The music industry needs innovation more than most industries and yet the last two years has seen a slowdown in the number of new licensed music services coming to market and greater consolidation around the Triple A of Apple, Android and Amazon. In this brave new world music start-ups need an entirely new modus operandi.
There are many reasons for the slowdown in new licensed music services, but a key one is the establishment of the license-advance business model in which record labels issue licenses only upon payment of sizeable, non-repayable advances in anticipation of forecasted income. Depending on the scale of the risk to the labels presented by the licensed service these payments can range from relatively modest to downright gargantuan (Beyond Oblivion went to the wall owing $100m to Sony and Warner Music even though not a single consumer ever saw the service). With so few services managing to make a dent on Apple’s market share investors have grown wary of investing in music start-ups that require licenses, some have effectively stopped investing in them all together. The labels’ focus on partners with scale (and effectively using advances as means of sorting the financially robust wheat from the chaff) may deliver near-term security for the labels but it increases their long term risk by slowing music service innovation. Hungry young start-ups are often more likely to create transformational innovation than heavily resourced R&D divisions of billion dollar companies. Thinking ‘out of the box’ is always a lot easier when you’re not actually in the box in the first place.
Music Start-Up Strategy 2.0 Requires A New Set of Relationships
The status quo is a lose-lose for all parties, each of whom find themselves stuck in a Catch 22: labels need new services but also the safety net of advances, services need licenses but can’t pay for the advances and investors want to invest in music services but won’t do so when advances are required. It is time to change the model, for this cycle of insufficient innovation and market contraction to be broken.
So just how can this circle be squared? The starting point is accepting the position of each of the three constituencies and then building from there:
- Labels want market innovation but with their market contracting they need to mitigate risk
- Services want to innovate but can’t afford to have advances as their core early stage expense
- Investors want to invest in music innovation but want to put as much as possible of that investment in technology and people
Music start-up strategy 2.0 requires each party to think and behave differently, to accept the fundamentals of the new digital music economy. And this requires a willingness to both embrace some new ideas and to help forge a few others:
Record labels – become investment partners: Record labels – majors and independents alike – deserve great credit for transforming their business in the last few years, but they cannot change the market alone. Labels need to harness open innovation, leveraging the developer ecosystem. OpenEMI is an early model of best practice but to fulfil its massive potential the approach needs underpinning with a more equitable alignment of label-developer relationships. Start-ups are going to help solve record labels’ problem and labels need to not just tap that expertise but accelerate it. To do that record labels need to apply A&R rules to technology start-ups. On the artist front labels already behave like Venture Capital firms, now they need to translate this appetite for risk to their commercial strategy. To take the same sort of risks on start-ups as they do on artists. This of course means that labels will routinely require equity stakes – and sizeable ones, but instead of just being a licensing requirement, these will be in return for a new relationship in which labels establish nurturing partnerships with young start-ups, just like those they have with artists.
When a start-up is at pre-launch stage it is probably going to be more appropriate to take a good chunk of equity for licenses than it is an advance that the start-up can ill afford. Of course it will still be appropriate for advances to be part of the mix in some circumstances – sometimes even the majority of the mix – but the balance of the relationship should be investing to become a business partner. This means becoming active stakeholders, sitting on boards, working with the entrepreneurs to help make them successes. In short, the relationship should change from licensee-licensor to investment partners with shared vision and motives for success.
Start-ups – understand what labels need: Though record labels are becoming increasingly confident of their own innovation capabilities, no media company is an innovation agency while technology start-ups have innovation imperatives at their core. Unfortunately they often get the conversations with labels wrong. Instead of going to labels with the “we’re going to save your industry” pitch, start-ups should better understand what label priorities are and then propose working with them to help them achieve those objectives, as partners. (This is something that Spotify did incredibly well right from the start). Just as it is best practice to engage with an investor long before they actually need money, start-ups should apply the same approach to record labels.
However this change of relationship is probably going to take some time to realize, so in the more immediate term start-ups should look at ways to deliver their experiences without licenses. No I’m not advocating the Groove Shark approach, but instead leveraging the content licenses of digital music services that are pursuing ambitious API strategies. Music start-ups should think hard about whether they really need to own music licenses themselves to deliver a great user experience, or at least whether they need to right away. Building, for example, a product within the Spotify ecosystem is a great way to deliver a real-world proof-of-concept, test consumer receptivity and have immediate access to millions of potential customers. License conversations are a lot easier with proven consumer demand on the table. (Though start-ups need to be careful with music API strategy, indeed they should treat music service APIs like mobile OS. Don’t put all of your eggs in one API basket.)
Investors – work with labels as partners and embrace the API economy. Investors might have some reservations about working with record labels at start-up board level but they shouldn’t fear losing influence. The odds are investors will still make the same scale of Seed and Series A investments, it is just that their money will be working smarter, helping build great technology and hiring better people at those crucial early stages of a company’s life. Investors and labels often find themselves on opposite sides of the argument. There is no inherent reason the relationship should be adversarial.
Investors should also think about how well their investment strategy harnesses the capabilities of the API Economy. Of course it is always preferable to invest in a business that owns all of the fuel that powers its engine. But in the era of integrated music API’s it is no longer crucial for a music service to have its own licenses. An investor wouldn’t expect a mobile app developer to own Android, iOS or Windows Mobile so they need not expect a music service to own music licenses.
Laying the Groundwork for Transformational Innovation
Some of these changes are already beginning to happen, others are a long way off from being realized. But this change is needed to enable to next wave of transformational innovation that the music industry so desperately needs. Freeing up precious and scarce early stage resources leaves start-ups able to focus on developing great, innovative technology. Which in turn will mean better products, better user experiences and more revenue for everyone.
I first discussed some of the themes covered in this blog post in the Giga Om Pro report ‘Monetizing Music in the Post-Scarcity Age’ which can be found here.
Pingback: Music Start-Up Strategy 2.0
Interesting article. The over-reliance/misplaced importance on the licensing issue is a factor in the declining number of start-ups. We’ve dismissed it completely. We don’t see licensing or infact the infrastructure which includes major labels having much significance any more.
For a direct to fan play such as yourselves you’ve managed to create a business the successfully negates the label license dependency while remaining legit. This approach works with a whole range of music start-ups, such as discovery, artist tools etc. But if you’re a music service that wants to (legally) deliver the majority of music that people know to them then you still need licenses.
There is no doubt that services such as yourselves are chipping away at the remit of labels, but they remain the #1 force in recorded music. And I’d hazard a guess that the majority of up and coming artists would welcome a record deal if they could get one if it offered them the chance to have proper creative, logistical and financial support. I’m not saying they’d all want to go with majors, but record labels as a whole remain (for now) the most powerful route to market for artists. All of the ‘baggage’ that comes with being on a label is often considered being a cost worth paying. What is changing is that nowadays, when later on in their careers, once they’ve got famous with a label’s help, many artists can now decide they’ve had enough and opt out of the label model and work with someone like yourselves or Pledge Music.
Pingback: News in Music and Technology – Links | TRIZZAT
Pingback: Tentang OpenEMI dan Membawanya ke Tahap Selanjutnya
Pingback: The era of “integrated music api´s” | Spectralmind
Pingback: The era of “integrated music api´s” | jachim.net
Pingback: Digitalmusic.org Launches Music API Directory | Planet Six String
Pingback: Digitalmusic.org Launches Music API Directory | Planet 6 String
Pingback: Should You Give Your Music Away For Free? Thank You Amanda Palmer