Spotify May Let Artists Decide If Albums Are Avail for Free

[Caviar]

Spotify May Let Artists Decide If Albums Are Available for Free

Spotify’s freemium pay structure has always been an amazing deal. All the music you could want as long as you have patience for the occasional commercial. All for free. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Spotify might let artists choose whether albums live behind a Premium subscription paywall.

Currently, talks seem to be in some kind of “what if” testing stage, as WSJ reports:

The company is initially trying the new approach as a test, according to a person familiar with the matter. It wants to investigate how such a “windowed” approach might affect usage and subscription sign-ups but hasn’t decided which artist will first get to withhold music from the free service, this person added, and the company isn’t ready to announce a permanent policy change.
This policy change would be a big one for Spotify, who’s always offered up the same catalog to free users as its Premium subscribers. And it sounds like an effort to stop artists from leaving the platform. Taylor Swift peaced earlier this year, and Adele didn’t even bother. More options for artists, most likely reserved for the biggest names at first, could put some music labels’ music streaming fears at ease.

However, WSJ says the current plan would only be a temporary embargo on new music for free users. But exactly how temporary it would be isn’t certain. Spotify wouldn’t comment on this specific information but reiterated a statement made by Jonathan Prince, Spotify’s Global Head of Communications, related to a recent conversation about whether Spotify would put Coldplay’s new album behind a paywall:

We are 100 percent committed to our model because we believe that a free, ad-supported tier combined with a more robust premium tier is the best way to deliver music to fans, create value for artists and songwriters, and grow the industry. In that context, we explored a wide range of promotional options for the new Coldplay album and ultimately decided, together with management, that Coldplay and its fans would best be served with the full album on both free and premium this Friday.
But the real question is whether this created paywall will cause free users to abandon the platform en masse. This is an answer it seems Spotify is interested in figuring out.

gizmodo.com/spotify-may-let-artists-decide-if-albums-are-available-1746956004

www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/12/08/is-spotify-finally-giving-in-to-taylor-swifts-demands/

[wjr15]

I am all for this. I pay for my Spotify subscription so maybe 1989 and 25 will both be streaming at some point in 2016

EDIT: I own both albums (Target deluxe editions) but sometimes it's just easier to be able to stream something on Spotify

[Au$tin]

This actually is a pretty cool idea. It gets more people to subscribe to these services, earning more money for both the artist and Spotify. It would also open up the door for albums to be for subscribers only for like a month or so and then be available for free afterwards or allow for the singles to be available for free and the full album for subscribers.

[House Lannister]

I'll be in favor if it benefits the artists to a greater extent than they are right now.

[Deleted]

I like the idea...

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

As long as the keep the on demand platform for free users, I dont see why anybody would abandon Spotify if they are currently using it and like it. Where would they go? Google Play, Pandora, or Apple Music? You can't play on demand there for free, only radio. To me it seems like a natural way to grow the subscriber base. You want to listen to 1989? OK, well you can pay us $10 a month and get access to millions of songs or you can pay Walmart $13 and only get 10 songs. I understand Spotify's hesitance to mess with the user model, but if artists are going to start going exclusive to one steaming platform or witholding from streaming altogether, they need to do something to keep users subscribing.

[wjr15]

Dec 9, 2015 9:30:17 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

As long as the keep the on demand platform for free users, I dont see why anybody would abandon Spotify if they are currently using it and like it. Where would they go? .

Tidal? lmao

[KeepDeanWeird]

I believe this is a sensible approach and would definitely be a bonus for those of us in premium tier. I wouldn't want a full embargo, but if certain windows would encourage top artists with blockbusters to offer up, why not?

[Rocky]

So... Taylor won? I hope 1989 will be available once again.

[spooky21]

I don't think they really had a choice. Taylor and Adele had pretty much paved the way for artists feeling more empowered to withhold releases for the first few weeks.

I actually have never understood Spotify's argument. The easiest equivalent would be allowing radio stations to play full album for free. That model would have never worked in the old music market and can't see why record companies would want to agree to that for internet radio.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

The top 5 albums on Spotify in the US were all hip hop albums in 2015. Top streamed album was Drake If You're Reading This...

Obviously being available to stream didn't hurt his sales.

[magik]

I don't see why this was never an option. Those who really like the platform and want their favorite songs and albums would be okay with this.