Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
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 at 5 pounds, 5 euros, 5 whatevers a month?
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.
This devaluation is the new reality. At Digital Hollywood recently, 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 just recently, David Hyman of MOG stuffed an entire catalog of six million songs, a smart radio player, and a community of like-minded fans into a $5 monthly box.
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 brand 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, 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 occasionally 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, cloud or otherwise?
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. 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 other media industries, 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.
Paul Resnikoff, Publisher.
Comments Closed
gresehover Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Cloud services deliver an inferior product to a locally-stored mp3. You're at the whim of your computer, your software and Time Warner Cable. There's a big difference between your internet having a hiccup when you're loading the New York Times website and when you're playing the intro to "Rocks Off" by the Stones at your barbecue. And people have a lot of time and money invested in their record collections. They look around and see some brand new service claim to be the future of the way they listen to music, but like any sensible investor, they take a bit of a wait-and-see approach.
I'm a ravenous music consumer and a technophile, but Spotify for me is a nice "extra" service that I add to my existing music listening experience, and not at all a replacement.
JacksonL Wednesday, May 19, 2010
gresehover, what you're saying needs to be said. I'm like you, cloud is fun but I want a collection, close to the vest. just old school thinking? not so sure. I use Spotify, but it's more discovery for me, digging deeper into catalogs and finding gems. then, I always think, if I really like the song, album, etc., I want to own it. nuff said on that!
paddlebro Wednesday, May 19, 2010
I have used Rhapsody for years despite the crappy interface, no Mac client, etc. I think it is amazing to have instant access to such a huge collection of music and I am more than willing to pay a subscription fee for that privilege. Now that it is easy to download to mobile clients for offline listening, many of the previous objections are moot. Services like Sonos integrate the listening experience into the home. The listener is no longer tied to the computer and their broadband feed.
However, I like to own music too and have never seen the point of buying digital downloads even though I worked to pioneer the technology. When I like something I buy the CD for audio quality, liner notes/credits, and because this is how most artists conceptualize and package their work. My biggest question about cloud-based services is whether they can make money. It seems like a no-brainer from the consumer perspective, but if the artists and the platform aren't profitable can these models be sustained?
alias2u2 Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Per Resnikoff's Parting Shot: The
internet did this to recorded music... Thank
you for not being afraid to remove "the 2.0-friendly hat." You and I
communicated a couple years back when the online industry championed that they
were bringing us music democracy. I suggested to you then that it seemed more
like anarchy, not democracy, because real Democracy might have a set of agreed
upon rules under a Constitution that is supposed to provide protections for
everyone to be able to basically play in the same ballpark. My perception of the
online world in its extreme was of unregulated anarchy breaching the Constitutional guarantees
of Authors Rights, as well as Privacy, through bully power (Pirate Bay), mob
rule (downloaders), and the first-ever worldwide distribution of content without
license or royalty. My updated take with the way things are going is that top
artists could be forced to pay ISPs protection money, and payola will probably become
rampant online, if left unregulated.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us