Spotify Giving Less Promotion to Apple, Tidal Exclusives

Spotify is losing money though arn't they? This is why I think Apple will have the edge bc music streaming is just a small part of a very large company they can afford to pay the artist more bc they are banking that Apple music will lead to more revenues with their brand or product and arn't relying on using the streaming platform alone to make money.

 

I think Apple already has the edge.

 

I honestly don't blame Spotify. They're playing the game. If I'm in their shoes, why would I give an artist a second round of promotion for an album that's already been out for weeks? Especially if they made an exclusive deal with a rival service. Makes sense to me.

 

Because if you're a company that can't turn a profit and have a broken business model, you may want to be in the artist's good graces so they stop pulling off your service, going elsewhere with their music, and all around hating you? And you want to put the best, most popular, music into your playlists so that your customers get a good experience as well and are getting to hear the music they want to hear — therefore staying with your service and giving you money for it so you can stay in business. That's why I'd do it at least.

 

But by giving Apple-exclusive bands a second round of promo, you're just encouraging more artists to give them exclusives. It's a great deal for bands. Get a bunch of money upfront from Apple, get a ton of publicity from Apple Music, then give it to Spotify a few weeks later and get even more exposure. If Spotify lets that stand, they're screwed. Not saying it's right, just saying it's understandable.

And btw, does anyone remember how much artists hated Apple back when they had a monopoly on digital music with iTunes? They pull just as much shady shit as Spotify does. They're just doing less now because they have some strong competition.

 

You may be encouraging artists to give them exclusives (I think the money is the encouragement), but you're also fucking over your customers. Demoting bands in search results is a bad experience for people that are using your service. Not giving the music they want to the people using your service, in my opinion, is definitely worse. Spotify could pay for exclusives, or they could give the artists what they want: a way to only release the music on the paid version of the service that actually gives them a somewhat decent rate per stream. Spotify is making the decision to be artist, and user, hostile. I believe they're screwed with that approach far more than they would be if their argument is: we're a better service, sure, you may have to wait one week or so to get the music, but we're a better service, so therefore, you should use us and it's worth the wait (if they won't change their dumb policy) for the music you want.

If your option really is: give the people paying for this service a worse experience, hide the music they want, make it more difficult to find and play, AND piss off the artists making the music the service exists on ... you're pretty much fucked.

Labels hated Apple because they lost control over distribution. I don't remember many artists ever "hating" on Apple for iTunes. Or "shady shit."

 

Customer service should be one of the most important provisions of any company. If you can't make your customers happy, then you won't get repeat business. No one is going to pay for a music streaming service that has a shortage on listening options. Exclusives are bound to happen in this type of business. Most of them are a week long and then the album gets uploaded everywhere. Spotify isn't bleeding money by not having an album for a week. They are bleeding money because they alienate artists which in turn alienates customers.

For example, if I were the biggest Taylor Swift fan in the whole wide world, would I have Spotify? No. I'd use Apple Music. There is no excuse for Spotify not having every major recording artist on its service when they are explaining what the problem is to you. If you aren't innovative enough to fix the problem, then you sure as hell better not piss off more artists by making them second rate on your platform.

 

Apple would really have to fuck up to make me ever go back to something like Spotify. I did the whole android w/ Spotify thing and it was just the worst. I can't imagine ever doing that again.

Having Apple Music is just so much more convenient. My UI is all around better.

 

I've been using Spotify on Android for over a week now and I've had no issues so far

 

Ugh. Last year when I was job hunting I went through a lot of interviews with Spotify and really, really wanted to work there. They ended up passing me up for someone who took a lower salary offer, and I was so crushed because working in tech + music was kind of my dream - I'm so glad I'm not there now, though.

At the time, Apple Music had just made its debut and I asked one of their engineers if they thought it was strong competition. He laughed and said "No, none of us are really worried about it."

I totally agree with this. On the flip side, I also have a lot of qualms about the future implications of Apple providing me with every single service I use (and hardware, too!), which is why until now I've been a big Spotify user. This sort of thing is making me reconsider.

 

Haha, trust me, I do too. I'm a big fan of diversification and having lots of fall back options. But, I do like the music service, so I've been ok using that. I feel pretty good about really just Photos and Music being in their ecosystem from a services standpoint.

 

I also wish Spotify would get rid of its policy regarding paid-version-exclusivity. That just seems to make sense for all parties.

In regards to iTunes, check out this article from 2010 on AllThingsD. Apple sent warning messages to the major labels telling them not to participate in Amazon MP3's Daily Deal, and then "backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals." Sure, it was targeted at the majors, but it's the artists who were hurt in the end. Apple ain't a saint.

 

:(

 

Artists were the ones hurt by their labels putting them in the daily deals ... Amazon was paying them basically nothing for each download IIRC. That was the biggest issue with Amazon's early entry into the music game, they tried to undercut everyone on price, but that meant the royalty rate was so low that they couldn't keep the music licenses for new releases.

It's why all their DD stuff now are albums that have been out a while.

 

My understanding is that artists received the same amount they would get from a normal sale and Amazon took a loss in order to draw more people to their store and away from iTunes.

 

From Amazon:

Amazon Music sets customer prices independently (the retail price). Even though you may choose which pricing tier you'd like for your album (the wholesale price), the corresponding customer price is set by Amazon MP3 and can change at any time. When you choose to have your release delivered to Amazon Music for digital distribution, you are provided charts that reflect the pay rate for each wholesale pricing tier. On occasion, per Amazon’s policies, Amazon Music will enter into promotions, with your consent, to help drive sales and raise the profile of the music in the Amazon store, which could affect your payout. But again, please remember that generally when your songs or albums sell, you will be paid at the rate that you selected.

 

I've used both Apple and Spotify. I like Spotify so much more than Apple.

 

I stand corrected. Regardless, the point is that Apple is willing to do the exact same thing Spotify is doing now if it thinks it will help it defeat its competitors. The sad truth is that music is merely "content" to all of these companies, and they will use it to strengthen themselves or weaken opposing companies with no regard for the artist. In the end, that's why I'm neither shocked nor outraged by Spotify's move. This is how the business works.

 

Spotify is garbage. Don't get me wrong, Apple Music's UI could use a thorough reimagining, but I remember Spotify would make me create playlists if I wanted to add an album to my collection – that's what drove me back to Rdio.

 

I wouldn't call it the exact same thing. Spotify is, reportedly, downgrading search results, removing artists from playlists, and doing things beyond just not promoting an album on their home screen. I don't think simply not promoting the album would bug me, but the algorithmic changes that literally punish the songs themselves for existing vs an editorial decision about where they are promoted is what bothers me. It's a key distinction.

 

That hasn't been the case for a long time.

 

Spotify is a garbage platform too and now they just look like salty buttholes

 

I've been using Spotify for over a year and they've never made me do that. I just save full albums to my collection

 

They fixed that a LONG time ago.