-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Tidal" struggling hard against competitors
- Thread starter Majestad
- Start date
- Status
I want to know who was responsible for the 'change the world' marketing as if they'll raise awareness for the needy. Cant believe they announced they'll make more money compared to currenr commercial arrangements, THEN announced its double the price AND provides a service that will consume far more bandwidth which will probably cost more than 20 your paying for the service (for those with caps). Thank god we live in a world where fans are more aware and can promptly disrupt corporationa through social media.
That video was the ultimate insult in this, let's sit around the table and discuss RICH ARTISTS and how to make them wealthier, ignoring the most important aspext... The USER. I'm genuinely perplexed who was in charge of marketing, they must known they're going to kill their product.
sixteen-bit
Member
Nas won.
TriniTrin
war of titties grampa
Watching the video for that now LOL! Bunch of paid people cheering for rich dudes and dudettes. It's pretty hilarious to watch! Deadmous or whatever is especially hilarious with his big mouse head just standing there.
Free marketing and those companies didnt pay a cent.
It's the same price, but there's no free tier. Plus it has a lossless $20 tier. Otherwise, you're correct.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
I also feel like if you already had your payment plan setup for Spot or GMusic or Rdio or whatever you weren't just gonna switch over night. If you were month to month you'd at least let your month go. If you paid by the year you wouldn't shop around till your year is up.
Hard to pull a ton of existing customers IMO.
Hard to pull a ton of existing customers IMO.
I'm one of the 'general population' that isn't too savvy when it comes to audio. I can tell the difference between some stuff but with my cheap headphones the changes at the high end of the spectrum aren't really noticable for me.
What is the difference between Spotify's high quality premium audio and Tidals 'lossless'? Different format? What does that affect?
What is the difference between Spotify's high quality premium audio and Tidals 'lossless'? Different format? What does that affect?
BadMediaKarma
Banned
Beyoncè her POWER.
……forgetit
Member
Well yeah, the market is saturated to hell and back.
Between play music, Spotify, Pandora, that slacker radio thing Verizon want me to use who's actually going to pau for a new service?
Between play music, Spotify, Pandora, that slacker radio thing Verizon want me to use who's actually going to pau for a new service?
avrophantasm
Member
I can't wait for Tidal to be dead and buried. "For the artists", my ass. They still give 70% of all revenues to the record labels, you know, the companies who take all the money from the artists in the first place. The majors still eat up a big piece of the pie. I guess the $20/month option just makes the pie bigger so technically more money goes to the artists, but it's still not fair.
The $20/month price tag is ridiculous anyway. Even in the music industry's peak, the average consumer spent around $30 to $60 a year on music. To pay $240 a year and not own a thing in physical is totally loony.
The $20/month price tag is ridiculous anyway. Even in the music industry's peak, the average consumer spent around $30 to $60 a year on music. To pay $240 a year and not own a thing in physical is totally loony.
I lost so much respect for Guy-Man and Thomas that day.
Syph Medwes
Member
ill start bidding for that table at $25
He fell for Taylor Swift's lies about the value of her music.
"Really Jay! EVERYONE will sign up because they want me and I won't let Spotify play my tunes. You'll see. It's a GREAT investment!"
This man gets it.
Mushroomer25
Member
Tidal is a hypothetically solid idea (premium music service for the dedicated fanbase) - that so far has been executed horrifically. Their main two points so far seem to be "lossless streaming" and "higher artist payouts" - one of which most consumers can't take advantage of, and the other they don't give a fuck about. (Sure, I want indie artists to make more cash. But that's why I go to shows & buy t-shirts.)
What they need to do is focus on exclusive content. Not taking stuff off of other services, but instead make Tidal the digital location for exclusive B-sides, alternate mixes, rare live recordings, music video debuts - all the stuff that hardcore fans would go nuts for. Shit, throw in discounts on merch, vinyl, and tickets - it almost becomes a viable package. Then get the actual streaming library up to par with Spotify, and you've got a solid little business for a growing niche market.
What they need to do is focus on exclusive content. Not taking stuff off of other services, but instead make Tidal the digital location for exclusive B-sides, alternate mixes, rare live recordings, music video debuts - all the stuff that hardcore fans would go nuts for. Shit, throw in discounts on merch, vinyl, and tickets - it almost becomes a viable package. Then get the actual streaming library up to par with Spotify, and you've got a solid little business for a growing niche market.
littlebigman
Member
The only time I've ever been legitly disappointed in them.
If you like Spotify, request an invite to YouTube Music Key.
It's another name for Google Music, but if you subscribe via Music Key, it's only $7.99/month (vs the normal price of $9.99/month). And the quality is better than Spotify.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Well it's been a lynch squad just to watch him fail and hail a king when the same thing people are mad at him about doing, the other "competitor" they are cheering isn't doing the same thing either. Spotify isn't wealthy musicians crying about getting paid fairly, but there sure isn't any musicians backing Spotify either so....Idk...
I'm really not sure why anyone really wants this to fail outside of ...It's Jay Z. Tone def marketing or not, Apple could of did the same thing and people would of still bought it. It is what it is.
You must not have listened to RAM, lol.
Ben Morales
Member
I still have about 2 weeks left on my trial and I've already gone back to Spotify...
Interesting. I'm going to look into this.
Yep, happened to me a few months back.
Kibbles
Member
I pay half price for Spotify and it has 320kpbs, how is it better?
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
Word my Davie. I can listen to music in 1080p on YouTube. Lossless, blah
Doctor Ironic
Member
lol if you think this is the first time Daft Punk have been embarrassing old men.
Agreed. I think the bolded is something people need to think about particularly.
I think its easy to want it to fail, because its premise was so out of touch with the very people they wanted to reach... that, and you know about first impressions.
The whole reveal was just.. bizarre.
Doctor Ironic
Member
Spotify is a shitty deal for artists but it's about as much of a shitty deal as the previous method of selling music was, and the only reason Tidal paid out more to artists was because it cost more. It was the same split. There's absolutely no way whatsoever in hell that Tidal was going to take off if it genuinely tried to give a better split to the artists than Spotify does, because these streaming services are going to live and breathe based on their relationships to the major record labels.
Smarter artists recognize they lost this battle long ago. You know how much money from an iTunes song purchase goes to the artist itself? Something like five cents, and the rest is split between Apple, the record label, and various other constituents. Let's not even get into how bad physical music is for this, because now you have to fit in the manufacturers. Artists have been making their living off of sales from tour tickets and merch for quite a while now, not to mention the money they get from the label to record the album in the first place. Flailing at Spotify for not paying enough to artists is the exact same as flailing at iTunes was back in 2008 for the same reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egShCjfvi9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYYGdcLbFkw <-- notice the dislikes, lol
They're signing a "declaration"
If it didn't make a notable impact in that time, it doesn't look positive. Stuff like this doesn't magically resurrect in it's own after crashing out if the top 700 so soon.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
When the people standing on stage have about 2 billion of net worth between them and they say it's about the artists, you're not exactly sympathetic to their cause. They fucked up on who to show for their messaging.
I lost respect for every single artist involved.
Their plan to rebalance the way they're paid is to take more money from their fans.
Is there a list of every artist who signed this so I can never give them my money ever again?
Well yeah, I know all about the wonderfully healthy relationship between Spotify and the old labels/music industry of old. To me calling out Spotify is the same as calling out labels, because they're working hand in hand.
edit: Well I don't want to post again because what's the point of bumping a thread for more Madonna gifs, Jay Z faces, and Kanye reactions? But let's address some stuff.
Yo straight up, read all of those articles you post. No one is going to bat for Spotify except maybe Avicii (big surprise a very advertised act on Spotify that got top billing) and one guy who is mostly being "Anti-Taylor Swift" rather than pro Spotify.
Everyone is basically saying that they believe in the distribution method of streaming music and that it's not something to discount. The Nigel Godrich one you posted is a snip of him cooling down and talking about the importance of streaming, immediately after he and Thom Yorke went on a tirade against Spotify's new streaming model in 2012/2013. In that tirade he and Thom suggest that artist themselves should build their own streaming service.
So yeah, no one is really going to bat for Spotify.
I mean if you care about the music you listen to and would like to hear more of it. It's not for artists the likes of Jay, Kanye, Daft Punk, etc. It's for the small acts that don't make anything off old material like the former artists (the ones proposing Tidal) can. But hey if you don't give a shit that's your prerogative . I totally get that the feature set would be limited or the library as well, but it's priced the same so once it gets there I dunno.
....Record labels that are owned entirely by artists right? What's the problem? Do you prefer that old men in business suits who don't make the music making the biggest cut from a creative product? Tidal is the same price as Spotify the distribution is just better.
Spotify didn't have a problem with artists when it started, but when they changed their streaming model everything changed. They did it after having the userbase in the bank and hey kudos to them it works.
But how money grubby is a service that really is the same price? All they're really doing is eliminating free tier and as much as I like free tier being a broke user myself, I get it. Sure their library is limited and their client is still developing, but they've literally been out less than a month it's kind of ridiculous.
You do realise the 3 major labels have stakes in Tidal?
Tidal is exactly the same model, reliant on exactly the same practices, just without the free tier. Spotify's model, including that free tier, has actually grown the industry. The problem for artists as it's always been is that money is going elsewhere, just trying to take more from the consumer isn't the solution.
It's an anti-consumer pitch dressed up as being pro-artist, it's a con. That's not how you change things, and if you make grand claims otherwise as your selling-point you deserve to fail.
Tidal's a cash-grab not a revolution.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked