Choruss Changes Its Tune; Splitting With Warner, But Many Questions Remain

from the but-now-what? dept

I had been meaning to write up this interview with Jim Griffin, of the infamous Choruss, from Knowledge@Wharton, because it caught my eye that he opened the interview by saying: "Warner owns Choruss; it incubated Choruss. Choruss is now becoming an independent company with Warner still involved." That caught my attention because others within the industry had been telling me that the big record labels haven't been impressed by Choruss at all and very few expected it to go anywhere -- in part because of the Warner connection. But it wasn't really clear what that meant. Now, Jon Newton, over at P2Pnet highlights that Griffin is claiming that Choruss' whole strategy is changing. First, he claimed that Choruss was being "re-established" as "an independent entity, neither owned nor operated by any music rights holder." And, from there, suggested the whole thing is different:
Choruss will no longer pursue limited campus experiments; We believe we've learned what we need to know to deploy Choruss. We learned this in negotiations with schools, meetings with teams of students working on Choruss, bargaining with record companies and publishers, meeting with their many associations, arranging for music clearances and much more.

Working with Warner was very helpful. We received priceless advice and legal counsel. We learned that students want to pay for music, but they want that service to traverse network borders, not stop at those borders. We know students want to share and bring live and commercially unreleased music to the public, and we want to help them. We also know that working together on music projects raises competitions concerns, whether real or perceived.
Now, this is all somewhat odd. After all, last summer, Griffin told the press that tens of thousands of students had already signed up for the program -- which confused us, because we couldn't find any of them. A few months ago, we went looking again and still couldn't find them, even as we were told (again) that starting in early 2010, universities would be using Choruss. And now we're being told that the whole university thing is gone? Did it ever actually exist?

On top of that, of course, Griffin promised to answer questions from the Techdirt community last May, and despite multiple promises to come through, we've still received no answers. I guess now that the story's changed, some of those questions don't apply any more. But the whole Choruss thing is looking more and more like a lot of smoke and mirrors -- just as originally predicted. Lots of talk, but if you try to pin Griffin down on details, you get the runaround. Every time we tried to pin down what it was specifically, Griffin would send angry, insulting emails to me, insisting I shouldn't talk about it until the experiments were done. So, now these experiments, which don't appear to have ever happened, are done -- does that mean we can talk about it? Or will we still be told to stay quiet?

Well, either way, I'm going to talk about it... because I'm still confused. "We learned that students want to pay for music?" Really? That's not at all what I've seen. Students are willing to pay for lots of things with scarce value, but I've seen little indication that they want to pay for something that's abundant. Some will, but very few want to.
Choruss' mission is clear: Make it faster, easier and simpler to pay for music. We focus on flat-fee, unlimited download and access models, both for group purchase and for individuals.
This was an idea that may have made sense a decade ago, but I'm not sure it will any more. However, if Choruss can actually make this work, more power to Jim and his team. I just think that boat has sailed. Focusing on getting people to buy music is sort of missing the big opportunity, which is working on having music make other stuff more valuable, and selling that other stuff.

But, of course, the much bigger question is how will Choruss accomplish any of this. Later on he talks about a price point below $5/month, which certainly is good -- if possible. But we've seen subscription services and the industry's demands have always made the price much higher. Will the industry really sign on to an all-you-can-eat music service with no DRM and no limitations for less than $5/month? I'm skeptical.

All in all, this still sounds like a pipedream. There are no details. No official partners. No customers. Just a plan to offer music for cheap. We've heard that before, and none of the record labels were willing to sign on. Why will it change this time?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Mar 29th, 2010 @ 9:00am

    warner is also paying kids ot be rats now (UK)

    fuck warner and all labels

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 29th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    The issue they need to address

    is finding the stuff you like.

    For most of my life this has been the primary issue. The only exceptions have been brief periods following the purchase of new audio equipment (at which point the record/CD purchase was more a part of the equipment purchase than anything else).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 29th, 2010 @ 9:40am

    It'll be under $5/month, but only for bands no one likes. Or under $5/month, but we still don't promise not to sue you. Or under $5/month, but your unlimited downloads is only for 5 songs a month (but it doesn't matter how big those songs are, so technically it's unlimited!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Mar 29th, 2010 @ 10:17am

    I predict a large $5/month pay window for an entity that will aggregate music legitimately available for free elsewhere on the net. And in my estimation will now just navigate to that link for you within some type of choruss player (a la "last.fm + kantaris") as they appear to be staying the route of avoidance rather than innovation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    greg.fenton (profile), Mar 29th, 2010 @ 10:18am

    Subscription service will fail

    Hey, at $5/month for unlimited music I'd gladly sign up...for a year or so.

    But see, the problem with a subscription service is like eating at an all-you-can-eat restaurant. Lots of food, all of it marginally good enough that I'll come back sometime again.

    Where does my $5 go? How do I get any input to which music gets developed? My money goes into a big pot, and someone controls which ingredients go into those dishes and how they get mixed together and how fast they are served and how hot, etc...

    As it is, I am not satisfied with my cable subscription. The channels I have repeat shows too frequently, I often find myself flipping around not actually liking any one thing that is on.

    This is another case where "too much of a good thing" leads to a worse overall experience. Access to "all music" is great at first, but as you have your fill you realize that you never quite got the flavors and foods you really wanted. You leave (overly)full, but not necessarily healthy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    BigKeithO, Mar 29th, 2010 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Subscription service will fail

    I'd be tempted to give it a go at $5/mo. I'm talking unlimited downloads (no streaming please), no DRM, huge selection. The price is right!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Mark Hartley, Nov 22nd, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    Chorrus was Real!

    My university, Cal State San Bernardino, with its 17,000 students had the contract in hand. I hosted two student open forums for Jim Griffin, whom I have tremendous respect. People had questions about Facebook when it launched, now it is competing China and India for the largest population. The "experts" have always been skeptical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This