Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   So Much Gear, So Little Time (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/)
-   -   How does Spotify make sense - it seems crazy to me!! (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/438798-how-does-spotify-make-sense-seems-crazy-me.html)

TheMarqueeYears 10th November 2009 12:55 PM

How does Spotify make sense - it seems crazy to me!!
 
I really like Sting,

So normally he brings an album out, and to hear it I would rush down to town and buy the CD .... it was kinda exciting.

Now he has released "If on a Winters Night" and a day later there it is FREE on Spotify.

So I'm now listening to it (sounds cool) and it's cost me NOTHING!!

I really don't get it ... it just seems madness to me.

Can anyone explain it to me.

Thanks
TMY

psycho_monkey 10th November 2009 12:59 PM

- advertising

- paid for ad-free subscriptions.

-on the go listening still requires you to purchase the CD (or at least cough up for the paid for subscription)

if it's a sustainable model remains to be seen.

TheMarqueeYears 10th November 2009 01:06 PM

Right ...

Ok so I have to listen to an ad every 20 minutes (which doesn't really bother me, as I'm busy doing my accounts when I use Spotify)

How many times do I have to listen to the album, before Sting gets the same amount of money from Soptify as if I'd bought the physical CD.

100's .... 1000's .... 10,000's ?

At the moment it seems to good to be true, yet depressing speaking as a little known artist.

It doesn't look good for my estate in Tuscany! (I can live without the Jacobian Mansion)

TMY

hankdrummer 10th November 2009 01:14 PM

i don't think spotify will last long

it doesn't generate enough money
labels get so ridiculous money from it, they remove their content from it.

Hyperdub just removed all its catalogue

TheMarqueeYears 10th November 2009 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hankdrummer (Post 4767659)
i don't think spotify will last long

it doesn't generate enough money
labels get so ridiculous money from it, they remove their content from it.

Hyperdub just removed all its catalogue

Did they, that's interesting ....

It seems an unsustainable model to me, I have this wonderful jukebox of almost every song, I've ever loved, and jazz and classical on tap for FREE!

I have this love, hate feeling about Spotify, I love it as a listener and hate the concept as an artist/producer.

Maybe your right, it'll flop and run out of money.

TMY

Deleted bd1be4f 10th November 2009 02:03 PM

Supposedly the plan is to offer it for free (or rather ad-supported) right now to spread the word and get people used to the service and interface, then introduce a subscription model.

Either way, whether it's Spotify or some other company, it is clear to me that the future of music consumption will look like this, i.e. subscription based high quality on-demand streaming of whatever you want, whenever you want, rather than purchasing and downloading individual digital files or physical CD's.

psycho_monkey 10th November 2009 03:05 PM

it's a work in progress, that's for sure.

however - sting only gets paid once when you buy his CD (regardless of if you then sell it on 2nd hand). he gets paid every time you listen to his online stream. Might only be a penny each time you listen to a song, but if you get a favourite song that you play repeatedly, it's going to add up...I'm no expert on CD royalties, but I can't imagine sting sees more than a pound per CD sold.

Mr_David 10th November 2009 03:05 PM

I'd have thought more people would like this business model.
Don't know the ins and outs of "spotify" specifically but I think it's the way forward.

Certainly, the cd business will never recover. itunes will get less and less too.

The only way the music industry can make any money will be the same way google/youtube etc do it.

Attracting people to a website and selling advertising. Free for the end user but lots of money splashing around from traffic. Hopefully, some business plans will be drawn up whereby artists/producers/labels make as much money as CD era, if not more.

That's my wishful idealistic opinion anyway.

As everything, it's gotta be done right and I'm not convinced spotify has cracked it.
Maybe when itunes is no longer viable, apple could do it and make it work.

ssaudio 10th November 2009 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hankdrummer (Post 4767659)
i don't think spotify will last long

Nor do I - I seriously doubt it will make next summer

Raygun 10th November 2009 03:35 PM

Spotify is a very serious attempt in this business and I expect to see some substantial growth. The product is absolutely fabulous and it's a nobrainer to pay the subscription fee. What's different about the subscription deal this time is that you so clearly pay for accesssing the content, not "renting" it. The only thing that happens if you stop paying is you'll get advertisement again. With the premium account, you have the iPhone app and you can use your playlists offline as well - killer. You can use it offline on the computer as well. As Spotify gets better and better and more and more people are using it and paying the premium fee - the more money it will make and the bigger the royalties get. Artists and labels who take their materiall off Spotify.. I think they are doing THE stupidest thing possible in music today..

t_d 10th November 2009 03:41 PM

i hate subscription based models, purely from a label point of view. we get about 1 cent if someone streams a song from our catalog from a subscription service (rhapsody, etc) and 60 cents if someone buys a track from iTunes or eMusic.

claend 10th November 2009 03:53 PM

Don't know guys, but for me it seems a way to create revenue. It's been in Spain for more than a year so far, and it's widely known now. After getting a free account, 10 minutes was enough to convince myself to purchase the Premium account... it's simply a ridicolous offer from a consumer point of view. For artists well time will tell, but is better than the presnet situation (almost no revenue), that's for sure.

My .02

Deleted bd1be4f 10th November 2009 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raygun (Post 4767941)
Spotify is a very serious attempt in this business and I expect to see some substantial growth. The product is absolutely fabulous and it's a nobrainer to pay the subscription fee. What's different about the subscription deal this time is that you so clearly pay for accesssing the content, not "renting" it. The only thing that happens if you stop paying is you'll get advertisement again. With the premium account, you have the iPhone app and you can use your playlists offline as well - killer. You can use it offline on the computer as well. As Spotify gets better and better and more and more people are using it and paying the premium fee - the more money it will make and the bigger the royalties get. Artists and labels who take their materiall off Spotify.. I think they are doing THE stupidest thing possible in music today..

Yep, totally agreed. Everyone who uses the service absolutely raves about it. This is the model of the future, the only question will be whether the artists and labels continue to cut off their noses to spite their faces and cling to a rapidly outdated model of expecting consumers to pay for music tracks and albums a la carte.

rectifier 10th November 2009 03:55 PM

what about grooveshark.com - plays whole albums and no ads.. I don't get it.

Jam 10th November 2009 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rectifier (Post 4768004)
what about grooveshark.com - plays whole albums and no ads.. I don't get it.

There's ads on the right hand side of the screen for me.

Also a link saying "remove ads for $3.00 a month"

So it seems, without close inspection, to be the same sort of model.

James

rectifier 10th November 2009 04:06 PM

Ah ok, forgot I had ABP on. mezed

So.. by putting on a d b l o c k Plus (and millions use it) we are right back to the start of the problem with this *model*. Anyways that's veering off from the Spotify chat a little as they use a different ad technique I think.

author 10th November 2009 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssaudio (Post 4767900)
Nor do I - I seriously doubt it will make next summer

I hope it will go away tomorrow.

Jam 10th November 2009 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears (Post 4767692)
I have this love, hate feeling about Spotify, I love it as a listener and hate the concept as an artist/producer.

Maybe your right, it'll flop and run out of money.

TMY

That's weird I feel the same way, totally irrationally though, I've not seen it on any of my royalty statements yet, so I don't have the numbers.

The gossip ( totally unsubstantiated ) is that Spotify did stock deals with the majors in lieu of cash owed, so I think they'll be given time to make it work, if it can !!

James

Jam 10th November 2009 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rectifier (Post 4768043)
Ah ok, forgot I had ABP on. mezed

So.. by putting on a d b l o c k Plus (and millions use it) we are right back to the start of the problem with this *model*. Anyways that's veering off from the Spotify chat a little as they use a different ad technique I think.

Makes sense.

James

Deleted bd1be4f 10th November 2009 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by author (Post 4768068)
I hope it will go away tomorrow.

Yes, by all means keep fighting the future. You'll be in a glass case in a museum in no time at all...shiee

indravayu 10th November 2009 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zboy2854 (Post 4767730)
Either way, whether it's Spotify or some other company, it is clear to me that the future of music consumption will look like this, i.e. subscription based high quality on-demand streaming of whatever you want, whenever you want, rather than purchasing and downloading individual digital files or physical CD's.

Yeah, I think when it comes to media, owning physical product will die off with the Baby Boomers (outside of the small community of audiophiles, anyway). For people who spend a lot of money on iTunes/Amazon downloads (like I do), having access to an amazing catalog of on-demand music for a small subscription fee will seem like a bargain - plus, you never have to worry about hardware crashes/license transfers when you switch computers.

beanface 10th November 2009 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam (Post 4768021)
There's ads on the right hand side of the screen for me.

Also a link saying "remove ads for $3.00 a month"

So it seems, without close inspection, to be the same sort of model.

James


Maybe these different sites will just replace HMV, Virgin, Zavvi etc... Its seems pretty likely. I'm sure a few will go down the pan in process. Maybe iTunes et al, are the transition models?

Rabbit 10th November 2009 10:35 PM

I was curious about Spotify but unfortunately it's not available in the US yet so there's not much for me to check out.

mobius.media 10th November 2009 10:39 PM

imeem is pretty much the same, only with a clumsier interface.

hankdrummer 10th November 2009 11:14 PM

live streaming (with offline option) is the future, no doubt, but it's too early right now.

Apple will launch it's subscription service for sure, but only in a few years i guess, when digital sales will be too slow

btw, video games stores will soon be a thing of the past as well.

TheRealRoach 10th November 2009 11:19 PM

Just heard about this for the first time today. Made the news in Canada's Globe and Mail:

How Spotify might save the Music Industry

I think the model will last. Whether it actually makes a difference with industry finances is a different story.

Case in point: my 15-year-old brother in law hangs out at my apartment a lot and brings his nifty iPod (the one that looks like an iPhone) and uses YouTube as a sort of defacto on-demand music player.

author 10th November 2009 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hankdrummer (Post 4769491)
live streaming (with offline option) is the future, no doubt

On the contrary, there's a lot of doubt about that.

It all depends on one thing: Are artists going to be payed? Or will we just see a lot of Spotify's?

Nobody knows.

mattssons 11th November 2009 12:25 AM

Spotify
 
It´s darn popular here although some artist drop out because they get paid next to nothing from it.

The thing to know is that from what i recall Spotify is owned by major recordcompanies and a cut for the developing company.

I hope they get the model to work well, so artist can be paid with streamings and not just gigging these days. /Toby

Clonkified 11th November 2009 01:57 AM

Spotify's business model is not sustainable. iMeem proved that. MySpace Music is trying to do ad-supported streaming but is bleeding money. Grooveshark is like Seeqpod - it will be shutdown imminently. Ad-supported music doesn't work based on the current monetary asks of the content owners (labels). Ad revenue just isn't high enough.

But don't worry - lots of smart people (and me) are thinking about this problem everyday. cooge

Deleted bd1be4f 11th November 2009 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clonkified (Post 4769980)
Spotify's business model is not sustainable. iMeem proved that. MySpace Music is trying to do ad-supported streaming but is bleeding money. Grooveshark is like Seeqpod - it will be shutdown imminently. Ad-supported music doesn't work based on the current monetary asks of the content owners (labels). Ad revenue just isn't high enough.

Ad supported may not be sustainable, but most people I know who have used Spotify have ended up paying for the premium subscription service, because the user experience and interface is so good and intuitive.

And that's the key. Make the user experience such a no-brainer that people will gladly pay for a monthly subscription. Spotify has done that, where iMeem, Myspace and others have failed (not to mention the audio quality issue). But as long as artists and labels are so afraid of the future and continue to cling so tightly to the current paradigm despite the fact that it's clearly sinking fast, then the process is going to take a lot longer and result in a lot more lost revenue for those artists and labels.