Hacker News Reader

Comment by dharmon | Hacker News Reader

Why has Spotify not pushed harder to own their own content a la Netflix? That's the only reliable way to both have some control over margins and offer a non-commoditized product.

They have tons of data on user tastes, owning and operating a studio is cheap compared to licensing fees, so why not try to predict tastes (like Netflix), aggressively sign unheard of artists, and A|B test the hell out of the homepage with promoting different ones?

Apple has very deep coffers, which we have seen with the exclusive content they have acquired. Competing there seems like a loser's game.

View on HN

The music business isn't just about the musical content. Popularity is also driven by artists' branding. Promotion, etc. there's a strong fashion element to popular music that is outside of the scope of Spotify's core competencies.

They'd have to either acquire this or build it from scratch. That takes time.

I was thinking of that study where they basically showed that what was deemed popular was largely determined by availability.

Spotify owns a powerful platform with tons of data about user preferences, they are not completely powerless to flip things on their head and have some say about what is popular.

Agreed, but running a large production company was not originally Netflix's core competency either.

It does seem like Netflix's playbook would be more difficult to copy for music, but still an interesting prospect to consider.

I think the point is that Spotify would need to have a promotion competency in addition to a production one. "Interesting music" is far more subjective than "interesting movies".

Netflix doesn't run a production company though, and they should if they want to remain competitive and have complete ownership over their products.

All they do is buy shows/movies from other studios. It would be similar to when Kanye West having the Life of Pablo exclusively on Tidal for a period of time. Exclusivity is important and Spotify does have albums and live performances that are not sold anywhere currently. Maybe they should do a better job of showcasing this.

Platform exclusivity is a dark pattern. Content is what's important, the platform is largely irrelevant to users.

I'm perfectly happy paying for media. But if something isn't readily available, I'll probably end up pirating it or never listen to it.

Could you explain how platform exclusivity is a dark pattern?

When I think of dark patterns I think of misleading ways to get a customers information where not applicable. I don't see how it's a dark pattern if I can't watch Game of Thrones on Showtime or Orange is the New Black on Hulu.

Why is retaining rights over content creation a bad thing? Is it a dark pattern to have companies pay for licenses or copyright fees?

I've noticed many artists re-recording their music, separate from the original label they recorded on. I presume this is to get more money than they'd otherwise get (where they own the song lyrics, but not the original recording). Obviously this isn't Top 40 acts; I've mostly seen with older rappers.

They could also work with older bands that have long split to do a "reunion" exclusive to Spotify, ala Gilmore Girls.

There are also sources of mostly independent music. I've listened to Digitally Imported for years. As much as it may not be good for listeners like me, I think they'd make a great acquisition play for Spotify.

Just wanted to break my normal spot in what could be the silent majority here to agree that the next big thing in streaming music may indeed be someone willing to start their own farm team (to use a baseball analogy).

Some good points have been made as pros and cons, but in my mind something different needs to be done.

Edit: See the http://pledgemusic.com acquisition of http://noisetrade.com and http://set.fm nearly a year ago; no idea how it's working out for them though!

Totally. Rather than a "nice to have", this might be an existential situation for Spotify. (I couldn't say confidently without seeing their financial statements)

While I like your idea, the major Hollywood studios have no significant stake in Netflix while Spotify has nearly a 20% stake owned by the music labels. I doubt these labels would allow Spotify to create their own content. And if Spotify decided to do it anyway, their negotiations for the major label catalogs would push Spotify even further into the red.

TBH, a lot of what I currently listen to on Spotify is relatively unknown Synthwave bands/producers who generally self-publish on Bandcamp, maybe have Patreon etc.

I do not think Spotify should be trying to actually produce their own content in the way Netflix does, but I certainly do think there is scope to disrupt the traditional "music label" by helping to promote these independent artists, both online and in terms of tours, merchandise, etc.

I already find a lot of this via Discover Weekly, so it doesn't seem like a huge jump. The key is recognising that the era of pop music is over, just as the days when 50% of the nation would tune in to the same TV programme are over (with the possible exception of certain sporting events). Music is heading away from supergroups on labels like Sony BMG and promoted on MTV, towards a larger number of micro-brands serving individual tastes more closely.

Edit: I should add that it's also important to recognise the social aspect of music: what people listen to in clubs etc. This is where being on a label (currently) matters over just being on Bandcamp.

>> Music is heading away from supergroups on labels like Sony BMG and promoted on MTV, towards a larger number of micro-brands serving individual tastes more closely.

Any data to support this because from where I'm sitting, although the music industry is changing, the one place it isn't is as the top. I don't see the market for a small number of superstars owning the top 40 ever disappearing.

This assumes the top 40 holds the same relevance that it did in the 80s. Regardless, you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days.

And while the record labels continue to pull in profits, there's no comparison between a top artist today compared to the 80s or 90s.

Top earners in 2013 each made about $30-$40m [1]. Michael Jackson in a good year made about as much the current top 10 combined [2], and still managed to make $160m in 2013 despite being dead [3].

[1] http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-4...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons...

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/104...

>> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days

1. Comparing it financially true although I don't think that's fair as the economics of the industry are completely different, not because people are indulging in indie acts more but because music is cheaper generally.

2. I'm not a fan of Top 40 type music but I often look at the charts and it's always the same few people there (Rihanna, Major Lazer, Calvin Harris, Drake etc.). If you go to most clubs the music you hear is generally the Top 40.

So although the returns financially are less I think it's more because people are paying less, not because they are spreading the money around to more artists.

Because they are two completely different mediums. Popular music is entrenched. If a service doesn't have my music I will not spend hours trying to CHANGE my preferences for "unfound" artists.

This is what people thought about streaming video services for a while, until it turned out that was false.

Remember when people used to (and still do sometimes) complain about Netflix not having some specific movie they wanted to watch at the moment?

>> Why has Spotify not pushed harder to own their own content a la Netflix?

The 'exclusive' content Apple Music does is very different to Netflix. It's just an exclusive publishing deal for a short period of time. They don't own the content. I don't think there is a deal possible that would convince an artist to sell their content to one company (e.g. Spotify). Consumers aren't going to change services to hear your music, what happens to your music when Spotify eventually dies or disappears as the medium changes again, and what about your die hard fans who want to give you lots of money by purchasing vinyl or other physical copies at shows?

What the parent's comment means is not that Spotify should buy works from artists, but that they should assume the role of the studio in creating new work that they would own.

I understood that. My point being that if Spotify did that and kept the content the themselves, like Netflix, it would be terrible for artists who need to have that content available in a wide variety of formats and stores. Also, considering the volatility of streaming services what would happen to that content if Spotify goes out of business? When you look at TV/movies Netflix there isn't much streaming competition. Outside the US there is Netflix and Prime so you're not really locking content in very much. With music not only are there about a dozen major streaming platforms but there are digital sales (iTunes) and multiple physical mediums available in stores and at concerts. The play would only make sense for Spotify if they were the sole provider and that just wouldn't work for artists as I don't see how they could grow with content availability limited so much.

> Why has Spotify not pushed harder to own their own content a la Netflix?

Because, unlike Netflix, that would be a huge increase in the amount Spotify pays to license their product.

Spotify is sunk. I just wish they would go under faster so that we could get something that might actually have, you know, a business model.

While an interesting direction to consider, don't forget what a ballsy thing that was of Netflix to do. It wasn't at all the obvious right thing to do. Not to mention how well they are executing on it, producing content at the same level (maybe even higher) as HBO et al.

It was completely obvious; it's historically the only way a video distribution channel survives once it has competition.

Higher quality?

I always feel like that they avoid special effects and CGI on purpose in the Netflix series.

It is way to obvious that they want to save money there. Even if it means that the story (line) and world building looks and feels wrong.

These days it's easier for music creators to be independent. Why would they give up their music to Spotify?

For the reference, Bandcamp is growing quite well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com