In July, music streaming pioneers Spotify announced they would be removing a feature that allowed creators to upload their own music to the service. Those who have used it during the nine months of beta testing will be forced to re-publish their tracks through a supported third-party channel. Otherwise, they will be removed from the platform.
Photo /Unsplash
What happened
Previously, with rare exceptions, streaming services did not allow creators to self-publish music. This privilege was available only to the most popular of the independent artists. Those whose work was released on labels were content with their services for publishing on streaming platforms. Authors without a label - used the services of online distributors who publish tracks on different sites for a one-time payment or a percentage of sales.
Spotify was the first exception to this rule. The function, implemented on the basis of technologies from the online distributor DistroKid, entered the testing stage last fall. The decision to do so was motivated by the company's ideology and financial gain. Ahead of the IPO, Spotify said they wanted to challenge established industry practices.
And for the big labels, this initiative really became a challenge - in the end, Spotify coveted a role that traditionally did not belong to him. From a financial point of view, the move was promising. By getting rid of label payments, both the musicians and the streaming service itself received much more money from the broadcast of music.
But less than a year later, Spotify announced the end of the experiment.
What does it mean
In an official statement, the company thanked the beta test participants and promised to further improve its services, but with the help of partners. They argued this decision by the fact that the products of online distributors already meet the needs of musicians.
Instead of adding services, the company wants to focus on the quality of integration of third-party services and optimization of the Spotify for Artists analytics platform.
Not a word was said directly about the reason for the failure of the beta test in the statement. Fortunately, experts and listeners have theories about this. Even last year, skeptics said that the company underestimated the complexity of the work of distributors. It is likely that this turned out to be true. And now they just want to get rid of the unexpected load.
By the way, on HackerNews they expressed the opinion that the βnailβ in the coffin of Direct Upload was , obliging online services (so far we are talking only about European standards) to check user downloads for violations of rights.
It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Spotify has changed the game. Last year, the company shut down its automatic playlist compilation service Spotify Running. It allowed you to share data with fitness gadgets equipped with heart rate sensors to suggest relevant playlists. In 2014, the service shut down Spotify Apps, which was used by brands to curate content on the platform, and partners' "apps" were removed.
Numerous experiments of this kind can be explained by the fact that in the eleven years of its existence, Spotify . Despite growing revenue, the company lost more than one hundred million euros in the first quarter of 2019. Hence the endless search for new ways to monetize the product.
What's wrong with the musicians
The money that a company spends on experiments does not guarantee the authors a βhealthyβ income. Due to the astronomically high profitability threshold for musicians, the company has often been criticized. For four years, even Taylor Swift refused to publish her music on the platform, citing the unfair policy of royalty agreements.
Just to pay back the distributor's fees (about $50 a year), the performers need to achieve 13500 plays. But even this is not an easy task, given that the Spotify algorithm give priority to major label tracks.
In the search results, independent music that fully meets the user's request has a lower priority. There are practically no independent artists in automated playlists and recommendations, and getting to the main page without a contract with someone from the Big Three (UMG, Sony or Warner) is almost impossible.
Photo /Unsplash
In this context, the company's decision last year to launch a direct music download service seemed like a move towards independent creators. But the initiative was decided not to develop.
What others have
While Spotify is coping with public criticism of the cancellation of Direct Upload, a growing number of services are considering switching to this system. For example, the Bandcamp platform. She initially developed the product with the expectation of direct collaboration with independent musicians. Anyone can upload their music to the platform and distribute it for free. If a musician decides to sell his work, then Bandcamp keeps a percentage of the sales. This is a transparent scheme, and even medium-sized labels work with it.
A similar program was launched by Soundcloud in an attempt to return to the DIY culture that made the platform popular. Artists who agreed to the terms of Soundcloud Premium got the opportunity to monetize streams of their works. But she, too, has been criticized.
Under the contract, the musician undertakes not to sue the platform if he discovers that in the past she illegally earned on his music. What's more, streams outside of the nine "monetized" countries will not count in favor of the author.
What's with this listeners
All this news is adding coal to the fire of competition for streaming services, which should affect their quality. It remains to be hoped that the interests of the authors will not suffer in this case.
Our additional reading material:
PS Our Store ΠΈ
Source: habr.com