• RSS
  • Text Size:
  • -
  • irishtimes.com - Posted: April 6, 2009 @ 8:32 am

    The economics – and politics – of streaming

    Jim Carroll

    For this month at least, streaming is the new rock’n'roll. While the likes of Spotify and Lala are not currently available in Ireland (well, unless you’re prepared to pay €10 a month for the former’s premium service), it is only a matter of time before one or other or both opens for business on your browser. They may well be the best thing to happen to your online music experience since Rapidshare – and possibly the worst thing to happen to the record business since, uhm, Rapidshare.

    I’ve had a chance to use both Spotify and Lala in the past few weeks and was hugely impressed by both. Spotify, in particular, is a beauty. The first time I used it, I was reminded of the first time I started using iTunes. Here’s a system designed by a team who have actually gone to the bother of working out just what someone using the service wants. It’s intuitive, uncluttered and straightforward. Beyond the structural and navigational nuts and bolts, there are eight million tracks to listen to and it’s a number growing all the time because the record labels are full-square behind this initiative.

    Hell, the labels love it. And why do the labels love it? Bear with me here as I spin a few paragraphs of back-story to explain this one.

    I’ve just finished reading Steve Knopper’s “Appetite for Self-Destruction”, an excellent and hugely recommended read on how the record industry did for their business what Fianna Fail did for Ireland by squandering the fruits of the boom (book review here). In the case of the labels, their boom was the mad money they made from the CD format during the 1990s in the shape of cash from punters going out to buy their existing collections on a new format and label-friendly new deals negotiated with artists. Because the labels were so pre-occupied with this CD windfall, they failed to see the cultural changes which occured when Shaun Fanning and friends appeared in the late 1990s. After decades of taking their customers for granted, the labels got their comeupance

    Knopper makes a very good point about the subsequent outbreak of corporate love between the labels and Steve Jobs. When Jobs and Apple came along with the iPod and the iTunes Music Store, it was just what the labels were after – they were seeking a legal alternative to file-sharing and knew their own half-hearted initiatives like PressPlay and MusicNet were just not going to work. Jobs with his iTunes was their white knight in a black polo-neck.

    But iTunes was just a hook for Apple to flog hardware – Jobs wanted the labels onboard to help him sell iPods and the labels would never see a red cent of that revenue. It took the smart boys from Warner Music and Universal Music some time to realise what had happened but by then, there was nothing they could do. Jobs 1, record labels 0.

    It’s fair to say that many of the labels have been pining for an iTunes killer ever since. They don’t particularly dig a situation where Apple control the gates of the compound. Naturally, the labels have, as is their wont, invested time and association in a couple of donkeys (and Frogs) and there are plenty of alternatives to Apple, but iTunes, with its one-price-fits-all policy, continues to be the market leader, the Kilkenny hurling team of download stores.

    Then, there’s the whole illegal filesharing area which continues to be a pain in the industry’s butt. While you could argue that a lot of illegal file-sharers were never going to pay for their music anyway, there’s still a proportion of legal sales leaking away every day as people steal the album for free rather than pay for it.

    Of course, there were streaming services before Spotify but, just as there were alternatives pre-iTunes, they just weren’t very good. By getting behind the new service, the labels are hoping to persuade illegal downloaders to stop their evil ways and go over to Spotify. Why download the tracks from Mediafire or Piriate Bay, goes the thinking, when you can have EIGHT MILLION TUNES FOR FREE over on Spotify? You can use Spotify from any computer and they’re currently prepping an app for mobile devices. Yep, EIGHT MILLION TUNES FOR FREE IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND!

    Now, I’m not great at maths, but this just doesn’t add up. The labels’ Spotify revenue comes from a share of the ads which users listen to while using the service – these ads occur every 30 minutes or so at present, though I’m sure the frequency will increase when the ads increase. However, just as the revenue from digital sales was not enough to offset the lost revenue from falling physical sales, surely this ad revenue will not be enough to offset the money lost to reduced digital sales? This especially applies at a time when there just isn’t a lot of ad revenue around in general.

    If you have EIGHT MILLION TUNES FOR FREE IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND!, are you really going to be running to your favourite digital retailer to purchase that MP3? Yes, there are hoarders, like this writer and many of this blog’s readers, who still have a hankering to own the damn thing, but many people will just be happy to be able to tap into the songs when and where they want. While this means users will be weaned off pirating the music – research released last week by US researchers NPD Group show that teens’ use of online radio services was up 38 per cent and use of streaming music via social networks was up 20 per cent in recent times – it also means that a huge number of music users won’t be making those 99 cent purchases.

    While the record industry may be content to cock a snook to Steve Jobs and Apple, does it really believe saying “ya boo sucks” is worth losing a large chunk of change from those two billion iTunes sales every year? Does it really think that ad-supported services like Spotify are going to both keep them in clover for the future and make up for ever-falling revenue from physical sales? After all, the labels are still spending large sums of money – albeit somewhat reduced from years gone by – in getting the music to market in the first place.

  • 24 Comments

    1.
    April 6, 2009
    8:52 am

    Once they develop, perfect and sell an application for Spotify for the mobile phone world, things are going to get crazy, methinks.
    I think Spotify is actually so good and so revolutionary, not enough people have realised what that statement you have capitalised in your piece actually means.
    It’s too good to be true AND it’s also, well, true.
    As Martin Lawrence said to Will Smith in Bad Boys: Shit’s about to get real.

    Comment by adam
    2.
    April 6, 2009
    9:05 am

    Adam – I agree with you there. Spotify really does remind me of what it was like when you clocked iTunes for the first time and realised “wow”. But with Spotify, you have the eight million tunes without having to either rip them from your CDs or pay 99c a pop or having to use your favourite illegal online dealer. It is revolutionary but I think the economcs of it – and especially the economics of how Spotify themselves can make it turn a profit for them – are a little hazy right now

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    3.
    April 6, 2009
    9:19 am

    Spotify

    - Payment to record companies is probably based on price per play or a percentage of profit/divided by number of plays of a particular song – each being low at the moment but potential is the dangling carrot
    - Its new so not a lot of revenue stream at the moment. Once advertisers see the how appealing it is to the customer they will come flooding in. Increased advertising streams. Given the amount of users you could get any amount of add’s and repetition should not be a problem
    - Once it hits the iphone/itouch you are talking about an exponential increase in numbers (will this webapp be at a cost). Wifi is still only in hotspots but give it a couple of years and wimax will have Internet access everywhere e.g. cruising down the N7 with access to all music ever made (well almost)
    - Will they add a killer function for the premium users that will entice people to put up the money for that service (99 euro for the year aint bad considering you have access to 8million plus tunes)
    - They now have the ability to buy songs/albums straight from Spotify at 50p a song – Apple watch out (also, they are working on downloading playlists) – more revenue

    The Spofity buzz is out there and it has not hit the US yet. Early days for making huge profit/revenue streams for record labels but the potential is massive.

    Comment by Patrick
    4.
    April 6, 2009
    9:35 am

    going of topic here…more acts announced to oxegen…mogwai?!

    Friday July 10 – 2 Many DJs, Mogwai, Ocean Colour Scene, The Hours, M83 and Republic Of Loose

    Saturday July 11 – James Morrison, Regina Spektor, Maximo Park, Crystal Castles and La Roux

    Sunday July 12 – You Me At 6

    Comment by caroline
    5.
    April 6, 2009
    10:02 am

    To put it another way, Spotify is essentially a glorified online commercial radio station where each listener is his or her own DJ.

    I can see the lure of it, but I also think that it sounds soulless (so did iTunes…) and intrusive (how long before they send ads customised just for you?). The need for continuous connectivity and no loss of service when servers need/experience downtime also exists.

    Speaking of songs, your article reminds me of the one about an old lady who swallowed a fly. How swollen will the record labels’ bellies be when they are done with all of this?

    Comment by JD
    6.
    April 6, 2009
    10:16 am

    Hmmm, revenue from ad’s played at certain points between songs? That sounds just like the business model used by Radio stations.

    Granted I know the revolutionary part is in how the service delivers the music, but this is also where it gets one up on Radio advertising – Spotify (I presume you join set up a profile etc.) will have the demographic information of all of its listeners, age, location, tastes in music etc. The potential to offer highly targeted advertising. Add that to some of the other revenue streams outlined and it could be a profitable service in a few years.

    Maybe Radio stations should be more concerned? If you can place ad’s in between songs, why can’t you place other items users can subscribe to? such as a 1 min news/weather update on the hour, have that outsourced and sponsored, competitions etc. It doesnt have to stop with just adverts.

    Comment by Luke Abbott
    7.
    April 6, 2009
    10:59 am

    adam gets it right when saying that once it hits mobile devices, it may take off.
    This will, however, consume an awful lot of data traffic. Mobile data is very expensive in Ireland and there aren’t many free WiFi hotspots.

    Comment by IrishWhiskey
    8.
    April 6, 2009
    11:42 am

    well… unless there is a mobile phone application and you have a mobile phone able to access it all at all times and for minimal cost.. then it isnt going to be revoluntionary is it. I do the majority of my music listening away from a computer. Surely many if not most people are similar. So what good is it for me?

    Comment by Michael
    9.
    April 6, 2009
    12:25 pm

    Mogwai hardly surprising seeing as they’ve just played a trio of MCD dates here. And add one to the sparse list of names that would genuinely make me want to go.

    back on topic. Nerd question, whats the spotify bitrate?

    Comment by Ian
    10.
    April 6, 2009
    1:08 pm

    Spotify is the bees knees. Playlist/sorting function needs a bit of tweaking but other than that it’s game-changing stuff. Agree with Jim in that i can’t see how it’s going to make sufficient money to keep everyone happy but i can see it being particularly beneficial for independent artists/songwriters.

    Comment by Aonghus
    11.
    April 6, 2009
    1:25 pm

    So what is the premium service? No ads?

    Comment by Paul
    12.
    April 6, 2009
    2:57 pm

    Caroline@4 -**going off topic here…more acts announced to oxegen…mogwai?!

    Friday July 10 – 2 Many DJs, Mogwai, Ocean Colour Scene, The Hours, M83 and Republic Of Loose**

    F**K – No Mogwai for EP then. Then again, they were a cert to play Oxegen after their 3-night sell-out at MCD’s Academy. The brilliant M83 are a good addition too, though live they’re a tad underwhelming.

    Comment by Quint
    13.
    April 6, 2009
    4:01 pm

    I’m a Dub living in London, therefore I have full access to Spotify for free and I can’t get enough of it.

    I tend to stay away from illegal file sharing. Mainly because I am a genuine music lover who wants to see musicians make money, also I can’t handle the speed of downloads from these sources. There is also the fear of viruses and the fact that after waiting all that time for the download there is a chance that the album you downloaded isn’t actually the album you requested or there are songs missing.

    Spotify gives you the chance to listen to albums in full and in excellent quality, without the need for buffering. Whats not to love? The only downside I can see is, as you said Jim, advertising. Currently, an advert every few songs, is fine (you can get through a full album and only probably hear two adverts) but when America get on bored and the record labels aren’t getting paid very much or nobody is clicking on the links to purchase I am sure there will be a huge increase in advertising.

    People will always want to buy. Spotify is just a form of quality control for alot of people. I have been listening to about 20 albums over the past week or so and have since purchased 6 of those albums.

    Other thing, slightly off the point, I can get albums on CD from the likes of Play and Amazon (with free delivery) for less than I can get the download on iTunes. Sure even the download version on Play or Amazon is only slightly cheaper than the album version most of the time.

    Downloads are far to expensive. Give me the CD for an extra few pence any day. It only takes a few minutes to make it an mp3 and sure who doesn’t love holding a quality album in their hand. Why buy an album as a download that was released in the 70’s when the CD is half the price?

    Give it five years and iTunes will have every song free to stream. Or maybe we will see a day when iTunes is the main link from albums on Spotify.

    Finally, if Spotify grows like it intends to I can’t see iPhone releasing an app. that gives their competitor a push to takeover.

    Comment by Owen
    14.
    April 6, 2009
    4:55 pm

    Thanks for all comments folks – I’ve been away from my computer all day so replies are a little tardy

    BTW I’ve reviewed Steve Knopper’s book for the Innovation page and you’ll find it here – http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2009/0406/1224244067253.html

    Patrick – I think when Spotify hit the US, we’ll see it go from buzz to mainstream very, very quickly. Also, yes, obviously revenue will increase when ads increase but right now, the ad take-up must be very spotty. I suppose having seen so many examples of short-term thinking by the Big 4 record labels that I’m quite surprised if they suddenly have developed a long-term viewpoint.

    JD – hard to tell. They really do see this as a way to cock a snook at Apple/Jobs/iTunes but the revenue from this cannot and will not go anyway to replacing lost digital sales (I won’t even go near physical losses)

    Luke – Very good point. I’m sure radio stations will point to their jocks and personalities as their unique selling point. Might be the ultimate test of just how popular certain JNLR hit-makers really are

    IrishWhiskey – oh yes, that’s true but isn’t there some wonderful plan to make all the country a big ol’ wifi zone or something like that? Or was that Eircom back in 1999?

    Paul – yep, no ads and you pay €10 a month. eMusic without the limits on your spend – or the downloads

    Owen – Good points. I’m sure the iPhone will count their cut from X amount of Spotify app sales and happily take it onboard. Interesting point re iTunes following that model – maybe Spotify is just what is needed for them to do that.

    It’s obvious from above that many people will quite happily embrace Spotify if and when it becomes available here as an ad-supported service. So a I right in feeling that having the actual MP3 isn’t as big a deal as some might think?

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    15.
    April 6, 2009
    7:06 pm

    Must say (and I haven’t used Spotify so can’t verify this statement) I fail to see what Spotify is offering above last.fm/pandora et al apart from including some intrusive ads?

    And your question about whether people will still want the mp3 Jim, the answer is a definite yes. Can’t see the ipod becoming a relic for a long time yet.

    Spotify for background in the home, mp3 for all other music interactive activities.

    Comment by hugger
    16.
    April 6, 2009
    8:07 pm

    @hugger I imagine the difference is 8 million songs of full albums. That and the fact that the labels are behind it so they won’t need to go to court.

    In a way I can see this being a good thing for labels in that music junkies can use this to try new albums that they would have previously downloaded to try. Some of these may go on to buy the actual CD rather than download the MP3s.

    Comment by Paul
    17.
    April 7, 2009
    12:27 am

    @ jim @ 14 – it depends on how you listen to your music. I’ve got the ipod for listening to music on the hoof, or for putting in the ‘dock’ when i want to listen to music while reading the paper. I’m one of those who isn’t mad about having the PC as my ‘media’ hub, constantly on; as far as i’m concerned, the PC is for work and faffing about on when I’m not. The mp3 is therefore important insofar as I need it if i want to listen to a song while away from the computer, but as somebody else says, for the few extra bob, i’d rather have the CD and rip myself. Heck, I want the ENTIRETY of the sound spectrum, even if i can’t hear most of it!

    Spotifys true revolutionary thing is that it allows the user to sample the full album before buying it; that’s how I’d see its strength. Of course, it means a final death blow to the ‘pig-in-a-poke’ business model that the music industry has relied on for yonks, but that’s another story!

    Comment by ivan
    18.
    April 7, 2009
    8:11 am

    Hugger v Paul – I think you’re both expressing the 2 sides of this story. Yes, there are 8 million tunes on Spotify which will do many music fans, but there are (of course) many acts and songs and styles which are not on Spotify and probably will not be, which is where other sites and sources will come into play. I think Spotify will work as a sort of free-for-all iTunes-like streaming service, but there will still be a demand for an alternative as there always will be.

    Ivan – I also think that as technology chances, more and more people will use Spotify (or, inevitably, its rivals and competitors, who will also get better) as their main music source. They may buy a few albums a year but they will have moved to streaming as their main way of listening to music. Again, I stress, that the technology has to get better first – and as always, it will improve dramatically elsewhere than in Ireland.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    19.
    April 7, 2009
    8:28 am

    And what do ya know – Apple introduce variable pricing after holding out against the move for nearly 6 years – http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE53608420090407

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    20.
    April 7, 2009
    10:41 am

    Excellent piece Jim. I have been saying for ages (including on this blog) that the drop in CD sales has to be viewed in the context of the format-change boom boom that went beforehand, and not as part of the download apocalypse.

    Personally, I have my doubts about the long-term sustainability of products whose revenue is purely advertising-related. That goes for google, facebook etc also. I think advertising can provide a good complementary income stream, for example in the case of newpapers; but if your business relies on advertising alone, you are making money second hand – you have no industry of your own and are completely dependent on the advertising business and agencies to make your money.

    There’s something hollow about that business model that I can’t quite put my finger on.

    Comment by Mumblin' Deaf Ro
    21.
    April 7, 2009
    10:44 am

    PS: as musician, the biggest change coming from all this is that people now listen to music on headphones rather than speakers. This has huge implications for the way songs are mixed and, in particular, the way individual tracks are panned, as separation is much more noticable in headphones (listen to a Beatles album and you’ll know what I’m talking about).

    Comment by Mumblin' Deaf Ro
    22.
    April 7, 2009
    11:55 am

    MDR – I second your doubts about any sort of initiative which hopes to depend solely on ads for revenue or sustainability.

    In the case of Spotify, I really would love to know why the labels all fell in love with this one so quickly. Yes, it’s clean and uncluttered and easy to use, but part of me knows my old muckers at the labels are more interested in the cash bottom line than in supporting a service which gave its customers a brilliant user experience.

    And if that’s the case and the money doesn’t come from ads, where will Spotify get the cash to pay the bills?

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    23.
    April 9, 2009
    1:06 pm

    Jim, not quite re: streaming but you might be interested in the fact that the French parliament has just rejected the proposed anti-piracy law that cuts off an offender’s Internet access.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/09/france-illegal-downloads-state-surveillance

    Comment by aidan
    24.
    April 9, 2009
    3:02 pm

    Aidan – thanks for that, had seen mention of it on the wires this morning

    Comment by Jim Carroll

    Comments on this article are now closed.


Search On The Record