The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
blog.chartmogul.com
The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#2I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#3I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
From what I’ve read they are trying to cut out smaller independant labels, where the budget and need for large capital injection is smaller. The long tail of music makers. From that perspective SoundCloud is probably a great hub to acquire.
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#4I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
The statistics point towards users wanting music from the big four labels. This may be one of the reasons they have double downed recently on their discovery products. If they can continue to divert user interest to artists from less expensive labels, it's a win/win. (Former Spotify employee, have no idea what I'm talking about).
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#5I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
The statistics point towards users wanting music from the big four labels. This may be one of the reasons they have double downed recently on their discovery products. If they can continue to divert user interest to artists from less expensive labels, it's a win/win. (Former Spotify employee, have no idea what I'm talking about).
[deleted]
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#6I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
The statistics point towards users wanting music from the big four labels. This may be one of the reasons they have double downed recently on their discovery products. If they can continue to divert user interest to artists from less expensive labels, it's a win/win. (Former Spotify employee, have no idea what I'm talking about).
I don't think users particularly care which label an artist is on but the big labels attract the biggest artists and can back them up with marketing, so thats kind of expected.
Its hard to say if the discovery products are supposed to guide users to less expensive content, but is is an interesting theory. But showing users content they might not be aware of would necessarily go beyond the big labels that are everywhere. I think it has more to do with providing value that can't escape the platform due to external factors such as a label striking a deal with a competitor.
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#7I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
They do have a small in-house label.
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#8>> A $12.99 Amazon Prime subscription gets me streaming music, streaming video, e-books, fast shipping and a whole host of other benefits. A $10.99 Spotify subscription gets me… well, Spotify.
I think on pricing Spotify shines with the Family plan which reduces the cost significantly. Plus, those $12.99 only gets you the Spotify free equivalent from Amazon. The Amazon Music Unlimited is another $7.99
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#9I don't understand why Spotify hasn't gone the Netflix way and started their own label to produce and release the music themselves. Their margins are severely cut by licensing and since the labels hold the rights to the content they might be convinced to sign better deals with competitors who have other revenue streams to subsidize a music venture that isn't making money.
The problem is that then you are competing with your customers, who then won't play ball, and might start a competitor.
Netflix doesn't have this problem, as a load of it's producers weren't playing ball anyway.
Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO
#10A minor nitpick in the article, the $12.99 Amazon prime subscription does not cover their spotify competitor streaming service. I've always thought this was a bit odd given that it does include a netflix-esque amount of streamable video content. If I had to guess, I imagine it's all related back to the royalties situation in music. You do get "Prime Music", but it's not the Spotify competitor, that would be Amazon Music Unlimited. That service is an additional $7.99 if you're a Prime member.
eBooks are also mentioned there, but you don't get a huge library for being a Prime member either. Rather, it's a selection of ~1000 written things (books, comics, magazines) that is constantly rotating. Kindle Unlimited is another $9.99/month. You can do the Kindle library thing as a prime member, but that's one book a month drawing from a similar pool as Kindle Unlimited, which often doesn't have current best sellers anyways.
I guess props to Amazon for being so confusing in their myriad content subscription options that the author couldn't get it right. To get the same kind of all-you-can-consume options that spotify provides across the different media mentioned it's actually ~$30/month. Still strikes me as odd how "cheap" TV and movies seem to be in this model. I'm very curious about that now.