-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Spotify nears deal with labels to restrict biggest releases to paid users
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Garrett Hawke
Member
This sounds dumb because those companies will just lose whatever minuscule ad revenue they would normally get.
Going from next to nothing to nothing, lol.
Going from next to nothing to nothing, lol.
~90% of Spotify's revenue is subscription-based. Ads don't make jack and, even if they did, record companies would still be convinced that ads don't make jack.
Garrett Hawke
Member
I know, that's what I'm saying.
They already make next to nothing from the free tier but I doubt this will convince people to upgrade, they'll just wait or pirate it.
Almost nothing > nothing.
OriginofHysteria
Banned
I almost forgot that there was even a free version of Spotify. If there's anything worth a subscription, it's Spotify Premium.
I know, that's what I'm saying.
They already make next to nothing from the free tier but I doubt this will convince people to upgrade, they'll just wait or pirate it.
Almost nothing > nothing.
Ah, gotcha.
Yeah, I would assume this is more of a move to attract stubborn artists like Swift and less a move to attract more subs, regardless of what it looks like on the outside.
CrispyBoar
Banned
I wonder if there's any good alternatives to Spotify in general, & if there's some way to print out all the songs that I've saved onto my playlist (I have a little over 2,000 of them).
They don't even have some of the songs that I want, & some songs that I've saved in the past goes away without warning.
They don't even have some of the songs that I want, & some songs that I've saved in the past goes away without warning.
Spotify shouldn't even have a free tier TBH
Google Play Music All Access/Youtube Red and Apple Music
Google Play Music All Access/Youtube Red and Apple Music
entremet
Member
There are services that support export and import from the big services.
ClosingADoor
Member
I'm not sure why they even have a free tier anymore. Just get rid of it.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
The free spotify experience is already horrible compared to the paid experience. They're practically difference services. Spotify's $10/month is well worth it.
I'm way more concerned about indie artists not getting paid, than whether or not the "Biggest Artists" will be on there.
I'm way more concerned about indie artists not getting paid, than whether or not the "Biggest Artists" will be on there.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Makes sense. Free Spotify kind of sucks. Joined on one of those .99 cents for 3 months and haven't looked back.
Sarcastic Poster
Member
Does this mean that artists will be paid even less? If so, this can fuck off.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Screw people saying they should get rid of the free version. Ya'll must really hate ads because I don't find them that bothersome.
YuriLowell
Member
whats the student discount?
Agree 100%. My most worthwhile subscription.
This here. It's really not that expensive. And I'm sure these 'big releases' will probably eventually be on spotify a bit before the artist's next big release.
Same here. What I pay for Spotify and what I get out of it is insane.
onadesertedisland
Member
So, these people that do not understand the old model is never returning, are trying to destroy a way to make some money? Good for them??
In the UK, it's half price subscription. So I pay £5 per month instead of £10.
This isn't trying to return to the old model. This is working within the new model.
onadesertedisland
Member
Attacking the free model is the old way. The free model is advertising for the paid model. It's like giving away the first hit, knowing that eventually some will get hooked.
The new model being everything is free or?
Edit - I see, valid point but non new releases are still available on free.
KidGalactus
Member
Spotify is free?
No. At best it will encourage people to sub which will increase royalties. At worst it changes nothing.
DOWN
Banned
I don't think many mainstream consumers are willing to spend time pirating anymoreI know, that's what I'm saying.
They already make next to nothing from the free tier but I doubt this will convince people to upgrade, they'll just wait or pirate it.
Almost nothing > nothing.
The amazing convenience of one app curating everything you listen to is just too solid
Depends on the region. Some countries have a free tier, some just have a two weeks trial version.
I mean if you're going to use that analogy, current free model is like giving away your best shit without terribly much reason to get hooked. Putting bigger releases behind the pay wall and keeping the other stuff free is exactly what you described, actually. You get the first hit from the insane amount of music that would still be free, but if you really really want the newest, good shit then pay. It's what TV shows do with Netflix. They throw their seasons on there when they're a year old or so, get people hooked so they might go watch the new season on cable or buy from iTunes or something. No one's forcing you to do that, though. You can wait and get it if you want.
We'll have to see details, but this is like attacking the movie/TV studios for not putting their movies immediately on Netflix or some other streaming service. Eventually that shit'll be out there for much cheaper, but if you really can't wait you'll pay a bit.
The old model was that everything ever was behind a pay wall. That model doesn't work anymore, but people like you seem to want literally everything ever for free and that model doesn't work either. Artists and labels need to get something. The industry needs to make something. This is a good middle ground. Hell it's not even a middle ground, spotify and streaming services are still crazy slanted toward consumers compared to every other type of media. You let me know when I can get nearly every TV show in existence for like $10 a month and then we'll talk.
DOWN
Banned
The free model looks old now that Apple swooped in and got 20 million people to stay and pay in just over a year with no free model, and Spotify themselves were able to get so many people to leave the free tier recently that it just seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel of users to accommodate free users for dirt money. The music industry and the streaming services cost a bunch of money to exist, and many people are now okay with paying. Like seriously the free tier generates so low in revenue through ads and labels don't want to touch that low payout model because it sucks to even say that's ok.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
it's actually more that regular artists will lose money from the lowest royalty rates, while mega artists will make more for their album launches. so basically the exact worst thing that could happen. cool cool.
I really do wish Spotify would change the model they use for royalties where the percent of your subscription would go toward the bands you listened to during that month. That would really help smaller bands.
The funny thing is, though, if we really wanted to, we could game Spotify and generate more revenue for an indie band than we actually pay for that sub just by turning spotify on and letting it go. With the model in my first paragraph that wouldn't happen.
So I wish we could get a movement to game the system like that to force their hand.
This. I don't even use it that much (or utilise it fully), but I subscribe because it's so goddamn fucking good and in case I do want to listen to lots of music.
onadesertedisland
Member
A better way is to slightly inconvenience the free users with advertisements and restrictions on mobile, which they already do. What the artists need to do is negotiate higher rates from streaming services, not attack the consumer. Attacking the consumer invites a return to piracy. It's none of my business where my subscription fee goes, I'd rather it primarily go to the creators, but that should be between the service and them. Sorry, not sorry.
I find this argument kind of odd. You're basically saying instead being patient a month or two and getting everything free anyway, you'd rather Spotify instead bombard you with so many ads that you get so annoyed you'd move to premium? How is that not attacking the consumer and inviting a return to piracy, too? In fact I think that invites it more. I feel like most people can be pretty patient about waiting for an album to go to free tier, whereas people get disgusted pretty quickly by ads, and that disgust doesn't usually translate to "I'll pay for this" in an average consumer, it translates to "Fuck this service."
It's not, though? £10 is pretty standard for a music service, Amazon Music Unlimited is £10 for non-Prime members (£8 for Prime members).
The service you're talking about that's bundled with the Prime service is a fraction of their complete library, and will likely get smaller over time.
The Faceless Master
Member
making a service worse for consumers only really seems to work when they have limited choices.
Tell that to Apple Music. Seems to be working fine for them.
Spotify is hands down the best service I subscribe to. I couldn't live without it. I'm not going to shit on the free tier, but it's definitely more than worth the price - especially if you're a student.
Ew keep that snake away 🐍
I currently subscribe but mainly because my kids wanted access and a family sub is cheaper than two personal subs. I was fine with free before. I watch an ad to get 30 minutes music with no ads, which is enough for my walks to and from the station in the morning.
Removing newer content makes sense IMO. If I'm listening to free I can't control the exact music that plays so I'm already using it more as a radio experience. The only reasons currently to subscribe are no ads (don't care) or control over tracks and making my own playlists. If you're a casual listener you might not care about these limits. Removing new releases provides one more incentive to push people into subscribing. Or they'll just stop listening and turn to the radio instead (something I've started to do as most stations have live streaming anyway)
Removing newer content makes sense IMO. If I'm listening to free I can't control the exact music that plays so I'm already using it more as a radio experience. The only reasons currently to subscribe are no ads (don't care) or control over tracks and making my own playlists. If you're a casual listener you might not care about these limits. Removing new releases provides one more incentive to push people into subscribing. Or they'll just stop listening and turn to the radio instead (something I've started to do as most stations have live streaming anyway)
Ads and the complete lack of control on mobile made me get Premium. This super sucks for free users, but if you can afford it, you should absolutely be getting Premium anyway.
This move only cuts off ad revenue (however tiny) for the artists though. No idea why they themselves would be agreeing to this.
This move only cuts off ad revenue (however tiny) for the artists though. No idea why they themselves would be agreeing to this.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Been a Premium user for about half a year and going back to free would be horrible. Wouldn't even make sense as I download everything for the car/gym.
- Status