Does "Free" Digital Music Exist?
As reported in the Guardian HERE, Spotify are having to change their business model for Free users after reported severe losses using their current "Commercial Break" system. I myself am a user of this system and when I first heard about Spotify, back when it was invitation only, most of my friends, and many technology sites were starting to believe that maybe the days of "owning" music (as much as you can own a series of 1's and 0's, but that's a WHOLE other blog!) were soon to end. Listen to as much as you wanted and every so often, a commercial plays. BRILLIANT!
From a business point of view, I can understand how difficult it must be to make the model they had work, as I don't really remember there being any logic or reason to the frequency of their ads, and surely the payment for the adverts split between operating costs, artists / publishers etc... is not going to be huge. And lets not forget that anything with an " i " in it is always going to be tough to beat. Still, it did seem that Spotify had a quite a communal ethos to their business strategy, and given that the software interface has been smooth and the quality of the tracks excellent, it seemed like they had finally got a handle on how to deal with digital music in a legal and cost-effective way given the proliferation of torrents / P2P and File Hosting sites.
So, what does this change in T&C's really mean for the future of Spotify?
Ripping?
After a quick look, its quite easy to find "Spotify Rippers", but with the Free / Commercial Model, is there really that much point? Not previously, but if you only have 5 chances to listen to a song, then i am sure that more of these will end up appearing. After all, the whole Playlist thing is really a waste of time now surely?
Pricing Changes?
If the current £0, £4.99 and £9.99 stays, then surely it won't be too long, before they HAVE to drop the Free option, then maybe charge a VERY low monthly option to essentially recreate the current Open option, Commercial revenue, but no limit on track plays. Or introduce another 4th option into their model, so you can still have the free version as almost a sample of what Spotify is all about.
Bump?
Well, obviously, business is business and they can't continue generating losses in the £m / $m. This means that unless they can change something in their own revenue streams that don't affect customers, the new 5 listen limit will stay for free users, and the dream is over for those of us that play back a track 10 times to learn the thing. That said, I am sure nobody wants Spotify to go out of business, and maybe then we have to accept some changes to what was quite a ground-breaking business model. Even if that means paying!
I am not wishing to get into the rights or wrongs of illegal music downloads, but to answer the post title, no, free digital music doesn't exist, it can't, unless the band themselves foot the bill for the cost of producing the music, because people NEED paying for what they produce and create. They odd song here and there is fine, but whole albums? Not going to happen, certainly not for established artists. Yeah, Prince may have given away his album in a British Sunday Newspaper, but he was PAID by the newspaper for that and they saw a huge increase in their own sales.
So in the end, we have 2 options for digital music, legal or illegal. Not paying or free.
After all, to get it illegally you are going to need anti-virus because those sites can be dodgy, especially P2P Networks. Oh, yeah, and most File-Hosting sites are rubbish for free users.And don't forget that ISP's and BPI / RIAA are also on the look out, so in the end each track might end up costing more than 79p.
And how much of that goes to the artist? Less than the Spotify micro-payment I bet.
Ritchie
Over time, the amount and variety of music available increased, and in some cases has been used by artists as a viable and "cool" alternative to iTunes, Amazon and friends, enabling them to get music to a wide audience without them having to pay for it. R.E.M. recently had previews of their album available. Whilst many artists obviously use Spotify as just another revenue stream, there are bands that have songs solely on Spotify, an example being Foo Fighters' cover of "Band On The Run", which I needed to learn for my own band, something which normally requires a visit to iTunes. Now, I can listen 5 times and then that's it!
From a business point of view, I can understand how difficult it must be to make the model they had work, as I don't really remember there being any logic or reason to the frequency of their ads, and surely the payment for the adverts split between operating costs, artists / publishers etc... is not going to be huge. And lets not forget that anything with an " i " in it is always going to be tough to beat. Still, it did seem that Spotify had a quite a communal ethos to their business strategy, and given that the software interface has been smooth and the quality of the tracks excellent, it seemed like they had finally got a handle on how to deal with digital music in a legal and cost-effective way given the proliferation of torrents / P2P and File Hosting sites.
So, what does this change in T&C's really mean for the future of Spotify?
Ripping?
After a quick look, its quite easy to find "Spotify Rippers", but with the Free / Commercial Model, is there really that much point? Not previously, but if you only have 5 chances to listen to a song, then i am sure that more of these will end up appearing. After all, the whole Playlist thing is really a waste of time now surely?
Pricing Changes?
If the current £0, £4.99 and £9.99 stays, then surely it won't be too long, before they HAVE to drop the Free option, then maybe charge a VERY low monthly option to essentially recreate the current Open option, Commercial revenue, but no limit on track plays. Or introduce another 4th option into their model, so you can still have the free version as almost a sample of what Spotify is all about.
Bump?
Well, obviously, business is business and they can't continue generating losses in the £m / $m. This means that unless they can change something in their own revenue streams that don't affect customers, the new 5 listen limit will stay for free users, and the dream is over for those of us that play back a track 10 times to learn the thing. That said, I am sure nobody wants Spotify to go out of business, and maybe then we have to accept some changes to what was quite a ground-breaking business model. Even if that means paying!
I am not wishing to get into the rights or wrongs of illegal music downloads, but to answer the post title, no, free digital music doesn't exist, it can't, unless the band themselves foot the bill for the cost of producing the music, because people NEED paying for what they produce and create. They odd song here and there is fine, but whole albums? Not going to happen, certainly not for established artists. Yeah, Prince may have given away his album in a British Sunday Newspaper, but he was PAID by the newspaper for that and they saw a huge increase in their own sales.
So in the end, we have 2 options for digital music, legal or illegal. Not paying or free.
After all, to get it illegally you are going to need anti-virus because those sites can be dodgy, especially P2P Networks. Oh, yeah, and most File-Hosting sites are rubbish for free users.And don't forget that ISP's and BPI / RIAA are also on the look out, so in the end each track might end up costing more than 79p.
And how much of that goes to the artist? Less than the Spotify micro-payment I bet.
Ritchie
Just love your article.I do continuously look over your web site for brand spanking new articles.I am recently acting on associate app spotify premium apk thats going awe-inspiring and special because of you ��
ReplyDelete