A Thread for Spotify and other music streaming sites like,, rara.com??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16160009

A new song-streaming service is targeting music lovers who do not currently pay for digital tracks.

Rara.com, which has launched in 16 countries, said its research suggested that 60% of consumers had never used a digital music service.

The organisation aims to simplify the process. For a monthly subscription, users can select and listen to tracks via their standard web browser.

Its main competitor is Spotify, which has more than two million paying users.

In addition to the UK, Rara.com is available across much of Europe and the US. It will expand to seven further countries, including Canada and Mexico, by the end of the week.

After an initial trial price of 99p a month for the first three months, users can pay for either a £4.99 subscription allowing web-only listening, or £9.99 to enable mobile listening on a smart phone.

However, unlike some of its rivals, Rara.com will not offer a free advertising-supported option.
'Simple goal'

The site's chairman, Rob Lewis, said his service was not looking to challenge already popular services like Spotify and iTunes but was instead aiming for a relatively untapped market of non-digitally savvy music fans.

A survey of 1,000 adults carried out for the organisation found that 70% of respondents had not bought a digital music track over the previous six months.

"Unlike the CD, seven years after the formation of iTunes the vast majority of consumers are not adopting digital," Mr Lewis told the BBC.

"The simple goal behind this service is not to compete with all the existing digital players, but to roll out to all the major territories in the world a digital music service that's designed for the mass market of people who are either not technically literate, or like music but don't know a huge amount about it."

Mr Lewis said Rara.com's interface was designed not to feel like "a spreadsheet". Playlists will be highly curated by guest editors on the site, the first of which will be Grammy award-winning Imogen Heap.

The mobile application, offered on both Android and iPhone, runs using "networked aware mobile streaming" - a process which means any played track is automatically stored on the device to allow offline listening.

Mr Lewis said due to the service not having a free option, artists should receive more money per play than on other rival offerings.
Crowded house

The streaming music market is becoming increasingly crowded with services such as Grooveshark, Rhapsody and Rdio all offering similar products.

Earlier this month, Spotify announced it is opening up its service to third-party developers who have been invited to build applications utilising the music library.

Will Findlater, editor of Stuff Magazine, believes it will be hard to topple Spotify from its position of market leader, but there is a potentially huge user base waiting to be tapped.

"Although the likes of Spotify allow you to choose to cache music on your computer - Rara is for people who don't know what caching means. I'm not sure if that in itself is enough of a good sell - but the trial price is pittance.

"Other companies will benefit from the fact Spotify has already shown what this kind of service can do. People are telling other people how brilliant music streaming services are."

If there's no free option initially then I cant see many checking it out when there's Spotify.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57299000/jpg/_57299055_57299054.jpg

Their target audience are a few thousand pensioners who live in London?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16168384

Any Flanagan and Allen tracks up on there?

i've become pretty addicted to Spotify, especially for test-driving new releases, but it feels like there's already a more limited selection in the US than there was a few months ago as labels start to pull their catalogs or hold back big releases. is there any good backup site (preferably legal) to stream albums that might not be on Spotify?

Or one that works in Canada? I've used Grooveshark a bit but it's a little inconsistant. Darn my small market and spotify's lack of interest in taking on our royalties-czars.

I am listening to grooveshark right now! I'm a fan, but sorry to hear about their recent legal probs.

Part of the fun of following Robert Fripp's online diary is the ongoing lols at DGM backing Grooveshark into a corner so relentlessly that eventually their only move is going to be to shoot themselves in the head.

I would expect more from Robert Fripp's online diary tbh :-/

i guess you did say it was only part of the fun
i have searched for that king crimson thread on multiple occasions to for repeated lols at that interview with him where he talks about his exploits with the maidens of the new world

every time i try to have a go on spotify i'm like, half the things i want to listen to aren't here

you realize that means half the things you want to listen to are there and FREE FREE FREE, right?

shhhh

what do ppl think about new iTunes cloud? something like $25/year and you can access all your music thru the cloud

I love Rhapsody, don't mind paying 10 dollars a month for no adds. Spotify and Rara seem more of the same. And I have no qalms regarding Rhapsody's selection, either.

I didn't realize that many labels have pulled their catalogs off Spotify (and maybe rhapsody - haven't noticed) in the past 5 months. Seems like they're not happy with the amount-per-play they're currently receiving.

Hopefully this isn't a trend that eventually kills legitimate streaming sites.

RARA OOH LA LA

Hopefully it is a trend that means that legitimate streaming sites are forced to pay something reasonable to artists (and labels, I guess, whatever). The fact is, I don't mind a good honest illegal and free download of my music if you're interested in listening to it. I do mind people paying money to a site that rips people off as their business model.

Hopefully it is a trend that means that legitimate streaming sites are forced to pay something reasonable to artists (and labels, I guess, whatever). The fact is, I don't mind a good honest illegal and free download of my music if you're interested in listening to it. I do mind people paying money to a site that rips people off as their business model.

^^^^

Spotify doesn't pay for shit impe

you guys ever seen this before? http:// www.youhavedownloaded.com/

Hi. We have no records on you.
This means you are using a private torrent tracker or, of course, you may not be a torrent user at all! It happens.

yeah i got that too

Has anyone posted this?

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

It's really ridiculous what Spotify pays artists. For example, I'd guess even a CD I liked a whole fucking lot I'd be unlikely to listen to over 100 times. Assuming it's 10 tracks, that's 1000 plays, which comes to about $1.60.

well the real question is 'how much do they not pay artists' - I haven't read up much on their business model but I'm wondering how much of their profit goes into paying artists. and, although I have no idea ehat the figures are, I'd imagine even if it were 100% it would still not seem like very much.

paying for mp3s is total bullshit, go fuck yourself if you think they sound "ok"

Hi. We have no records on you.
This means you are using a private torrent tracker or, of course, you may not be a torrent user at all! It happens.

Go seedbox!

how about wavs?

well the real question is 'how much do they not pay artists' - I haven't read up much on their business model but I'm wondering how much of their profit goes into paying artists. and, although I have no idea ehat the figures are, I'd imagine even if it were 100% it would still not seem like very much.

― iatee, Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:03 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

I'm not sure I get your point, but I don't think I agree. Even Spotify premium is only like $10 a month, and for a lot of people it replaces buying a significant amount of music. So I don't think it's just about how much of their profit goes to artists, but what their effect on artists is.

My guess also is that Spotify can't maintain that service for that price forever, and like eMusic, it will eventually raise prices. Then something cheaper and more advanced will come to the forefront and replace them and the cycle will continue. I guess recorded music as a revenue stream is mostly dead for most artists anyway.

I wasn't arguing that spotify is good or bad but it's probably the model that's going to take hold in the long-term and even if it becomes fairly profitable and gives a healthy % to the artists it's prob not gonna seem like they're getting much

The spotify iOS app has gotten a lot better in the last few releases.

I am unwilling to shell out for ad-free spotify and I just got a mascara commercial in my Wooden Shjips. Do they target ads based on gender?!

its all that glam metal youve been playing

Just sayin.

listening to Cinderella has consequences

I love Rhapsody, don't mind paying 10 dollars a month for no adds. Spotify and Rara seem more of the same. And I have no qalms regarding Rhapsody's selection, either.

yess

^good points above about artists not getting enough. I'm wondering what a good pay-per-play ratio would come out to? I figure the people who pay are the more hardcore users, spinning hundreds of songs per month, and the vast majority don't pay, so...

I'd be willing to pay more per month if I knew that extra was going to the artists (but probably no more than 25 dollars a month; I'm already spending at least $80 a month buying CDs + emusic downloads).

xxxposts -- I think the current Netflix situation is throwing a monkey wrench into the idea that content models like this are "inevitable" -- at some point labels may simply demand more money or pull out. At that point the question will be whether people are willing to pay more for services like spotify and/or whether some other system will come along.

Ok, I just got another makeup ad -- this time for "eyeshadow blast"
So now I am going to be advised to pony up my $5 to get them to stop eyeshadow blasting me?

Q1: Are any male free spotify users getting makeup ads?
Q2: Is there a place where I can remove or change my gender in the settings?

I read that as "Are any male-free spotify users getting makeup ads?"

that's not what i meant :-/

but i am genuinely curious.

I've been without a subscription for a while, but I have not had any adds for "eyeshadow blast"... Which insults me for as a man I can use that too, you know?

Srsly, I wonder when/if I/you ever gave them our gender. If it was during sign-up, I will have forgotten about it.

me too
i just checked in my account, and tried to unmark my gender (which they did indeed ask for) and "neither" is not a choice, nor is leaving it blank.

so i changed my gender to male
let's see if i get eyeshadow blasted again

No option for "agender" either!

;)

xp Ha, that's show them!

that'll

jez

I mean the whole reason they have a free service at all is basically to target advertising to generic 'you's, so

spotify users aren't generic though
at the very least advertisers know that they like music -- why not sell them stuff related to that?

Cuz some eyeshadow company gave them money and said "I want x number of women ages y to z to hear this" and they were like "thank you for your money"

yeah i know
it's just lame, that's all

it was both maybelline and cover girl btw

update: i just got the mascara ad again!
i guess this is equal opportunity makeup advertising. i approve of that.

nah, i listen every day and never get make-up ads. i doubt a setting change will make any difference. is it linked to ur facebook acct?

nope

it probably knows from your girly typing then

i bet it just remembers your ad history or something. it's weird, i haven't had any ads for the last hour or so. \o_O/

i'm kinda paranoid about spotify because of the ads they run about themselves... creepy borg-nerd voices against pomplamouse music *shudders*

lol @ girly typing

your indecisive searching and listening habits were flagged by their algorithm as "flighty"

Billboard has been reporting that the current Spotify rates are much higher than some have said. This article says the typical payment is 0.3 cents per stream. For 100,000 listeners each playing a ten-track album ten times (over the course of time), that's $30,000 in payments.

The question for artists is going to be what the standard will be for how much of that money goes to the label. Without manufacturing and distribution costs, labels have significantly lower overhead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16370352