Spotify: The Good, The Bad

Spotify is a commercial music streaming service that originally launched in Sweden in 2008. They provide their 20 million customers with digital rights management protected content from record labels.  However only a quarter of their consumers actually are subscribed to Spotify, of which pay a monthly fee that is determined by their location. As someone who works in the music industry and who has also become a Spotify convert over the last two years, I am both intrigued and torn in relation to all of the turmoil surrounding the service over the last few weeks.

Similar to Pandora’s current dilemma, the argument is whether the revenue paid to artists is a substantial one or not, especially for small artists. Rock music superstar Thom Yorke of Radiohead and Atoms for Peace, along with AFP collaborator Nigel Godrich, have been leading the crusade from the artist perspective, boycotting the service and pulling AFP records and Yorke’s solo material from their extensive library. They are just two out of a number of artists, however, to have spoken out against the popular music subscription service, “claiming that the ‘freemium’ streaming model simply doesn’t generate the revenue that indie artists are owed.”

SoundCtrl also stated that, “the record labels are really making the money in this new revenue model, not just because of the royalty deals they have in place with Spotify but also simply because they have large catalogues which are heavily streamed.”

The New Yorker recently reported, “… Streaming arrangements, like those made with Spotify, are institutionalizing a marginal role for the recordings that were once major income streams for working musicians.”

From the other end of the spectrum, Music Ally posted, “Streaming music cannibalizes piracy more than it does sales, and while the individual per-stream payouts are much less than for CD or download sales, paying out every time a track is played will add up in the long term.”

And for big name artists, this is true. But what about emerging acts?

Making your music available on Spotify could do wonderful things for your career; although it tends to be a gamble, just like any other marketing endeavor. There is a chance to increase your fans and listenership two-fold, which will inevitably bring in revenue. Increasing reach could bring bigger and better opportunities, especially if streaming services share more data with the artists on their fans. Music Ally reported that potentially the biggest way streaming services can help new artists will be through being a discovery tool that bridges the gap between potential fans/listeners and those bands they might not otherwise hear of.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, as Spotify’s Discover page is the tool I use most often when utilizing the service and I have discovered countless amounts of new music through this. They even partnered with Songkick to alert the customer when a band they’ve been listening to is playing nearby. Continuing to promote artists this way and branching out even further by partnering with other music sites could very well be the kick start needed for a young band’s career. Exposure is ultimately what every artist seeks most.

Either way, this is a debate that is sure to not find resolution anytime soon. Being still such a startup company, Spotify will have to work hard to ultimately figure out a way to make both the artist and consumer as happy with their service as possible. However at this point in the game it will have to be trial and error in order to see what may work and what will not.

Mix CD Etiquette: Just a 'Thanks' or Something More?

Make the Perfect Mix

I read an article from NPR recently that I found to be very thought provoking, as up until right after I graduated high school, I was a “mix” kid; mix tapes and CDs that is. The article asked, “What is mix CD etiquette?” I never actually considered that even though growing up it was one of my favorite past times.

NPR nailed it; it’s “an art form like any other.” CD mixing was a task I did not take lightly and something I spent a large amount of time doing, usually when I should have been focusing on something else. Making mixes for my friends was enjoyable and rewarding. Every time I passed one of my mixes along I couldn’t wait to hear how my friend felt about it. Of course as I painstakingly spent time over each one, oftentimes I’d only get the, “it’s cool” response. This was difficult for me at times as I wanted it considered in the same way that I put it together. Alas, that just wasn’t feasible; I guess that’s a good sign as to why I work in the music industry and the majority of my friends do not.

NPR put it well, “It’s important, with mixes, to remember that you’re giving a gift and not a homework assignment.”

Which is very true. At some point you just have to hope that you give your perfect mix to that one person who will appreciate it the way you do. But if they don’t, they don’t, and there’s nothing you can really do to try to drive up their interest if it’s just not their thing or they honestly just don’t care very much.

However, there is a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. Because what is even more awesome than giving a mix CD? Receiving one. I had a friend in college that typically made me a mix CD each month. At a time when I’d basically moved onto iPod and streaming playlists, it was exciting to have that feeling of nostalgia again. The physical aspect of having a mix CD really gives a reason to hold on to a piece of the past. Especially because PwC just reported that the CD is most likely dead to it’s sharp decrease and is most likely never coming back.

To answer NPR’s question, “When you make someone a mix, what do they owe you?” In my opinion, really nothing but a thank you… And hopefully to listen to it. It’s unlikely that the receiver will ever have the exact passion you had for the mix as you were putting it together. But if you’re lucky, they’ll appreciate not only the mix itself, but also the time and effort you took to put into it.