Up A Stream: Why Spotify Is Music’s Latest Whipping Boy

scapegoatWhat’s the old saying? There are lies, damn lies and then statistics? Or how about the other one that is attributed to Mark Twain: a lie can make it around the world while the truth is just putting on its boots.

Based on the biased, one-sided and sloppy piece authored by Scott Timberg on Salon, it’s pretty clear that the lies are winning. The piece trots out the usual tripe of how streaming is ripping off artists and how artists used to make a lot of money and now they make nothing.

As usual, the problem is that streaming is hot right now, especially everyone’s favorite whipping boy, Spotify, and therefore anyone with a pen goes after Daniel Ek’s startup. None moreso than Scott, whose tome seems to completely support his to-be-released book “Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class” at the peril of facts.

The facts and numbers are hand-picked to prove his point. The truth about the numbers remains very different. For example, Scott points to the mid-year numbers from the RIAA that show streaming to be up by 42 percent, but CD sales are down 19.6 percent and digital downloads lost 11.6 percent. All true but also devoid of meaning. What he doesn’t point out is there is revenue associated with streaming. In the first half of 2014, for the three categories associated with streaming: Internet radio services like Pandora, subscription revenue and on-demand advertising services payouts rose 22% over the previous year—up to $886 million. (For the record, subscription revenue is up 42 percent which is just part of the streaming category).

The whole theme of the piece is that streaming is the big boogeyman that’s killing artists. Especially based on this quote in Scott’s story:

“I used to sell CDs of my music,” says Richard Danielpour, a celebrated American composer who has written an opera with Toni Morrison and once had an exclusive recording contract with Sony Classical. “And now we get nothing.”

Okay, fine. But is that all or even mostly streaming’s responsibility?

Look, there’s no doubt that streaming has had an impact on sales. Let’s not kid ourselves. The fan who ends up paying for a full year of a streaming service gets awesome value, as they don’t need to buy tons of CDs. It’s a fixed upper cost of $120 a year. But it’s also a fixed lower cost of $120 a year too. Mobile all-you-can-eat is that price regardless of what kind of customer you were in past life—either on single CD buyer or someone who bought 20 a year. While I have grave misgivings about this pricing model, it isn’t really the reason why artist compensation has tanked.

Remember Stealing Music?

Streaming only really got rolling in the United States when Spotify came to our shores in September of 2011. Before then, piracy was the main perpetrator killing music. In the decade before streaming took hold in the United States, CD sales fell by 443 million units a year, from 669 million in 2002 to 223 million in 2011. That’s nearly 300 percent! And sure digital tracks and albums stemmed some of the bleeding, but the US business overall shrank from $12.6bn to $7.1bn. Certainly there was streaming before Spotify. Pandora had quite a bit of success, as did YouTube and other services. But to make Spotify the villain of this story is asinine.

Spotify is a big deal and bound to get bigger. But it’s not the reason that artists are losing their livelihood. As I have written about in the past, the problem is when one equates a play on Spotify to a loss of a CD sale. Sure there might be some that stopped buying CDs and instead access all their music on the smartphone. But a curious listener is more likely to go listen to the track for free on Spotify, YouTube or an illegal source than they are to rush to the record store or even to buy it on iTunes. That’s just not the way the world works anymore. In other words, Spotify is more like radio than the loss of a digital track or CD sale.

And while Spotify is a Big Deal, its reach pales in comparison to YouTube or Pandora. Spotify claims 50 million users worldwide and 10 million paid subscribers. The company does not break out numbers by country, however the RIAA reports that there were 7.8 million streaming subscribers in the US in the first half of 2014. Those are split between Spotify, Rdio, Google Play All Access, Rhapsody and other assorted services.

Let’s just say that Spotify has the vast majority of subscribers, like five million. And then let’s use the company’s reported 20/80 ratio between paid and free users. That would put the overall reach in the US at 25 million, less than half of Pandora’s audience and a rounding error of YouTube’s billion global active users.

So what exactly is YouTube providing for the industry, with its awesome reach and nearly universal catalog of music? Well, the on-demand ad supported category created $164 million in revenue in 1H of 2014–about the amount vinyl is selling. Nice job, Google.

I have no idea what the amount of revenue YouTube generates per user, but it’s probably infinitesimal to subscription’s $47 per customer for six months service.

I’m not without concerns about streaming’s economic future, which I’ll get into with a post tomorrow. There are some significant issues about pricing, growth and, maybe most of all, throughput of artist compensation. But why authors continue to flog these services with the same old stories about destroying artist’s livelihoods is a mystery to me.

So as a public service, here’s a few suggested topics for writers that address some serious subjects for the music industry.

-Each replacement of previous music products is eating into revenues. First paid downloads replaced CDs and now streaming is replacing downloads. Why is this? And when do we reach a point when this is unsustainable for artist?

-Streaming is just now starting to generate big money. But is the money actually getting to artists?

-Can the music industry survive by investing in startups and expecting a big payday on a sale or an IPO, or do we need new revenue models?

-When will ad supported on-demand services like YouTube start creating real revenue?

-How has streaming changed the behavior of music fans? Are they happier? What are they missing?

Oh sure, some of these are obvious, but it would be better to address topics in a thoughtful and comprehensive way instead of blaming the death of the music business on greedy technologists.

Read On

Salon It’s not just David Byrne and Radiohead: Spotify, Pandora and how streaming music kills jazz and classical

Billboard Is 2014 The Year Digital Takes Over

Quartz An epic battle in streaming music is about to begin, and only a few will survive

JonMaples.com Liars Poker: Why can’t anyone write a fair assessment of streaming music

The Battle for Relevance: Apple and U2 Fight To Regain Their Mojo

The legendary band U2 came on stage at the end of the Apple Extravaganza that introduced the world to a pair of iPhone 6 models (big and freaking huge I think are the product names), Apple Pay and the Apple Watch. The band’s had a rough go of it recently. Their last release, No Line On The Horizon, disappointed both fans and critics and it seemed like they might have lost their relevance.

This is a band that has defied age and found ways to make themselves new again and again. Had time finally caught up with the band? Potentially, and it frightened them. Bono was quoted saying U2 didn’t want to be a heritage act. Being contemporary was much more important, he said. But it wasn’t easy. “To be relevant is a lot harder than to be successful,” he told the Hollywood Reporter. So making money isn’t the way the band judges itself. After all, U2’s latest tour broke records in terms of attendance and revenue, yet they still craved relevancy.

So the band made changes. They holed up with super producer Danger Mouse and poured themselves into the making of the new record. That was almost two years ago.

Why the delay?

The band took time to get the recording right, bringing in One Republic’s Mr. Everything Ryan Tedder and Adele’s producer Paul Epworth to assist in the making of the record.

Just like U2, Apple also has had a great run of success, but it appears they’ve been losing their relevancy. Tim Cook’s company is the richest in the world, and has shown the ability to deliver amazing profits. But that’s not the way he is judged. Tim still stands in the shadow of Steve Jobs as most of the company’s products since he took over the company are just iterations (are they truly improvements?)of the same product line. Meanwhile the world is catching up, and some may argue, passing the company (Samsung anyone?).

Tim’s plan to recapture the Apple magic has centered on the wrist. The company has invested heavily and spent a great deal of time incubating its watch. It has waited until Tim deemed the product was right and a mass number of people would want to wear it before they revealed it to the world. So in the wake of finally seeing the watch on Tim’s arm, how did the company do?

Hip To Be Square

Square is the new round for Apple.
Square is the new round for Apple.

The first visceral reaction to seeing the square-ish watch was one of disappointment. The form factor wasn’t all that different than artist mockups that have been circulating. Jony Ive had reportedly been bragging about how Swiss watchmakers were “fucked” because of the Apple Watch design, but it seems a bit bulky and much more masculine than expected. I have written that one of the musts for the company was to appeal to the female consumer, and the Apple Watch looks like it may overwhelm a woman’s wrist and underwhelm their demand for the timepiece.

What went wrong? Apple certainly made extremely complex technology back in the day. But when it came to showing that to the world, Jobs with without equal. He could find a way to find the few things a product did really well that connected with people. He innately understood desire and insisted the products showcased those. Complexity was hidden underneath the hood in favor of those few items that Steve told us were ‘awesome.’

In stark contrast we were shown the apps screen on the Apple Watch, which looked like a jumble of tiny icons and reeked of “technology” rather than useful features. Later in the demo, VP of Software Kevin Lynch geeked out on a watch face that placed exactly where we were in the solar system. Excuse me for saying this, but that’s fucking stupid. I know there are people who really care about such things, but do you really need that strapped to your wrist? To highlight that in a demo really tells me the company is having a hard time understanding why people need—or even want– the product.

Later, Tim came back on stage and kept referring to the Apple Watch as the most intimate product the company has ever produced. At first I had a hard time understanding Tim’s emphasis on intimacy. After all it’s not really a user benefit. Unless you are talking about massage creams or sex toys, does referring to intimacy really matter?

An Intimate Affair
Most likely the intimacy of the Apple Watch has been the rallying cry within the company. It’s a code word to remind everyone that the watch has to rise to a different level of value and importance if Apple expects people to wear this device on their wrist. It’s very important to product managers—not customers.

And that’s been the fundamental difference with Apple. Before there was simplicity and elegance and now it has been replaced with overwhelming features and options. Yesterday Kevin talked about the options a user had in customizing the watch screen. He showed off different watch faces with different features and colors. That’s very cool, but certainly not something that needed to be presented. Tell me why I need the watch. Not how I can bling the watch.

With all this said, I don’t believe the Apple Watch will be a bomb. Obviously, it will have its fans. And it’s not like the presentation of the iPhone really made the product a hit. The first generation iPhone came out and people went nuts for it when they saw it in action. It became a must-have device. We’ll see when the first customers start to use it and perhaps find they can’t live without it. But a breakout hit that makes the company the envy of the industry? Not from what we saw yesterday.

A better bet might be Apple Pay, which looks like it could potentially simplify the purchase experience and disrupt mediocre services like PayPal and Square. It does require an iPhone and a battery life, though. So yes, you might need to charge before you can charge.

And what of U2? Can Bono and his mates recapture their glory? Perhaps. But giving away your album (even if you are getting paid big bucks for the privilege) to every iTunes user in the world seems like you are cheating your way to relevancy.

 

Some Of My Favorite Tweets From Yesterday’s Apple Watch Presentation

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 7.44.27 AM

Screen Shot 2014-09-09 at 5.13.58 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-09 at 5.11.00 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-09 at 5.11.07 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-09 at 5.10.23 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 11.37.18 AM 

 

Wearing It Well: Can Apple Turn Wearables Mainstream?

A version of this first appeared on Re/Code

By South by Southwest standards, it was early. Obscenely early. But there we were, tromping out of our hotel into the unusually foggy morning, mere hours after falling into bed, ears still ringing from a band that had sounded excruciatingly like all the others we heard for the past 12 hours.

Hugging our coffees close (no Starbucks line at 8 am during SXSW Music!), we marched down the street and queued up outside a venue. Why were we in line so early? The sports giant Nike was taking a huge step forward in the wearables industry with the release of its Nike FuelBand. And we could be some of the first people in the country to purchase one as part of its launch program; the company sold 100 per day at the festival.

We were greeted by our own personal Nike rep, who guided us into a venue that had been transformed into a glitzy FuelBand showroom. He showed us the FuelBand, and helped us set ours up. We then went out into the world to try our hand at the “quantified self” movement, where you collect metrics of everything you do in your life. Nike’s own metric, “Fuel points,” would let us measure our activity and compare it to ourselves and friends.

Get me Jonny Ive now!
Get me Jony Ive now!

Two years later, almost to the day, I recorded my last Fuel point. I had long ago stopped caring about the metric, for a variety of reasons: The band didn’t capture all my activity, it wasn’t very accurate or sensitive to movement, and it wasn’t based on anything that brought meaning to my life.

But the main reason that was my last Fuel point day was that the damn thing had stopped working. I got the dreaded “801” code, which required a trip to the Nike store for replacement. This had happened repeatedly — six times since that day in March.

That was enough for me. I left the device on my desk and never picked it up again. I found that the untracked life wasn’t much different from my tracked life. The only difference was that I didn’t have a watch, which is primarily what I had used on the band.

I wasn’t alone in giving up on the FuelBand. And I’m not just talking about customers churning like me, though my guess is that there are a lot of us. In April, Nike announced that it was discontinuing the device, firing the entire FuelBand team and focusing on “other digital initiatives.”

Even with Nike’s big failure to capture the imagination of the active world, wearable computing is still considered the next huge growth area in technology. Credit Suisse sees it growing from $5 billion in 2013 to $30 billion by 2018. IDC says that companies will sell more than 112 million devices by that year.

It may be the right time in the technology cycle for wearables, too. Sensors of all kinds are smaller, cheaper and much more accurate. Displays are smaller, and even flexible glass looks like a possibility soon. You can imagine that a device with multiple sensors could find ways to track your fitness, as well as providing location-aware features like mapping, shopping and even banking.

Not only would wearables expand a company’s device portfolio, if it sells enough of them, but these firms will have access to all kinds of big data, with enormous amounts of real-time information that could be used for everything from personal communication to advanced location-based commerce. Big, big data.

Wearing out its welcome

So far, though, companies have failed in making wearables something people want to, um, wear. Most of the products have been either for geeky early adopters of new technology, or for hobbyists who absolutely need the data, like triathletes training for an Iron Man event. Sure, there have been technical problems, as well as a couple of health scares with the devices, but the two core issues these gadgets face going mainstream are their design and the product’s value.

Maxwell
Would you believe it’s checking my heartrate?

Designs have reflected the technical bent of products. Most look more like what you’d expect in “Minority Report” than what you’ve ever seen in a high-end watch store. And the generally bulky form factor lacks appeal for women, who have been underserved by most wearables so far. While the FuelBand may have been a bit different, it’s kinda just a souped-up Livestrong bracelet. In my informal and nonscientific customer reviews of wearables, most of them aren’t something an average customer wants. And don’t get me started on Google Glass.

Outside of the design — and maybe even more core to the problem — there doesn’t seem to be much demand for the features touted by the wearables manufacturers. If you start with the standard product-manager mantra of “What problem does the product solve?” there’s not much you can pinpoint. Most wearable devices track activity, but not really uniformly or correctly. Some, but not all, track sleep. The Samsung devices combine some fitness tracking with phone connectivity, but they’re cumbersome. And ugly.

You want to attract the attention and the interest of mainstream consumers? It had better be something people really want. And no company has been better at turning technology into desire than the big one: Apple.

Apple’s wearable moment

It’s clear that Tim Cook is betting big on a suite of wearable products. Bloomberg reports that the company has more than 100 designers working on a device. They’ve hired professionals from the fashion industry, the medical industry, the fitness industry and watch brands, as well as sensor experts by the dozens. All to work on what has been described as a luxury, high-fashion wearable device that will allow customers to communicate and track their vital information, including location and health-and-fitness metrics.

This isn’t the first time that Apple is entering a field where many companies have tried and failed. There were many MP3 players before the iPod, millions of phones before the iPhone, and even tablets before the iPad. It’s an Apple specialty to create something really valuable out of others’ failures by picking the right time, and creating an ecosystem that didn’t exist before. Apple doesn’t invent as much as it perfects.

Wearables pose a bigger challenge. Instead of a single strong compelling value (think “1,000 songs in your pocket”), the iWatch looks like it will package an assortment of features. And unlike the iPhone, which replaced three devices (phone, music player and Internet portal) with a single unit, it’s unclear if the iWatch will replace anything customers already use. At its core, the main purpose of the iWatch appears to be that it will gather data and work well with the iPhone. That will have value to some, but will it be enough to drive the industry to the estimated numbers? I can’t say that it’s a slam-dunk.

Five musts for the iWatch to be “ready to wear”

So, what would it take to make the upcoming device the breakthrough hit that Tim Cook craves? Forgive the impudence, but here are a few categories that Apple must nail if they expect to build the market:

  • It must be fashion-forward. Outside of the Nike FuelBand — and, some might argue, the Misfit Shine (I wouldn’t — I think it looks like it was issued by the CIA) — most wearables are terribly designed, at least if you consider reaching a mass audience. Apple is clearly investing in talent here, but the company needs to deliver the goods on a stylish watch that men and women wouldn’t be embarrassed to wear. This isn’t like any market Apple has entered, as the watch will be compared to classic brands like Tag Heuer, Rolex and Swatch. Jony Ive had better bring his “A” game.
  • The user benefits need to be clear, concise and limited. It has to be instantly clear why you need this device and what its main purpose is. Over the past few years, Apple has gotten away from the simplicity of its marketing pitches. There has also been an annoying habit of throwing in a bunch of half-baked products (Passbook, anyone?) well before they were ready for prime time. The watch can’t have any of these issues. My product-manager adage of “How do you want users to describe your product?” applies here. It must be crystal clear.
  • It has to work. Consumers will forgive many issues. But inaccurate recording or even fine-tuning of the algorithm will drive users nuts. In retrospect, the FuelBand’s problems with activity spelled its doom. After all, if Nike couldn’t monitor activity correctly, what the hell could it do? Apple will be held to a much higher standard than Nike. So what it tracks, and the way it tracks that data, must be baked by the time it ships.
  • Apple must be very careful with the information it tracks. Let’s face it. People hate Google Glass. Part of the hatred is because the device is extraordinary dorkified (see the first “must” on this list), but there are also privacy concerns with tons of people walking around with a camera on their head. The iWatch apparently will gather quite a bit of personal and sensitive information. It goes without saying that keeping that information private and secure will be incredibly important. But it’s also paramount that assuring customers that the rules of engagement around health data in particular are clear, and will primarily benefit users.
  • It has to appeal to an influencer community. Who will lead the adoption of the product? Apple has reportedly been targeting athletes, which sounds like a page right out of Nike’s FuelBand playbook. Somehow that didn’t work for Nike, which could be blamed on product issues just as much as marketing. Making sure that the company targets the right kind of influencers will be just as important as its marketing pitch. I’m not quite sure that tapping only pro athletes will give Apple the vast appeal it seeks. Apple will need to reach into popular culture — like that Steven P. Jobs wannabe and Louis Vuitton designer Kanye West, as well as others who lead cultural trends.

The stakes are high for Apple and Tim Cook. The iWatch will be the first foray into a category outside of its core offerings since the Jobs era ended. But it remains an open question as to whether the company has the intestinal fortitude to ship the right product, or — if it doesn’t live up to the exacting standards of consumers — to cancel the project and do something else with its billions in the bank.

Liars Poker: Why can’t anyone write a fair assessment of streaming music

I think we know the answer.
I think we know the answer to this one already.

Streaming music has been a huge topic in the music industry for good reason. It’s been the subject of many articles, occasionally one will accurately understand the issues surrounding these hot companies, but most that have no idea of how the music business works. A couple of stories I’ve seen recently made me want to wretch. Interestingly enough, they are on the opposite sides of the debate.

First, there’s this terribly reported and, in some points, just plain wrong article in Take Part by Kathleen Sharp and Scott Timberg with the click-bait title, “Is Spotify Killing Music?” The authors comingle the loss of publishing rights by the heirs of John Steinbeck and Woody Guthrie (who are in a band together – naturally) with the way that artists are getting hosed by big bad streaming companies. Not only do these two topics not belong together, they also weaken the main points of the article (which likely stemmed from a PR pitch promoting the aforementioned band).

The streaming portion of the article is a retread of the greatest hits from anti-streaming voices like David Lowery, Thom Yorke and David Byrne. The evidence it cites is flimsy, even including Lowery’s disputed $16 payment for 1.5 million plays of the Cracker song “Low” on Pandora. The authors even recruit streaming supporters for its purposes, posting a big photo of Billy Bragg with the caption:

British singer-songwriter Billy Bragg has spoken out against royalty rates and structures established by music-streaming companies.

This may indeed be true. But what Billy Bragg said was actually very supportive of streaming.

“I’ve long felt that artists railing against Spotify is about as helpful to their cause as campaigning against the Sony Walkman would have been in the early 80s. Music fans are increasingly streaming their music and, as artists, we have to adapt ourselves to their behavior, rather than try to hold the line on a particular mode of listening to music.”

Bragg went on to cite the problem is really with record labels that are paying streaming rates based legacy deals with artist that only paid a fraction of royalties on sales because of physical production and distribution costs.

“If the (streaming) rates were really so bad, the rights holders – the major record companies – would be complaining. The fact that they’re continuing to sign up means they must be making good money.”

Interestingly enough these comments from Billy don’t even up in the article. Instead we get that streaming is eating into CD sales, without even a slight mention of illegal MP3 downloads, which last time I checked, was the main reason why CD purchases are getting killed.

The next sensationally wretch-worthy item is a guest post in Billboard and his site, Tom McAlevey, CEO of Radical.FM, says this whole discussion is silly because streaming music is already profitable! His evidence? Well, Pandora could be profitable tomorrow if they pumped up the ad load to broadcast radio levels and Spotify was profitable in Sweden before they expanded around the world.

Those seem like factors why streaming music is not profitable rather than proving it is profitable today. Based on everything we know, streaming companies are struggling with profitability and the path to get there is uncertain. Pandora desperately needs growth of users to sell more ads and they must do so while keeping their listeners and investors happy with its progress. Without ad sales growth, the company will not survive. But the answer isn’t increasing the number of ads per hour, which Tom suggests. With too many ads, they’ll bleed customers.

Meanwhile, it is true that Spotify had a great deal of success in Scandinavia, but there are factors that have made the company successful–starting with the fact that digital music sales never took off there because of P2P’s popularity in that part of the world. Spotify became the hometown replacement that was so much easier to use that P2P services.

Tom also mentions that his experience negotiating with major labels back in the nineties allowed him to see the secret numbers that reporters do not have access, as a way of proving his bona fides.

I too have seen these numbers, and my assessment is that major label deals make it extremely challenging to find a way to profitability. There are many veterans in digital music who believe that no company can be profitable, ever. I disagree. There is a path forward, but it’s no easy task.

Both Spotify and Pandora are focused on growth, as Tom mentions. But there’s a reason for it. Their current size and offering aren’t profitable. Period. Both need significant growth and are pursuing it all-out. Spotify needs a worldwide audience to build an advertising channel to attract worldwide brands, as well as take advantage of its worldwide infrastructure for streaming. Pandora desperately needs to be bigger in the US and scale around the world.

Scale is another factor. For all the headlines written about Pandora and Spotify, streaming music is still a fraction of all music consumption and revenue. Spotify’s estimated 25 million free users is a rounding error of YouTube’s massive audience. Pandora is only estimated to be 11 percent of all radio listening in the US. Because all the buzz the companies generate, most people believe that both companies, especially inside the music industry, are much bigger than they are. Both are early stage and must prove themselves as mass-market products to be viable.

Granted, you could say such aggressive growth strategies are required to tap the public markets to create a massive payday for investors, and that’s fair criticism. But this doesn’t mean these companies don’t need to grow. They must grow. Or die.

Look, I understand Tom’s motivations for writing the piece and I agree with it. Digital music has great promise and streaming has attracted throngs of people who love the convenience. Many have chosen streaming as the way they’d like to listen to music. The industry needs to find a way to make the economics for all those who’d rather access music than purchase, rip and organize digital files.

But we need to focus on what’s actually happening, and not create spin and counter-spin. There are real serious issues that must be solved, like ensuring every single artist gets compensated fairly as well as creating experiences that customers find valuable enough to pull out their credit cards. Let’s focus on these instead of trying to demonize startups and misrepresent the facts.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Digital Music Coverage

Take Part: Is Spotify Killing Music?

RadicalFM: Streaming Music Already Profitable

The Trichordist: My Song Got Played On Pandora and All I Got Was $16.98

The Understatement: Pandora Paid $1300 for A Million Plays, Not $16.89

MichaelRobertson.com: Why Spotify Will Never Be Profitable

Yahoo News: Roseanne Cash to Congress: Streaming Killing Music

Consequence of Sound: The Elephant In The Music Room

The Value of Nothing: Don’t Accept Junk Food Streaming Music Numbers

It really should be a great day for streaming music. After all Nielsen released a report that showed unbelievable growth for the listening format. In the first half of this year streams have increased by 50 percent over the past year. But these numbers also are leading to discomfort for the streaming industry. Because along with the streaming increases are massive declines in all retail formats. CDs, digital tracks and digital albums are all down around 15 percent in the same period.

Mmmm, junk data.
Mmmm, easily consumable streaming music junk data.

Today’s numbers clearly demonstrate that consumers greatly favor access to their music over purchasing tracks. What isn’t clear is what this means for the music industry. While the revenue model for a purchase is well understood, we have no clarity on streaming’s value.  This is partly because a stream really can’t be equated to a purchase. After all a listen can’t really be compared to a retail event. But the real problem is that streaming services that make up the Nielsen numbers are vastly diverse.

Look, nobody in their right mind is going to compare YouTube and Spotify. But today’s numbers jams several different services with a variety of business models into a single number. It leads us to a question: should we really accept these numbers that don’t tell us anything about the business value?

Discerning A Difference

There are several different streaming products and each one has a different method of providing revenue for the rights holder. Unfortunately, the streaming number Nielsen posted was a single all-in number designed to show huge gains, but not to create clarity. These numbers would actually be revelatory if Nielsen would start tracking and reporting on each of these metrics separately.

As they say at the old ball yard, you can’t keep score without a scorecard. Same with streaming music. And since nobody else is doing it, I thought I’d describe the main streaming sectors and how revenues are generated by each. I’ve also included a few metrics that would help the industry understand the real value of each of these services.

Ad-Supported Streaming

The biggest contributor to Nielsen’s streaming number is ad-supported streams, which is dominated by YouTube’s massive reach and nearly unlimited catalog of music. While it doesn’t have the hype of Spotify or Beats Music, when we in the industry talk about streaming, we’re mostly talking about YouTube. YouTube is free and only generates revenue from advertising that is sold against the plays. Unfortunately, very little of the content on YouTube is monetized and the amount of money it generates per play is unbelievably tiny. Because of YouTube’s scale, a tiny increase in ad sales could vastly increase overall streaming revenues. But it requires significant growth in sales staffing and performance from Google.

Metrics We’d Like to See

-Active users
-Plays per active
-Revenue per play rate

Internet Radio

Comprised of non-interactive services and direct licensed radio, Internet radio includes services like Pandora, IHeartRadio and Slacker. A majority of these pay a stream rate or a percentage of revenue depending if the listener is free or is paying a subscription fee. In the US, Internet radio has performed very nicely. While YouTube can be described as a sampling platform, Internet radio is sticky, with listeners in droves using the services month after month for free, and some even paying to remove ads. The rates are wildly different depending on the deals for both recording and publishing rights. There has been major kerfuffle with this, primarily as Pandora has sought to keep publishing costs at their (nearly unjustifiably) low rate. But it remains a fact that every Internet radio play produces revenue for both rights holders, something that broadcast radio doesn’t do.

Metrics We’d Like to See

-Plays per user
-Number of plays per user
-Number of subscribers
-Lifetime duration of subscribers
-Revenue per play rate for free streams

On-Demand Streaming

When people refer to streaming, many times they’re talking about this bucket, which is dominated around the globe by Spotify, but includes Deezer and Rhapsody amongst others. However there are two different types of on-demand streams. Spotify has found that by having a free tier of the service, the company can build a pipeline of potential customers that it can monetize with advertising and convert into the paid tier. A vast majority of users in Spotify don’t pay a dime for the service. Spotify does pay for every free play, but it’s significantly less than the amount of revenue generated by the premium subscribers. That rate is confidential and differs based on the deal with rights holders. However many artists have seen it on their statements as low as one third of a premium play. It is worth noting that others have followed Spotify into the free racket, like Rdio, but services like Beats Music have stayed away from free.  It’s also worth noting that the number of people who use an on-demand service pales in comparison to Internet radio or ad supported streaming.

Metrics We’d Like to See

-Free users
-Free plays
-Revenue per free play
-Subscribers
-Subscriber plays
-Revenue per subscriber play
-Lifetime duration of subscribers

It’s A Trap

It’s easy to fall into the trap of pointing the finger at streaming services for the loss of retail sales in music. And there’s probably a whole lot of truth that many consumers who previously purchased music now just access it either for free or paying. But since customers are voting strongly for streaming and we’re committed to building new revenue models as opposed to suing upstarts out of existence, we should be asking much better questions about the streaming business.  That’s not only the suit who have their hands on the controls of the business, but also reporters, analysts and industry insiders. We should demand that Nielsen and other market research firms create better metrics that illuminate business value, when instead we get sensationalist reports that deliver big headlines. Good data is good for everybody—especially Nielsen, when we all start obsessing over these metrics like we used to with SoundScan every Wednesday.

Following Their Own Beat: Spotify’s Ambitions Outsize Anyone in Digital Music

In December of last year Spotify held a press conference to announce the service had finally bagged a big one: longtime-streaming holdout Led Zeppelin. The service now had the band’s legendary catalog of albums, clearing one of the last major artists not on streaming services. The press fell all over themselves raving about what a big deal it was to finally woo the elusive holdout.

Image
Spotify Founder and CEO Daniel Ek has global ambitions.

In the same press conference Daniel Ek announced something even more important to those involved in digital music. After months, if not years, of negotiations with labels, Spotify announced shuffle play—the ability to play any artist in the Spotify catalog for free on mobile devices. Shuffle play is exactly what it sounds like: a customer can play songs from an artist’s catalog only randomly instead of on-demand. But it does mark the first time that rights holders had allowed a free product on mobile after years of insisting that mobile access was, and always would remain, a paid product.

Spotify was not about to take no for an answer. Daniel Ek clearly has seen the trends in mobile and knows that the world is increasingly connected through their phones. Maybe you can reach scale with free on desktop in Europe and the US. But most of the world only has mobile access. The company had to have a free mobile offering to execute the company’s overall strategy. So Spotify cajoled, threatened, begged, and–most assuredly–wrote a big freaking check, to get free access on mobile.

It’s not the first time that Spotify has done something very difficult that other streaming companies couldn’t get done. It actually has made a habit of it. When Spotify was ready to come to the US, it won over execs nervous that free music would wipe out the world’s richest music market. After a couple years of trying in vain to best The Echo Nest in recommendations, the company bought it outright.  When Spotify couldn’t gain label okay for their bundled Sprint deal, it went ahead and launched without all the agreements in place.

Nobody in digital music has the determination, guile, brass and—maybe most importantly—the ability to raise money by the boatload to execute their vision.  And on the heels of Apple’s rumored purchase of Beats Electronics, it’s I’m important to understand the difference between a me-too streaming service and a firm as disruptive as Spotify.

A Global Media Channel

Spotify isn’t comparing itself to other music services, or even other digital media companies. Ek sees the company as a worldwide channel of music listening.  If someone is listening to music, from Beijing to Auckland to Los Angeles to Nairobi to Stockholm to Rio, Spotify wants to be the customer’s solution.

To execute that strategy the company has created two offerings–a free and a subscription service. Both are extremely challenging businesses build and manage, but just like overcoming label qualms, Spotify is undeterred. Imagine a company deciding to build both Pandora and Beats Music from scratch at the same time and rolling it out around the world.

The services work in tandem.  Spotify needs a huge base of free users in order to identify those customers to pay for music and build an audience for advertising. And once a customer uses the product for a fair amount of time, they are hooked. So if they are paying, or just convert into the free tier for a while, it just means another impression for brand advertising.

The company believes in this double-barreled approach to revenue and users will make it the dominant channel of music playback around the world. After rumors the Beats/Apple news floated last week, some in the media wondered if Google would now acquire Spotify. Spotify doesn’t see it that way. The company believes that their main competition is YouTube, the only other global digital media channel.

Faith In Free

Of the two services, the one that requires more of a leap of faith is the free service. Spotify believes that a worldwide audience of music lovers will loosen the pocketbook of global brands who will pay a premium to advertise to the audience. Spotify has already had some success in this arena with a global Coke deal. While most advertising businesses in music focus on local ads, Spotify is different. The company intends to continue to carve off a certain number of customers into the paid tier. And it will need to because the costs of the free service are astronomical.

Why so expensive? It’s all about the content rights. To launch in the United States, Spotify had to work on the labels for a long time, nearly a year, to get the licenses for music. In the end, Spotify agreed to pay for every free play and paid a significant advance—rumors had it around $200 million—to launch in the US. Compare this to YouTube, who has virtually no content costs. But Spotify believes the blend of converting a number of free users to paid, along with the advertising revenue will cover the costs.

Here’s where it gets tricky. While it might make good sense to spread the costs of the free service with paid customers, most folks running subscription music businesses have had a hard time making the model work, due to massive subscriber acquisition costs (SAC) and, maybe most importantly, the rate at which customers leave a service, otherwise known as churn. While Spotify’s SAC is covered in the free product, Spotify will, eventually, have to get their churn to a reasonable level.

But that’s for another day. Today the market is strongly favoring those who can show growth. And Spotify’s growth, in particular with its paid subscribers, has been astounding. The company is privately saying it’s at 10 million subs, though not  officially announcing that number.

IPO, Belly-Up or Bailout?

Even with the company’s great vision and uncompromising execution, it’s not clear that Spotify will succeed.  The company has raised nearly $600 million in venture funding and remains nowhere near profitable. Spotify is readying an IPO for later this year which will be required as it will need to make more investments to launch into Russia, India and China, territories that are necessary to be a worldwide music channel. But getting an IPO out later this year looks suspect, as there is growing concern that we’re in another tech bubble. If Spotify can’t use the public markets to complete their expansion, it will have to make very painful decisions.

A former colleague, who always was skeptical about their financials, said that Spotify’s future was either to be one of two troubled company’s–Lehman Brothers or General Motors. Once Spotify reaches significant scale of, say, 20 million paying subs and 60 million free users, the company will control enough of label revenues that it’ll be able to demand a much lower rate. At that point the record labels will need to decide if they provide a bailout or let Spotify go belly-up.

One thing is clear. Regardless of the high stakes, Spotify will continue to play their game.

The Magic Numbers: How Apple Beats The Demise of Music Downloads

There are two numbers that you need to pay attention to in order to make sense of Apple’s breathtaking acquisition of Beats Electronics. Neither of them is the rumored $3.2 billion price. They are 13.3 and 800 million.

Image
Apple’s saint Steven P. Jobs  said customers wanted to own their music. Not anymore.

The first number is the percentage that music downloads have decreased in Q1 of this year compared with 2013. This is on the heels of a 5% decrease last year, so it’s looking like the decline is picking up speed. It’s pretty clear that the download era is waning and Apple knows this better than anyone. I’m sure the company has a phalanx of data analysts poring over projections and understand that the rate that customers buy downloads might not be in a freefall, but it could be coming quicker than anyone expects.

It’s pretty clear when it comes to the choice between buying downloads or using a streaming service, customers are beginning to choose streaming. But so far, Apple has sat out of the subscription music trend. After all, the Book of Jobs says that customers wanted to own rather than rent music.

Those days have passed. Apple needed to hedge their bets and get into streaming. But instead of building another bolt-on to iTunes as the company did with their underperforming radio service, Apple decided to speed their way to market by purchasing a hot new service that had a lot of buzz, but hadn’t scaled so much that it was prohibitively expensive. Beats is the most viable of all acquisition targets.

While music purchases may be falling, it’s still a big business for Apple. So instead of creating another option in iTunes that would potentially cannibalize download sales, why not just buy a service and keep it separate? Streaming blows up: Apple wins. Streaming doesn’t pan out, well, it will still have the iTunes store chugging along.

In The Cards

The second number refers to the 800 million iTunes accounts, most with credit cards on file.  Those credit cards are the keys to the kingdom for anyone who wants to sell something in the store. Apple charges a 30 percent premium for companies to use their in-app purchasing system, where a customer can subscribe directly from the native app.

After Beats Music’s troubled launch period didn’t produce many subscribers from the 7-day trial, company executives were calling around to see how other firms dealt with the 30 percent Apple tax (answer—you eat the $3 per customer a month).  In late April, Beats launched in-app purchase and the results were stunning. Their iOS app became the number one overall free app.

Just as important as in-app purchase is getting featured in the iTunes store. Placement in the iTunes store can make a hit out of an app and can mean hundreds of thousands of downloads. Combined with in-app purchase, the store is a kingmaker that can make or break a company. So once Apple integrates the Beats app, it wouldn’t be surprising that the app will get a permanent featured position in the store. Cha-ching.

Oh, and that $3.2 billion price tag? With Beats Electronics’ hardware business already creating significant profits, Apple’s purchase price could be covered within a couple years. So in essence the company is getting into streaming music for a song.

More Acquiring Minds

FT: Apple In Talks to Acquire Beats

Re/Code: Why Apple Is Betting Big On Beats

Om.co: On Streaming: Apple, Beats & Spotify

Apple Insider: Jimmy Iovine Set To Join Apple?

Subscription Streaming: A Measly Billion Dollar Industry

Congratulations subscription music! You are finally a billion-dollar industry. The IFPI, the trade organization for the worldwide recorded music industry, last week reported that subscription streaming music revenues finally broke the billion dollar mark in 2013. Let’s mark this moment. It’s a huge number for the industry and at long last a confirmation of what many of us who have worked on the streaming side have believed in ever since Rhapsody launched as the first legal service in 2003.

While Spotify might be music for everyone, a select few subscribed to a streaming music service in the US.
While Spotify might sell itself music for everyone, only a select few subscribed to a streaming music service in the US in 2013.

Yet with all the congratulatory backslapping and shaking of hands, dark clouds still threaten to limit what subscription music could become. Why? The secrets are revealed in the data, my friends. You see, subscription streaming might be the same product around the world, but the business results have varied. While perhaps not by design, markets are delivering vastly different revenues and subscribers.

The US market is creating a great deal of revenue, but it hasn’t caught on as a mainstream product. Outside of the US the goal seems much less about revenue—it’s about bundling the service with other providers. Additionally rightsholders seem to be much more willing to experiment with other models in the rest of the world rather than the good ol’ US of A.

Negotiation Before Innovation

A product manager for a streaming service spends a lot of time obsessing about what people value. We research of what customers do daily and what causes them open their pocketbooks. Then we craft product concepts that potentially could satisfy those needs. In a past life I had one of those jobs where I would take these ideas and package them up for presentation in front of the labels in order to gain licenses.  You might think ‘oh, you already have a license to a catalog of music, so why do you need anything else.’ Well, every functionality and technical detail must go through a vetting and approval process with labels. And that’s where this gets interesting.

Just for fun, let’s say I’ve just created a service that allows a user play anything from a 20 million song catalog for free on demand while you listen on a laptop. But if you pay $3 a month, we’ll automatically save the top 100 songs you’ve played to your phone. It’s simple: download the app onto your phone and based on what you play on your laptop, we’ll automagically save ’em on your phone. Just for fun, let’s name it something cute like The Roo, as in Kangeroo, because it saves favorite songs in its mobile pouch. My logo is a cuddly ‘Roo wearing headphones and holding a mobile phone.

For the record, I’ve never pitched The Roo to anyone. I just made it up.  But I can imagine the feedback I’d get from places like TheMarketingHeaven.com and the label representatives. The first thing I’d hear is that I’m really pitching a freemium product, which has a different cost to a service than a premium product. After all, there is a cost to giving away a bunch of music as a marketing ploy to attract users. I might also hear that The Roo gives away too much value compared to other products that are already in the marketplace at that price point, like premium radio. And finally I’d probably hear how I’m “giving away” the equivalent of 10 albums a month for $3.

In my tenure I’ve pitched dozens and dozens of these ideas and very few even get past the first round of negotiation. Major labels in particular keep a tight rein on what is in the market by not granting licenses for new ideas. And I don’t think my experience was unique. While trading war stories with colleagues in the industry it’s pretty clear we’ve all had similar meetings.

Trust me, they’re not all good ideas—most of the are probably just as lame-brained as The Roo and deserve not to see the light of day. Yet the approach of startups and rightsholders does shine a light on how each party approaches new products. Most of the startups focus on creating products that will attract the attention of the customer. The best ones work hard on getting those users to pay something, anything, for music. Labels seem to be more focused on protecting current revenues and current products, and seem terrified of upsetting the price floor.

So where does that leave the US market? Only 6.1 million subscribed to a service last year–21 percent of the estimated worldwide 28 million. Meanwhile a whopping 57 percent of all worldwide revenues come from those 6.1 million customers. That works out to $102 per customer, while the rest of the world–$22 a person.

So at least in the US, we are creating a very small subclass of customers who are contributing lots of revenue, but we’re not creating enough consumers of subscription services. We’ve built two tiers of products: free and very expensive. And that’s just not the way people think about music. There are probably hundreds of ideas for paid on-demand products that might find an audience. Instead of licensing tons of them and let the market sort itself out, we only license a couple models and call it a day.

Labels seem to be willing to try other models outside of the US, though. For a £1 a week O2 Tracks lets you listen to any song in the Top 40 on your phone. With Bloom.fm you can download 20, 200 or unlimited number of songs to your phone at varying price points. The United States is the crown jewel of the music business, and the industry treats it as such, at the expense of innovative digital music products.

Music With Plenty of Limits

There are of course many other factors. In the rest of the world, cell phone companies compete much more aggressively with services. Nearly every carrier in Europe has a bundled music service offering from Spotify, Deezer or Napster. The only true bundled offering in the US is MuveMusic, while MetroPCS and AT&T have offerings that are billed on top of the price of the phone service.

The cell carrier duopoly of AT&T and Verizon, who lock up customers in long term contracts, have been less than willing to share the costs of music with startups and labels. That won’t last forever. T-Mobile has declared war against the contract. Perhaps if the company makes a strong move into the market it could spur growth and motivate the entire industry.

Growing Customers

If our goal as an industry is to protect the revenues we have today instead of growing a class of customers who will pay anywhere from $1 up to $20 for different valued package of services, we’ll probably hear the same story for the next several years.

NPD estimates 44 million US customers bought digital music in 2012. If streaming subscription could build up to 20 million paying customers, we might not greatly increase the subscription revenues of today, but we will build a new generation of customers who start to value paid music services, and maybe even become delighted with features that solve their problems. With time, the revenues will follow.

And if anyone wants to invest the $25 million needed to start up The Roo, drop me an email. I’ll start writing the business plan now.

More Growing Concerns

IFPI: Worldwide 2013 Digital Music Report

RIAA: US 2013 Revenue Report

Music Industry Blog: First Take on 2013 Numbers

The Tipping Point: Streaming Music Finally Delivers The Goods

Screen Shot 2014-03-19 at 2.51.05 PM
Source: RIAA, reports from Pandora, YouTube and NPD plus a healthy amount of guesswork (see note on numbers at end of article)

The RIAA recently released US music industry statistics for 2013 and it’s good news for the streaming services. More than six million customers subscribe to a service like Spotify, Rdio, Rhapsody and others. And these companies are providing a massive amount of money for the industry. Those six million created over $600 million in revenue. These are far and away the most valuable music customers, dwarfing the amount of money that each CD purchaser, ad supported (e.g. YouTube) or digital radio user contributes.

Based on the number of purchasers from NPDs 2013 Annual Music Report and available estimates of YouTube and Pandora users, subscription users are worth more per user than all the other major categories combined.

A Mixed Bag

I’m sure many artists and management firms are saying ‘that’s great, but why am I not seeing the money?’ Two reasons: scale and deals. First, only 6.1 million customers subscribe, which is the smallest reach of any other recorded music product. How does it compare? Well Pandora reports 140 million active users on mobile. YouTube says it has 156 million actives per month, with nearly 40 percent consuming music. NPD estimates that 44 million bought at least a single track in iTunes. Six million pales in comparison.

What’s also unclear are the rates by which artists are compensated by streaming services. A vast majority of the streaming deals for master recordings are with major label groups and indies. While many indies have said they split revenues 50/50 with artists, understanding what an artist receives from a major label deal, often executed well before streaming services existed, is a dark art. The industry could do much better by committing to transparent and standardized reporting, where every deduction is laid out and an artist can see how many plays of their repertoire were on Spotify and understand what it means to their pocketbook.  But then again, mysterious accounting has been the labels’ modus operandi for many decades.

Varying The Product Portfolio

WME’s Marc Geiger mentioned at MIDEM this year that all we have to do is build scale. This is the one flaw in his excellent speech. Instead of expecting everyone will pay $10 a month, the industry needs to consider many more options that focus on different ways fans listen and value music.

Source: RIAA
Source: RIAA

I have been beating the drum for subscription services to diversify their products. While 6.1 million people paying $10 a month for all you can listen to music products is great, we need to grow the number of people who pay for a music subscription. The truth we must accept is that the average person does not–and will not–spend $10 per month for infinite music.  They just won’t. There are too many free options and most people are happy with a much smaller slice of the music universe. Instead, we need to redefine how we package and market digital music. What’s the music app that 30 million people will pay $1 a month? How about a $3 and $5 price point?

To grow the number of people who will pay for services, diversification of product offering must take place, even if the revenue per user drops closer to retail levels. Success is getting 50 million customers paying a range of prices that fit tastes and budgets. Not selling a one-size-fits-all product.

A note on the numbers: while the RIAA numbers for the revenues as well as the streaming subscriber count are accurate , I had to guesstimate on the other user counts. By cobbling together estimated revenue that each company contributes and comparing it to the active customers of each, I came up with a rough number, but without reliable information and transparent accounting, it’s just that–rough.

More Variable Priced Links

MIDEMMarc Geiger’s Keynote (Video)

RockonomicsIs a Spotify Free User Worth $1.50

Too Much Joy: My Hilarious Warner Bros. Statement

NPD: 2012 Annual Music Study