I disagree. I think for most people music is fungible; they just want something to listen to. I think Spotify can afford to have gaps in it's library. Sure, if a large enough portion of the music industry cut them off it would be an issue, but I don't think they're in imminent danger of that.
People pay Spotify a monthly subscription for the convenience of being able to listen to the music of their choosing, at the time and place of their choosing. Anything that jeopardizes that convenience is going to be a problem.
It’s extremely irritating, but not enough to make me go elsewhere as I can’t see any other service not having the same problem.
If a song is removed from Spotify entirely, it just disappears from the playlist.
I'd love to be proven wrong, however, and start to see all the tracks that have disappeared in the past!
Now, imagine the scenario comparable to what @bogomipz said above: "no Beatles, Pink Floyd, No Motown, No AC/DC". I'm betting all of us would be a lot more frustrated and irritated than we are right now. Maybe you won't do anything about it. Maybe I won't, either. But it sounds plausible that a lot of people will, whether they switch to a different service, come up with a solution of their own or simply revert to piracy.
For those interested in this one, small-scale phenomenon: https://qz.com/767812/millennial-whoop/
Most people on Spotify don't make their own playlists at all, and just rely on the ones that Spotify supplies in the Browse tab, or listen to albums.
From a quick scan of the friend activity pane, if Spotify only had music from the past 5 years, 80% of my friends would still be able to listen to their music.
People complaining about gaps in their library are a definite minority.
If you are the kind of person that will sometimes strongly desire to listen to only one song/style/artist, and that desire is so strong that nothing else satisfies it, then Spotify not having your track can be a big deal.
If I can't build a decent playlist because Spotify's lack of coverage, that's going to be a big deal to me.
The mainstream is not sensitive to nor do they care about the logistics of music distribution. I wish there was a way for Spotify to ignore these bullshit distribution deals because the only people who care about them are megalabels and their A&R reps. I don't know of a single artist making bank off streaming...
It's like complaining about the lack of techno (especially remixes) on Spotify, that's what Beatport is for.
If they start poaching artists from the labels who own the back catalog or if the labels start to see Spotify as a competitor instead of customer there will a reckoning when it comes time for Spotify to renegotiate their licensing terms with the labels.
And then of course there's the risk of becoming a record label. For every Bruno Mars that blows up there are 30 or 40 other artist that failed to break. And each of those flops costs money and requires resources such marketing, A&R people etc.
>"All they need to do is to get people to stream less licensed content and more own-produced"
People want to listen to what they want to listen to when they want to listen to it. That's the whole value proposition of streaming for users. If someone has a specific record or song in my mind you aren't just going to persuade them to try some "non-licensed" content instead. It's not a sports drink.
>"I would assume that Spotify's music licenses are highly variable cost, ie almost entirely pay-per-stream."
No its most certainly not pay as you go. In fact the labels demand a certain percentage up front.
You nailed it. Music has a fundamentally different mode of consumption from music. People consume music in so many different ways and contexts. Music doesn't always demand your attention like a sensory-engrossing medium (like movies). But when music demands your attention (like having to change providers to hear a specific song) it introduces friction that is unnatural to that medium.
Netflix has plenty of third-party content.
However, in my experience in the UK, if you pick a well known film at random and look it up on Netflix, there's only about a 5% chance they'll have it.
Not the sort of library that will have users throwing away their personal collections.
Spotify has a lot of competitors biting at it's heels, they're certainly the largest (and IMHO, best) at what they do, but they've by no means locked up the market.
They're not exactly at the mercy of the labels, but they probably can't afford to piss them off either.
This could lead to cartel-like behavior among the stakeholder labels and crowd out the smaller players, but that's basically been happening in the industry for a long time so I'm not sure how big the impact would be.
Time will tell but i feel like this can go either way.
If you made that statement I'm guessing that you don't realize that the Beatles have been relevant for 50 plus years now and AC/DC for 40 plus years.
They are so enduring because they are classics. It's amusing that you believe that when yet another generation discovers these artists they are somehow going to become less relevant.
Both of those artists that you used in your example were long time hold outs to allowing their music to be streamed. And it was huge news for Spotify when they were added to their catalog.
It's worth mentioned that Beatles tracks were streamed 50 million times in the first 48 hours that they were available for streaming.[1]
[1] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/beatles-songs...
Spotify was excited to get them because it means older people might join. A larger audience, that's it.
65% of those 50 million streams in the first 48 hours were by people under the age of 34. See:
https://www.thewrap.com/beatles-songs-stream-50-million-time...
So yeah, catalog is king.
It's very bizarre that you don't understand the magnitude of the The Beatles. They are not something that requires a push.
So here's some number regarding the first 3 months of their catalog being available on Spotify:
"24 Million Hours Of Beatles Music Has Been Played In Their First 100 Days On Spotify
The company revealed today that in just over three months, people around the world have played 2,793 years worth of Beatles tunes.
Yes, that’s right — years. When that figure is broken down, it can be better understood as about one million days, or over 24 million hours. Considering that the average Beatles song is less than five minutes long, those 24 million hours multiply into several hundred million plays."
In fact, a conservative estimate of total Beatles plays on Spotify is still over a quarter of a billion. [1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/04/08/in-thei...
I don't find it bizarre at all.
They are basically unplayed on UK broadcast radio nowadays and indeed for the past 30 years. I don't know if that is due to restrictive licensing or just lack of interest.
I am mid-40s and have never knowingly listened to an entire Beatles song. I've just asked my wife and she has never owned one of their CDs.
I don't know if they're even on YouTube. Edit: yes, their most popular song has 123 million views versus 3.2 billion for Gangnam Style.
My only peers who seem interested in the group and seek-out their music are musicians themselves.
I’m not sure why I’m bothering because you continue to miss the point and instead use multiple logical falicies to try to belabor your point. I get it, you have an obsession with this and you want to convince the world you’re right, doesn’t make it so.
I’m happy to be proven wrong as I have no skin in the game, but so far, you’ve not done so.
No my original point was the value of back catalog.
While its unfortunate that you aren't able to follow the conversation, it's even more unfortunate that you insist on making comments when you have nothing of value to add.
Rather, Bandcamp should start a streaming service. I've had a payment model in my pocket for years that I think would work really well for them.
source: I used to work in the data side of the music industry.
Indie and emerging artists aren't going to sign with a label if it means their music isn't available on Spotify, the #1 streaming service.
Music labels may have modestly more leverage, but it is not impossible for Spotify to start their own label while also maintaining relationships with existing ones.
Tidal has already been doing most of the stuff people are proposing here. It's a controversial topic but I don't think there is good evidence that music streaming services, from a business standpoint, shouldn't also be in the business of producing or sponsoring musicians.
Using the smallest of these 3 Time Warner Music Group, the company did $2.87 billion in revenue in 2013[1].
Let's say that Warner was actually interested in a sale. Let's say that the multiple they were looking for was 5x. Where is Spotify going to get the 15 billion dollars for that sale? Certainly not from this direct listing. And even if they had that cash what happens when you buy a 3,500 employee mega corporation? You actually have to run it and run it well.
Where does the fear of these labels come from?
Why doesn’t someone just buy them for the catalog, and fire everyone in the dying parts of the business?
De-risk your revenue model, and gain leverage vs other streaming services.
Last I checked, Spotify has those artists. Have you actually used Spotify lately?
Thus, Spotify can't directly attempt to go in the same direction that Netflix did, as the other labels would see them attempting to compete and could possibly pull out, destroying any reason to use Spotify in the first place.
I could mangage quite well without all these.
Just one datapoint but...
This seems to be a common refrain that Spotify can just "pull a Netflix." And this is very unlikely.
Firstly no matter how much opriginal content they could create, if they don't have back catalog it's going to be a total non-starter for the mainstream. A streaming service that has no Beatles, Pink Floyd, No Motown, No AC/DC etc is going to shed users pretty quickly.
Also music and movies occupy very different spaces in peoples lives - emotionally, socially, where and how they're consumed and shared etc.
People need music for their commute, for their workouts, for their parties, at bars and for their workdays. People only need movies when they're home or maybe stuck on an airplane.
Lastly Spotify needs to stay in the record label's good graces. If they were ever to be viewed as a competitor or a thread to any the big 3 record labels it would be reflected in punitive price increase when it came time to renegotiate their licensing deals.