Reassessing Spotify
Though it may aim to become ubiquitous with music consumption, Spotify is quickly becoming a dirty word with musicians and artists. With the news that The Black Keys have joined the likes of Coldplay in restricting their content on the streaming service, it could be time for all artists to reassess how they use the service.
It is tempting to click every box when submitting your product for digital distribution, no one wants to miss the opportunity to reach new fans, but in reality it may not prove to be your most beneficial decision. When you are in control of your content, it is important to know its value, and to keep an eye on how the rest of the world values it.
With the introduction of apps, Spotify is working to provide a more accessible music discovery service. Perhaps this is how the creators of the content itself should also view the inclusion of their music – as a means of discovery to something more, not merely as an outlet for their complete catalog.
Tim Schaaff, president of Sony Entertainment Network, recently quipped that Spotify’s shelf life could resemble that of Myspace. Indeed, a musicians use of Spotify could quickly resemble how they used Myspace during the sites glory days – plugging into the service as a place to showcase their prime tracks on offer and little else musically.
The best artists become successful because they harness the ability to draw people into their world. Spotify's limited interface is very much foreign territory, especially with no outside links or ability to provide even a simple artist photo. Surely there is no incentive for artists wanting to grow a fanbase to actually provide more then a few tracks. There is certainly no direct economic advantage. In fact the similarity to the damaging effects of piracy seems glaringly obvious.
Spotify may well be financially beneficial those at the top of the musical food chain. However, it is important that independent artists – the ones not in the line of Spotify's monetary fire – make a conscious effort to share their music sparingly. Sure, we all want the world to hear our latest release, but if the listeners are not prepared to explore outside the world of Spotify, they will probably be satisfied with the two or three tracks you are prepared to give them.
This post is by regular Hypebot contributor Robin Davey, Head of Music and Film Development at GROWVision. Follow him on twitter @mr_robin_davey
You go on railing against the future. It’s attitudes like this that got the music industry to its present desperate status. Maybe Spotify doesn’t pay much to artists, but the choice in the new world is not much, or nothing. I’m sure you still dream on the go-go ’70s, but it’s over and you have to get used to it.
Hypebot can beat up Spotify everyday, but that’s not going to change the future.
Robin, the news that The Black Keys has pulled a Coldplay is just an assumption made by DigitalMusicNews, because the album did not appear on Spotify on the release date. The previous album from The Black Keys also appeared on Spotify about a month later. This windowing strategy happens often. Regular Spotify users know that.
Outside links are present in the Spotify apps BTW. Not to the artist website though. Such a link would solve a lot. I have set up http://www.spoticonnect.com in an attempt to address this problem.
Reassessing Hypebot
Hastily uploaded reprints of stories from other sites with two or three misspelling to make it distinct for regular hypebot readers. Mal-informed psuedo analysis by has-beens and wannabes. Finally, an editorial tone designed to enable the reader to think that the publisher knows even the first thing about the digital music industry. I know pr folks are always tempted to check every box in order to “get the word out fast”, but maybe it’s time to consider the impact the association has on your brand?
Are the bits in bold meant to be read with extra emphasis as if they were in italics or are they there to help someone scanning the article to pick out the main points?
Some of you have no clue when it comes to niche marketing vs. mass marketing
Bandcamp and Youtube are also the future as well.
wow–this is remarkable in how very wrong it is. As a prior commenter said perhaps your dreaming of the 80s and the days of hair metal and MJ/Prince–guess what that’s gone, artists need to take what they can get and Spotify does help get indie musicians on equal footing much more then the record store model ever did–at least your on the shelf. Living in the past is not a way to succeed–hopefuly no actual artists are listening to you for their own sakes.
okay, put YOUR music on Spotify. like I said, no clue . . . .
Explain to me how Spotify levels the playin field, i’d like to hear this one . . .
1. This is not just about Spotify. The Black Keys and Coldplay snubbed MOG, Rdio and Rhapsody as well. Notably, both bands did upload their lead singles, so some new music from them is present.
2. Spotify offers more than just music rental to premium subscribers. It provides the best cloud music service I have used, beating iTunes Match in addition to Amazon and Google. Translated: even if I end up buying tracks not included on Spotify, I can easily import them into Spotify, thereby solving the catalog gap problem you claim will kill it like MySpace. Even Spotify Free users have this ability on their PC. It distinguishes Spotify from their competitors.
3. Spotify Apps really are a game changer. Finally, finally, there is an easy way to sample and discover new music and be able to plop favorites in a single playlist all within the confines of one place. We Are Hunted is particularly awesome.
I’m a Spotify Premium subscriber but I also buy music that I really love; the Black Keys and Coldplay can get away with not putting their new albums up because they are well established acts who get mass media exposure. But if a smaller act withdraws from Spotify, then I won’t find it on We Are Hunted or Pitchfork, and thereby never hear or learn about them. I don’t see how completely ignoring Spotify is a good idea for musicians, especially since the most engaged users like myself still buy music and support our favorite artists. It would also be a mistake to not put up albums, so we can “try before we buy”.
It was bad enough hearing that quote comparing Spotify with Myspace once this week, but to hear it again cracks me up.
Holy fuck, does Spotify have a team of publicists onboard to immediately go into action when it gets criticized?
that’s a professional response to criticism of your article, Robin! (not a spotify employee)
Tom I have written a lot of articles for Hypebot. To receive a slew of negative comments on a piece about artists taking the upper hand and using Spotify Intelligently for their own benefit is completely out of the ordinary.
The comments instantly looked at discrediting the article without any substance as to why limiting the content you put on Spotify is a bad thing.
Spotify is great for the user – this article is about how artists can intelligently use it to benefit themselves. We have heard these arguments for spotify a ton of times.
TJ I am not saying dont use Spotify I am saying use it sparingly and intelligently. Dreaming of the 80’s? What? I am looking forward in a very millennial way, making the most of Spotify as an artist – that is forward thinking.
THis doesn’t even justify a reply – so dumb.
I released the first ever free full album for download for my band The Bastard Fairies, it did over a million downloads in its first year. I have made viral videos that have had millions of views and even got featured on BIll O’Reilly (the video cost zero dollars to make). I have broken bands using purely DIY digital marketing with NO budget and continue to.
The last 3 tours european tours for my band The Hoax have sold out in advance.
The Hoax were posting updates and pics on the internet from the recording of our third album back in 1997.
I am a inductee into the British Blues Hall Of Fame and winner of The Stanley Kubrick Award for Bold and Innovative Film Making at Michael Moores Travers City film festival.
I have been a professional musician since the age of 16, I turn 36 in a few weeks. I have been doing this for 20 years. Has-been no, Wannabe no.
How about you anonymous poster, what exactly have you done?
I am not saying don’t use it, I am saying use it in a smart way. That is forward thinking.
I would have though for someone who runs a viral marketing company, the above article is a very good way for you to guide your bands forward and to keep control of your campaign?
I’d say that’s a pretty ignorant, self-defeating way of looking at this. Where is it written in stone that Spotify is the future, especially as long as artists continue to stand up to and speak out against it? Eventually, Spotify could be forced to alter its business model to accomodate its labor force, or it can, as has been suggested recently, go the way of Myspace.
Because cool kids think Spotify is cool. Right now you’re the elementary school kid who said that maybe Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are kinda lame, and now the cool kids are upset.
Ah, I left out “back in the 80s,” just for context. I’ll slow down from now on.
spotify articles are always plagued with comments from armchair generals who have never written nor released any music in their lives, yet somehow feel qualified to pronounce to those who do on how to run their businesses.
ignore them. good article.
Robin, you are dead on right, here.
But, I would bet that Tim Schaff @ Sony will be in trouble at his company for those comments.
Doesn’t he know Sony owns a chunk of Spotify?
But if the artists are unhappy and all leave, then it’s not so great for the user. The idea that I, a paying customer, don’t have a stake here is ridiculous. Somehow, many industry types seem to treat fans as a mere chess piece oftentimes viewing them with contempt, and don’t actually know that many of us greatly care that artists make a living while still enjoying new digital music experiences. That is what is missing from all of these discussions. The Netflix Debacle this fall shows customers are the #1 concern, and content providers oftentimes don’t think about that when taking their frustrations out on internet companies.
Exactly Jesse.
Robin,
This is a great, insightful, and well balanced piece overall. Seeing these knee jerk reactions is very telling about what “the future” could potentially hold. We’re seeing a pretty interesting dichotomy here, consumers who want content..continuously,immediately and inexpensively, and artists who want to create that content and potentially sustain a professional career.
In my opinion, the future is the content…the music, moreover without the content creators there is no future (though there will be plenty of back catalogue to stream).
Will there be people who stream it all , or give it away and “make it”? Maybe. Maybe they can get Mountain Dew or Scion to sponsor their tour or release, maybe hit with a synch here and there and pay their rent for a few months, but these are not sustainable, nor are they realistic for 99% of the artists working today.
I think the reality of the situation is that Spotify has promised the world in a sense. They’ve offered it to consumers, and certain labels, and in regards to the artists, access. Now they’re pulling other media sources in to help curate that world.
So who’s fault is it when they can’t deliver the world? To me it seems like the consumer wants to blame the artists, or the label, when in reality it’s Spotify that should be looked at, they’re banking on this thing scaling, and with the “windowing” we’re seeing here it just may not happen.
Who’s the victim here?
Ok,
So, Netflix offered a service for a price that was reasonable to the customer, but left it in the red, especially when it became so popular. When it became clear that it needed to boost prices to be profitable, people left.
Who’s fault is that to begin with?
They gambled that people would find the service indispensable, regardless of cost. They were wrong.
Should a company run at a loss to keep customers happy? Because in a sense, that’s what you’re asking artists to do. The industry that you’re referring to that’s playing you like a chess piece is just as much the service provider (spotify) , and in this case many of the labels.
And let’s not forget that the artists are many times pawns as well.
The debacle was not the price increase. It was how they put it out there. Streaming was essentially free prior to them separating the services out. But instead of explaining that content licensing had gone up, they offered a pretty arrogant and false explanation as to why they had raised prices & then further compounded the mistake with Quikster. I believe what caused Netflix to make such a big P.R. error was from Hollywood putting incredible pressure on them (Starz Play walked away even though Netflix was set to pay them a lot), and Netflix not handling those changes very well. For the record, I think the Netflix price right now is very reasonable. People left because of the way they felt treated, not because of price. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have gone to Blockbuster which is more expensive.
As to Spotify, I think the free side of it is not sustainable, but are you arguing that the $10/month I pay is too little? I don’t think so. This is for music I do not own, cannot keep, cannot burn to CD, and will lose if I stop paying. Again, I still buy music so I am not screwing over the artist, expecting stuff for free or even at a greatly reduced cost. But what the author is advocating is making the service much, much worse. I’m going to push back against that.
Lynn,
I appreciate your points, but I’m on the other side of the fence. I’m an artist. It’s not worth it for all of us. That’s just the way it is.
In the end, it’s really a catch 22. If artists don’t sign on, then there’s no content, and spotify loses subscription revenue. However, for the artist to potentially see more of a cut of your subscription fees, it needs to scale which means subscription numbers have to move up in the millions, if not tens of millions.
After that, it’s still a matter of spins, as spotify is a game of volume when it comes to the artist revenue. Some of us will never see enough traffic to make it worth it. If you can extrapolate that over a larger scale you’ll see why the bigger artists that have more invested in them and more to lose do what they do.
Everything you have said there is so stupid its a surprise you even managed to post a comment on this article.
Well, this is the kind of dialog that needs to happen. Maybe not enough fans get that listening to an artist on Spotify (or You Tube for that matter) is only Step 1 if they truly want to support artists. For some, that may be going to a concert and buying merchandise. For me, it has always been buying either the mp3 or CD. But also understand that not every song I listen to is going to turn into a sale, and I guess I am wondering how many sales an artist can expect if they are not on FM radio or TV. The thing I will tell you is that I really need to hear the songs/album before I buy. Coldplay and the Black Keys did actually provide some streaming elsewhere, and NPR First Listen is another great place. But for the majority of artists, I do think at least at the beginning it really pays to provide their music to streaming services like Spotify if not when the album releases, how about a couple of songs and maybe the whole album a month or so later? I just think there has to be a solution here, and I do agree with a point made elsewhere that Spotify and all the other services should be more transparent in how the money they bring in gets divided up. I would be very upset to hear that major labels are just pocketing most of it and little is getting to the artists.
I completely agree that there’s a solution out there, we might be further away from it than we think, but exactly as you said, it’s this kind of dialog that puts people on the same page (or closer to it).
It’s definitely a paradigm shift, and as long as there are bastions of the old model around, we’ll be seeing people firing back and forth for a bit.
Honestly, I wanted spotify to be the end all answer when it was introduced, I think a lot of artists were looking for that magic bullet, but it’s going to take a bit more. For me, I think if prices went down overall, we might see sales go up in the long run. If a song was $.25 and an album was $2.50, music might become less of a luxury in the current market.
This is just an example, and won’t work for everyone, but for things like merch and touring (that require upfront overhead) to be profitable, we’ll need some type of sale of virtual/durable good to help offset the costs.
This article seems a little simple. Usually someone would & should write in a way that a) Explains clearly the point, b) Informs the reader of actual referenced research to prevent bias, c) Contain weighted arguement & thought. This seems like something a 5 yr old could write on why they don’t like Spotify. If anyone is a serious musician they will have already investigated the pros & cons, otherwise they are fools enough to be screwed either way. If you’re going to write something, please make it something interesting or relevant. Its not even a new topic, ironic if you are promoting originality within yourself, yet totally lack creativity in this article.
Its an opinion piece, offering up a perspective for musicians to mull over. I am not sensationalizing anything, I am merely telling it how I see it.
It is a current topic, thats why it has proved popular.
Again an anonymous poster trying to appear like they know more than everyone else. If you are going to criticize, give yourself credibility by signing in and letting us know who you are.
Why do you need to know who people are to understand & take some criticism? Surely you can see why people have issues with your argument or statement of the obvious? If it were really popular, you’d have millions reading & be working for a large media company. Instead its like a kid rant for people who have time to spare to be bothered to read. I read it with high hopes that you’d be direct, creative & strong in the point you’re trying to make. Instead you ended your points far too soon & left me thinking “yeah and…” disappointing.
James
You stated that articles should “a) Explain clearly the point, b) Inform the reader of actual referenced research to prevent bias, c) Contain weighted arguement (SIC) & thought”
Your comments a) failed to explain your point clearly by claiming you want things simple and to the point, but then you complain that it is not in depth enough and finishes too quickly.
B) failed in anyway to provide any referenced research – your argument being that it was written like a 5 year old and people should know this stuff already. This is clearly based on your own opinion and nothing else. A 5 year old would surely be more direct with their answer due to their limited vocabulary, (as little as 2500 words)
C) it failed to contain any weighted argument and thought -simply stating a very narrow point of view that everyone should know the pros and cons of Spotify or they are a fool.
On the evidence provided by your comments, I would attest that if you are having trouble relating to the opinion I presented, it may well be that you have limited vocabulary and possible learning difficulties. A child who is having difficulties understanding a concept has a tendency to attack the credibility of the argument, saying it’s “stoopid”, rather than admit their inability to fully understand what is being presented.
Good points!
Haha 🙂
The online services when they work with ole fashion distributors that sells to these things called stores. If you have not heard of them they are selling today according to the lasted Soundscan reports 2 CDs to every 1 digital album.
Is there a reason to not sell to stores?
As far as I know, the FANS, aka the consumers, of music never expressed an interest in getting music in only one format.
Saucer of milk?
So people who are critical of Spotify are ‘living in the past’?
Isn’t it ‘living in the past’ to surrender your music sales to some vast corporate middleman?
Hi,
I am quite new to the music industry but have 8 years of online marketing experience.
I am working with an indie rock band in the UK called Talk To Angels and have mixed feelings about Spotify so I think the advice which is essentially to tread carefully is good advice.
For me the problem with Spotify is the premium service as it means people have access to almost unlimited music via mobile apps and indies basically make nothing from it. It almost completely removes any incentive for anyone using the premium service to buy music. Most people seem to be listening to music on mobile devices or computers so there is no need for mp3 or physical media.
On the other hand I think there is still a good section of music fans who actively desire to buy music to support their favourite or up and coming bands they like. I know that I recently discovered a new band via Facebook followed by Spotify and then still bought the album on CD.
So Spotify is a tricky decision in my opinion and I think the answer is to offer exclusive content and bundles for purchase. Or generally finding new ways to offer value and make money from committed fans.
I think it would be foolish for an indie band to ignore Spotify completely as it is a powerful discovery tool especially with the FB integration. I must admit when this was implemented I feared the worst because it would bring Spotify to the masses but only a very small percentage of my friends use it. I think it will still be a long time until and if it becomes the norm. CD, vinyl and mp3 still have a lot of life I think but even so we’re still up against illegal downloading as well or just the increasing perception that music should be free.
So yeah, new to the music industry and quickly learning how tough it is but I’m keen to innovate as much as I can and make best use of all the tools available.
I expect we’ll see a lot of development and feature implementation over the next year or two as well so it should be an interesting time.
The real disconnect is between artists and the average customer. Artists say streaming under-pays them whilst customers are using sites like Spotify more and more. Seems like artists must be found in areas that customers are using as customers won’t miss those who are excluded voluntary.
Excellent point
Oh lord, here we go again. Look, the basic facts of the matter are, that no matter how you continue to ‘spin’ in favour of these behemoths, the truth is still the truth: artists are getting considerably less and less return through portals like ‘Spotify’ and ‘youtube’; they are not going to be able to create music anymore if they cannot afford to do it. And just in case anybody is labouring under the illusion that artists used to make more in the old days, well, no. Those industry models still used to screw over the artists in the same way, yet – and this is the important thing to remember – the popular PERCEPTION was that artists were rolling in it. They were not: the guys at the top of the pyramid were making the money and the same holds true today with the online model. I am a creator, I’ve been doing this for a great many years, Hypebot are simply trying to educate those that are not creators but who are, in the main, consumers, and that by continually engaging with these ‘pied pipers’ (facebook; Spotify; youtube) is contributing to the devaluation of music in both a material return sense to the artist, and in its position in your lives as an enhancing agent, and that to perpetuate/entertain these ‘pied pipers’ without thinking, or awareness of the damage that it is causing the creative community, is encouraging the eventual destruction of music in the long term, simply because artists will no longer be able to afford to a) make it b) live. If that is the sort of world that you wish to promote then you will ultimately deserve what you get; a musicless, spiritless void. Robin Davey is SPOT on with his post, I am delighted to say. Spotify – rightly so – will continue to be ‘beaten about’ by the creative community because they are effectively trying to destroy it. Why is anybody surprised or outraged at that response?! Fact: Spotify returns to artists between $0.001 and $0.017 per click-thru/track stream. Fact: ‘Poker face’ – Lady Gaga: some 10 million ‘hits’ on youtube, return to artist? $167. Interesting how ‘consumers’ prefer to, say, spend $5 on a coffee but as little as possible – or nothing – on music; speaks volumes doesn’t it.
So Spotify is trying to destroy music? That argument reminds me of the PMRC’s attack on Ozzie Osbourne, claiming he used backward masking in his music to compel his fans to kill themselves-Ozzie’s reply? “If all my fans killed themselves, who’d buy my next record?”
We heard the same arguments at the dawn of….radio. It cannibalizes sales of shellac discs! (heavens forfend!) Sure, Spotify is on-demand, which is different from radio; Spotify is also social, which is different from radio, but as Lynne S. noted above, it doesn’t fully replace ownership of a piece of music nor investment in a brand/band, since you lose mobile access when you stop paying for it.
I recently read an article by an industry insider, noting that social strategy is and should be handled differently for established artists, as opposed to newer acts; newer acts should put up fewer barriers to their music. I think that makes a metric sh*t-ton of sense, since people don’t have any innate desire to invest in new music; they really only like stuff that they’ve been hearing for quite a while.
You can look this up, but it takes something like 17 impressions before a music consumer is even vaguely aware of your music, so I agree with the author that musicians/artists should carefully manage their availability on Spotify and other such services, but for independents, it really doesn’t make much sense to not be on the shelf.
If you aren’t on a major, your music should be just as available for free as it’s available for sale; it’s no trick at all to get your fans to buy it, the trick is to get enough non-fans to listen to it enough to become fans. It appears to me that a service like Spotify could be of some help, in that regard.