Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

blog.chartmogul.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#11

Post by Kiro »

hb3b wrote: post #4
runeb wrote: post #2

I 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).

Is it common to know what label an artist you listen to is on? How do you even see it without looking up the artist or song on Wikipedia?

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#12

Post by EggsOnToast »

runeb wrote: post #2

I 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.

It might just be too risky in their minds. I can't speak for every user, but if Spotify dropped the big labels I'd just go elsewhere. There's already enough platforms for discovering new or different artists, Spotify's value to me is being able to pick a song or band I like on a whim and know that they'll probably be there.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#13

Post by dummyfunnytoo »

Kiro wrote: post #11
hb3b wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Is it common to know what label an artist you listen to is on? How do you even see it without looking up the artist or song on Wikipedia?

I think the point was that users implicitly want content from these labels based on the music they look for. Not that they're looking for music from those labels or are aware of which labels produce which music.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#14

Post by mseebach »

hb3b wrote: post #4
runeb wrote: post #2

I 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).

> The statistics point towards users wanting music from the big four labels

I'm sure they pointed that way for TV content, too, when Netflix did House of Cards.

I think people want music that's "well known", music their peers also know about, and that goal is aligned with the big four labels, because they have the clout/infrastructure to get a song played on the radio etc., but it's not a causal relationship. With streaming becoming ever more popular, the idea that Spotify could achieve something similar, especially if they can tap into data to predict who's likely to like a new album, isn't too farfetched.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#15

Post by Mr_Ed »

cwal37 wrote: post #10

A 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 Mu…

Hi, author here!

Thanks for the correction on this -- I'll update the article with correct info. I'm not a Prime subscriber and the information on Prime benefits are completely intransparent.

And if I can't easily figure that out, it's unlikely that average consumer Joe will. The perceived value of each offering is the point here.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#16

Post by simias »

maephisto wrote: post #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

Here in Europe it seems to be 9.99euros for Amazon Music Unlimited, which is exactly the same as a Spotify subscription (not even counting the Family plan you mentioned).

What's odd is that my Amazon Prime subscription already gives me unlimited access to Prime Videos without additional charge, I'm surprised that they use a different business model here.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#17

Post by GarrisonPrime »

Mr_Ed wrote: post #15
cwal37 wrote: post #10

A 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 Mu…

Hi, author here! Thanks for the correction on this -- I'll update the article with correct info. I'm not a Prime subscriber and the information on Prime benefits are completely intransparent. And if I can't easily figure that out, it's unlikely that average consumer Joe will. The perceived value of each offering is the point here.

>The perceived value of each offering is the point here.

Ah yes. The creed of American media: The truth doesn't matter. All that matters is what the masses can be convinced to believe.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#18

Post by ealexhudson »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #17
Mr_Ed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author here! Thanks for the correction on this -- I'll update the article with correct info. I'm not a Prime subscriber and the information on Prime benefits are completely intransparent. And if I can't easily figure that out, it's unlikely that average consumer Joe will. The perceived value of each offering is the point here.

>The perceived value of each offering is the point here. Ah yes. The creed of American media: The truth doesn't matter. All that matters is what the masses can be convinced to believe.

His point stands: irrespective of what the "facts" are here, if shoppers are doing an apples-to-oranges comparison and picking Amazon, then that's a problem for Spotify.

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#19

Post by bogomipz »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #17
Mr_Ed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author here! Thanks for the correction on this -- I'll update the article with correct info. I'm not a Prime subscriber and the information on Prime benefits are completely intransparent. And if I can't easily figure that out, it's unlikely that average consumer Joe will. The perceived value of each offering is the point here.

>The perceived value of each offering is the point here. Ah yes. The creed of American media: The truth doesn't matter. All that matters is what the masses can be convinced to believe.

>"Ah yes. The creed of American media ..."

This statement regarding "perceived value" has nothing to do with "American media", "fake news" truth distorting or even politics.

It's baffling that you have chosen to stake such claims on the author.

Perceived value pricing is actually a marketing strategy. Its used in factoring pricing for everything from gym memberships, to luxury good and delivery services.

see: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perceived-value.asp

Re: The metrics behind Spotify’s IPO

#20

Post by detaro »

runeb wrote: post #2

I 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 that with pieces where brand/recognition isn't as important, having fairly unknown musicians make instrumental pieces for thematic playlists instead of putting artists from labels there. A lot cheaper and easier there than trying to compete for popular musicians with a major label.
Post reply on HN