I'll make this update pretty short considering tonight marks the beginning of a TV blitz the likes of which I have never seen before — Game of Thrones into Mad Men? !Increíble!
Still, there's some room for some music news. I want to talk about something that is near and dear to my heart and the reason for the dramatic turnaround on this blog as a whole.
In an article from SPIN magazine, the music-streaming application Spotify says it would halt its plans to put limits on free listening in the United States.
When the Swedish company made its product available oversees in July, 2011, it was said that in six-month's time the group would impose a limit in streaming for its free listeners. It has, however, been nine months, and nothing has happened. The company said in a very short blog post that there is still time to enjoy the service and the "honeymoon" would continue. There are already limits for users in its European market with a 30-minute time limit per month.
In his blog post, Alex Pham of the L.A. Times says Spotify has continued to utilize its free service over implementing the suggested timetable for two reasons. First, the company raises more revenue through ads than through subscription costs to cover royalty fees. The second is the annoying breaks between songs when Spotify advertises for the premium service are so exasperating that they are making people switch over to the premium service at an already accelerated rate.
As I said before, I think this software is a Godsend. As soon as YouTube began to hold people back from uploading new albums, at the same time Spotify's selection began to grow exponentially. Lucky for me. In truth, I've always thought whoever it was who could find a way to get the record companies to agree to license songs to a streaming or lending application would be the next great innovator in music delivery — the new iPod. Is that happening? Possibly. Spotify does not release these statistics, but it seems to be growing after nine months.
So, with this in mind, why would the company discontinue this service if it seems to be working? Why not cancel this outdated strategy? Why now do they even announce this imminent service discontinuation, keeping this impending doom over the free-downloaders' heads? The only reasonable answer has to be either keeping its options open or the more likely option: more f^cking money.
It's not that the price for premium is too expensive. I know I would pay $8/month for premium service ($10/mobile service) out of sheer need to keep this blog going. But it's not about the money, Patrick! It's never been about the money! (Everyone from Gates family from National Treasure has an Oscar now — Plummer, Voight, Mirren and Cage. Is your mind blown?) As it turns out, nothing alienates a fanbase or customer loyalty than an unexpected jack in prices other than because the company thinks it's popular enough now that it can. Just ask Netflix. There's a reason that "When in Rome" still shows up on my "New Releases" section. All because Netflix thought it could get away with jacking the prices up. The company is still trying to recover.
I dunno about this one. I've got to say, nothing worse than a gluttonous Swede. Jim Henson knew what I'm talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment