Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Communications Music Network Software The Internet Apple

Spotify Is Burying Tracks From Musicians Who Give Exclusives To Apple and Tidal (bloomberg.com) 87

The music-streaming market is very competitive these days, especially since Apple released Apple Music last year. In retaliation for musicians giving Apple exclusive access to their new music, Spotify has reportedly been making their songs harder to find on its service. Bloomberg reports: "Artists who have given Apple exclusive access to new music have been told they won't be able to get their tracks on featuring playlists once the songs become available on Spotify, said the people [familiar with the strategy], who declined to be identified discussing the steps. Those artists have also found their songs buried in the search rankings of Spotify, the world's largest music-streaming service, the people said. Spotify said it doesn't alter search rankings. Spotify has been using such practices for about a year, one of the people said, though others said the efforts have escalated over the past few months. Artists who have given exclusives to Tidal, the streaming service run by Jay Z, have also retaliated against, the person said, declining to identify specific musicians."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spotify Is Burying Tracks From Musicians Who Give Exclusives To Apple and Tidal

Comments Filter:
  • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:46PM (#52778207)
    Sounds like a case of sour grapes. I don't really understand how this benefits Spotify as it doesn't improve the service in any way that I can see, and such a move likely makes it worse for users for petty business reasons that have nothing to do with the users.
    • Re: Sour Grapes (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't see how it hurts Spotify. Those tracks are still there, they just won't show up in the automatically generated playlists. I wouldn't promo someone who wrote me out of their new stuff either.

    • Re:Sour Grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:20PM (#52778381) Homepage Journal

      I don't really understand how this benefits Spotify as it doesn't improve the service in any way that I can see, and such a move likely makes it worse for users for petty business reasons that have nothing to do with the users.

      In the short term, the only negative impact would be if the songs they're demoting are extremely popular and if the public perceives their absence as a loss in quality. Given the size of the musical corpus these days, that seems unlikely.

      In the long term, this serves notice to content creators that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Normally, those content creators would have to balance the cost of exclusivity (fewer plays on those exclusive songs) against the benefits (presumably dramatically improved promotion and possibly higher royalty per click. With this policy in place, those content creators have to factor in the loss of the vast majority of their income from the other providers—not just on new content, but also on old content. That significantly changes the balance in a way that discourages these exclusive deals.

      And that's a good thing. Vendor exclusivity is inherently anti-consumer.

      • I don't think the content creators are going to care. Streaming pays absolute shit according to most accounts. I suppose one could always argue that they're not going to make any money from streaming, but it might connect new people to their music who buy a concert ticket, but at the same time streaming is going to erode album sales which artists typically made little (or perhaps even lost) money on with the assumption that touring would make up for it.

        Artists are part of the market as well and if the st
        • by dwye ( 1127395 )

          Streaming pays absolute shit according to most accounts.

          A better way to view it is that streaming is today's AM radio (dating myself a tad, here). It is not a profit center, it is an advertisement for the musicians and/or their group. If you like their one song, maybe you'll buy others.

          I might suggest that this "sour grapes" at exclusivity makes streaming services more like the old recording companies, too. I remember that when Motown had a celebration/concert for one of their anniversaries there was a lot of talk of ignoring the Jackson 5 and Michael Jackson

    • Tit for tat (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:07PM (#52779137)
      It's not sour grapes, it's tit for tat. Treating the artist the same way they're treating you. The artist is telling Spotify that they're not that important to him, so they'll be giving Apple or Tidal an exclusive. Spotify is returning the favor and telling the artist he is not as important to them either, and not promoting him as highly.

      Please note that tit for that is one of the best strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org]. Consistently treating others the way they treat you is one of the best ways to get others to treat you better (or as fair as possible given that perfect fairness is impossible [wikipedia.org]).

      If the artist relents and gives up the exclusive, but Spotify continues not promoting him, then it's sour grapes, or revenge.
      • Please note that tit for that is one of the best strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma

        No, "tit for that" is the oldest profession (or at least part of it). Tit for tat [wikipedia.org] is a great strategy for the Prisoner's dilemma.

    • by jrumney ( 197329 )
      Spotify has already gone well down the path of making themselves irrelevant. They used to offer an ad-supported free service, which for my occasional usage was OK (no worse than local radio at least), but last time I opened their app, I couldn't find anything at all that was accessible without a premium subscription, including the very same BBC podcasts that are available for free through plenty of other apps.
    • The sooner all these culture-hoarders in the "music industry" go bankrupt, the better for all of us.

  • common practice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:51PM (#52778231)
    even ESPN "buries" sports for which they don't own the property rights, and "highlights" those they do.
    • The difference here is that they're burying the content after they have the rights, simply because they didn't have the rights first. That's a far cry from not featuring content you lack, which is what you're talking about.

      • > The difference here is that they're burying the content after they have the
        > rights, simply because they didn't have the rights first. That's a far cry
        > from not featuring content you lack, which is what you're talking about.

        There is a major difference between being able to play today's hits, versus last year's hits. The audience is much larger for the current stuff. To use TV terminology... depriving Spotify of the "first run revenues" hurts them. Spotify, in turn, deprives the artist of "syndic

  • More like Adify. So many ads. Fuck that trash.

    • Pay the fee and go ad-free. I actually like that model a lot: a free, ad-supported service with the option to pay to have ads removed. My only issue is that the temptation to keep adding more and more ads to the free service often proves too great, or they try and sneak in ads into the paid service.
      • I don't use Spotify at all. Not because of the ads, but because I don't stream music. But I've been exposed to it through others (and one game), and I can't stand the ads. I certainly won't pay for others to have a premium subscription. I can't stand ads in general. I'm certainly willing to pay for a product, but I'm reluctant to pay for a free product plus a promise of no ads. They either eventually go back on that promise or the free product simply isn't worth the money, ads or not.

        • The advantage of a monthly subscription is that you're not tied in if they downgrade the service.

          I listened to the free service for a while and as always, the ads were annoying (I find them particularly jarring when listening to music; on Spotify, the ads pause if the sound is off so turning the volume to just above minimum is the best you can do) but they were a price worth paying for Spotify's interesting suggestions of new music based on what I was listening to.

      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hulu do that? They offered an ad-free service, and then later trickled in ads again, and then offered people an ad-free subscription if they paid more on top.

        I think something like that sets a dangerous precedent.
        • by Archfeld ( 6757 )

          I am not sure how old you are but that is the story of one of the first cable companies as well. When Channel 100 first came out it was advertised as a pay service where you could watch movies without ads. That model did not last long, soon they were showing ads only between movies, then they began having intermissions in movies for commercial breaks, and now we are at the point where TV commercials are shown at the theatre.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • I am not sure how old you are but that is the story of one of the first cable companies as well.

            It wasn't just cable companies -- the first cable channels distributed widely often had significantly reduced ad time (commercials maybe every 30 minutes or every 15), or no effective advertisements at all. (Well, even the ones without ads might run an ad for other programs on their channel or related ones every 30 minutes or hour or something, or sometimes between movies.) Here's an article [nytimes.com] from the New York Times in 1981 speculating about how cable TV will be transformed if it's "invaded by commercials.

    • Spotify is actually one of the few actors who are doing ads somewhat right:

      You can sample, and even use, their service without paying money. Then you pay by being subjected to ads.

      But whey you pay, you don't get ads. Many internet sites deliver ads even to paying customers, so you pay twice.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    why do artists keep giving rich corporations their money? with all of the social media out there, all you need to do is engage your fans and they will visit your website and perhaps buy your stuff? No middleman tim cook, jay z, or daniel ek taking a cut.

    the walled garden shit is quite annoying as a music connoisseur , purchase from website --> direct flac / mp3 download ---> have a nice day

    • In a world where people prefer a subscription over ownership, an individual musician is ill-suited to handle that expectation alone, since even die-hard fans will typically tire of listening to the same couple of albums on repeat ad infinitum. Your idea works fine for direct sales, but people's expectations have changed in the last decade, as evidenced by the fact that artists continue to put up with Spotify, despite the abysmal profit they make from it.

  • Easy to see how this could back-fire and cause more harm to Spotify. Seems like a childish reaction instead of doubling down & re-grouping to make their service better and more appealing.

    I mean, the last time I used Apple Music, I think I said something out loud along the lines of, "This app [on my phone] is buggiest, most confusing and counter-intuitive piece of crap I've ever used." And yet Spotify is still scrambling...

    • Apple should grow up and offer their Apple Music service on more than just their own devices.

      Though, with how bad iTunes and Apple stuff in general has always been on Windows, maybe that's not practical.

      • I thought Apple Music is on Android

  • "The music-streaming market is very competitive these days" ... That means that its good for the customers, because streaming services can't afford to rip them off.

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Sadly, its not really that great for customers either.

      Music (and movies and other media) are not interchangeable in the same way that a bottle of milk is a bottle of milk. Justin Bieber just isn't a suitable replacement for John Lennon (or the other way around depending on your taste.)

      So having all of these fragmented "exclusives" markets is just a generally bad situation for everybody. Consumers are stuck either paying multiple times or foregoing some portion of what they'd like. Distributors are barred

  • Why would Spotify feature artists they're not making as much money on? Anyone who's surprised by this is probably the same sort of person who asks their waiter for a food recommendation at a restaurant (hint: it's whichever entree gets him the bigger tip). If you think any company's curated list of [product] is more than an excuse to push the products they make the most money off of, I've got a bridge to sell you.

    The claims that Spotify is intentionally manipulating their search results is just dumb.
    • Why would Spotify feature artists they're not making as much money on? Anyone who's surprised by this is probably the same sort of person who asks their waiter for a food recommendation at a restaurant (hint: it's whichever entree gets him the bigger tip). If you think any company's curated list of [product] is more than an excuse to push the products they make the most money off of, I've got a bridge to sell you.

      The claims that Spotify is intentionally manipulating their search results is just dumb.

      I imagine a musician sitting around talking about the money they got from Apple, and saying, "wtf does `exclusive' mean anyway?"

      That's what it means, nobody else is gonna be selling it. And knowing that they won't be ever selling any of your new stuff, even if you're the new Elvis, they won't care about trying to sell your old stuff unless you were already Elvis.

      If you sold exclusive rights, you already paid a lot of opportunity cost. When Spotify ignores you, you asked them to.

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        If you sold exclusive rights, you already paid a lot of opportunity cost. When Spotify ignores you, you asked them to.

        The problem is that if you sell exclusive rights to some of your works but make the rest available to Spotify, Spotify will demote even the ones you told it to make available.

        • That isn't a "problem," it is the situation the artists asked for; giving away exclusivity over some of your stuff reduces the value of the rest of your stuff for people who don't have the exclusive access. Duh.

          What you said is just a re-phrasing from the "whiny artist" perspective. I'm assuming most of their contract negotiations had a conversation with their manager like, "So, like, exclusive means I get paid more, right?" "Yes" and fast forwards to now, "hey, what do you mean there is a tradeoff, what do

          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            The only thing dumber than artists using proprietary platforms that barely pay them anything is artists complaining that the proprietary platforms are greedy.

            So which platforms are non-proprietary or do pay artists more than "barely [] anything"?

            • Their swag booth at the concert.

              That is where they have a chance to make some money.

              I didn't say, "oh I am a magic wizard with a way for musicians to make money online," instead I expressed the opinion that they are foolish to restrict the promotional value of online interest in them by using proprietary platforms unless those platforms are actually making them money. If it isn't paying, then they should be giving digital media away, to promote their concerts.

              Musicians who make a lot of money, make it at th

  • Drake? (Score:5, Funny)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:36PM (#52778487) Journal

    We're talking about Drake here. Show of hands: Who cares if Spotify doesn't include Drake in its promoted tracks? If people want to hear Drake (which in itself is a little unsettling), then they can still listen to his music on Spotify.

    "Burying" is not the same as "not promoting". The music is there, but there isn't any incentive for Spotify to promote it.

    Plus, it's Drake. I mean, come on...

  • So if I were an artist in the 1995 and I'd give Wal-mart an exclusive to my new CD for 6 months, should I be surprised that in month 7 when it's finally available at Best Buy it's not going to get a very prominent place in their store? Of course not. 6 month down the road it's "old sh1t" and people have moved on to newer stuff.
    • So if other songs released when yours was and roughly as successful as yours was get preferential treatment because you didn't kiss Spotify's ass, you're OK with that?

      Let me guess...you're not exactly a threat to become a millionaire. Am I right?

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        He doesn't have to be OK with it. He's free to yell and scream about it all he wants. But Spotify is under no obligation to him and if he screwed them over for 6 months, why should they give a flying fuck what we wants in month 7?

        Well probably. I'm assuming by the time month 7 rolls around, his music just falls under some large open license that Spotify has with his publisher. If he managed to get a special contract with Spotify even after screwing them over for 6 months and they're still able to pull t

      • by dwye ( 1127395 )

        So if other songs released when yours was and roughly as successful as yours was get preferential treatment because you didn't kiss Spotify's ass

        Bad analogy. In this case, the band or musician did not refuse to kiss Spotify, they stabbed at them, and Spotify is somehow being castigated for making a reposte.

        • Wrong. Spotify has no inherent right to break new music. They pay the artists sweet fuck all in any case. They have no case for screwing them even worse just for not being given first crack at them.

    • And this is probably the reason behind why Drake's music don't rank at Spotify - since he has an exclusive with Apple, when the song hits Spotify it is old. Any song that is six months old will get lower ranking. It will then had been played to many times on radio and other source's. If he want good ranking on Spotify he should release there at launch.
    • Of course not. 6 month down the road it's "old sh1t" and people have moved on to newer stuff.

      That's just sad. Music that is good today will be good in 50 years. If it's not good in 50 years time it isn't good today. If it's "old shit" six months from now, then it's "new shit" now.

      • by dwye ( 1127395 )

        You clearly don't understand businesses based on appealing to different age cohorts' different tastes, do you? How much Bix Biederbecke do you suppose Spotify plays, or even Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington? Compared to whatever is recent and appeals to today's mayflies?

        Remember, Antonio Salieri was once known for something other than being convinced that he killed Mozart by overworking him, because he thought that Mozart was too easily too much better than him. And supposedly rightly known, if the clas

    • by dwye ( 1127395 )

      OTOH, did Best Buy hide the rest of their AC/DC stock of CDs?

  • Should be illegal end of story.

    • Illegal? Why? Let producers provide their stuff as they like, and either accept or ignore. If you choose ignore but want the content, let their marketers know.

      I think exclusive agreements are likely to backfire as the extent grows. Most people are unlikely to pay for five music service and seven sports channel subscriptions in order to cover your interests, and also accept switching between apps and/or devices to access them. When the producers' bean counters finally realize this, they will move to provi
  • If Spotify's rankings are based on #times streamed, especially if that's modulated by time on market, then it should be pretty simple logic to see that #times streamed=0 for exclusive content.

    All Spotify would have to do is record the release date as the actual release date rather than the date they were allowed to host it. Then it would look to the algorithm like the song sucked bad enough to have zero views for 6 months. It would probably take a while after being available for that to average out!

    But OK

  • They really aren't messing with songs, in either direction?

    People who really like that artist, who would add them to playlists and listen to them on repeat, probably now use that other exclusive service to do so.

    When it releases it gets very few plays because most people who like it listen to it elsewhere, and other people might not even be aware that a six-month old album by an artist they only sort-of like just "releasedâ.

    The result: it is not in fact a top song on Spotify, do they don't feature it.

  • Sources?

    From the original article:

    "An escalating battle between Apple Inc. and Spotify Ltd. is leaving some musicians caught in the crossfire ... according to people familiar with the strategy ... said the people ... the people said ... according to a person familiar with the plans ... according to two people familiar with the matter."

    That's all they provide.

  • I bought the Spotify 'summer special' $.99/month offer, but I don't think I'll will renew at full price. I will be going back to keep my all my music on the device method. I mostly listen to music while driving, anyway...

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Working...