The Problem With Streaming Exclusives

Jay-Z’s ambitions for TIDAL has triggered a lot of discussion about how streaming models can evolve.  One focus has been exclusives with a number of references to TIDAL ‘doing a Netflix’ by commissioning exclusives.  Netflix can attribute much of its growth over the last couple of years to its flagship ‘Netflix Originals’ such as ‘House Of Cards’ and ‘Orange Is the New Black’.  It is an appealing model but the Netflix Originals approach cannot so easily be transferred to music.

There are three main types of exclusives:

1.    Service Window: album is released exclusively to a single music service for a fixed period of time e.g. only on TIDAL for 1 month

2.    Tier Window: album is released across one type of music service tier before others e.g. only on paid subscription tiers for 3 months

3.    Service Exclusive: music service acquires exclusive rights to an album so that it will never appear anywhere else unless the service decides to let it

The first two will become increasingly common components of the streaming landscape over the next couple of years.  Daniel Ek and Spotify fought a brave rear guard action against Taylor Swift and Big Machine to ensure the Tier Window model did not carve out a beachhead with ‘1989’ but it is an inevitability.  If free tiers are to have a long term role alongside paid tiers they have to be more clearly differentiated.

TIDAL and Apple look set to become the heavyweight players in the Service Window, duking it out for the biggest releases.  TIDAL will argue it pays out more to rights holders (75% compared to 70%) while Apple will argue that it can directly drive download sales (which is where everyone still makes their real sales revenue).  Apple will have to play that card carefully though as it stands just as much chance of accelerating download cannibalization as it does driving new sales.

When Is A Label A Label?

The really interesting, and potentially most disruptive, exclusive is the Service Exclusive.  This model would start blurring the distinction between what constitutes a music service and what defines a record label.  If, for example, TIDAL was to buy out the rights of the next Beyonce album or sign a deal for the next two Calvin Harris albums TIDAL would effectively become the record label for those releases.

The irony is that this ‘ownership of the masters model’ by streaming services is emerging just as the next generation labels are distancing themselves from it.  A new breed of ‘labels’ such as Kobalt’s AWAL and Cooking Vinyl’s Essential Music are focussing on providing label services without taking ownership of the masters and in turn putting the label and artist relationship on a more equitable agency / client basis.  But there are far more impactful challenges to the Service Exclusive model for music than simply being out of step with where the label model is heading:

• Scarcity: ‘House Of Cards’ is only available on Netflix (and some download to own stores such as iTunes). It is a scarce asset, which is not something that can be said about any piece of recorded music.  As TIDAL found with the near instantaneous Beyonce YouTube leak, music scarcity is ephemeral in the YouTube age.  As long as YouTube is allowed to hide behind its perverse interpretation of ‘Fair Use’ and ‘Safe Harbour’ there will be no music scarcity.  (Of course true scarcity is gone for good, but if that can be made to only mean P2P then the problem is manageable, as it is for TV content).

• Consumer expectations: Consumers have learned to expect their video experiences to be fragmented across different platforms and services, to not find everything in one place.  For music consumers however the understanding is that catalogues are either near-complete or useless.  So if all music services suddenly started having high profile gaps then subscribers would be more likely to unsubscribe entirely than they would be to take up multiple subscriptions.  Ironically the net result could be a return to download sales at the expense of subscriptions.  Talk about going full circle….

• Industry relationships: Netflix started out as a pure licensee, paying TV companies for their shows.  Now it competes with them directly when commissioning new shows.  It has become a frenemy for TV companies and is finding many of its relationships less favourable than before.  And this is in an industry that is built up the frenemy hybrid licensee-licensor model.  The music industry does not behave this way, so any service that took up the Service Exclusive model could reasonably expect itself to find itself developing tense relations with labels.  Which could manifest in those labels giving competitor services preferential treatment for their own exclusives.  Labels have long feared the disintermediation threat posed by the web.  It is unlikely to materialize any time soon but they are not exactly going to encourage retail partners to kick-start the process.

• Appetite for risk: Buying up the rights to the latest release of an established superstar is the easy part, and we already have some precedents though neither were exactly run away successes (Jay-Z’s ‘Magna Carta Holy Grail’ with Samsung and U2’s ‘Songs Of Innocence’ with Apple).  But being a label, at least a good one, isn’t simply about signing proven quantities, it is about taking risks on new emerging talent.  And that doesn’t simply mean having a DIY platform on a streaming service – though that can act as a great talent identification tool.  If streaming services want to start playing at the label game they need to also start nurturing and marketing talent.

• Limited horizons: Stream is still only a small fraction of recorded music revenue.  There are few non-Nordic artists that rely on streaming for the majority of their sales income.  That will change but not for a few years yet.  So a release that only exists on streaming, let along a single streaming service, is only going to deliver on a fraction of its potential.  TIDAL and Apple especially could easily choose to loss-lead and pay over the odds for Service Exclusives to ensure artists aren’t left out of pocket.  But that only fixes part of the problem.  An artist locked into one single streaming service will see his or her brand diminish.  ‘House Of Cards’ may be one of Kevin Spacey’s most assured performances yet only a few tens of millions of people globally have ever seen it.  If it had been on network TV the audience would have been hundreds of millions.  With touring becoming the main way many artists make money the album is the marketing vehicle and if that album is locked behind the pay wall of one single music service the marketing potential is neutered.

Streaming music services will find themselves locked in total war over the coming years and while Apple’s cash reserves will likely make that warfare appear asymmetrical at times, exclusives of some kind or another will be utilised by most of the services.  Just don’t expect them to deliver them Netflix-like success because that’s not going to happen.

The Problem With Audiences (A Letter To Daniel Ek)

Dear Daniel

I enjoy our occasional Twitter exchanges and last night’s about MIDiA Research’s new music forecasts was no exception. For the record, I believe you deserve great credit for engaging as much as you do on Twitter. But as valuable a platform as Twitter is, it is not the best environment for discussing more complex and nuanced issues so I wanted to take this opportunity to build out from our conversation.

Your comments revolved around MIDiA’s estimate of the global ad supported music audience, which you think is lower than it should be at 202 million. I am really pleased you have picked up on this audience number. Part of what we are trying to do at MIDiA is educate the music industry to think less about Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) and more about how many people are actually engaging with digital music services. The audience-first approach has served the TV industry well and there are many lessons the music industry would do well to heed.

When Active Is In Fact Anything But

The accepted standard for measuring audiences of digital B2C companies is to look at regular users, typically considered as ‘at least one activity during the last 30 days’. If you are a marketer looking to understand the reach of different platforms then this is a perfectly adequate measure. It is similarly useful if you are a company trying to communicate value to advertisers or if you are a start up looking to demonstrate success to potential investors.   However it is the motives of the latter two groups that can lead to problems, especially in the ad supported music space.

For example most people take it as read that Pandora’s c.80 million regular users are monthly users. However Pandora’s imaginative definition for active users is: “…distinct registered users that have requested audio from our servers within the trailing 30 days to the end of the final calendar month of the period.” Which means that for quarterly accounting that can refer to up to a 120 day period, or for monthly accounting up to 60 days. Thus a user that plays just 30 seconds of one song in a two months period would be classified as a ‘monthly’ active user. That might serve Pandora’s purposes well but it is far from a useful measure for objective observers and vested interests such as songwriters and publishers. (Spotify of course defines active users using a straightforward 30 days measure). Another problematic trend is music services that classify active users as those that open the app rather than playing a song.

Why ‘Real’ Regular Usage Is So Important For Understanding YouTube

When we were building the MIDiA forecasts we were particularly concerned about YouTube. Music is crucially important to YouTube but it is not a music service. So, not only is a regular YouTube user not necessarily a music user, an occasional-but-monthly YouTube music user is not necessarily a music consumer in the way an occasional-but-monthly Spotify user is. Somebody who downloads Spotify does so because they want to listen to music, end of. Someone who, for example, watches a ‘Gangnam Style’ video that appears in their Facebook timeline is by no means guaranteed to be an engaged music fan. The highly diverse nature of YouTube’s content means that music can be a very small part of the 6 hours average monthly viewing of a YouTube user. Especially when you consider non-music videos from the likes of PewDiePie and SkyDoesMinecraft each average over 20 minutes. In short, the occasional-but-monthly YouTube user is less likely to be an engaged music fan than an occasional-but-monthly Spotify user.

So we decided to define regular users for YouTube as those who watch 20 or more music videos a month, which translates to about 5 a week and less than a fifth of the average YouTube user’s total monthly YouTube time. We did this because we want to provide the music industry with metrics that have actionable value. YouTube’s total music video audience is probably somewhere in the region of half a billion but less than half are regular users. Apple’s iTunes audience is c850 million only but only 200 million or so are music buyers.  Big numbers look great on Powerpoint slides but they don’t help make good business decisions if they are not truly instructive. 

Not All Active Users Are Created Equal

Of course, the ideal starting point for measuring different audiences is to apply a standard definition, but as we have just seen, this is not always best route to take. Particularly if you are trying to demonstrate where the value in digital music lies for each part of the value chain. For example, a regular download buyer, when defined as those who buy at least monthly, spends around $2 a month. As an artist, if one of those tracks was yours you might get $0.15 from that 1 infrequent regular user, while if that song was streamed 20 times by a infrequent regular Spotify user you might get $0.03, and if it was viewed 20 times by what would have to be a frequent regular YouTube user you would probably get around $0.01. An infrequent regular iTunes customer in this scenario is thus 15 times more valuable to an artist than a frequent regular YouTube user.

Scale Matters If You Do Not Have It

All of this might sound a little esoteric but it does matter, especially to artists, songwriters and smaller indie labels. If you are a big label, or indeed a music service, it is the total revenue that matters as you are effectively guaranteed a meaningful share of it. But if you are an artist, songwriter or small indie, your plays will be just a tiny share of the regular audience’s behaviour making it far harder to make meaningful money out of those users than it is from infrequent download buyers. While its great to see Calvin Harris and Avicii each clock up 1 billion Spotify streams, this feels more like a confirmation of my ‘long tail is dead’ theory rather than signs of a ‘high tide rises all boats’. If you are a big artist or label you have scale and you benefit from the scale of even infrequent audiences. For the rest, an infrequent user audience has little import, particularly as those users also skew towards the big hits. 

Audiences Really Do Matter

Like I said, I am really glad you’re focusing on the size of digital music audiences – I wish more people would take the same interest. Indeed if you look the chart above – which shows the audience of each type of music service mapped against the revenue – you can see that there is currently a huge imbalance between revenue and audience. This is exactly why I want the industry to focus on audience first and revenue second. In fact if we were to take the looser (bigger) measurement of YouTube’s audience it would make my point even more firmly.

So thank you once again Daniel for helping highlight the importance of audiences and hopefully I’ve gone some way to explaining why MIDiA decided to measure YouTube in the way we did. Though I have to say I am intrigued as to why you showed so much interest in the ad supported audience over all others? I do hope this doesn’t hint at a stronger focus on ad supported to come for Spotify. You have done a fantastic job at kick starting the subscription market and I know it is hard work, but if anyone can make premium subscriptions work at scale it is you. Though I totally get that you also need to highlight how much oxygen YouTube is sucking out of the marketplace – something I think you and I are in violent agreement on.

 

Yours,

 

Mark 

View From the Top: 10 Streaming CEOs on 2012 and 2013

A special feature for the end of what has a been a big and often controversial year for streaming.  Here are the views of 10 CEO’s of of the top streaming services and of the leading multi-room streaming system, on the following two questions:

1 – What was the most important thing to happen to the streaming market in 2012

2 – What is the most important issue that the streaming market must address in 2013

Daniel Ek, CEO and Founder – Spotify

2012: Growth – both in terms of the number of people who are now paying for music again and the growth in payments back to artists as a result. 2012 was the year when people realised the future growth in the music industry is coming from streaming services.

2013: The abundance of choice. How do you make sense out of 20 million songs?

Axel Dauchez, CEO – Deezer

2012: The streaming market continues to progress at breathtaking speed and we’ve seen some incredibly positive developments in 2012. Most exciting for us, is the fact that targeted online content has developed into something much, much more sophisticated than just algorithm-generated recommendations.  We’re seeing the focus now shift towards personalised music curation. At Deezer we’ve gone a step further, developing really bold new product innovations that are designed to put integration with apps, social media and digital services at the forefront of our new user experience. Our aim is to help music fans discover and share music and promote new artists.  That’s why our local editorial teams work hard to create suggested playlists and recommendations to give music fans a more personal and individual service.

2013: Getting as many people as possible to find out about services such as ours! We’re convinced that the future of digital music will rely on music discovery and re-establishing the emotional connection between music and people. Our mantra is to help people rediscover music, through recommendations by real people all over the world. Our locally-based editorial teams share new music from upcoming local artists, not just in their own countries, but with the other editorial guys around the world – another example of Deezer taking music even further regardless of boundaries. Now our biggest challenge is to get people everywhere to find out how intuitive – and fun! – it is to use Deezer, and we hope to make great strides on this in 2013.

Jon Irwin, CEO – Rhapsody

2012: Looking back, 2012 was the year that streaming became mainstream. We’ve seen a rapid evolution since streaming music was freed from the PC and became a constant companion via smartphones, to this year, when streaming made its way into the living room and into cars—the two places where people listen to the most music. Streaming services are everywhere! This heightened awareness has resulted in more consumers embracing the model and eschewing their old beliefs around the need to own their media; which has given rise to more investment in the sector, innovation around business models and M&A activity. After spending the past 10 years forging the path and taking those proverbial arrows, we are finally seeing the realization of streaming music’s promise.

2013: The most important issue of the mainstreaming of streaming is that artists are paying more attention to how they’re being paid on the various streaming services. Artists are seeing a lot of streams, but are not seeing a lot of cash for them. This makes them justifiably nervous that streaming services are getting popular at the expense of digital sales–and in some cases withholding their music from streaming–a detriment to the growth of these services, just as they become popular. The solution of the problem is twofold. First, we need to do a much better job at education about how artists are compensated and creating transparency around where streaming revenues flow. Streaming services have a responsibility to innovate around artist compensation to get more money into artists’ pockets and help them understand how their music is being consumed. I think there is a lot more that we can—and should—do to ensure that artists are fairly compensated for their music and are extracting maximum value from streaming services.

Steve Purdham, CEO and Founder Investor – We7

2012: Two things, in the UK, the silent landmark in 2012 was the launch of the BBC iPlayer Radio app this has the potential in 2013 to be the catalyst for mainstream adoption of streaming, without the need to know its streaming and secondly the driving momentum of smart phone and tablet adoption reaching what I believe was a tipping point in 2012.

2013: In 2013 the dream would be easier licensing, more flexible pricing plans removing the artificial technical and commercial barriers with  the ability to demonstrate clear ROI’s but in reality for any of the models to work they need the true internet scale that is possible and to achieve that we need to find the means to enable mass market adoption. This is the elusive jewel in the crown that we all should be really seeking to solve.

Ben Drury, CEO and Founder – 7 Digital

2012: Streaming cloud locker services from Google and Amazon

2013: Globalised rights

 

 

Drew Larner, CEO – Rdio

2012: Social media has had a profound impact on the way music is shared, which is something we anticipated when we first built Rdio. 2012 also saw the entry of services into global markets (with our own service expanding to 17 countries). The continued growth of mobile around the world with faster speeds and better phones also contributed to the rise of music streaming in 2012.

2013: Awareness is still a key factor moving into 2013. We’ve seen a big shift in 2012 with more services opening up globally, but we aren’t truly mainstream yet. Innovating on discovery is a key focus as well. With all the songs in the world at your fingertips, creating fun ways to decide what to play next is a challenge. We built Rdio with human powered music discovery at the heart of the experience and we’ll continue to enhance discovery across platforms moving into 2013. Another key issue moving into the new year is the our responsibility to the artist community. We’ve started to address this through the recently launched Artist Program and will continue to work closely with artists to help them create new revenue streams and tap into new opportunities generated by the streaming music model.

Nick Massey, CEO – Rara

2012: The introduction of frictionless music sharing across social networks has led to a massive increase in the adoption of music streaming in 2012.  62.6 million tracks were played 22 billion times across Facebook in the first 12 months of open graph coming to the network.  In the UK UMG reported that 7.5bn tracks had been streamed in 2012 to mid November; a 700% increase on the 1.1bn tracks streamed in 2011.

2013:  Despite the huge rise in popularity of streaming, there’s a lot more work to do before the mass market transitions from music ownership to the access based streaming music services.  Increasing adoption of tablet computing is making it easier for people to consume digital entertainment content while high speed broadband and 4G mobile networks deliver more data to us faster.  However it will be the ways in which streaming services enable simple but engaging access to music through recommendations, sharing and curation which will be key to driving wider consumer uptake in 2013.

Mike Bebel, Head of Music – Nokia

2012: 2012 was a year when many of the mainstream music service providers realized that the typical mobile music consumer is seeking more effortless and delightful entertainment. This is something we had already understood and rolled out to over 20 markets around the globe with Nokia Music, the most satisfying and compelling mobile music experience to date.

2013: In 2013, we expect others will follow our lead and work hard to remove barriers to usage and some have already announced that they also need to solve the consumer issues that we identified long ago. Rest assured that Nokia Music will continue to innovate and deliver the music that people love in the most satisfying and intriguing mobile experiences. We welcome all to discover and enjoy it.

Espen Lauritzen, CEO – WiMP

2012:  The beginning of consolidation in the industry, which I believe we will see more of in the coming year.

2013: The big discussion on sustainability of the business model throughout the value chain.

 

John MacFarlane, Founder and CEO – Sonos 

2012:  In 2012 we’ve seen streaming services go mainstream. With the proliferation of innovative services such as Spotify, RDIO, Pandora, Rhapsody and QQ, we now have access to more music than ever before. At Sonos we’re dedicated to providing music lovers with the simplest way to enjoy all the music on earth in every room and our partnership with such popular music services has ultimately seen our customers consume twice as much music.

2013: 2013 must bring a healthy debate on the value chain of artist to consumer within streaming, and it’s essential that this is resolved to ensure the artist gets paid and the consumer gets a great experience. We are just beginning this dialogue but it absolutely needs to be continued in earnest over the next year.

My take

2012: It was streaming’s big year.  Finally the confluence of ubiquitous connectivity, and smartphones and tablets going mainstream has created the necessary market conditions for streaming to step up to the plate.  It is still very early days and streaming revenues are dwarfed by download and CD revenue, but finally there is the glimmer of a ‘digital plan B’. The artist streaming debate was a useful coming of age for artists, but too much data has too often been misinterpreted, creating a confused marketplace.

2013: 9.99 is not a mass market price point, somehow (bundling, discounts, pricing innovation, partnerships etc) that price must come down to drive wider adoption.  Also the value chain must work out a transparency solution that can work within the restrictions set by commercial relationships.  Artists may never get the full picture, but it is in the interest of all parties that they get as much of it as is possible to help them make informed opinions. Finally, the elephant in the room remains YouTube.  More catalogue than any of the other services, video (of course), great functionality, on every smartphone and tablet, and all for absolutely nothing.  That creates a playing field that is anything but level for the rest.