Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the duct-tape-and-latex-gloves dept.

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."

55 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Sour Grapes by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re: Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Sour Grapes by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Sour Grapes by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      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 streaming services are going to compete (having a single player isn't terribly good for consumers either) they'll offer artists exclusivity deals and the artists will be more than happy to take them since the regular pay is abysmal. I think the ideal solution is artists moving away from the labels and self-publishing and distributing their own music. They stand to make a lot more selling their albums digitally at a much lower cost (say $5 or less) as it results in more sales and even though the overall revenue may be lower, the artist's profit is likely to be greater.

    4. Re: Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "junk music featured"

      But you repeat yourself. I mean, the summary even mentioned Jay Z.

    5. Re:Sour Grapes by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Why are you using this dumbass expression?

      I would suspect one of two reasons.

      Either 1:
      He isn't talking about just musicians. He's talking about musicians, authors and filmmakers.

      Or 2:
      He's doing whatever he can to avoid calling people like Young Thug, Kodak Black and Lil Uzi by the label "Artists".

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:Sour Grapes by jrumney · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re: Sour Grapes by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Then they truly have no fan base and should find a day job. Concerts really are where a musician makes their money. If they can't make money doing that part, they simply can't make money as a musical act. If they're really a good musician, they should at least quit their band and try to get some session work, or teach lessons.

    8. Re:Sour Grapes by dwye · · Score: 1

      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, as they had signed to a different label after becoming big. This is similar.

      In short, same old same old. Nothing to see, just move along.

    9. Re:Sour Grapes by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Actually, try #3. That's the only term that is generic enough to encompass both the individual recording artists (regardless of the degree of artistry) and the record companies that represent them. I'm talking collectively about everyone involved in the process of bringing that content to market who might plausibly be involved in the decision-making process.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Sour Grapes by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      The sooner all these culture-hoarders in the "music industry" go bankrupt, the better for all of us.

  2. common practice by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    even ESPN "buries" sports for which they don't own the property rights, and "highlights" those they do.

    1. Re:common practice by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:common practice by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > 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 "syndication revenues", which doesn't cost Spotify that much.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  3. Re:Spotify? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. why not sell your own stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    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

    1. Re:why not sell your own stuff? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      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.

  5. This could backfire... by Smerta · · Score: 1

    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...

    1. Re:This could backfire... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:This could backfire... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Because it has been shown over and over that people with iPhones actually spend money, while those with androids don't. Sure, you only get 16-18% of the smartphone market (but that also includes Macs and the majority of tablet market), but those 16-18% iPhone users outspend the android users 20 to 1 (2000% more per user). So, overall if it's an iPhone exclusive, you make 250% more than if it was an android exclusive. You asked why, they are only following the money, which is what any good business man would do.

    3. Re:This could backfire... by geggibus · · Score: 1

      Why would you release an exclusive that hits 13% of the market when you could reach 99%+ of the market?!

      Because Apple pays X million USD out of the PR/battle budget for this.

    4. Re:This could backfire... by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      "Spotify runs just fine on both Android"

      I beg to differ, had to uninstall their app and cancel their subscription that I was otherwise quite happy with because their shitty app kept draining my battery even when not in use. (on lollipop)

  6. Everything is well by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    "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.

    1. Re:Everything is well by Altrag · · Score: 1

      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 from increasing their library because someone else beat them to the latest exclusive.

      Producers are slightly better off since they tend to have the most control over their content, but they're still somewhat screwed by the fact that a portion of the potential market happens to subscribe to a service that they're not supporting with their exclusive.

      Production and distribution really need to stop tying themselves together like that. Its one of those things that seems like a great idea in the short term.. but that only works as long as one distribution chain controls essentially all of the exclusives, and even then it only works for the companies in that chain.

      And of course once the first distributor gets an exclusive, all of the others start clamoring to get their own exclusives and suddenly we're in the situation where everybody is worse off but nobody is willing to relinquish their control since just like being the first to fuck things up gives you a leg up, being the first to try and fix the system usually ends up sinking you. Its a classic tragedy of the commons.

      Unfortunately there's not much escape from this one. Breaking the stalemate usually involves government intervention. But unlike the common example of a tragedy of the commons -- polluting a lake or something similar -- music just isn't important enough to warrant legislating this kind of crap away (and there's very well-known downsides whenever the government gets involved in anything even when its truly necessary.) Nobody will die from listening to Justin Bieber, much as they may want to so we're basically stuck with things the way they are.

  7. Silly complaints by LordNicholas · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Silly complaints by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Silly complaints by tepples · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Silly complaints by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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 you mean I thumbed my nose at spotify?"

      The only thing dumber than artists using proprietary platforms that barely pay them anything is artists complaining that the proprietary platforms are greedy. Well, golly gee, you don't say?!?

    4. Re:Silly complaints by tepples · · Score: 1

      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"?

    5. Re:Silly complaints by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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 their concert. Except for KISS, who make it through merchandising. Why does Madonna still tour, and still do all that sexy dancing night after night? Why does she work so hard? Why doesn't she just make more albums? Because she gets pennies from an album sale, but people pay $500+ for a ticket to see her, and she gets most of that money.

      A musician who cares about selling records, that's what I call a really nice and selfless person who lives to enrich their record label.

  8. Re:Spotify? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. Drake? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:Spotify? by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    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/...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  11. Re: Spotify? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. Tit for tat by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. 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).

    If the artist relents and gives up the exclusive, but Spotify continues not promoting him, then it's sour grapes, or revenge.

    1. Re:Tit for tat by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      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 is a great strategy for the Prisoner's dilemma.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  13. Bargain bin by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:Bargain bin by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Bargain bin by Altrag · · Score: 1

      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 that kind of shit well.. he should have gotten a better contract I guess since if they were actually breaking such a contract, the headline would be "Spotify sued for messing with rankings" rather than "people who screwed Spotify cry about their rankings."

    3. Re: Bargain bin by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Bargain bin by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Bargain bin by dwye · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:Bargain bin by dwye · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Bargain bin by dwye · · Score: 1

      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 classical music commentator on my local PBS radio station can be believed. How often is S. on Spotify, or anything by J.S.Bach's sons (several of whom were thought better than "Old Bach" in their lifetimes, and two of whom are still considered almost as good)?

    8. Re:Bargain bin by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  14. Exclusive agreements by bl968 · · Score: 1

    Should be illegal end of story.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:Exclusive agreements by dromgodis · · Score: 1

      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 providing their stuff through the big channels.

  15. Re:Spotify? by dromgodis · · Score: 1

    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.

  16. Re:Spotify? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    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 from the New York Times in 1981 speculating about how cable TV will be transformed if it's "invaded by commercials."

  17. Does this even require intent? by Altrag · · Score: 1

    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 you could say that using the "real" release date is still manipulating the data (older songs that were just added to their library obviously couldn't have that metric applied or it would look like 0 times streamed for years or decades!) But even then, the chances that a 6 month old song gets streamed anywhere near as much as the brand new ones is slim, so while the song wouldn't be set back quite as bad in this scenario, its still going to be fighting an uphill battle compared to both songs that have 6 months of history behind them as well as new songs that have fresh listeners.

    The "featured playlists" bit I can't guess on. I've never used Spotify so I can't really guess how those playlists are generated and they're likely more focused (ie: take more data points into account) than simple rankings.

  18. Alternate theory by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 1

    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. And they're certainly not going to bend the rules to *help* someone who just made an exclusive deal with a competitor...

  19. Check your sources by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

    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.

  20. Back to storing your own music. by jonr · · Score: 1

    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...

  21. Try saying "authors and publishers" by tepples · · Score: 1

    If "content creators" sounds too much like "happy gods", a better term might be "authors and publishers". A songwriter is an "author" as defined in the copyright statute, as is a recording artist or film director.

  22. This app is incompatible with all of your devices by tepples · · Score: 1

    An app on Google Play Store will be excluded from search results unless it's available both A. in your country and B. on your device. When I view the document at that URL while logged into a Google account to which a Galaxy Tab A 8.0" (2016) and a Nexus 7 (2012) are registered, I see the following:

    This app is incompatible with all of your devices.

    [Incompatible] No carrier Samsung SM-T350
    [Incompatible] No carrier Asus Nexus 7

    I expected the document to include a list of suggested devices to purchase on which to run this app, but it did not.