Face It – In Music, Devaluation Is The New Reality
Spotify is offering access to the most well-organized, comprehensive catalog of music ever assembled in history. So why are they being forced to beg?
Sure, Spotify is limiting offline and mobile access with its middle-tier, ‘Unlimited’ offering. They needed to create some differentiation. But 5 pounds, 5 euros, 5 whatevers?
The internet did this to recorded music. Removing the 2.0-friendly hat for one moment, the reality is that the perceived value of recordings has been eviscerated. And Spotify just can’t ramp its premium percentages to a reasonable level.
The devaluation is the new reality. At Digital Hollywood, one panelist spoke of the ‘awkwardness’ that arises when artists charge their fans. At NARM, everyone was trying to figure out how to CPR the CD with cheaper price points and special packages. And months earlier, David Hyman of MOG stuffed an entire catalog of six million songs, a smart radio player, and a community of like-minded fans for five bucks a month.
USA Today called us when MOG All Access launched, asking if it would work. When the answer was ‘maybe, let’s see,’ the reporter was a bit surprised. But it’s only five bucks, how could it not work? Sure, Hyman could convince the investors, you can almost see the pitch right now. But consumers are getting high for free.
We’re talking about the price of a beer. But MOG (and now Spotify) are giving you the entire keg for that price, always full and with whatever beer you want. And for another five, Spotify (and later MOG) will give you a smartphone backpack to carry it around. So why is it still a major question as to whether fans will pay?
Actually, Rhapsody and Napster – and labels – have been asking this very question since the early part of last decade. When digital music conferences were packed and billions were at stake, subscription success was almost viewed as a future truism by some. A matter of time. So many songs, so much access, how could it not make sense?
Maybe the new rule is that, if it looks good on paper, it’ll never work. If it seems like an obvious winner, maybe it’s destined to lose. But the seemingly-illogical consumer reaction can be dissected.
Let’s see. They’ll still pay for Netflix (NSDQ: NFLX), smartphones and endless apps, games, iPads, and Kindles. And, far more than five bucks for cable channels, most of which they’ll never watch. And, they’ll pay for broadband upstream, but music downstream must be free.
The toll booth is out of reach, and European labels are determined to do something about it. Just take a look at the average hard drive and iPod. Sure, the cloud will save the music industry, except that everyone is already carrying thousands of pre-selected, ripped or swapped (and occassionally paid-for) songs with them at all times. Shuffling through playlists, tuning the world out with gigs of music. So, why do they need more?
And sure, they ‘pay for music’. Believe that and you’ll believe that they also ‘go to the show’. But online, rationalizations aren’t required, and music floweth for free – download, on-demand, whatever. To the point that consumers now expect it, they are entitled to gratis.
And that is why Spotify finds itself struggling to convince majors in the US. And, why they are suddenly throwing their award-winning interface into the bargain bin and curtailing free access. The recording industry was thrust into digital disruption before the others, and the perceived value of its output is therefore different.
So will the latest Spotify retread work? The short, post-Napster history suggests no. It says that even well-priced propositions will struggle against free. And it shows that a consumer stuffed is not a consumer in need. The gods of free have won, and Spotify is just making its sacrifices.
This story has been provided by our content partner Digital Music News.
NB. Spotify isn’t strictly “curtailing free access”. Its free option remains in place, albeit invite-only, and there’s a new free option open to anyone without an invite, for 20 hours a month. See yesterday’s story – http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-spotify-halves-subscription-cost-as-competitors-gather/
OK, so Robert how is that not curtailing free access?
Let’s do the math.
The standard broadcast of an Internet song in the US will cost .14 performance royalty per user. Let’s assume the average pop song is 3 minutes long.
20 songs per hour X .14 royalty fee = $2.80 hour per individual subscriber. This is how much an Internet radio subscriber would cost and this does not include the $10,000-$50,000 annual fee.
So if someone told me they want to charge $5 a month per user…..
It’s not entirely about the underlying product (music) – it’s more about how the product is packaged and offered to the consumer. Spotify is beautiful, intuitive and wonderful – it packages on-demand music far better than it has ever been packaged before. I don’t see any hard stats in this article to say that the Spotify model isn’t working, and I haven’t seen those hard stats anywhere to date. The naysayers will say, “Spotify won’t work, Spotify can’t work, nothing like it has ever succeeded before.” Before iTunes, it was said people wouldn’t pay for downloads. Before Pandora, it was said online radio couldn’t be profitable. Today, people are saying on-demand music won’t work. That’s flat out wrong. On-demand music will work with a hybrid ad-supported/subscription model of the sort that Spotify is creating.
It’s all about the packaging, and Spotify presents music in a beautiful package.
Water from a fountain is free, water in a bottle costs $2.
A day immersed in the amusement of a city is free, a day at Disney World costs $80.
Digital music files are free, digital music via Spotify will cost money. And the package is so wonderful that people will pay (via subscription or via attention).
mdudas,
I like all the points about having a beautiful package and $2 Fiji water bottles but the online music service cannot sell you a beautiful package at a lower cost than royalty fees they have to pay to sustain the cost of doing business.
I’ve had an invite for Spotify for a little over a year. Living in the US, I just didn’t think it measures up to Rhapsody’s offering. Yes, I get beautiful, yes I get intuitive. But the reason I use these services is not to marvel at their software, it’s to listen to music. I think people forget that sometimes in our speculation what business model will ultimately ‘save’ the business. Rhapsody’s UI isn’t bad at all – it can be streamlined and made easier, but for $10 a month, to be able to listen to literally pretty much anything I want? I can handle that expense. Spotify’s use of AllMusic reviews drives me nuts too, and one of the things I love about Rhapsody and eMusic. Good editorial.
People like to own music. People had record and CD collections. Songs were expensive and it was cool to say that you forked over the money for a band’s album before anyone else knew it was cool. Now that anyone can get any music for free, there is no cache in having paid for the music. Subscriptions are the worst because if you stop paying all of your music is gone. I could listen to my 17,000 songs literally forever.
Has anyone considered that nobody deserves to make money off of an artists hard work besides the artists themselves? Back in the day, artists didn’t have the means to record, produce, and distribute their music so they needed record companies to help them out. Then record companies decided through lobbying that they had some sort of right to earn money for other people’s work.
Now that the technology exists to put the power back in the artist’s hands, the people are wrong for taking advantage?
Let me ask you something, when you’re going to plan a road trip, do you still go to AAA and have them make a triptick for you? Or do you go to Google Maps?
When you need to trade stocks, do you hire a broker? Or do you go to eTrade?
Record companies ruined the music industry and I can’t wait for the Online Renaissance to bring us some of the best music we have heard in a long time.
The more pertinent question would seem to be whether artists themselves deserve to earn any money from their hard work, because the popularity of free or nearly-free means of consuming music appears to say “no.”
Simple economics apply here… When artists and writers can no longer make money from making music… The only free music that will be available will be OLD free music…