Find profit or crackdown: Spotify stopped working directly with the authors - what does it mean
In July, the pioneers of music streaming Spotify announced that they would close access to the function that allowed the authors to upload music to the service themselves. Those who managed to use it for nine months of beta testing will be forced to re-publish their tracks through a supported third-party channel. Otherwise, they will be removed from the platform.
Photo of Paulette Wooten / Unsplash
Previously, with rare exceptions, streaming services did not allow authors to independently publish music. This privilege was available only to the most popular of independent artists. Those whose works were released on labels were content with their services for publishing on streaming platforms. Authors without a label - used the services of online distributors who publish tracks on different platforms for a one-time payment or a percentage of sales.
')
Spotify was the first exception to this rule. The function, implemented on the basis of DistroKid’s online distributor technologies, entered the testing stage last fall. The decision was motivated by the ideology of the company and financial gain. On the eve of the IPO, Spotify representatives said they want to challenge established practices in the industry.
But less than a year later, Spotify announced the end of the experiment.
In an official statement, the company thanked the beta test participants and promised to further improve their services, but with the help of partners. This decision was argued that the products of online distributors already meet the needs of musicians.
Instead of adding services, the company wants to focus on the quality of integration of third-party services and the optimization of the analytical platform Spotify for Artists.
Directly about the reason for the failure of the beta test in the statement did not say a word. Fortunately, experts and listeners have theories on this. Last year, skeptics said that the company underestimates the complexity of the work of distributors. It is likely that this turned out to be true. And now they just want to get rid of the unexpected load.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time Spotify has changed the rules of the game. Last year, the company closed the automatic playlist collection service Spotify Running. He allowed data to be shared with fitness gadgets equipped with heart rate sensors to offer relevant playlists. In 2014, the service closed Spotify Apps, with which brands managed to control content on the platform, and the “applications” of partners were removed.
Numerous experiments of this kind can be explained by the fact that in the eleven years of its existence, Spotify has come out in the plus only once . Despite growing revenues, in the first quarter of 2019, the company lost more than one hundred million euros. Hence the endless search for new ways to monetize the product.
The money that the company spends on experiments does not guarantee the authors "healthy" earnings. Due to the astronomically high threshold of profitability for musicians, the company was often criticized. For four years, even Taylor Swift refused to publish her music on the platform, citing the unfair policy of royalty agreements.
Only in order to recoup the services of a distributor (approximately $ 50 per year), the performers need to achieve 13,500 auditions. But this is also not an easy task, considering that the Spotify algorithm is trained to give priority to the tracks of major labels.
Photo Priscilla Du Preez / Unsplash
In this context, the company's last year's decision to launch a service for direct music download seemed like a step towards independent authors. But they decided not to develop the initiative.
While Spotify copes with the public criticism of the cancellation of Direct Upload, an increasing number of services are thinking about moving to this system. For example, the Bandcamp platform. She initially developed the product based on direct collaboration with independent musicians. Anyone can upload their music to the platform and give it away for free. If the musician decides to sell his work, then the percentage of sales Bandcamp leaves himself. This is a transparent scheme, and even medium-caliber labels work with it.
Soundcloud launched a similar program in an attempt to return to DIY-culture, which made the platform popular. Artists who agreed to the terms of Soundcloud Premium, had the opportunity to monetize the streams of their works. But she was criticized.
All these news add coal to the fire of competition of streaming services, which should affect their quality. It remains to hope that in this case the interests of the authors will not suffer.
Our materials for additional reading:
Streaming giant launched in India
What happens in the streaming audio market
A selection of online stores with hi-res music
What is it: the Russian market of streaming services
PS Our Music Store . tools and professional audio
Photo of Paulette Wooten / Unsplash
What happened
Previously, with rare exceptions, streaming services did not allow authors to independently publish music. This privilege was available only to the most popular of independent artists. Those whose works were released on labels were content with their services for publishing on streaming platforms. Authors without a label - used the services of online distributors who publish tracks on different platforms for a one-time payment or a percentage of sales.
')
Spotify was the first exception to this rule. The function, implemented on the basis of DistroKid’s online distributor technologies, entered the testing stage last fall. The decision was motivated by the ideology of the company and financial gain. On the eve of the IPO, Spotify representatives said they want to challenge established practices in the industry.
And for large labels, this initiative really became a challenge - in the end, Spotify coveted a role that traditionally did not belong to it. From a financial point of view, the move was promising. Having got rid of payments to labels, both musicians and the streaming service themselves received much more money from broadcasting music.
But less than a year later, Spotify announced the end of the experiment.
What does it mean
In an official statement, the company thanked the beta test participants and promised to further improve their services, but with the help of partners. This decision was argued that the products of online distributors already meet the needs of musicians.
Instead of adding services, the company wants to focus on the quality of integration of third-party services and the optimization of the analytical platform Spotify for Artists.
Directly about the reason for the failure of the beta test in the statement did not say a word. Fortunately, experts and listeners have theories on this. Last year, skeptics said that the company underestimates the complexity of the work of distributors. It is likely that this turned out to be true. And now they just want to get rid of the unexpected load.
By the way, at HackerNews, they expressed the opinion that new legislative measures obliging online services (for the time being only about European standards) to check user downloads for violations of rights were the “nail” in the coffin of Direct Upload.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time Spotify has changed the rules of the game. Last year, the company closed the automatic playlist collection service Spotify Running. He allowed data to be shared with fitness gadgets equipped with heart rate sensors to offer relevant playlists. In 2014, the service closed Spotify Apps, with which brands managed to control content on the platform, and the “applications” of partners were removed.
Numerous experiments of this kind can be explained by the fact that in the eleven years of its existence, Spotify has come out in the plus only once . Despite growing revenues, in the first quarter of 2019, the company lost more than one hundred million euros. Hence the endless search for new ways to monetize the product.
What's with that musicians
The money that the company spends on experiments does not guarantee the authors "healthy" earnings. Due to the astronomically high threshold of profitability for musicians, the company was often criticized. For four years, even Taylor Swift refused to publish her music on the platform, citing the unfair policy of royalty agreements.
Only in order to recoup the services of a distributor (approximately $ 50 per year), the performers need to achieve 13,500 auditions. But this is also not an easy task, considering that the Spotify algorithm is trained to give priority to the tracks of major labels.
In the issuance of independent music, fully meet the user request, has a lower priority. In the automated playlists and recommendations there are practically no independent performers, and getting “home” without a contract with someone from the “big three” (UMG, Sony or Warner) is almost impossible.
Photo Priscilla Du Preez / Unsplash
In this context, the company's last year's decision to launch a service for direct music download seemed like a step towards independent authors. But they decided not to develop the initiative.
What others have
While Spotify copes with the public criticism of the cancellation of Direct Upload, an increasing number of services are thinking about moving to this system. For example, the Bandcamp platform. She initially developed the product based on direct collaboration with independent musicians. Anyone can upload their music to the platform and give it away for free. If the musician decides to sell his work, then the percentage of sales Bandcamp leaves himself. This is a transparent scheme, and even medium-caliber labels work with it.
Soundcloud launched a similar program in an attempt to return to DIY-culture, which made the platform popular. Artists who agreed to the terms of Soundcloud Premium, had the opportunity to monetize the streams of their works. But she was criticized.
Under the contract, the musician undertakes not to sue the platform if he finds out that in the past she earned money illegally from his music. Moreover, auditions outside nine “monetized” countries will not be considered in favor of the author.
What is this listeners
All these news add coal to the fire of competition of streaming services, which should affect their quality. It remains to hope that in this case the interests of the authors will not suffer.
Our materials for additional reading:
Streaming giant launched in India What happens in the streaming audio market A selection of online stores with hi-res music What is it: the Russian market of streaming servicesPS Our Music Store . tools and professional audio
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/460747/
All Articles