3 ms·

Spotify + extreme bias towards X # of artists due to rights ownership = potentially crap experience for listeners.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
I don't disagree, if you look at the way Netflix pushes their own content over what used to be entirely studio movies and network TV shows you can see a current example of how this plays out. I was thinking that if Spotify kept the same experience for listeners that they had now in order to grow their subscription base, and just reported higher earnings for the artists they had signed versus ones signed to a 'different' label, that over time as contracts came up for renewal people would move over to Spotify.
- exclusiv 9y ago
  Don't you think that as long as it's good users won't care? Netflix would likely have succeeded without originals but would have been nowhere near as pervasive. People were tired of the network crap and wanted content accessible everywhere. They delivered on those. Good content is good content. For music - it's even better if it's not yet well known because for some reason people think more highly of themselves for being an early fan. Early discovery favors audio moreso than video. So pushing originals (newly signed artists) is a great strategy for Spotify. So long as it's good music.
  - lambda_lover 9y ago
    I don't understand the appeal of this model. Do you really want to have to subscribe to 5 different streaming music services, one per label, just to listen to all your favorite artists?
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I'm admittedly not a particularly big music person but I'd have trouble seeing subscribing to multiple music streaming services unless one of them was for some obscure sub-genre I was really into. A lot of music seems to be ambient. If there's some artist I really need, I'll but a CD now and then. Mind you, I don't like video being fragmented but that's a more deliberate choice a lot of the time for me. I'll subscribe to a few places based on available and original content--somewhat grudgingly to be sure--but I accept those are my options.

I don't disagree, if you look at the way Netflix pushes their own content over what used to be entirely studio movies and network TV shows you can see a current example of how this plays out. I was thinking that if Spotify kept the same experience for listeners that they had now in order to grow their subscription base, and just reported higher earnings for the artists they had signed versus ones signed to a 'different' label, that over time as contracts came up for renewal people would move over to Spotify.

exclusiv 9y ago
Don't you think that as long as it's good users won't care? Netflix would likely have succeeded without originals but would have been nowhere near as pervasive. People were tired of the network crap and wanted content accessible everywhere. They delivered on those. Good content is good content. For music - it's even better if it's not yet well known because for some reason people think more highly of themselves for being an early fan. Early discovery favors audio moreso than video. So pushing originals (newly signed artists) is a great strategy for Spotify. So long as it's good music.
- lambda_lover 9y ago
  I don't understand the appeal of this model. Do you really want to have to subscribe to 5 different streaming music services, one per label, just to listen to all your favorite artists?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I'm admittedly not a particularly big music person but I'd have trouble seeing subscribing to multiple music streaming services unless one of them was for some obscure sub-genre I was really into. A lot of music seems to be ambient. If there's some artist I really need, I'll but a CD now and then. Mind you, I don't like video being fragmented but that's a more deliberate choice a lot of the time for me. I'll subscribe to a few places based on available and original content--somewhat grudgingly to be sure--but I accept those are my options.