ago | reply)
This chart isn't adjusted for inflation, making it rather useless.
algonzales42 (16 months ago | reply)
"So digital peaked in 2005 at about 75% of the CD max?"
No, digital has been growing every year it's been around, and in 2009 was already bigger than 8-track or records ever were, and close to tapes at their peak. The thickness of the red blob at 2005 is tiny compared to at 2009.
algonzales42 (16 months ago | reply)
"Apple reports 10bn songs have been downloaded via iTunes"
That's roughly $10B, and the chart here shows downloads from 2003 until 2009, so 7 years. That's an average of just over $1B per year, which looks right to me: by 2006, it's around $1B, and by 2009, it's about $2.5B. There's plenty of room left to account for digital distribution channels other than iTunes. What do you think doesn't add up?
mcsucker (16 months ago | reply)
I don't imagine this is inflation-adjusted; it would be more informative if it were.
Thomas Hawk (16 months ago | reply)
great news. Let's just hope this trend continues.
la-kate [deleted] (16 months ago | reply)
that's an interesting graphic, but i'm confused about the scale. it lists a turnover of 7 to 8 bn$ for 2009 but the latest ifpi report listed global music revenues of 15.8bn$ for 2010. i always thought turnover and revenue were synonymous, but obviously i'm wrong. what exactly does the turnover express?
Thomas Hawk (16 months ago | reply)
I wonder how much lower the graph would have to go before we could get rid of the RIAA?
snej (16 months ago | reply)
If it weren't adjusted for inflation, I'd have expected the dollar values to go up rapidly during about 1974-82, the period of double-digit inflation, and more slowly afterwards. (I was around then, and remember LP prices going up something like a dollar a year.) Instead it's the other way around.
wejhbfjwebfjhqwfhwbefwebf (16 months ago | reply)
A chap on Evolver (I think) suggested that the chart should be read as a stacked histogram with unrelated areas inside. That is to say, the axes describe the outside curve but not the format blocks under the curve. That makes more sense (in one way!) but it still wouldn't be right. For example, if you take a column from around 1979, you've got the old format (vinyl) in the middle, the next format (8-track) on the bottom and the new format (cassette) on top. And you can't read any values off the data, even though you have two very clear axes. In 1973 zero(ish) cassette shows around $2billion but in 2004 the same point reads around $zero. The only explanation I can think of is that the client asked for a graph which conceals the growth of digital.
CA_Jim (16 months ago | reply)
philoye's right.
"This chart isn't adjusted for inflation, making it rather useless."
wejhbfjwebfjhqwfhwbefwebf (16 months ago | reply)
Here's a clearer example of the same technique. I don't know if I can post a link here but it's on Digital Music News yesterday (no I can't post the link, sorry). It's not the same data, this one is singles by unit over time and format. But again, the new formats start at the bottom, showing growth, until we get to digital (online) which is shown on top of the CD columns declining. Rob @bemuso
coxy (16 months ago | reply)
Nobody produces tapes or 8-tracks anymore, but surely the LP/EP category still has some life in it, since they're still available in high-street retailers (in the UK, at least) and still immensely popular in independent retail stores.
jwallacephoto (16 months ago | reply)
After "Digital", it needs another shaded area for "Frivolous Piracy Lawsuits."
Mind Booster Noori (16 months ago | reply)
"Nobody produces tapes or 8-tracks any more" is a wrong statement. Sissy Spacek's "French Record" was released last month on tape. I don't know of any 8-tracks released in 2011, but 2010 saw more than a few released.
Regarding the graph, it would be useful only if it showed units...
Thomas Hawk (16 months ago | reply)
didn't Napster hit right about at the top of this graph, sigh, remember the good old days of Napster?
Alexandre Van de Sande (16 months ago | reply)
The problem with stacked graphs is that a big mover on bottom will distort everything on top of it. For example, if we switch position of the digital and CD sale (stacking from bigger to smaller) the graph changes from "all music sale is plummeting to it's death" to "cd sales is over, but digital is growing to a smaller, but significant level". In fact if we ignore inflation, digital is on par to the profit of the 70's 80's, making the 90's the aberration.
wejhbfjwebfjhqwfhwbefwebf (16 months ago | reply)
A perfect illustration Alexandre.
riddle (16 months ago | reply)
Great rebuttal, Alexandre!
I wonder how many people who see the original chart at Business Insider, etc., will get as far as Alexandre's comment?
(I do wonder how "global" RIAA's numbers are and were in the past. Was the growth in the 90's because people globally bought more music? Or bought more music trackable by the RIAA?)
troy nowaselski (16 months ago | reply)
If it had more colors I'd be interested.
davidmccabe (16 months ago | reply)
This is a great idea for a chart, but it can't be stated strongly enough: Any chart over this time-span that doesn't adjust for inflation is simply a lie.
gmorfy (16 months ago | reply)
The pre-1987 period is/should be adjusted for inflation.
The 2nd big story there: big big profit on CD sales in the 80s and 90s. We sure got gouged at the time. No wonder the RIAA was so eager to stop Napster and Kazaa. They has a really good thing going on.
yeon.ghost (16 months ago | reply)
what about small labels?
CD are not just released by major...
Thomas Hawk (16 months ago | reply)
I wonder if there could be some way to make the downslope go faster in the next few years ahead. It's a good trend, but is there a way to speed it up?
Marco Raaphorst (16 months ago | reply)
this is RIAA only. what about independent artists not members of RIAA?
hiorgos (16 months ago | reply)
www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain- the-real-dea...
sandy1169 (15 months ago | reply)
Such a nice post. It gives us many informative things. Dont stop blogging. Keep it up.
anxiety treatment
This photo was invited and added to the The Songwriters Circle group.