Attention! Monetizing Spotify Apps Is The Same As Monetizing Music

from the now-that-I-have-your-attention... dept

Recently Spotify launched its app platform, a significant step into a future where music licensing can function like an API. Which of course should have been made possible a long time ago, but corporations' loss of control was preventing that until they finally found a way to out-leverage the indies - or maybe that's just a coincidence.

So recently we've been seeing a phenomenon I like to call the Rage Against The Stream, where artists & labels have been pulling their content from services like the aforementioned. I probably don't have to point out that in a reality where everyone is competing with free, attention has become more scarce and valuable than ever before and thus the categorical dismissal of access models such as subscription services is unlikely to pay off in the long run (p.s. I love understatements).

The day after Spotify launched its platform, articles started popping up, commenting on the fact that it's impossible to 'monetize apps' and there thus being "no clear upside to developers." And that's where I grab my BS-defense-stick and start drawing the line.

No, you can't put ads in your app.
No, you can't charge for the app or create in-app purchases.
No, Spotify doesn't give you part of the revenue of music streamed through your app.
So?

It's the same lack of creativity of coming up with innovative business models that can be seen in other parts of the music industry... what's new is that this time it's coming from the tech side. What it comes down to is the same as competing with free - and saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete period.

Want to make money by building a Spotify app? Build one that uses Facebook Connect for user registration, focus on building a great experience that's non-obtrusive, make it easy to share this experience and funnel that back to your main platform (that's outside Spotify) - focus on discovery and then sell the premium. The SongKick app is a good example, but it can be applied in many more ways. Since it's going to be primarily power users and music geeks using the apps for now, items like vinyl copies come to mind. Focus on gaining & holding the attention - which is scarce, then build your way towards monetization by doing something that Spotify is not.

Spotify Apps are highly monetizable, you just have to be creative. Just like with music.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 8:26pm

    I am not surprised so many people are upset about the Spotify API. You have to accept that you are not involved in a zero-sum game. You also have to be willing to accept that other people are making money, perhaps more money than you are. That runs counter to management-thing in most large corporations. Couple that with the fact that you have to think beyond "let's put ads on it" for your revenue model, and it is no wonder the traditionalists are complaining.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 8:30pm

    http://performous.org/
    http://www.fretsonfire.net/forums/
    http://www.stepmania.com/
    http://www.ul trastargame.com/

    Those are all open source games, that anybody could use to create a little platform and put a button in there "buy this song", there are dozens of apps for the Android and iPhone also, but that is too much to ask it is easier to threat others than it is to actually work for something.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

    I wonder how much of all those dumb moves are directly from Spotify and how many came from fear of something or came from other sources.

    You know Spotify is in the lap of the MAFIAA so one has to wonder.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    gaetano, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 9:07pm

    From what I'm seeing, Spotify is making it clear that they the majority of the apps they've launched will be the new corporate filters/gatekeepers of music within their platform.

    The new model is looking more like the old model.

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    microchip ic (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 11:32pm

    ic electronic componetns

    You have to accept that you are not involved in a zero-sum game. You also have to be willing to accept that other people are making money, perhaps more money than you are. That runs counter to management-thing in most large corporations.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    Bas Grasmayer (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 12:35am

    Re:

    I'm not so sure. They depend on doing the old thing in a new way (instead of doing new things) and the old thing is getting increasingly marginalized.

    Due to the limited number of apps, it feels like gatekeepers right now, but ultimately it should start feeling more like curation - like music blogs for instance.

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 1:01am

    Re:

    I never get this argument...

    Of course, there needs to be filters for people to use. With or without the old models, there's too much music for any individual to listen to. The important part is that these are chosen by the consumer and not by the same corporates who are running the major labels.

    Look at the beta for Spotify. Here, we have a wide range of filters ranging from established publications such as The Guardian and Rolling Stone, existing engines that suggest music based on what you already like (Moodagent, last.fm), fully independent focussed sites such as Pitchfork and We Are The Hunted, and even apps geared solely toward driving live gigs.

    Are you really saying that this is analogous in any way to Clearchannel-controlled generic radio stations and corporate TV? I don't see it. Everything here seems to be driven toward an individual experience, not the unit-shifting homogeneous mainstream experience of the "old model". Even if the majors started buying these organisations up, it's hard to see how they could leverage them all toward their product without killing at least some of their usefulness.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 4:41am

    Yet Another Tin Guitar

    Have anybody heard the sound of a shoebox ukulele?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSOpltXnJPQ

    Now that is something.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 4:47am

    About curation, have anybody seen the hilarious video of the occupy Melbourne tent monsters?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NEKtYYYk0

    Later the cops enacted their revenge by forcefully disrobing one of the female tent monsters.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAkUB7jRb2c

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    W4RM4N (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 5:13am

    BS-defense-stick

    If you check the manual for the "BS-defense-stick," you will see that there are better options than just drawing a line.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    gaetano, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re:

    I see your argument, but as of right now these are a select few brands that are funneling users through the site.

    At the moment, this resembles a clique.

    It's Spotify, Facebook, labels, and these few media outlets working in concert vying for our attention, data, and trends. There's value in it in different places for different players.

    Are there a few apps thrown in there that are a bit ancillary? (IE Lyrics and gigs) Yes, but let's see where they go with this, I'm convinced that the greatest value a label could get from Spotify is it's relationship with Facebook, and the potential marketing beta that could come from it. I'm not sure the logistics or legality of something like this, but neither party has always been that big on transparency..

    To me that's the old model, just spun a bit differently. Everyone scratches each other's backs, everyone gets a taste, the public is none the wiser...and with a population as tech and media hungry as us right now, I doubt most will think twice.

    I would love to be more optimistic, just have been in the music buisiness for too long to be less pragmatic.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re:

    "Even if the majors started buying these organisations up, it's hard to see how they could leverage them all toward their product without killing at least some of their usefulness."

    They cannot and that is the one point of PIPA and SOPA, to be able to squash any future competition. They are losing market share to non RIAA music. The standard advertising model they use doesn't work on the web. Music targeted at your personal preferences is the way things are heading, not music forced down your throat from every available TV and radio speaker.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    OK, I still see your point, but I think you're confusing a few things here potentially.

    First of all, the apps and Facebook are (to the best of my knowledge) separate things. The Facebook partnership is a way of increasing exposure for the service - and it seems to be working extremely well from recent figures. I know for a fact that my personal list of friends on the service listed via Facebook has jumped from 3-4 to over 15 in the short time that Facebook's been involved. Facebook's main purpose for a company is advertising, and they have delivered that in spades.

    As for the apps, they're still technically in beta so of course there's a "select few brands". Nobody else has had a chance to create their apps, which is natural in a beta phase. Bear in mind that pre-Facebook, Spotify didn't have any open partnerships beyond necessary licencing deals with the majors , as least AFAIK. That's annoying but sadly vital for new businesses to break mainstream in the current market - the number of people who would just go "no Lady Gaga so it sucks" and ignore it is depressing.

    I understand suspicion and pessimism about any music venture, given the industry's history. Give it 6 months post-beta and see where the service has gone. I doubt that there will still be any sort of "clique" beyond he superficiality of already established brands being more popular than newer players, but we will see.

    I'm simply more optimistic because tastes and alternative music can be shared much more easily and directly than in the old model. This (hopefully) makes it much more difficult to control and place artificial limitations upon. If it becomes accepted that you lose money by not being on Spotify, and users still retain their current level of freedom, that can only be a good thing for the consumer.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 11:31am

    Re:

    other people are making money, perhaps more money than you are.


    Just like the existing record labels and artists.

    Record labels know they're fucking the artists. Artists know they're getting fucked.

    The record companies have conditioned themselves to believe that if they're not the ones doing the fucking, they're the ones getting fucked. That's why they're fighting new business models so hard.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 11:36am

    Some app developers are quite lazy. Platforms like iPhone and Firefox have given them places to add the odd ad here and there and for them that's the best way to make money from an app. Certainly not make a good app. Heaven's no!

    Those tend to be the apps and writers I've learned to avoid. By as much digital distance as I can.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 6:40pm

    http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2011-09/future-moment-play-any-song-anytime-anywhere

    I think the amazement of the Popsci writer explain what people see in the internet, you have access to it 24/7 365 days a year and it is like Wikipedia.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Bas Grasmayer (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 1:17am

    Re: Re:

    Not all labels :)

     

    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