Churn Baby Churn: Why TIDAL’s Losses Only Tell Part Of The Story

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 10.07.52 AM
TIDAL, the Jay-Z led streaming service may have a problem retaining user it has signed up. 

The Wall Street Journal recently published some pretty terrible numbers on the train wreck that is called TIDAL. Naturally, the entire industry started piling on Jay-Z’s music startup, determined to show what a cluster the company finds itself in. But to us music vets, it’s pretty much the same old, same old. Losing lots of money isn’t the problem—it’s actually required these days if you’re running a digital music company; due to the enormous costs of content, and the fight for paying subscribers. It should be pointed out that Spotify’s losses are much greater than TIDAL’s reported numbers.

The bigger problem that TIDAL faces is revenue growth. According to the filings the WSJ reported on, TIDAL lost $28 million on revenues of $43 million in 2015. And while that’s a lot of money to lose, Spotify lost nearly $194 million, and Rhapsody lost $35 in 2015. But the scale of both of those companies is impressive. Spotify nearly doubled its revenue last year, recording of $2 billion. Even Rhapsody logged around $200 million last year.

So what gives? Why is TIDAL’s revenue just a drop in the bucket compared to its competition? I think it has to do with its reliance of exclusives to sign up subscribers. A caveat here: this is speculation based on one report from Sweden, which might not even show the accurate financial picture of the company. A source told the Journal that the filing didn’t include all U.S. revenue, for example. Additionally, it doesn’t account for 2016, when TIDAL rolled out wave after wave of impressive exclusives, from Rihanna to Kanye to Beyoncé. So it doesn’t really account for its power moves.

However, if you just divide the revenues of each company and into each self-reported subscriber count, TIDAL lags well behind in revenue per subscriber. Rhapsody banks $57 per sub per year and Spotify is an impressive $87. TIDAL didn’t announce year end subs, but in March it said it had 3 million, so let’s just say they had 2.5 million at year’s end, for a total of $17 per subscriber. Don’t like that number? Fine. Let’s just go on the TIDAL subscriber number reported on October 1, 2015 of a million subscribers. Based on that, TIDAL is still generating half the revenue per sub of Spotify and a 25 percent less than Rhapsody, a company with a significant base of lower-revenue bundled subscribers.

I know what you’re thinking. How can this be? TIDAL doesn’t have a free offering. It also claims that a huge number of its subs are on the $20 plan for better audio quality, much higher than all streaming services. Shouldn’t TIDAL be generating tons of cash per user? Well, yes. Except for one nagging little problem: churn.

Churn, the amount of subscribers that quit your service every month, is the canary in the coal mine for a subscription business. Low churn means people are happy. High churn is a disaster, as you need to replace all those subscribers just to tread water–let alone to grow. Churn is the one metric subscription companies obsess over. Netflix has famously spent a great deal of effort lowering its churn and is considered the gold standard for an entertainment company.

In the next stage of subscription services, churn will be one of the most important factors in determining health of businesses. There were reports this summer that Apple Music’s churn was significantly higher than Spotify’s, and the company has recently been recruiting talent to deal with its problem. So it’s just not TIDAL that has to worry about it. However, the company is much more suspect to massive churn that its competitors.

My theory is that TIDAL does indeed harvest a lot of credit cards from people who just have to have access to The Life of Pablo or Lemonade. But the minute the exclusive is over, those subscribers leave. In droves.

I would suggest that TIDAL has done a great job at signing people up. And a terrible job at converting them to the service long term. Mostly because TIDAL isn’t marketing the service outside of the only place where you can get exclusives for a short period of time.

One of the measures of performance for companies I track is App Annie data on downloads for iOS in the U.S. It doesn’t tell the whole story, but it does suggest popularity of an app. More downloads: more new customers. One would expect small changes from time to time, but steady, consistent demand. Kind of like Spotify’s iOS downlaods:

screen-shot-2016-09-15-at-4-06-02-pm

In comparison to the TIDAL’s downloads over the past year:

screen-shot-2016-09-15-at-4-10-17-pm

That’s one bumpy ride.

You’ll also note that the scale between Spotify and TIDAL is significantly different. Spotify never dropped out of the top 30 apps, whereas TIDAL has bumped between 1 and 1,250 since churning out the exclusives.

TIDAL in June announced it has 4.2 million subscribers after signing up 1.2 million fans during Lemonade alone. But let’s not pay attention to how many subscribers TIDAL adds. It’s all about how many it retains.

One last caveat: maybe I’m wrong. Maybe TIDAL is signing up tons of people and they’re sticking around. But if that is the case, the company should have lots of cash on hand to pay its bills in the form of operating income. The fact that seems to be short of cash and it isn’t able to turn its exclusives into a consistent funnel of customers leads me to believe that something isn’t working with exclusives.

WSJ: Jay Z’s Music Streaming Service Tidal Posts Huge Loss in 2015

Recode: Spotify is adding more subscribers and is losing its chief revenue officer

Billboard: Rhapsody Nears 3.5 Million Global Subscribers

 

                                                                                                   

 

Unboxing Pandora

Why The New Royalty Rate Matters Little For The Digital Radio Giant

Yesterday, the Copyright Royalty Board–the three-judge panel that sets the rates that non-interactive radio services pay –set the new rate for the coming year 21 percent higher than the previous year. Services like Pandora were seeking a lower rate. SoundExchange, which represents rights holders, requested a higher rate. The CRB playing a wise Solomon, split it almost right down the middle, settling at .0017 per song played.

And then the industry yawned.

As a refresher, in the United States, music companies can offer playback by taking advantage of a compulsory license set forth in the Digital Millennial Copyright Act. All you need to do is follow the rules for non-interactive digital streaming and pay SoundExchange for all the plays within 45 days. This rate does not affect directly licensed services, like Spotify, Apple Music, or Deezer.

Disclosure: I work at 8tracks, which offers non-interactive radio in the US and Canada. These opinions are mine and don’t represent the company. See 8tracks CEO David Porter’s opinions on the subject here.

Moving On
The CRB rate seems like it’s already an antique of past days. Call it the iPhone 1 era. Remember way back in 2005 when you’d fire up Pandora, pick an artist and sit back and listen to an awesome radio station?

The world has moved on from those olden days. Thanks to YouTube, Spotify and Soundcloud, a whole new generation of listeners have grown up being able to play whatever she or he wants at any time. Also, listeners can skip as much as they want and save tracks to their phones with a premium account; all functionality that requires agreements with labels .

In terms of growth, relying the compulsory license has hemmed in Pandora. Spotify has been able to grow leaps and bounds by launching in country after country. Meanwhile poor Pandora is only available in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia as only a few countries offer compulsory licenses. Its growth has slowed dramatically compared to Spotify.

Directing the Action
Pandora understands that if it wants to offer some flavor of on-demand features and do it around the world, it’ll have to sign direct deals with labels. The company has already signed similar deals with all the major publishing groups to pay songwriters.

So the days of Pandora relying on the CRB rate are numbered. Of course the rate is still important as it sets the floor from which all parties will negotiate, but it really doesn’t truly matter as much as it once had.

The CRB seems like it would like to get out of the business of setting the rate. The rates in the following four years will be based on the increase of yearly inflation, which might be the template in the future.

A Pound of Flesh
While Pandora said it was pleased with the rate, it’s not all smooth sailing for the company. Up next will be sitting down with major labels to hammer out agreements for sound recordings. After years of deep discontent with Pandora, I would bet that labels will be licking their chops to dictate onerous terms. And if the company wants to offer the ability to download tracks to a phone or up the skip limits, its gonna cost an arm and a leg.

But still, there is a path forward. Pandora recently purchased some of the assets of the much admired yet failing Rdio streaming service in preparation for an on-demand world. After months of uncertainty, Pandora’s stock perked up, rising about 13 percent the day after the announcement.

Beginnings and Endings
The CRB also simplified the rates down to a single one from three. iHeart Media, the terrestrial giant also saw its fortunes improve. Its rates dropped 22 percent when the CRB eliminated the blended rate that companies who offered more than just non-interactive radio used. On the opposite side, the elimination of the small webcaster rate means that tiny services are facing the end of days, as the new rate means their costs have now gone through the roof.

Digital musics’s chorus doesn’t really change much. Let the beatings continue until the morale improves.

 

Major Labels Are Truly Home of the Free (Music)

Lucian Grainge, the CEO of Universal Music, has recently been talking about getting tough with companies that offer free music. First, a couple of lieutenants who shepherded digital deals, Rob Wells and David Ring, departed. Some in the industry considered it a sign that Lucian had cooled on ad-supported companies like Spotify.

And recently a video of Lucian’s comments at Re-code’s Media conference surfaced. In the video, Lucian consistently questions the long-term viability of ad-supported offerings. Lucian, apparently, just recognized that these services are giving away free music.

I find this hard to believe. After all Lucian approved of, and personally benefitted from, deals for Spotify, Deezer and Rdio, all who have free offerings. It’s almost like he’s like he’s channelling Captain Louis Renault from the classic film Casablanca, who is shocked, just shocked to find gambling taking place at Rick’s Café Americain. Meanwhile he happens to be winning at the tables!

Back in 2011 there was significant label resistance to granting Spotify a freemium license. Daniel Ek has mentioned that it took years to get over objections to granting the license in the richest music market in the world. Sure, Spotify had proven streaming worked in Scandinavia. But in America? No way!

At least until Spotify wrote a big check to labels guaranteeing revenue as well as a stake in the Swedish based startup. Rumors had the number marked at $200 million, although all figures and deal terms are confidential. Once Spotify wrote the check, then all was hunky dory.

And then it wasn’t.

Excuse me if I don’t completely believe Lucian. You see, it is my contention that major labels are addicted to free services and they are not going anywhere anytime soon. Labels just have too much at stake to pull back now. UMG, Sony and Warner all have sizable stakes in Spotify, as well as other companies. Jean-Rene Fourtou, CEO of UMG’s parent company, Vivendi, stated that it held a five percent stake in Spotify. That will be a sizable payday for UMG if Spotify goes public, which it surely will attempt in the near future.

And remember those label deals for the freemium service that Spotify signed when first launching in the United States in 2011? Those deals are up for renewal and are being negotiated right now. So is it any surprise that the CEO of the biggest recorded music company in the world is suddenly getting cold feet about freemium. Can someone say gamesmanship?

Apparently Lucian’s strategy is working. The NY Post is reporting that Spotify is offering to sweeten the pot by guaranteeing UMG $1bn over the next two years based on its growth projections. The Post also claims that Spotify projects the $1bn to be 39% of UMG’s pretax earnings, an enormous piece of their revenue pie.

The loss of recorded music revenue is real. And it is just common sense that streaming services are partially to blame. Why buy music when you can stream as much as you like? Vivendi recently released earnings that showed UMG’s revenues slumping 3.8 percent last year after excluding costs for selling the Parlophone Label Group, which it acquired in the EMI deal. Digital sales were flat, but transitioned from track sales to streaming revenues. Meanwhile, physical sales continue to slump, as they have for the past 10 years.

Let’s face it: subscription streaming has yet to prove itself the savior of the music business that many have trumpeted. Just replacing digital track sales is not good enough. This industry has shrunk for too long and needs to grow revenue and, more importantly, consumers. But so far, streaming hasn’t been the answer. There are many reasons for this and we need to spread the blame around. Here’s a few reasons:

  • While they will license anyone who can write a check, major labels advantage those players who can raise the most cash, which of course they’ll get a lion’s share of through license agreements.
  • Startups have yet to convince majors of new models that work for the customer. And when a new idea gets licensed, it is extremely hamstrung economics, or the feature set is so limited that it fails to catch on with consumers.
  • Label promotion staffs want to utilize the channels that can deliver the biggest promotional pop, regardless of the revenue model or impact on the market. Seriously, would any major artist drop a record without a YouTube promotion strategy?
  • Major labels see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow from an IPO or an acquisition. UMG made $433 million on its Beats Electronics stake, for example.
  • The freaking price for on-demand streaming is still too high to drive mass adoption, and companies have yet to convince the industry that $9.99 a month just doesn’t work. Even Apple apparently failed.
  • Consumers don’t want to pay for music, period. Access to products like YouTube, P2P, Pandora and the likes have conditioned a new generation of potential customers to think the cost of music is zero.

So what is the way forward? The answer isn’t to roll back free music as some have suggested. Can we limit access to free? Absolutely, but it comes with risk, especially in subscription services. Spotify has said that 80 percent of subs come from the free tier, and drying up that pipeline will have an impact on its growth potential. So that will need to be closely monitored and managed. Apple, with its 100 percent paid product, won’t be able to pick up the slack. The industry needs Spotify, Google, Apple, YouTube, Deezer and Rhapsody all to contribute premium subscribers.

The industry also desperately needs to embrace new models. Mark Mulligan recently suggested that day passes could be a way that subscription companies could grow incrementally grow revenue and not be wedded to the ‘all-or-nothing’ approach of premium subs. And companies launching these new models need to have flexibility to try offerings without going belly-up immediately. In the startup world, pivoting model and offerings is often a legitimate way to find value. We should be following that model.

And finally, the industry needs to embrace a multi-variate pricing structure for premium subscription. Not everyone needs access to 30 million tracks all the time. Could a $5 mobile price point that smartly gives customers access to a certain number of tracks work? Are there markets that might do better at $7.99, $3.99 or $2.99? The industry really should be attempting to grow as many paying listeners as possible and not obsessing over average revenue per user until the market matures.

More Shocking News

Re/codeLucian Grainge Wants You to Pay Up

Music Ally: What Happened When Ministry of Sound CEO Shared A Stage With Deezer and Rdio

BuzzFeedUniversal Has A Big Stake In Beats That’s Worth Nearly $500 Million

Vivendi: 2014 Annual Results

Jonmaples.com: Fake Fight: As Apple Preps Streaming, Labels Sing The Same Song

The Price Is Wrong

Mark Mulligan posted a very perceptive blog post on what a price drop has done for Spotify’s premium numbers in the last quarter. The company featured three different initiatives: a family plan and student plan that cut the monthly cost in half, and a special that offered three months of service for a buck a month.

Price has always been a big issue for streaming services. When the first mobile apps were introduced, my company did consumer research about price for an on-demand streaming music service.  The takeaway: $5 a month was considered ideal, $8 a month was considered pricey, but still attractive and $10 a month and above was far too much to be considered by a majority of potential customers.

Instead of creating a huge pool of potential customers, full catalog on-demand streaming services have become services that only the most ardent music fans would consider. Labels have attempted to keep the premium tier at $10 to protect their current revenue, but unfortunately it has limited its mass appeal. The upshot: very few people subscribe to services. Even Spotify’s 15 million premium subs could be considered disappointing in comparison to other subscription companies like Netflix or Sirius XM.

But with Spotify showing significant growth in subs with lower prices and Apple pressuring labels to cut prices, expect 2015 to be the year that we have a significant shuffling in premium pricing.

Music Industry Blog: What Spotify’s December Growth Tells Us About Pricing

RockonomicWhy music service prices are falling and can’t get back up

Can Spotify Keep Growing?

Spotify today announced it had reached 15 million paying subscribers and 60 million total users. It continues to feed the same narrative that the company has been pitching to the industry recently:

  • The company is growing like a weed
  • The ratio of paid subscribers to free users remains stead at 25%
  • It provides enormous amounts of money to the industry that should be flowing to artists

Spotify’s growth is impressive. Outside of the year the company failed to update us on their sub numbers, the company is averaging 18.5 percent increase in both subs and users quarter over quarter. I’m assuming the company didn’t announce for a year as it appears the growth had slowed. But it has picked up again.

If the company can continue the momentum, it will hit its self-proclaimed goal of 30 million paid and around 120 million free users sometime early in 2016.

It is not clear how much Spotify’s growth is because of inroads in each market and how much is due to launching in new countries. The company recently expanded into Canada, which has been fairly barren when it comes to on-demand music services. The service is now available in 61 countries and their territories (hello unlimited free music Guam).

If the company is finding success launching new countries, it’s good news. There’s plenty more expansion to go if the company is to deliver on its promise in becoming a worldwide platform of music listening.  Unfortunately, the easy countries are out of the way.

Now comes the hard part.

Spotify will have to roll out in countries that might not want the competition (India or China), have yet to fully embrace digital (Japan), might not be able to afford the pricing model (most of Africa) or have a combination of all these factors and Vladimir Putin as president, ahem. How Spotify navigates these thorny issues, along with staving off new competitors like Apple and YouTube, will go a long ways toward determining its success.

Meanwhile, I’m sure these numbers mean Spotify’s IPO apparatus will start to crank up. Based on how hot the market is right now, I would expect the company to go out as soon as it can–before the bubble bursts.

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.