Back in 2009 I wrote a report for Forrester Research entitled ‘Music Release Windows: The Product Innovation That The Music Industry Can’t Do Without’ (you can read the summary blog post here, and the ‘money’ graphic is here). In the report I proposed that the music industry should adopt three release windows based around a ‘Preview’ window for premium customers, a ‘Mainstream Pay’ window for CDs and downloads and a ‘Free to Air’ window for ad supported streaming. With all of the brouhaha surrounding the Atoms for Peace withdrawal from Spotify, release windows, and the role of streaming services more widely, are very much back centre stage. But whereas I strongly believe in the case for release windows, I believe that, as per my 2009 report, that paid subscriptions should be in the first window, not the last. It is free-to-consumer, ad supported streaming that needs to be pushed to the back of the queue and it is high time that the windowing and streaming debate in general makes a clear distinction between the two very different propositions.
Subscription Service Hold Outs Actually Hit the Best Fans Hardest
Music fans that pay 9.99 for a Rhapsody, Spotify, Deezer or Rdio subscription are among the globe’s most valuable music consumers. These music fans need treating as such, almost regardless of the business models that may surround their consumption points of choice. It is not their fault that the music industry and tech sector contrived to construct business models that have propagated doubt and division among many of the industry’s key stakeholders. This is not to dismiss the absolutely crucial issues of sustainability and equitability, but instead to raise the issue of who is paying most the price of windowing? The services or the fans? There isn’t a clear-cut answer, and the decision dynamics are analogous to those of applying economic sanctions on a nation state.
Delay Releases to Free Platforms, Not Paid Ones
But if we for the moment view the issue through the lens of the music fan, then it becomes abundantly clear that if a high value music fan deserves to be treated like a VIP then something analogous to the opposite is true for those consumers that choose not to pay for music. This is the case for why the ad supported tiers of music subscription services, along with Pandora, the radio and YouTube should all be put into the last release window. This is already how the movie industry behaves. Now clearly this proposal is not without controversy. The music industry’s entire discovery mechanisms revolve around putting the best content on free-to-air platforms first under the remit of promotion. But this proposal does not have to be the death knell for that approach, as long as the potential of digital platforms are properly harnessed:
- Think of subscription services as ecosystems not silos: There used to be a physical journey between the radio and the music store. Now in subscription services discovery and consumption are symbiotically joined. This means that the radio promotion approach can be played out in subscription services and in doing so reach the most valuable customers based on their music preferences. Thus when the radio window hits weeks later it will be targeting a largely distinct group of consumers for whom it will still be the first time they have heard the music. And for those that are subscribers and radio listeners, the few weeks delay may prod them into reengaging with the album they first heard on their subscription service.
- Window albums not singles: Singles are invaluable tools for promoting albums and tours. There is less need to apply windows to singles, or rather to the lead singles from the album. To protect the value of the premium release window though, it is important that only one single hits the free to air channels before the album hits the first window. Else the impression is given of too much content being too widely available elsewhere.
- Combat scarcity with new products: Of course the biggest challenge to windowing is the lack of scarcity i.e. what’s the point in turning off the tap if its available elsewhere? There are two answers to this 1) by ensuring content is available first only on the premium platforms, the availability of content on free platforms is markedly reduced (radio and YouTube account for the VAST MAJORITY of music listening, P2P is in decline) 2) more has to be added to the premium music products to make the windowed content act as a complement to a rich, curated product experience not available elsewhere. Two examples of how to do this are artist subscriptions and D.I.S.C. products.
Holding Back from Paid Subscription Tiers Can Be a Missed Opportunity
It is still too early in the emergence of widespread streaming adoption to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of windowing but there is a growing body of useful evidence. Spotify’s Will Page this week released a report that brings some invaluable evidence and analysis (you can read the report here). Although Will is obviously on Spotify’s pay roll and Spotify clearly have an agenda to push, Will is a diligently objective economist with an impressive track record at the UK’s PRS for Music, and his work should not be dismissed on the grounds of assumed bias. In the report Will pulls data from Spotify for streams, GfK for sales and Musicmetric to compare the performance of albums across all three channels for windowed and non-windowed albums. The broad conclusions on the sample of albums tracked is that non-windowed albums did not appear to lose sales but that windowed albums had much higher piracy rates. Significant caution is required when interpreting this type of analysis, principally because it is impossible to definitively identify causal relationships e.g. the marketing strategy of one artist might tend towards piracy activity than another, as might the geographical location of the artist and the global distribution strategy. But even with these caveats, the report presents some solid directional data. The market needs much more data like this and I will be adding to the data pool later this summer with a white paper that I’ve been working on for some months now.
Windowing Doesn’t Solve the Streaming Debate, But It’s Not Meant Too
Windowing does not address most of the broader issues that currently surround streaming. It can however be an important part of the equation if, and only if, it is done on the basis of distinguishing between free-to-air streaming and paid streaming. Though not quite as distinct as an iTunes download is from a Torrent download, the parallel is nonetheless provides useful context. This is not to discredit the huge value of radio, YouTube and Vevo in driving music discovery, nor the equally strong value of freemium service free tiers in acquiring customers. This is not a proposal to remove content from free-to-air channels, but instead one to simply not put everything there straight away. As the music discovery journey and consumption destination become ever more entwined, it is time to think long and hard about just how much leg needs to be shown to make a fan fall in love with an artist’s music.
Another good piece!
One point regarding piracy – if you make new album releases (agreed, not tracks) available to the paid subscriber streaming base first before paid downloads, you minimise the risk of illegal copies being uploaded to pirate sites.
Ideally, the CD should only be released at the same time as the digital download – after the paid subscription segment to counter piracy even further (protect your demand)
It does point to a reverse order of window releases.
Yes, agreed, which is why I propose that CD and downloads should be in the second window. The likelihood of that being agreed to any time soon is probably negligible but once subscriptions have more traction and when CD’S and (if) downloads less then it will become an easier decision to make.
a fascinating piece as always Mark. how do you propose labels deal with the fact that the large streaming service eg spotify are hell bent on keeping exactly the same content across their paid and free services. they refuse to have premium content not also available on the free tier, arguing that it breaks their model. their model conflicts with and potentially breaks the rights holders’ ideal model. how does one negotiate this standoff which seems to lie at the heart of the issue?
Interesting model, and more forward thinking than the rest of the industry that is so desperately trying to hold onto old models. Honestly, the whole fight over royalties, and treating paying consumers like they’re thieves makes me want to go back to pirating. As of right now I use a free ad supported service (torch music) because I specifically wanted the industry to get their cut, but the whole fight makes me lose my taste for it. New ways of doing it must be introduced, this is useful.
Pingback: How To Make The Most Of Your Music On Spotify | Planet Six String
Pingback: How To Make The Most Of Your Music On Spotify
Pingback: Kevin Spacey On Stopping Piracy: Give The Fans What They Want | Planet Six String
Pingback: Kevin Spacey On Stopping Piracy: Give The Fans What They Want
Pingback: Caught In The Crossfire: Rescuing User Experience From The Online Music Battlefield - South Carolina Music Guide
Pingback: Three Ways Music Services Can Cash in on Their Most Valuable Listeners - WorldArts
Pingback: Three Ways Music Services Can Cash in on Their Most Valuable Listeners | Bands Rising