Universal Reportedly Wants Spotify To Scale Back Its Free Streaming

An anonymous reader writes with news that Universal CEO Lucian Grainge is not a big fan of free streaming music. "Spotify might have bent over backwards to lift restrictions on its free streaming service a couple of years ago, but at least one music label appears eager to turn back the clock. Financial Times sources understand that Universal is using licensing negotiations to squeeze Spotify and demand more limits for those who don't pay up, such as restricting the amount of time they can play tunes in a given month. The publisher isn't confirming anything, but CEO Lucian Grainge has lately been chastising the free, ad-based streaming model — it's no secret that he would like more paying customers. According to one insider, Universal believes that Spotify is directly hurting sales at stores like iTunes."

Comments

Or, from another perspective ...

[gstoddart]

According to one insider, Universal believes that Spotify is directly hurting sales at stores like iTunes.

Or, you know, maybe the insiders are morons who believe in their unrealistic assumptions about just how much they're going to sell.

Because, you know, according to the copyright idiots, more value than the GDP of the US or any other country is lost to piracy.

Maybe the pay-for-play digital music market is exceedingly finite, and your wishful thinking of getting billions of dollars for doing nothing is complete crap?

Re:Or, from another perspective ...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I find it funny to recall that, only a few years ago, it was iTunes that was the enemy according to the big labels - and they did everything they could to undermine Apple's influence.

They figured out how to monetize that... and I'm sure they'll figure out how to turn Spotify into a profit generator as well.

Message to all braindead CEOs out there

[Anonymous Coward]

The middle class income keeps stagnating and prices keep going up. The first thing to go is entertainment.

Universal wants me to use YouTube more

[Karmashock]

Because... universal has hosted every single song in its library on Youtube.... for free.

And I don't have to deal with some shitty streaming service deciding what it is going to play next. I can just play the exact songs I want.

And those ads on youtube? Well, adblock kills them. I try to keep adblock off if I want to support the person that posts the video... but if I either don't care or I actively want them to make no money... then adblock is happening.

Here is the thing, Universal... the CD is dead. The Record is dead.

What did you people do before records? You existed and your people made money.

I know they were on the radio... I know they were doing concerts. I know they were singing in advertising. I know they were getting cast in movies or used by movies to do singing bits.

That is what you're going back to.

Because the CD is dead.

Spotify etc are at best like the radio of old. And the radio didn't charge listeners to listen. You tune in and listen. Put an ad in there if that makes you happy. What money you get is going to come by taking a percentage of that revenue.

If that isn't a lot... don't know what to tell you. The ad companies are rating the VALUE of your listeners as that amount of money.

If reaching those people with an ad is worth 2 cents then your music is likely not worth a great deal more than that.

Get over it.

Find something else for your artists to do to make money besides make records. Records are dead.

Re:Well, he's not wrong there

[Opportunist]

Who gives a fuck about supporting some artist? This is about profit for Universal, the artist is the necessary evil to your money!

The New Reality

[Irate Engineer]

The old model for music distribution:

1. A song gets played on the radio.

2. A listener hears the song and would like to listen to it on demand, so they head down to the album store and buy a CD or record.

3. Listener pays for product, leaves happy! Music!

4. Distribution label PROFITS!!! (though cut has to go to artist, agent, CD/record production, etc.. ).

The new model for music distribution:

1. Listener hears artist's music on Youtube, can play on demand for free, can contribute to artist directly!

2. ??? - sound of crickets chirping -

Not seeing the need for big labels anymore myself. They are trying to coerce money out of a system that is rapidly realizing this new reality. Good luck with that!

Re:Well, he's not wrong there

[Half-pint HAL]

True fans, I think, would find other ways of supporting the artists they love, and I'd guess the ones who do nothing but stream wouldn't have spent more money on it in the first place.

"I think" -- words to build a business model on.

People in general are self-centred and riddled with feelings of entitlement. We all tend to feel "I've done my bit, now I deserve a reward" -- whether that's slacking off on your turn on the cleaning rota "because I always have to take the bins out, so I deserve a break", giving yourself a pay rise as the director of a charity "because I deserve it after all the lives I've saved", or claiming excessive expenses as a public servant "because really, after all I've done for the poor, I deserve a meal that's more expensive that the average family's weekly meal budget, washed down with wine that would feed an average family for a month".

"True fans" would mostly say "I've supported them since the beginning -- now I deserve my reward." There would be a minority that keep paying and paying, but if you want to see what proportion they would be in, look at home many Kickstarter backers pay more than a basic rate...