Philip Houska There is no doubt that the music streaming service Spotify is a worldwide phenomenon and has practically spread the aforementioned form of listening to music even among uninitiated users. Now, the vast majority of modern listeners think of this Scandinavian company when playing music tracks and albums online. Although it still maintains a privileged position in this area, it forgot one important element that is becoming relatively important these days and many competing services, including Apple Music and Tidal, use it – the exclusivity of albums.
It wasn't that long ago when artists tried to get their music to different places, so that logically they would get higher sales and therefore higher income. That made sense. But times are changing and now the word "exclusivity" is being used more and more among music artists.
There are several reasons for such direction of important musical performers. As record sales are permanently declining and streaming is on the rise, there is an incentive to make the most of it. In the past six months, artists such as Future, Rihanna, Kanye West, Beyoncé, Coldplay and Drake have gone through the process of releasing an album exclusively for music streaming services. And they knew very well why they were doing it.
Drake can be a good example of how to use this potential. Canadian rapper recently released his album "Views" exclusively on Apple Music and it turned out for him perhaps as best as it could. And not only for him, but also for Apple.
Exclusive rights were used by both parties. On the one hand, Drake received a considerable fee from providing these rights to Apple, and on the other hand, due to the exclusivity, Apple Music gained attention with which it could attract new customers. In addition, his label made sure that Drake's new songs did not make it to YouTube, which would have destroyed the whole impression of exclusivity.
It follows that as soon as someone wanted to listen to Drake's new album, they had no other choice but to turn to the Californian giant's music service. And pay. In addition, exclusive streaming on a single service offers an additional benefit - such albums have the potential to remain high in the music charts even after the exclusive contract ends, which has the effect of increasing the artist's income.
Such a scenario, which is far from only true for Drake, but they also chose him, for example Taylor Swift or Coldplay, but it could never be applied to the service that made streaming famous – Spotify. The Swedish company has stated several times that it refuses to grant artists exclusive rights to release albums, so the most famous musicians began to turn elsewhere, to Apple Music or Tidal.
After all, Spotify was often left out by performers even before possible negotiations of a similar kind, for the reason that the Swedish service offers a free version. On it, the user doesn't have to pay a single penny to listen to any music, he is only occasionally interrupted by advertisements. However, the result is a significantly lower reward for artists. For example, Taylor Swift (and not only her) significantly protested against free streaming, and therefore released her latest album only for paid Apple Music.
However, Spotify stood by its decision for a long time. But as the exclusivity trend gains more and more popularity, it seems that even Spotify might eventually reconsider its stance. Leccos may indicate the company's latest acquisitions in the form of Troy Carter, a music manager who became famous, for example, for his successful collaboration with Lady Gaga. Carter will now be negotiating exclusive contracts for Spotify and looking for new content.
So we won't be too surprised if, in the future, a musical novelty also appears on Spotify, which cannot be played anywhere else, neither on Apple Music nor on Tidal. Although Spotify continues to be the undisputed ruler of the streaming space, it would be a logical step for it to jump on the "exclusivity wave". Although the Swedish company announced this week that it has exceeded the milestone of 100 million active users, of which 30 million are paying, but for example the rapid growth of Apple Music is certainly a warning.
The battle between music streaming services would be a bit more interesting, assuming that Spotify really reaches for exclusive contracts. On the one hand, from the point of view of whether Spotify targeted the same artists as Apple Music or Tidal, and on the other hand, due to the fact that Apple Music is going to release a revised version in the fall, which is supposed to begin to step on the heels of the popular Spotify even more significantly.
I will easily miss these commercial shits, or I will wait 2-4 months before it will be anywhere else ;-).